[geocentrism] Re: Creationists' treatment of Geocentricity

  • From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:52:19 +1000

Personally, I think the atheist/evolutionists are on the rout.Cheryl..
I do not think so.. The new Catholics are falling for it hook line and sinker. 
I would reckon the athiests have a better chance of finding truth, than the New 
Catholics,simply because they have been lead into believing that they are still 
Catholic. 

Of course I do not leave out of the equation, the Grace of God... 

Methinks His power will soon be observed as the heavens are moved, after the 
coming nuclear interference in the middle east, the US and Europe.   some say 
after april ... I hope not I need 12 months to build a new house... Others give 
us 1 to 3 years...   


doesn't really matter does it.. 
Phil.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cheryl B. 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:32 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Creationists' treatment of Geocentricity


  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: