Modern scientists are very proud of their scientific advancement. They may have made advancement in making things faster, smaller and efficient, but still science has not answered with categorical difference to fundamental questions such as - where did we come from? and how was the universe created? Despite so called advancements, scientists are yet to find conclusive answers. Of course, they have their speculative theories, however mere speculations and suggestive evidences cannot be considered science. There is enough doubt in modern science today concerning fundamental ideas of existence that we have to rely on answers elsewhere. Below is a discussion where H.H.Danavir Goswami is exposing the gaps in modern scientific theories and methods.
Professor Uetola: But the point I am trying to make is that if I am not wrong, in the Bhagavatam it speaks of quite perverted positions of the sun, earth and moon asserting that the sun is closer to the earth than is the moon. What would prove to you that the Puranic description of these planets is defective, wrong? And if it were proven to you that the sun was further from the earth than the moon, what implications would that produce in turn for the followers of the Bhagavatam?
H.H.Danavir Goswami: Necessary and sufficient conditions. Quite scientific - how do they measure distances in space? How will I know that the space vehicle is actually going as fast as it is said? How is that provable to me? How can I be sure? It is said that the spaceship is travelling so fast...
Prof Uetola: 2,000
H.H.Danavir Goswami: Okay, 2,000 miles per hour. How can I be sure that the spaceship is actually going that fast and covering so much distance? How can we verify that? I am going to be a very demanding scientist now. That is the first concern. I want to be sure that the method of calculating distance and speed is something verifiable. Not that I just have to take someone's word for it, that is not science.
Just as a courtroom judge does not accept derelicts or bribed witnesses, similarly, I will require substantial and trustworthy witnesses who are not supported and paid by the scientists and politicians. Then while these persons are up there on the moon, they should display something grand which could be readily observable by scientists and laymen on earth. Then I would have some faith that they went to the moon. Otherwise Star Wars showed that you can make something appear to be real in space when in truth it is not necessarily that way.
The next item. In order to scientifically prove that the moon is indeed closer to the earth than is the sun, we would require someone to go to the sun also and measure the distance. That may be a little difficult. (laughs). The spaceship will burn up. By the method of pratyaksha, direct perception, it is not possible to prove because you would have to come back with this distance meter, and nobody will come back from the sun. After visiting the sun, none of our earthlings will make it back what to speak of the airplane.
There is no verifiable evidence to prove that theories which may have some validity under certain conditions such as red shift and Doppler will apply in outer space where those necessary conditions may be absent. Who is able to say that those conditions are present in outer space without having been there? Modern scientists may hope so but hoping is not science. Modern science has taken help from Hollywood in staging its mind-grabbing galactic theories which have no proof. Each year dubious quasars find themselves further away from tiny earth, now more than 16 billion light years away. That's pretty interesting and attractive stuff but there is no evidence - just total speculation. And yet because scientists have invented some big words, and the Hubble telescope - they say that this is science and we have to accept it. If you don't accept it then you are hopelessly ignorant.
Darwin's theory is of the same principle. Dig up some bones and interpret what happened millions of years ago. How do you know? You are here with only some bones and your speculative bias.