>Subject: Re: a Formal Challenge to folks in Science
>From: Richard Vickery Richard.Vickery at unsw.edu.au>Date: Tue, 26 October 1999 09:48 PM EDT
>Message-id: <381659D9.F2CCDA8E at unsw.edu.au>
>>K P Collins wrote:
>>> >so, in the spirit of planting roses in the divide, i, here, Formally
>Challenge
>> >everyone in Science to try to offer a defensible explanation of why it is
>that
>> >the simple Truth Jesus Taught is banned from Science.
>>Because scientists believe in things like "best hypothesis",
>"most plausible explanation", and "all evidence points towards".
i understand the 'ideal'.
i speak from my own experience. i've worked devotedly in Neuroscience, and
other areas of Science and Maths. the work i've done is significant, but
because i had to do it in a non-'traditional' way, i've not been allowed to
publish my work in the 'triditional' way.
so, in my experience, it's been the case that folks've not cared about
'hypotheses', &c. folks've cared about 'tradition'.
and, BTW, the reason i speak of Truth is that i'm able to demonstrate such.
in the present matter, it's a no-brainer. i've never heard from anyone in
Science that knows the first thing of what Jesus Taught. yet, i've never met
anyone in 'science' who doesn't 'deny' Jesus.
am i being too-'hard'?
in this venu, i'm not expecting folks to address any deep things of God. i'm
not talking about such... this is a Science 'place', after all.
what i'm saying, as i've explained repeatedly in this and other online Science
'places', is that, while i was doing the Neuroscience thing, it became apparent
to me that all of the 'higher-level' things that the Neuroscience points to
were explicitly addressed by Jesus 2000 years ago.
for me, acknowledging such was just a matter of Honor in Science.
yet, because i did so, the work i've done has been Censored. (to be honest,
there were other, additional, reasons that my work was Censored. folks wanted
to 'profit', so they've actively withheld the work from others, and worked to
make things difficult for me.)
>We are suspicious of something peddled as "truth", especially
>when it is untestable in any useful sense.
everything i've stated stood verified, in the Neuroscience experimental
results, nearly two decades ago.
>There are degrees of
>confidence that we invest in "facts" but unless things are merely
>definitions we can not state with absolute certainty the truth of
>something.
show me a 'place' in the Universe where energy does not flow from order to
disorder. yes, there can be local increases in energy's order, but these local
increases always exist at the cost of more energy's having gone to disorder.
can you show that this is not True?
>[...]
K. P. Collins (ken)
