"Whenever he encounters scientific evidence that he is unable to rebut, Brass appeals to authorities who, in his mind, are so grand as to be unimpeachable. Yet these 'authorities' and their words often turn out on closer inspection to have no more substance than Brass himself." To me this sums up the nature of all the Creation/evolution and Geocentric arguments from Mainstream Science ( MS ) ...... They are "right" because they pass each other off as the "authoritative" reference with certainty. When the work of one "authority" is questioned then the appeal is made to the other and then back again. Those who support their positions do the same, they pick and choose one "Authority" to "debunk" any argument against the reigning paradigm. Which authority to cite is easily recognized by that authorities' ability to support and/or make the argument in favor of the reigning paradigm.
The paradigm itself has become and is the standard by which "science" is measured rather than science the standard by which paradigms reign. This is a subtle but significant difference and even harder for those caught in its grasp of illogic to recognize. Even now when a paradigm or MainStream assertion must be changed due to overwhelming "facts" the nature of the change itself, ( what is to be changed and to what it is to be changed to ) is determined not by science ( observation & experience ) or logic but rather solely due to the existing hierarchy of reining paradigms already in place. Never you mind about observations and experience and especially don’t bother with those "anomalies", what is most important is that we do not lose consistency and/or coherency with what we already "have". The observations and experience are and will be a distant second to "correct interpretations" as determined by those same "authorities", who do their part by making the determination for "the correct interpretation" in the first place. Imaginations upheld by all those "authorities" are subsituted for observations and actual experience. The logic used is simply a circular argument which premises are without a foundation external of its own conclusions. "It’s true because the data show it to be true".... The only downside? Well, the data must be interpreted in "light" of the conclusions. However, since we know all this to be true anyway, that objection is only mildly, if at all, relevant at this point! The same holds true for much of the "evolving sciences". Global warming as a result of climate change versus climate change due to global warming or even the ultimate cause of such, natural versus man made; the true causes get obscured by the predisposition to "interpret" selected data in very specific ways in spite of all the data. True, the timing with the industrial revolution is suspicious in and of itself but only in and of itself, without consideration of the rest of the data. To "sample" and/or ignore the rest of the data in favor of making a "quick sell" of certainty, is exactly what is going on presently with all of "science". Ironically, not only is this unscientific but it is the very epitome of looking though a funnel or with blinders and taking "What You See Is What You Get" ( WYSIWYG ), then turn around and calling that approach using all the data, without the funnel or blinders, too simplistic by missing the fact that it is or could just all be an illusion in the first place...!? Allen Daves -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You talk as if HC [ heliocentricity ] was a proven fact or that you HAD any facts external of just your faith in others' interpretations of them that HC were true!?...LOL... You can’t prove HC theory and neither can Dr. T! If he could he would be more famous than Einstein or Hawking himself. In fact for every HC piece of evidence, that same "evidence" shows GC [ Geocentrism ] at face value. And, as of yet, not you nor anyone else has given us a reason to interpret it other than "What You See Is What You Get", except that "it could be" and it is more "modest"...LOL...That is objective criteria!!?? LOL...your and Dr. T's "modesty" is a feeling not a scientific observation, certainly not objective data!..Give me a break!.. Dr. T may not like it but at the end of the day "modesty" is the criteria that the most knowledgeable proponents of HC admit to for the only "proof" ( correct interpretation of data ) of HC!?...and my theory ( GC ) - it is NOT a theory, just takes the facts as is...but you call an odd ball by interpreting facts with nothing more than just your imaginations and "modesty"!?...LOL...You need to take a hard look at yourself. You don't make any sense and neither do any of your arguments. HC does not have the stamp of observation anywhere on it without reinterpreting observations with imaginations and "modesty"? .....There is less actual evidence for HC than for GC. There is NO evidence for HC whatsoever without first invoking circular fallacies about how you think the kinematics of the universe work. ...How does he define modesty and what objective criteria do Hawking and he use to make that opinion? Dr. T is right about one thing though, modesty is not apologetic but immodesty is, HC is not based on modesty it is based on getting rid of God...How is a non-centered universe more modest!? Dr. T. goes on to say "But that is philosophy - let's get back to science, shall we?" I say great! Dr. T., you and everyone else in the HC camp stop supporting the use of your philosophical humbleness as an objective justification for why and how your interpretations of the facts are more objective than just taking them all at face value. But you can't do that - if you did you would have no observation or experience to support your case. On the other hand if you do not stop doing that then it is you not the GC folk who are using philosophy and religion! This is particularly true when the only consistency in all of the observations and experiments at face value all show a motionless Earth at the center of the universe...! This cannot be said of all the excuses for why the Earth is not the center!? ...except ......"it is more modest"...LOL In fact it is not modest at all! The whole purpose was and is not science based on objective data in observation or experience at all, but rather to explain everything naturally - absent of God......Well if there is a God, I don’t see how he would see it as modest at all...LOL... :-D . Since we have not been able to prove God does not exist, to claim modesty as the champion of your cause is not only foolish, but quite arrogant ( the exact opposite of humbleness )...LOL...who are you trying to kid...yourself?...I don't buy it, and even logic does not support your assertion!! That is why the politics is not just important but EVERYTHING when it comes to data that can have multiple interpretations. To say that it is not is a fairytale dreamland. To understand how a conclusion was reached that could have multiple possibilities/ interpretations you must understand what/how the criteria for the decision was made in the first place, particularly when you take a conclusion that demands a model that is other than what you can see or prove!! All is not just facts, if it were then you would have to accept a GC universe... it is the only conclusion you can draw from any and all available facts period. I don’t have to show any other facts than the ones HC purports to be HC proof, because they don’t even remotely show HC without assuming it is true first." Allen Daves ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Only in one's wildest imagination can you even construe the idea that the concentric distribution of mass patterns around the Earth would look the same from anywhere else in the universe. That is not science that is imagination. So there really is no “scientific” reason for construing a rotational Earth orbiting in some imaginary solar system, there never was, particularly when the only real observational post in the real universe is the Earth, from which we see not all smaller objects orbiting larger ones but in fact we observe that the size of objects does not in itself determine which one is orbiting which, any more than all smaller gears in some gear clock sets rotate or turn about larger gears and vice versa. Everything else is just some imaginary set of rules that do not exist from the only real observation point in the universe without accepting some assumed interpretations and conclusions about imaginary observations on other worlds that have never been produced or conducted." Allen Daves -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving-Earth DECEPTION - HOME |
