[geocentrism] Science and the Bible
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:08:07 -0000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Statement of Faith
> You are very ignorant about almost all of science. Your accusations of
> supposition is just a catchall phrase to dismiss anything you don't
> like.
Dear Mike,
You do not intimidate me one little bit with this kind of rhetoric. You seem
to forget that we come from totally opposite world views. I uphold first and
foremost that God made the cosmos. I believe that the Bible tells me about
God. In spite of your denial (in a previous posting) that you have no
philosophical thoughts about the origin of the cosmos, you most certainly
do. Let me put it to you this way - 'you know what you don't believe' and
that it was not intelligently created therefore you must believe something
else, what that may be, you're not prepared to say for philosophical
reasons. that's OK, but don't deny it.
You are right I do not understand much of the science that is used today,
but I do not dismiss all of it. I reserve judgement on anything that is
based on assumptions like gravity, no matter how reasonable they may seem.
History has taught me much about the way science works. The problem with so
many scientists today is that they are trying to know the unknowable and the
little they do know is upheld as the truth. Let me ask you this question; do
you subscribe to or believe in the 'big bang' hypothesis that is blasted at
us from every conceivable media outlet?
> > One of your problems Mike that because of a difference you have with
Neville
> > over his personal theories you ignore the problems raised by other
> > scientists. None of your 'standard science' is without some detractors.
Your answer below has absolutely no connection with my paragraph above about
Neville and other scientists.
> Nonsense. Maths is not a matter of opinion, Neville uses mathenmatical
> tricks (invalid reasoning that looks ok on the surface) to "prove" that
> conventional science is inconsistent. To claim these arguments have any
> validity is pure nonsense. The simplistic physics and maths he uses
> (which are even within my grasp) are not in the least bit controversial
> - indeed Neville relies on themn himself when it suits him.
> > You wrote in a previous posting:
> >
> > 'Gravity dimishes the further away from the source you go. As you fly
away
> > from the plaent its gravity will slow you down.'
> >
> > What do we really know for sure about gravity bearing in mind what
Newton
> > said about it?
Once again your answer below is irrelevant to my statement above. You
lambaste Neville, talk of Newton's 3 laws of motion and ignore my question
about gravity and what Newton said about it.
You may view this as over-simplification, but why do Newton's 3 laws only
confirm experimentally within a reasonable tolerance? Why not exact?
Why is it that Newton mechanics cannot operate over the whole range from
things cosmic to particles? At what point does it start to fall apart?
Why is it called Newtonian mechanics when it has nothing to do with anything
Newton said or believed?
Newton's gravity law was a guess. It's so-called corroboration came about
after NASA came into being.
Did not Einstein say that after 20 years of mind-bending he did not believe
that it was possible to construct a special unified field theory?
> - we did it at school when I was 13 for God's sake.
I'll take the above as a bit of gratuitous blasphemy spoken without
thinking.
You clearly have a massive problem with Neville and his ideas. Why do you
have to keep bringing them up in postings that have nothing to do with
Neville?
Neville has already told you that he will look into you criticisms. You will
have to be patient. You do not help your position by constantly accusing him
of lying. Neville is a very committed Christian and lying is not part of his
lifestyle nor indeed mine. He may mistakes and so far he has admitted them.
He has also told others in responses to some difficult questions that he
doesn't have answers for them. So just back off with your paranoia and give
him a chance.
You know Mike its things like this that show up the difference between
Christians and atheists. Given the choice Mike who would you most trust in
times of personal anguish, one who eschews Christian morality or an atheist
who has no morality.
If I can post publicly I will point out where he is misrepresenting
conventional
> science and where he is using invalid reasoning in his own mathematical
> presentations.
I have been assured by Neville that if you want be involved in the debate
regarding the credibility of NASA, you only have to e-mail Neville and he
will let you back in. It is vitally important that this is thrashed out
before the geocentric debate can progress forward. In Neville's words, and
this should appeal to you Mike, "if NASA is right then the Bible is wrong".
Jack
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Science and the Bible
