[geocentrism] Is geocentrism supported by facts?

  • From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:28:38 -0700 (PDT)

Bernie,
   
  I scrolled through the listings on the link...on down to Regner's 
commentaries.  
   
  Everything he says is based on one foundational belief, viz., the ASSUMPTION 
that the Earth is rotating on an axis. He cannot prove that ASSUMPTION.  He can 
build a layer of other assumptions on it all the way to the Big Bang Paradigm 
and call it proof--which is what modern cosmology has done--but that proves 
nothing.  Does Regner not know that the Geocentrism model--which just happens 
to be the Biblical Model--answers all known phenomena without resorting to the 
observation-denying assumptions that are indispensable to the 
heliocentricity-dependent Big Bang Model, which just happens to be the Kabbalic 
Model??
   
  Ultimately--as far as a search for truth is concerned--this pivotal helio/geo 
issue drives the proponents into a spiritual corner where they can only say: I 
support the Biblical Geocentism model of  the Christian Religion, or, I support 
the Kabbalist heliocentricity model of the Pharisee religion.  There is no 
secular science involved in either model.  
   
  I understand that this demonstrable fact has barely seeped into the 
mainstream of the knowledge tsunami on the Net, but fact it is nonetheless.  
Regner and the whole heliocentricity-based theoretical science establishment 
will--however traumatic it may be--have to face that spiritual imperative and 
overtly align with one holy book and one religion or the other holy book and 
the other religion before this is over.  
   
  Those two books and those two religions cover both models. Just as there are 
two choices and two alone relevant to whether the Earth moves or not, there are 
two choices of holy books and religions ( Koran: same Moses creation account 
with no evolution ). And let it be underscored again: There is no secular 
science involved in either model. That claim to be "secular science" is the 
great deceptive label under which the theoretical science 
establishment--wittingly or unwittingly has masqueraded, especially from 
Copernicus to the present.  Thus has this now demonstrable deception steadily 
and surreptitiously guided the implantation of the 15 billion year Pharisee 
evolutionary "alternative creation scenario" in the minds of modern mankind.  
This fact has brought the Bible--and its Author--to the brink of mockery, 
echoing Nietzsche: "God is dead.  We have killed him with our science."
   
  We shall soon see about that echo.     
   
   
  Marshall Hall www.fixedearth.com  email: fefinc@xxxxxxxx 

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          
  Regner T
Thank you for your kind words.
  I appreciate that you do not have unlimited time at your disposal and it is 
not my wish to burden you. I also note that you have managed to respond to all 
posts on this subject (unless I missed one) suggesting a streak of thoroughness 
to your character! However I did post to you on 2007 Oct 13 (prior to your 
suggested framework for discussion) in a "Welcome to the forum" message in 
which I drew your attention to a submission of mine to this forum which can be 
found here -> 
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/09-2007/msg00298.html. It 
contains three propositions in excess of the five you requested but it does 
bear on the matter at hand.
  I mention this against the possibility that it may have escaped your 
attention.
  A side note -- I see from a post from Jack L that you appear to have an 
association with Stromolo in Canberra. I was posted there in the early 1970s 
and visited the observatory. That of course was before the disastrous fires of 
a few years ago. Have you been there since? I'd like to think it has been 
reinstated.
  Paul D
  


  
---------------------------------
  Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it 
now. 

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Other related posts: