[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:16:16 +0000 (GMT)
Jack L
Well at least half of me says I'm sorry you're departing.
Keep reading and reading widely but question everything.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 29 May, 2008 8:37:06 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Hi Paul,
I shall reply to your latest [PD2] comments in red again but this will be my
final e-mail to the forum. I won't go into detail why since I have
already stated it. However I do not want you to feel that I am giving myself
the last word - I'm happy for you to have it and I will read what you say after
that I shall be unsubscribing myself without a reply.
Since being on the forum for about 7-8 years I think, I have learnt much of how
people perceive themselves, eachother, what they believe, how they believe and
of the world we live in.
My thanks to all for putting up with me and my beliefs and I hope that you all
find you are looking for, assuming you looking for anything at all. I can say
that my time on this forum has very much reinforced my own beliefs.
Regards to all
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 1:09 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Jack L
I swear you are mellowing. Are you getting older perhaps?
Do you know anyone who is getting younger apart from the police? :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:44 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Paul D
[PD2] I don't think you have considered this aspect too carefully. You are
basically suggesting that it is possible to include God as a variable in an
equation. Just how would that be possible?
Its very difficult but the fathers of science didn't have a problem. However
persuing true science is going to be more of a problem for scientists if they
persist only in materialist explanations and exclude all
philosophical questions.
[PD2] Oh Jack -- come now. I've been positively harping about this refute helio
thing being your principle tactic. And again, you would still -- as you suggest
-- have to make your case. Again note that if you do make your case, this in
itself would demolish heliocentrism -- there isn't room for two differing,
correct solutions. Also -- the debating rules -- Regner was not coerced into
participating -- he was recruited at worst, induced at best. It is his
prerogative to state the conditions under which he would agree to participate.
This whole Helio/geo debate is like evolution; its to do with the way the
evidence is interpreted. Whilst it is not possible for very many scientists to
carry out their own experiments in order to confirm the results of a 'few'
others, then I will view with suspicion any pronouncements that the few make. I
see this applying mainly to extraterresrial research.
I'm unaware that Neville agreed to any rules regarding Regners participation.
Regner is his own man and he can deal with the debates in any way he chooses as
could the rest of us.
[PD2] Last sentence very mature. Certainly pragmatic. I on the other hand have
great difficult letting go.
[PD2] Last sentence -- that was why I asked. I did not claim.
OK
[PD2] Basically, you would have to demolish about five hundred years worth of
the distillation of the efforts of Earth's finest brains. Have a look here
-http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html for
one of your countrymen -- how are you going to refute him? And many more like
him? You can't prove them all wrong -- more spring up like weeds. And even if
you did, you would still have the problem of showing that you are right.
Exactly Paul! That is why I said it is pointless trying to refute, argue,
disprove, prove things that are not, measurable, falsifiable, repeatable rock
solid facts. Mathematical logic constructs, such as multiple dimensioned
multiple universes, string theory etc.can be absolute nonsense but actually
work mathematically. e.g. If I have 5 oranges and you take away six of them
then I'm left with minus one orange - which is nonsense.
[PD2] Several small points. The term 'fundamentalist' refers to someone who is
guided solely by some philosophy to which he is firmly welded and who will not
be swayed from that position by mere evidence. The evidence for manned landings
on the Moon and other space exploration missions including the ecstatic
behaviour of the very dedicated control room staff and participating engineers
and scientists after the successful Phoenix landing would seem to be a fairly
convincing array of evidence. But the fundamentalist, because he is welded to
his philosophy (millstone(?)), simply dismisses it as a hoax. Just what
would experiment bigger than these would it take to convince you that you are
wrong?
This is an example of how a few scientists virtually force all others to accept
their experimental results. Space is not the kind of discipline that can be
tested by just any scientist. NASA does not have a particular honest record
over small issues so I'n not going to accept everything they say about their
own controlled experiments. Some time ago an open letter signed by a number of
scientists was sent to 'New Scientist' complaining that NASA never said which
of their photos were real and which were CG. This caused them a great deal of
trouble in knowing what and what not to accept as true. It comes down to what
you want to believe and where you place integrety.
'Attacking by the back door' was meant to be a derogatory term implying sneaky,
underhanded, dishonest tactics which sadly we see perpetrated day by day. If
you want to know what I mean here, read the transcript of the judge's summing
up in the Kitzmiller v Dover case.
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_enAU221AU221&q=kitzmiller+v+dover gives
the .pdf file -- there are 139 pages in the document. It's not as bad as it
sounds however, as it is double spaced and about half of it is legalese so
139/4 ~33 pages. Should be a doddle for someone who has read GWW from cover to
cover. If this is still too much, Google returned 65700 hits for 'kitzmiller v
dover' (a few will be the dissenting view) including the ubiquitous Wikipedia.
You will no doubt find shorter references, but I do commend the judges own
words. They epitomise what is admirable in western legal practice and, to my
mind at least, ra igorous and exhaustive
analysis of the evidence pro and con. In the same vein, look at 'The Wedge'
document -- it's only three pages and is infamous for its blatant attempt at
subversion. Roll up, roll up ... See these people condemned by their own words!
You are right Paul I'm not going to wade through all that. If there is one
thing I have learnt on this forum is that for every website that makes a
statement there will be others that refute it with all sorts of evidence. It is
a waste of time trying to sort it all out. By and large I would say that if
something is truthful it will stand the test of time. There is a creationist
book written called 'That Their Words May be used Against Them' with nearly
3,000 quotes from evolutionists highlighting problems with evolution. Like I
said above whatever someone says someone will use it against them.
No I haven't heard the debate but it is on my back burner as something I'd like
to do. My understanding is that the creationists lost by a significant margin.
Quite the contrary it wasn't a significant margin it was 150 to Creation and
198 to evolution and to the utter consternation of evolutionists! Just read the
write-up about the debate use this link,
http://www.tonguesrevisited.com/oxford_union_debate.htm ; or you can download
the debate at this link
http://richarddawkins.net/article,721,1986-Oxford-Union-Debate,Richard-Dawkins-John-Maynard-Smith.
'
Reconciling the two ...' Well we still have Christian people who see no
conflicts and are in the thick of research. I also gave you a reference to this
subject at http://www.leaderu.com/science/crackpot.html. Did you ever go there?
Yes but I don't have the time to waste/invest for all the above reasons.
'M of Q rules...' More or less -- yes. It's called the peer review process.
And creationists can't get in because only the short-sighted, straight-jacket
of materialism is allowed.
' ... for the last 2000 years ... ' Yes it does. An argument for another day.
How many days do you need on top of the 2000 years? that's like saying if you
get enough monkeys and enough time and enough typwriters you will eventually
get the works of Shakespear to turn up. I don't think so.
________________________________
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 28/05/2008
17:33
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail
Other related posts:
