Dr. Jones, My last comment/question refers only to item #21, not the entire document. Sorry for the confusion. Almost all published biological data does come from evolutionists. In all cases I accept the DATA if it is: not inconsistent with any experiments done by creationists, the source has no history of duplicity. For all acceptable data I accept the INTERPRETATION if it is: not inconsistent with Revelation (in this case, Special Creation ex nihilo) So in some cases I may accept the biological source data but not the interpretation rendered. In this regard see http://kolbecenter.org/ => articles => Ethiopa man - Apr 6, 2002 In regard to NASA, I have not yet found any experimental data inconsistent with geocentrism as reported directly by their research, but plenty of objections in respect to their heliocentric interpretation of solar system data and structure. The NASA management is driven by political agenda, and the public relations office is their stooge. Evidence of this is found in the recent promotion of "Water traces found on Mars" to gain funding by rallying public support for future Mars projects, in a futile search for life on other planets. Also, the cover-up of the frozen O-ring seals on Challenger, Jan. 28, 1986, and the disregard of problems with the insulating foam panels on the ill-fated Shuttle can be traced to non-scientific internal politics. Despite the indictments above, I believe the army of NASA scientists are apolitical and do honestly report the DATA observed, although some may color its meaning for public consumption. As evidence of this I note that basic research reports often state the results are 'surprising' or 'unexpected', which indicates to me a certain openness to new ideas. It's at the lowest levels that NASA has credibility, in their uncensored technical reports. It may seem strange to say so, but NASA is best treated as 2 separate organizations with disparate intentions and veracity - the arm that publishes for public consumption to influence funding and support, and the blue collar scientists motivated largely to seek objective truth, whose audience is the informed scientific community. To reject the latter's input because of the former's bias is self-defeating, spiting oneself. What other sources have such resources available to the public as NASA, JPL and NOAA? Pax Christi, Robert > -----Original Message----- > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dr. Neville Jones > Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:50 PM > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Feasibility > > > Robert, > > Leaving aside your detailed analysis for the moment, in answer to > your question, "Even if the claim is true, what does this all > prove?", in order for us to get anywhere on this geo-helio > business, we need to ascertain what data we take as genuine. Most > astronomical data now comes from NASA, either directly or > indirectly. We therefore need to determine its reliability. > > For example, would you consider biological data that only came > from evolutionists? Or would you view some of this data with suspiscion? > > Neville. > > > > --------------------------------- > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! > > >