[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
I'm not sure whether I disappointed you in just the reference post or from
earlier. I'll proceed on the basis of the former being true. My comments
inserted below.
You disappointed me Paul, but I must admit of not being surprised. If you had
gotten any of the points I made you would never have come back with this; At
this point, my comments were directed to j a thus they were not directed at
you. Were the points I 'failed to get' in one or more of your four
(specifically) unaddressed posts? I was snowed as I commented.
"Now -- how do you know the Sun is 'hotter'? How do you know that other planets
are hotter? How do you know that the Earth has changed its temperature --
warming and cooling? Surely you are not trusting all those scientists with a
private agenda (Hi Jack!) to tell the truth? They are the ones after all who
are responsible for spreading lies about planetary climate are they not?"
See how you wriggled? No -- I don't. j a has the habit (as do most of my
protagonists) of ignoring the vast majority of the points I make, making a
consolidated one sentence reply and finishing with a challenge which can only
be responded to with another lengthy response which is again, largely, ignored.
I thought it might be useful to reverse the process. At this point we have not
been favoured with j a's response so I cannot comment further. The particular
physical records you mention have indeed been collected by mainstream science,
however any of the information that is contrary to the current agenda is
ignored, to the point as already mentioned , of banning of its pointed release
in a documentary. My understanding is that it is not banned and will be shown
(and I will watch).
NASA releases information of the planet Mars warming up.. Globalists I don't
know what a 'Globalist' is in the context of this forum. Is it that hated group
which various undisciplined yahoos around the world gravitate noisily and
destructively toward? chose to hide or ignore this piece of information, which
the documentary does not. This information (re Mars' temperature) is freely
available on the web.
Then you said "but inexorable increase in CO2 for some few centuries and to
observe that this just happens to coincide with history spanning the industrial
revolution."
Ignoring the undeniable evidence from the same sources, that the temperature
rise preceded the industrial increase of CO2. You are not suggesting that the
temperature rise caused the industrial revolution are you? I'd guess not, but
then the alternative is -- what is the correlation? Is it just coincidence? All
that aside, I haven't found information supporting your proposition. How about
a reference or two so I can understand what you are talking about?
Philip.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neville J
Philip said, "You disappointed me Paul, ..."
Me, too, but there is none as blind as he who will not see. I quite agree. And
as for Galilei, the point I was making, and that Paul missed, was that Galilei
was a heretic. He was in the minority. Are you saying that he was a heretic and
a minority? One does not imply the other you know! And of course heresy is not
synonomous with untruth, just dissent from the dominant -- usually religious --
view. The vast majority said that he was a nutter. I am not saying that Galilei
was right, only that he opposed the majority. By Paul's own reasoning,
therefore, Galilei must have been wrong. Wrong -- you will look in vain for my
assertion that the majority is (necessarily) correct. And, since Galilei was
wrong, geocentrism must be correct. And again wrong! Really Neville, this
astounds me. Firstly, you have not demonstrated that he was wrong. Secondly,
Galilei could be wrong and Mars is the centre of the universe! (Or indeed
almost an infinity of alternatives). If you lived there, it
is likely that you would, on the basis of your observations and the roots of
your theological reasoning, [see below] come to the conclusion that you lived
on a body which did neither rotate nor revolve and was the centre of the
universe. This dichotomic view of existance is just so common and so
regrettable.
QED I think not.
Neville.
I'm disappointed that you chose to talk about me and not to me. Philip M is
alert to all postings here and posesses a modicum of intelligece -- he would
not have missed your comments had they been appropriately addressed to me.
Concerning theological reasoning. It appears that in many, if not most
languages, the word for 'ground', '...that is beneath our feet...' etc, is
synonomous with '... this planet ...', 'The World' etc and so the Bible could
be read on any planet and assumed to be describing what is beneath your feet.
Yes I know that there are are -- probably -- no camels on Mars and that the
various ruins and living cities etc etc are not present, but lack of evidence
has never been an impediment to religious or other mystical belief. I am only
referring to the gelogical correlation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul D
_________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html
Other related posts:
