[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper

Paul says: 
You may not agree with their conclusions, but they fit observation and reason, 
and they explain. Because of this, they have utility. 
[ Utility does not prove reality. NASA utilises, thats utility, the geocentric 
position for many calculations. As regards observation , all admit such is 
illusory.. Thats why they love Einsteins relativity mirrors..  but we have the 
egg or chicken primacy here. What is observed is made to fit the reasons 
assumed.  shouldn't it be the reasoning should be made to fit the observation.. 
 surely you do not claim that anyone anywhere can observe, or has observed the 
earth moving, or twisting ? Not even Einstein admits or claims that. ]
 
You must also be aware that Neville is a died-in-the-wool geocentrist. He is 
aware of what I'm saying, but prefers to believe a distinctly minority 
interpretation of an ancient book written by -- scientifically -- ignorant 
authors in preference to -- scientifically -- less ignorant, recent and 
contemporary investigators.

[  scientifically ignorant authors?  You know the authors then? Even if I left 
out the truth that they were writing the words as ordered from God, and 
accepted that these were the words of ordinary men, how can you or I know the 
level of their science? How can you claim that they were more ignorant than 
todays scientists? If I write a book on cooking fish, can you then discern my 
scientific qualifications? 

Of course not..  but in writing their book on faith and morals, they in passing 
mention truthful observations concerning the cosmos, according to their 
science.  Without even knowing their scientific reasoning behind their 
acceptance of these facts, and simply because you arrogantly presume that 
todays men are superior to them in scientific knowledge, and because todays 
men's view contradicts those of those unknown men of the past, you presume them 
to be ignorant. 

A purely private unproven and unprovable opinion. Just as are the tenets of 
heliocentrism un proven and unprovable. At least today. The aforementioned 
authors may have had a thousand times the scientific knowledge that abounds 
today.

Based on their literary skills in promoting and teaching faith and morals 
alone, I could imagine your surprised efforts in dialogue should it ever be 
possible that you come face to face with any one of these human authors. 

Even more would your efforts be amazing to behold if you were confronted by the 
real inspiration behind those writings Himself, who far from being ignorant, 
knows ALL..  ] 

Philip.  

Other related posts: