Jack, It doesn't matter what Paul uses for info. I am sure he looks at all options available. Paul I can understand your feeling of repulsion as soon as the science comes from a Christian source. I admit the obvious bias. Yet all of modern western science originated from Catholic Universities of Europe. The Jesuits predominated. The protestant reformation Jewish organised, triggered disruption, , and alienated Christianity (because of disunity) as a whole and specifically God from the world, which then having a destroyed faith sought answers , a revenge of sorts. Catholic opposition collapsed in the face of this alternative science, because by this time it had allowed its independent bank to come under the control of the Rothchilds. One of Rothchilds agents said, I care not who controls the Government, so long as I control the money...Translated: He who pays the piper calls the tune. It was then left to the Protestants to continue the battle against false science. Only belatedly did we catholics, in the face of Roman betrayal of tradition for modernism, come into the battle actually finding that Protestant Scientists had valuable scientific resources worth following up. Most if not all of us are coming from the scientific angle. We do not demand a faith in God , but rather a look at all the science, leaving out any and all faiths that demands a belief in a theory as being an obvious fact. I guess the nearest thing we are searching for is probabilities.. the most likely probabilities.. based on the evidence. I know that you can accuse some Christians of bias as to what is probable, and indeed they by their words show it. But not all.. I bet some christian scientists are holding on to their faith by the skin of their teeth, just as much as you are holding on to your faith in evolution. Not me. I am absolutely certain that evolution is a viable alternative as to how we arrived today. I just happen to know with certainty that it did not happen that way, and that the world has existed no more than 10,000 years and probably less. Proving that evolution can and does occur even to every slightest detail does nothing to disprove my assertion . To disprove me, you have to investigate my evidence, which you have repeatedly said you will not allow, or even attempt to do. This last is to both Jack and Paul. Who is being 100% open and without bias? Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Lewis To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:39 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia Dear Philip, This is how I also feel about Wiki. I think Paul leans a little heavily on it for info on evolution. Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: philip madsen To: Mag-Gen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; governor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:32 AM Subject: [geocentrism] excuse my paranoia A few decades ago I noticed public libraries began to remove older books of the technical kind. I "rescued" a couple back then. Today my technical "searches" are failing for much of the stuff I can remember, when I am hoping for an easier way than copying to screen, from my books. Now the Internet. Try searching for the magnetic properties related to alloy steels for example. What is the composition of steel alloys used in permanent magnets.. Only loosely defined info described as OBSOLETE is available. This also goes for any material based on early research that might negate or contradict climate change another example. Often some info is hinted at, but you have to fork out a price tag for the article un seen, sometimes as much as $50. just to view. No thanks, the crucial info I want won't be there. Wiki is definitely loaded with misinfo and distortion amongst good stuff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.31/1031 - Release Date: 26/09/2007 12:12 PM