[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:09:05 +0000 (GMT)
Jack L
I swear you are mellowing. Are you getting older perhaps?
A few responses [PD2] but as I have a difficult back log, I won't take long or
seek to prolong.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 27 May, 2008 9:24:02 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Thank you Paul for your comments - your civility is noted. Regarding my
previous, apparent, lack of civility; put that down to being pasionate about
what I believe.
I have deleted my original e-mail from within your responses just to keep it
tidy. My reply is in red.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:44 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Jack L
Thank you for this response. May I say it is probably the most reasoned and
reasonable I can recall from you. That said, I still think you are on the wrong
track and I will say why -- with a my best effort to be civil -- in the
insertions [PD1] below.
Paul D
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Paul
[PD1] This was clearly an attempt to dictate to Regner how he should conduct
his defence against a geocentric attack. The Sungennis claim that he had nine
kids, two basketball teams, three publisher's deadlines and 30 years of
teaching experience carried the implied assertion that he was by far the more
important of the two and thus need not cooperate, was not calculated to
encourage Regner to participate. Besides, he'd written that book -- the book on
which the future of science was going to hinge.
The problem that you have in dealing with people like us is because much of
what we believe is faith-based backed-up by science but not totally backed by
science because of science's own limiting rules. MS arbitrarlily disallows that
which can't be explained outside of materialism. That is MS's handicap. Philip
touched on this when making comments about scientific qualifications and what a
PhD was.
[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?
[PD1] Again Jack, the debate is not about why heliocentrism is wrong -- it is
about why geocentrism is right. (Note: While proof reading I noted your phrase
" ... information for geocentricity ..." which I at first missed. If there
really is affirmative information, why don't you present it?)
It's possible you may not have spotted this but much of the affirmation of
geocentrism is in the refutation of heliocentrism. I would suggest that the
geocentrists best line of defence is attacking heliocentrism whilst offering
their own alternative. Your statement above suggests that a set of debating
rules were set up by us, but I'm saying that there are no debating rules. You
may accuse us of moving the goalposts but there never were any goal posts even
though, to start with we may both have believed there were.
[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.
[PD1] He doesn't have to -- but if he wants to debate then he has to debate.
This is not a layed down misere call or a fool's mate. Concerning the 'cut and
paste' extravagance, Regner is also a busy man. He even apologises for his
occasional -- often necessarily -- lengthy posts.
Well it is entirely possible that the protagonists do not have the time to
debate at length or in detail. This is understandable when each is entrenched
in their own world view. That is why I may leave the forum because nobody is
going to give ground including me. I notice in one of your posts that you spent
11 hours considering something from Philip. I'm surprised Paul that you think
it is worthwhile spending 11 hours on something that you aint going to get a
result on. There comes a time when enough is enough. I would never spend that
amount of time arguing with an atheist about the existence of God when I can
see that he can't see. I would expect him to feel the same about me.
[PD2] Last sentence very mature. Certainly pragmatic. I on the other hand have
great difficult letting go.
[PD1] It has been stated many times that science does not offer proofs -- it
offers supportive evidence. Speaking of which, have you read my posts in the
'World/Moon ' thread? It is my attempt to show evidence supportive of
heliocentrism. The first was posted -- From Paul Deema Fri May 23 15:16:51 2008
-- more than 24h before this post to which I am replying. Can I take your
silence -- and so far everyone else's -- as acquiescence or should I expect a
refutation?
You can take it as a lack of interest on my part and an inability to
comprehend a lot of very technical stuff. I delete imediately about 80% of
e-mails on this forum, especially the very lengthy wordy ones. I haven't got
the time to wade through them all. I did send an e-mail to you once stating
that silence should not be equated with acquiescence.
[PD2] Last sentence -- that was why I asked. I did not claim.
[PD1] Again Jack, the debate is not about why heliocentrism is wrong -- it is
about why geocentrism is right. You sought this conflict -- when are you going
to show us why you are right? Even if you can show us that we are wrong, that
doesn't show that you are right! Remember -- there are still those 'three big
elephants and a great big turtle in a really big puddle' people out there.
See arbitrarily implied 'rules' of the game above.
How many times would you have to shown to be wrong before you accept that we
may be right? My gues is that you would NEVER give in. However logic and
ordinary common sense would say that the more times you are proved wrong the
greater our chance of being right. I'll ignore your last sentence out of
civility!
[PD2] Basically, you would have to demolish about five hundred years worth of
the distillation of the efforts of Earth's finest brains. Concerning the
elephants thing. That was not an uncivil comment but a flippant colloquial
umbrella term meant to cover all the other competing 'theories'. Not just
fundamentalist inspired thought, christian or otherwise, but the hollow
earthers and others. 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.
[PD1] Jack, this is the nub of why Richard Dawkins and probably others won't
debate fundamentalists. Your position is one of demanding that RD et al defend
themselves against your attacks while offering no proofs -- the fundamentalist
faction is all about absolutes -- of your own position except that you have
"... belief in a creator ..." and "... it makes more sense." You can't show
proof of a creator and you refuse to show why it makes more sense.
I've remarked previously that science really doesn't care what fundamentalists
in particular but religious thinkers in general believe. However when science
is directly attacked or attacked by the back door -- pretending that religion
is science -- you can hardly be surprised when it defends itself. In passing,
how would you respond science manoeuvring or finagling to get inside religion
so as to subvert it? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
Why do use the word 'fundamentalist? Whenever I hear it it always used in a
derogatory way. In fact I first heard it used by theistic evolutionists against
creationists.
Dawkins won't debate because he in always gets trounced by his own scientific
arguments against himself and not by religious arguments and appeals to the
Bible. Have you ever hered the Oxford Union debate between Dawkins and others
with A. E. Wilder-Smith and other creationists? I have a CD of the debate. The
Union President warned them that the debate must be scientific and that
religion had no place. This was agreed by all parties. Would you believe it
that the Union President had to tell Dawkins to sit down and shut up because he
was trying to bring religion into the debate. Check this link and the links
within it. http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/EdgarAndrews ;
Dawkins and other evolutionists get frustrated because they can't argue against
the creationists view because they are handicapped by their own self-serving
materislist only rules. it is not a level playing field for them because their
own groundsman doesn't have a 'spirit' level - pun intended. What's wrong with
attacking something by the back door? Does science have the equivalent of the
'Marquis of Queensbury Rules' for debating? Regarding religion and science
Philip pointed out to you that nearly all the giants of science were Christian
and had no trouble reconcilling the two.
Christianity has been infiltrated and attacked by all sorts of people for the
last 2000 years but to no avail and no-more-so than by atheistic scientists
from about the time of Darwin. Now that must tell you something!
[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?
'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!
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.
'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?
'M of Q rules...' More or less -- yes. It's called the peer review process.
' ... for the last 2000 years ... ' Yes it does. An argument for another day.
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail
Other related posts:
