[geocentrism] antagonistic and antagonism to science
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:04:02 +1000
Paul said.
"Your side has resolutely dug in its heels and refused to change position with
the state of knowledge but instead bases its position on distinctly minority
interpretations of biblical text, backed up with attacks on science by
exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any
unexplained phenomena (anomalies)."
In answer to my protest "Whereas we on the religious side, merely select
science on the basis of long standing traditional interpretation of scripture,"
he commented
Ah! Yes -- what bothers me is the expression "... select science on the
basis of ... " [emphasis mine]
But Paul the reason why people select alternative theories should not worry
anyone.
That is the point I am making. If someone is allowed to select a favored theory
because it favors Atheism , and we don't object about their reason, even though
they may not admit it, why should the opposing theory be opposed because our
reason is objectively the opposite. But many in science do not hide their
opposition to religion, and openly use it as proof of their opinion... Your
choice of the word "select" for our reasons, indicates your objection of us
doing likewise, as though we are breaking the rules..
Next:
Why? Perhaps it is because we do claim that modern interpretation of the bible,
and modern interpretation of the philosophy of physics has it roots in
antagonism of religion, however well concealed this may be, the former being a
direct result of the influence of the latter.
I think this is a bit unfair. It is easy when others take a view different from
our own -- possibly cherished -- views to assume that we are being attacked.
But while the position taken can readily be shown to be threatening, this is
overwhelmingly a result of just the conflict of ideas and underwhelmingly the
result of deliberate attack.
Paul somehow I just anticipated this reply from you, which is why I chose the
words carefully and vetted for many minutes their accuracy. Notice.. I said
the modern philosophy had its ROOTS in antagonism. This is not saying that the
people today are acting antagonistically. You say unfair correctly if this was
aimed at you and your friends. But obviously the roots in question are in
history, and unless you have had the history as I have it, you cannot be
objective in calling me unfair in relation to these historical individuals.
Admittedly it may be claimed that History is written to favor the writers. ..
And in politics I would agree wholeheartedly. However I can quickly prove and
show that the Church in its own authorised history , is one big self critism,
haveing more to condemn than to praise in the doings of church men..saved only
by the saints who are rare but great indeed.
Such is one of the proofs offered in evidence of the Divine nature of the
Church, that no purely political or earthly institution/dynasty could survive
for such a long period as 2000 years, or ever has survived in the worlds
history, with the amount of internal strife confusion and outright rebellion
that has plagued it since its institution, and is one of the reasons it is
proud to ensure it to be well recorded in its history.. Whereas political
institutions/dynasties do the opposite.
Which leads us to the second part of the error. You said, exploiting
"reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena
(anomalies)."
Let me ask you.. What do you think is the proportion of what is certain in
science to that which is uncertain. I would think we have lots and lots of
uncertainty to "exploit" uh I mean discuss, question and explore; and lots of
that is in most of the consensus accepted scientific theory as certain
. I'm not too sure that anyone genuinely infused with the principles of science
would claim that anything was truly certain. Certainly I do not. But there are
aspects of science which generate great confidence.
Then in saying that you are admitting the error in choice of words as regard
our exploitation of a reduced areas of uncertainty.. That we are in fact
merely asserting alternatives that question your great confidence.
Philip..
Thanks for the offering... I'm glad you chose not to dissect my arguments,
addressing each in depth . But you are welcome...
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:15 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Philip M
I appreciate you hold your view on all these matters on the basis of evidence
which you find convincing. Similarly, I hold to my position on a similar basis
but of opposing viewpoint. I have had occasion to applaud some of your points
and you have been kind enough to support some of mine. I think we understand
each other. It would not bear any fruit to dissect your arguments, addressing
each in depth so I won't.
However there were a couple which I found interesting so I'll slip a comment
or three in below in colour.
In my defence, this was not carefully thought out and planned -- I just wrote
it down as it came to mind.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May, 2008 2:00:07 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Paul said.
"Your side has resolutely dug in its heels and refused to change position
with the state of knowledge but instead bases its position on distinctly
minority interpretations of biblical text, backed up with attacks on science by
exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any
unexplained phenomena (anomalies)."
Wash your mouth out! That is not true! You are mean mean mean.. (Ah la
Boston Legal LOL) OK see below for the specific errors you make.
1. "dug in its heels and refused to change position with the state of
knowledge" ..
Nonsense.. We just went with the minority view which took a different path
circa 1900, and have taken on board heaps of new knowledge from both sides of
science with many changes of perspective since then. Am I not evidence of that?
2. "but instead bases its position on distinctly minority interpretations of
biblical text,"
Minority interpretation? Among todays population perhaps. But God and the
Bible would be intrinsically false to itself, if it were not true then , the
same today and as tomorrow. So yes we are conservative. Thus if you were to
take our view with the view held over the last 2000 years, it is certainly not
a minority.
3. "backed up with attacks on science "
Who is attacking whom? Just take the secular non-religion based movie "global
warming Swindle" This was a purely defensive scientific production against a
politically influenced scientific group. And just how much was it and those in
it attacked, banned and prohibited. Public pressure alone forced the ABC to air
it, and wow.. Was that a favourable attack? Whereas we on the religious side,
merely select science on the basis of long standing traditional interpretation
of scripture, and face attacks for doing so. Ah! Yes -- what bothers me is the
expression "... select science on the basis of ... " [emphasis mine]
Why? Perhaps it is because we do claim that modern interpretation of the
bible, and modern interpretation of the philosophy of physics has it roots in
antagonism of religion, however well concealed this may be, the former being a
direct result of the influence of the latter. I think this is a bit unfair. It
is easy when others take a view different from our own -- possibly cherished --
views to assume that we are being attacked. But while the position taken can
readily be shown to be threatening, this is overwhelmingly a result of just the
conflict of ideas and underwhelmingly the result of deliberate attack.
4. "by exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly
any unexplained phenomena (anomalies)."
You mean of course exploiting the areas of uncertainty, and not the reducing
thereof.
This is a twofold error of thinking on your part. If I were to question the
corpuscular theory EMR in favour of the wave/aether theory of propagation, it
is not exploitation, but a valid scientific method of debate. It is not our
valid scientific question that causes the charge of exploitation, but the well
advertised religious convictions of the persons putting forward the arguement.
The aether tends towards God, ( ha ha , joke) The corpuscular theory tends
against God. ( very good theory that)
Which leads us to the second part of the error. You said,
"reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena
(anomalies)."
Let me ask you.. What do you think is the proportion of what is certain in
science to that which is uncertain. I would think we have lots and lots of
uncertainty to "exploit" er hm I mean discuss, question and explore; and lots
of that is in most of the consensus accepted scientific theory as certain. I'm
not too sure that anyone genuinely infused with the principles of science would
claim that anything was truly certain. Certainly I do not. But there are
aspects of science which generate great confidence.
No aether? Is that certain.. ? Of course not.. It may have a majority of
consensus, but even you know that consensus is obtained by peer affiliation,
and is not scientific certainty.
unexplained phenomena (anomalies)." Facts just the same. And should be
"exploited". Or do you support sweeping them under the carpet. I won't wait
till the end of the paragraph (let my impatience witness my urgency) NO NO NO!
To a first order of approximation, every reasonable objection should be
investigated. I realise 'reasonable' is interpretable. I also assert that
'investigated' does not imply 'investigated perpetually'. Now if a modernist
comes up with an "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE" to dispense with these annoying bugs,
its not exploitation , is it, ? Just valid science...
OK just a final word on the modernist religious movements or "churches" who
have allowed the infection of modern science to sway them from the traditional
interpretations..
Luke18- 8...But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you,
faith on earth? ..
John14 30 For the prince of this world: cometh: and in me he hath not any
thing.
Jesus was talking about the latter times , the last days, when the Prince of
the world, (of science ) rules most hearts and minds. They (the churches) had
their warning, and chose the wrong side. Quite a big lift for the minority
view, don't you think?
Don't think Paul, that we do not have a big battle to stay true to faith
against such a powerful and concerted opposition. People in general are truely
frightened to go against the tide. Hence consensus is easy to manipulate. From
grade school onwards one is laughed out of the class if he dares to question
the facts the teacher espouses.. And the whole class laughs with the teacher..
Yet because modernism is built on so much uncertainty, our ability to see
this, makes the task so much easier.. In fact I am amazed that we are such a
small minority..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:19 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Allen D
Allen -- you really must read more carefully. You said -
I still dont know what your postion is now....
I said (in part) -
Since your position is that you don't consider that the tides are caused
by the Sun/Moon and I do, ... [Emphasis added]
I'm beginning to regret making this point. It was in part a small
light-hearted test to see if you were awake and comprehending.
I accept your position that you make statements which assume the position
you are arguing against and that is a valid tactic, but it is always safer to
make that point.
Now considering the tides, I don't agree that your hypothesis that if the
tides are caused by the Moon/Sun gravity, that this demonstrates that
acceleration -- specifically in this instance the varying acceleration during
the time of one elliptical orbit -- means that that acceleration is detectable
by an accelerometer. Regner has disagreed with you on this point, and both
Philip and myself -- poor though our efforts may be in comparison -- have
strenuously made the same point. Your unwillingness to address the reasoning
behind my attack -- distilled down to the proposition of the red sphere and the
green sphere -- just scream vulnerability and thus error. Your response -- or
rather, no response -- confirms me in that view.
You also said -
... you state you dont accept the standard deffintions of grav, inerita,
velocity ect ...
What I said was -
Fourth, I do accept the standard definitions of gravity and inertia,
velocity and speed, mass and weight etc [Emphasis added]
My position re the Earth moving in an orbit -- the Heliocentric model --
was developed, like so much of human knowledge, by noticing that the current
model has short comings. I don't know the origins or the parentage of the round
disk on the elephant on the swimming turtle's back idea, but someone noticed
that it had shortcomings. Again I admit ignorance, I don't know how many
iterations occurred before Aristotle stated -- and his statement was believed
until the renaissance -- that the Sun, the Moon and the planets and the stars
and the comets -- actually I'm not sure about the comets -- orbited the Earth.
In fact, if I recall correctly, the church was of the opinion that EVERYTHING
orbited the Earth. Somewhere in the interval that this theory held sway, the
planetary distances were 'determined'. Enter Galileo, who noticed the phases of
Venus which, if true, meant that the distances were wrong or there was some
other error -- calamity. Enter Tycho. What if the planets orbited the Sun which
orbited the Earth. Problem solved. Then Galileo, not satisfied with pointing
out the Venus discrepancy, announced that something was orbiting Jupiter.
Calamity. Further, astronomers noticed that planets were not where they were
predicted to be. Calamity compounded. Enter Copernicus. If the Sun is at the
centre, the system becomes simple, and intriguing ratios emerge.
Is it true? You say no but I disagree and that's why we're here. Enter
Newton. He explains certain laws of physics, which, if true, support
Copernicus. Your side disagreed and still disagree but have offered no
alternative theory which fits observations, and especially have offered no
supporting physics.
The science which has emerged since the renaissance, has recognised that
there is precious little proof -- if any -- and is satisfied with progressively
refining both our state of knowledge and its accuracy and thus increasing our
degree of confidence in our theories. Your side has resolutely dug in its heels
and refused to change position with the state of knowledge but instead bases
its position on distinctly minority interpretations of biblical text, backed up
with attacks on science by exploiting the steadily reducing areas of
uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena (anomalies).
So we too have proposed a solution to the problem "How does the World go?"
-- that put forward by the four giants of this saga -- and it has been
rigorously tested. With every test passed, confidence grows. It's not
certainty, but life isn't certain. If I had to choose a path to orbit in a
rocket designed, built and operated by Geocentrists or one designed, built and
operated by Heliocentrists, I would much prefer to put my trust in the
Heliocentrist model. If they each were share companies, I'd choose the
Heliocentrist company in which to invest because the Geocentrist company would
waste so much fuel getting to orbit, they probably wouldn't pay a dividend.
So you see, there is no reason why one shouldn't propose a solution and
then test it. Even if you have no idea what you're on about, eventually you'll
get it right and you do it bit by bit learning as you go. You don't need
rigorous logical certainty or biblical backing. But the approach you -- Allen
-- propose, that of getting everything to the last detail logically verified
and plans (unalterable plans) drawn up for a rocket ship and an unalterable
navigation philosophy before making a single triumphant journey is a pipe
dream. At the end of the day what counts is not philosophy and not logic --
it's enterprise, and the the test is its utility.
Closing thought. With your overriding preoccupation with logic -- what was
the logical justification for Tycho putting the planets around the Sun? Or did
he simply assume something and claim success on the basis of having already
thought up the idea? Sort of a logical circular fallacy.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1416 - Release Date: 5/05/2008
5:11 PM
Other related posts:
