[geocentrism] Creationists' treatment of Geocentricity
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:32:31 -0500
Gary -- A friend of mine recommended I speak to Ken Hovind, a creationist
evangelist who has a creation science museum in Pensacola, Florida. He
wouldn't even discuss the possibility of geocentrism because, in his
opinion, the heliocentric model was correct. But he did say that, in his
opinion, NASA would not try to document the earth's turning because in
NASA's mind it would be equivalent perhaps to try to document Santa Claus
flying over the North Pole.
I agree with Robert's point that Creationist scientists are just starting to
gain respectability and don't want to risk being ignored or made a laughing
stock (again) or in some cases having lucrative ministries fall apart -- not
to be cynical.
I was telling my daughter that not too many years ago most of the churches
believed in theistic evolution; but the Creationists have over the past I'd
say 30 years managed to make Creationism respectable.
Personally, I think the atheist/evolutionists are on the rout. The
position of the gradualists is so ludicrous that nonexperts like myself can
demolish their position -- and I do it all the time. They avoid debating
Creationists because they know they'll lose.
They are put in the position of defending the indefensable. Like for
example, how do male and female creatures manage to evolve independently
over billions of years until they reach the point when, voila, they can now
start reproducing? And of course God had to create the first life forms
fully grown and developed, lest He have to feed them with an eye dropper,
whatever. Spontaneous generation, life arising from dead matter, was
disproved in the maggots and dead meat experiment. Somebody should tell the
evolutionists that.
That's why I agree with Dr. Jones about NASA being frauds. Anybody who
would believe such nonsense as either gradualistic evolution or punctuated
equilibrium (the lame theory the atheists are now trying to duck behind to
escape the ludicrousness of their laughable theories of gradual evolution)
can't be trusted for their opinions on much of anything else, especially in
the area of science, or in their case "science-so-called."
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:06 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Setterfield, CDK and ZPE
> Gary,
>
>
> >
> > Just why don't creationists think the Bible is geostatic--this is a big
> > problem.
> >
> >
>
> I can give you a good reason, from personal experience.
>
> Creationists are already pariahs in their scientific AND RELIGIOUS
> communities, for challenging the scientific dogma of cosmic or biotic
> evolution. To adopt Geostatism as an additional crusade would, they think,
> put them in company with the Flat Earth society. So, 'to maintain peer
> credibility', they eschew the GS view, presumably until they can convert
all
> the Darwinistas.
>
> For alleged Scriptural literalists to select which verses are 'true', or
> true enough to be worth defending, is logically inconsistent and possibly
> hypocritical. Faith isn't a cafeteria for the soul, where we pick what we
> choose to consume.
>
> "Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the
> mouth of God".
>
> This is primarily the reason why I'm here with you and not with them.
>
>
>
> Pax Christi,
>
> Robert
>
>
>
Other related posts:
