[geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:37:37 +1000
Steven, this does not destroy heliocentrism, but adds a new dimension, which
must be discussed proven and then incorporated.
Even if there were no stars, the mechanics of the solar system remain intact
and reasonably true.
But thanks for the link. I am reading it now... But you know that I do not
believe that God created a young universe.. He created an old universe..A
paradox that allows me to say, "this 7000years old creation could be millions
of years old...." does that baffle you?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 8:18 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
Dad's "Steller Distances" paper destroys heliocentrism because it proves
a small universe, whereas heliocentrism (which came about not because of
science but because Kopernik thought the sun was God) by necessity
requires the stars to be many hundreds of light years away. The paper
can be accessed here: http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page27.htm
Best Wishes,
Steven.
philip madsen wrote:
> No, I mean the opposite.. Geocentrism is shaky..
> the helio postion is NOT based on a presumption that the world moves..
>
> We based our belief on a rotating world upon sound rational science
> that the following is _observed._
>
> planets all orbit the sun..
>
> Physics as proven in a laboratory, requires that lighter bodies must
> orbit a larger more massive body. Observed and proven.
>
> That the earth is not heavier than the sun is proved and observed..
>
> The rational observer must conclude the sun cannot orbit the earth,
> but follow the same laws that mars or venus does.
>
> That the earth is the stationary centre of the universe and holding on
> to an orbiting sun, is irrational and contrary to already well proved
> mechanical laws.
>
> We hold to our unique position of a stationary world on no *_obviously
> observable_* phenomena or law of science. We hold to that position
> purely based upon the word of God.
>
> Such is contrary to science as currently known, observed and well
> proven. We have a most difficult task to prove our case using science,
> and not basing it upon our presumption that the Word of God cannot err.
>
> If it was just basic observation, Roberts Bennett and Sungenis would
> have no need for such a comprehensive book as GWW.
>
> To confirm our point we must add to those established scientific laws,
> as ennunciated by Paul, something new and prove it,
>
> NOT , I repeat not seek to destroy them..
>
> Philip.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Bernie Brauer <mailto:bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2007 7:27 AM
> *Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
>
> Phil,
>
> You mean, "the helio position is the most shaky......?????
>
> Bernie
>
> */philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>/* wrote:
>
> Bernie Marshall said,
> *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-etc..*
> **
> *But this is just as much a presumption, scientifically, it is
> an unproven assumption that the Bible is stating the truth. *
> **
> *Both sides of this debated rest on a base presumption. But
> the geocentrist position is the most shaky, having no
> consistency in the rational scientific approach to what is
> observed, scientifically.. *
> **
> *Such an argument as Marshall presents, cannot stand in
> physics, as physics is currently _observed._*
> **
> *Philip. *
> **
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Bernie Brauer <mailto:bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:28 AM
> *Subject:* [geocentrism] Is geocentrism supported by facts?
>
> *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 Geocent/ism/ 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
> <http://www.fixedearth.com/> email: fefinc@xxxxxxxx
> <http://us.f539.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=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
>
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/default_all/storage/*http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html>.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
> around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.3/1081 - Release
> Date: 19/10/2007 5:41 PM
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.3/1082 - Release Date:
> 20/10/2007 2:59 PM
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.3/1082 - Release Date: 20/10/2007
2:59 PM
Other related posts:
