[geocentrism] Re: True Science
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 09:53:42 +1000
Short reply to Jack.
I would say that committed Christians by and large show a level of humility
above that which is shown by the secular world.
I disagree. Humility is a natural trait stemming from shyness. . committed
Christians? How do you assess these??
14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few
there are that find it! 15 Beware of false prophets,
What about Kelvin's 1st Law of thermodynamics? According to that, materialism
cannot account for the universe,s existence without sidestepping it. This is
like evolution's problem with abiogensis!
Just because a man or group of men are materialists, and cannot conceive of a
creator, (been there done that) is no justification for accusing him of lying
and deceit or lacking in integrity.
If the cosmos is geocentric, as we believe, then how did NASA manage to do all
the things you give them credit for? How do they prove that they have performed
these experiments without us relying on their honesty and integrity? We can't
reprocate these experiments independently.
Jack I believe you have stated that you have no particular engineering or
scientific training. Therefore I would not expect you or myself or many others
to be able to replicate many of the applications of science. I have no problem
relying upon their honesty and integrity. I know what keeps the boiling water
in the billy when I swing it upside down over my head.
However, I do not deny the influence of (a) politics at the local puppet level,
(b) religious (occult) at the top , and (c) The money power which is the main
tool of the occult conspiracy. I can accept that many in scientific employment
of these influences can be duped, even if not willing participants in
fraudulent science. Some may even consider the justification for a "good Lie"
especially when their livelihood depends on having this opinion. That is where
the true Christian must "flee from it" .
Again I ask you how would you know the outcome is the truth? You would be
relying on NASA telling the truth and not from some verifiable experiment.
Yes and why not. Unless there was some undeniable evidence to prove Nasa does
not deserve our trust, then we can be justified in accepting their word on most
things. OK so you claim the Appollo missions a hoax.. The evidence is
circumstantial, but even if true, the cold war tensions of the time would have
had me going along with it.. Communism was then a real fear, today they have
merely won the war.. the fear is less... But this does not make every
scientific principle upon which NASA bases its scientific progress in space as
false.. They most certainly could have landed a man on the moon if it was not
for the Van Allen belts.
You need to stop using your imagination and use your senses especially the
'common' variety. You are using assumptions to try and prove your position. You
neglect the idea of an aether with everything embedded it it. (isn't that
underlined an assumption?
Amazing! how many times have I postulated the aether..and you wrote that
directly efore my next paragraph, explaining one concept of the aether,
"
I see a gramaphone record spinning. Its fluid allows local systems movement.
There is nothing else outside that fluid. It could be TIME. PART OF A FOUR
DIMENSIONAL OBJECT."
And then you went so angry,
It could be this or it could be that, where do you stop? This kind of
speculation is cheap and quite useless, I'm sure edison and friends speculated
on sources of light and even on the idea of a telephone. Are you suggesting we
should have stopped way back then? certainly in the way that it is expounded as
being the truth. I agree, but most people speak with hope as though it were
true. How many times have I heard an alleged Christian say, "God helped me, God
spoke to me et al They could NEVER know with any certainty such a thing.
Astronomy theories are full of words like, it may be, it could be, it is
believed. These are words of faith and not science. well are you not
contradicting yourself here? Are they not admitting it is a hypothesis, and you
accuse them for having faith in it. I have a lot of faith in the atomic theory
of electric current, to the point I write it as a fact, whereas I should say
"it is believed to be true, it may be" yet you condemn my science either way.
The tern science has been twisted out of all recognition and is fast becoming
an 'ism'. Only to you Jack! not us all.
Finally you say,
However MS science is never going to accept the idea of un-caused first cause -
a Creator. Any evidence they find that points to this will have to be
suppressed with lies, deceit and censorship.
It would not be science if they did. Without real evidence belief in a creator
is a matter of faith, and above, you have already condemned science when ever
they do demonstrate faith based science. The difference is that their faith in
the electron is based on evidence that can be ascertained and reasoned upon..
Faith in the creator has no direct evidence, other than the word of some few.
Miraculous interventions, even you condemn as being of the devil, yet you can
produce none that is from God.
an uncaused first cause is a contradiction of basic Physics. Science is looking
for a loop. maybe... I would replace the word science with physics in all of
the above. Physics is more definitive..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:51 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] True Science
Dear Philip,
I've copied some of your responses from your last 2 e-mails here so that I
can reply in red.
Jack you cannot be so cut and dried about it. Especially with your
judgemental attitude of lumping types of men together, assuming them to be
lacking in humility or other attribute. This is being presumptive, a
characteristic you criticise in science.. The natural order of men exists in
all men, ye even in, and perhaps more so, among "religious" men.
I wasn't cut and dried in lumping all scientists the same. I merely was
drawing attention to those Christian scientists whose beliefs were reflected in
their attitudes to science. Here's another one for you; I would say that
committed Christians by and large show a level of humility above that which is
shown by the secular world. It can be said that generally those who show an
attitude to life stemming from a belief in Creator and a Christian based
morality are more likely to show humility than those who believe life is
meaningless and have a morality that is relative and changing.
Regarding astronomy you must be aware of the many experiments done on earth,
which simulate motion and mechanics which confirm the interactions of bodies.
Why is it so improbable that we cannot assume these laws to apply on Mars or
anywhere else..
How do you assign properties to these astronomic bodies for Earthly
simulation? How do you measure their interactions with each other?
In fact I would consider it rather ridiculous to think otherwise. It is based
upon these laws that astronomy can make very accurate predictions.
What about Kelvin's 1st Law of thermodynamics? According to that, materialism
cannot account for the universe,s existence without sidestepping it. This is
like evolution's problem with abiogensis!
And finally, ignoring the obviously irrational presumptions that we have all
played with here by accusing science in general and NASA in particular of being
rogues liars and cheats, it is obvious that astronomy or science cannot be
getting it all wrong, in light of the highly technical and many times
successful probes to other bodies in our solar system, and in particular the
Sun. If the sun was a weightless airy fairy lump of fire, as some have tried
to suggest, we can be certain the satellites orbiting and flying by it would
never perform as they do. The fact that they do so fly is all the confirmation
any one would need to affirm that astronomy has got it right as regards its
mass and general composition. Most definitely likewise the moon.
If the cosmos is geocentric, as we believe, then how did NASA manage to do
all the things you give them credit for? How do they prove that they have
performed theses experiments without us relying on their honesty and integrity?
We can't reprocate these experiments independently.
For any one to deny these facts is evidence that they are indeed lacking in
knowledge of basic physics, and as such have no right to make such outlandish
claims. If science did not speculate, no progress would ever be achieved. e.g.
The experiments in the Mars probes will confirm or deny some of these
speculations.
Again I ask you how would you know the outcome is the truth? You would be
relying on NASA telling the truth and not from some verifiable experiment.
As far as I can imagine, if it is impossible for the sun to encircle the
earth daily at 3.14159x 2 AU per day, Then anything up to infinity likewise.
(I'm assuming I worked it out that this orbit was faster than 186000mps, )
some way back, but the principle stands even if I am wrong. I could have asked
for Sirius.
You need to stop using your imagination and use your senses especially the
'common' variety. You are using assumptions to try and prove your position. You
neglect the idea of an aether with everything embedded it it.
I see a gramaphone record spinning. Its fluid allows local systems movement.
There is nothing else outside that fluid. It could be TIME. PART OF A FOUR
DIMENSIONAL OBJECT.
It could be this or it could be that, where do you stop? This kind of
speculation is cheap and quite useless, certainly in the way that it is
expounded as being the truth. Astronomy theories are full of words like, it may
be, it could be, it is believed. These are words of faith and not science. The
tern science has been twisted out of all recognition and is fast becoming an
'ism'.
God is smart and powerful enough to do that is He not? And sections of
science are already well and truly discussing this. We are just simple 3D folk.
Well I'm glad to hear that more scientists are giving credence to there being
a Creator.However MS science is never going to accept the idea of un-caused
first cause - a Creator. Any evidence they find that points to this will have
to be suppressed with lies, deceit and censorship.
Jack Lewis
www.classiccarartist.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.4/1146 - Release Date: 22/11/2007
6:55 PM
Other related posts:
