[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

Jack L
Your two indented posts below answered unindented.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Dear Paul, 
If Regner conceded and accepted that the geocentric proof of geocentrism, using 
star trails as part of their evidence, was sustainable, would you also accept 
it or would still keep up the fight? And if so why? What is your overriding, 
burning reason for persisting in your support for heliocentrism? 
Jack 
It seems I will never convince a number of people that I make my own decisions 
based on what I have learned from others, what I have learned from my own 
observations and from analysis of this knowledge.
Did you see my acknowledgement that star trails are not proof that the Earth 
rotates or that the stars rotate? Or both? They certainly are proof that 
something is rotating but not what is rotating. Regner may concede the truth of 
Geocentrism -- a possibility I consider remote in the extreme but -- I'll go 
out on a limb here -- it won't be on the evidence of star trails. Whatever he 
decides however will be one more piece of knowledge I'll cram away while there 
is still room for it.
My overriding, burning reason for continuing to support heliocentrism? All my 
life I have sought knowledge and understanding. It is pretty much the centre of 
my life. The way we think influences the way we think that others think and if 
someone saw a gap or an error in my store of knowledge or my understanding of 
that knowledge, I would hope that that person would seek to fill that gap or 
correct that error. Are you then surprised that that is what I seek to do for 
others? Of course anyone seeking to do me that service would need to convince 
me with rational argument, just as I would be prepared to do for them.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Dear Paul, 
Maybe you might find this helpful. In considering that the celestial poles 
discussion may be confirming the fact of geocentrism instead of heliocentrism, 
why not accept that through pure chance and nothing else - no suggestion of a 
creator here, that the Earth just happened to become the centre of the universe 
when it came into being. It's an incredible idea I know but if you are happy to 
accept that chance and the randomness of bringing together inanimate chemicals 
to form the most complex mechanism that man has never, with all his ingenuity 
and resources, been able to duplicate - living matter, then why not accept the 
same coincidence for a geocentric cosmos? It shouldn't compromise your 
atheistic world view. 
Jack
No, perhaps it would not, but it would be surrender to one of the things I 
particularly abhor -- blind acceptance. Better to wait in hope or confidence 
that an explanation will arise. I'm sure people were given similar advice when 
the black death stalked the land -- "Just accept it dear. No one will ever 
solve this problem. It is just God's way". Well it was beaten, and so was small 
pox and a dozen other scourges. Those who laboured on every front to increase 
Man's mastery of his environment were given similar advice. Next time you 
accept a commission to record some proud owner's prized internal combustion 
engined conveyance on canvas, be grateful that that advice was rejected by so 
many -- you might not have the skills to paint horses.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Paul D


      
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week. 
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV. 
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/national-bingo-night/

Other related posts: