[geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:11:19 +1000
I don't understand your comment below. Your sure its a viable alternative? It's
not a viable alternative! If it were there would be no point in discussing it!
Jack
Dear jack.
If you re-read me correctly, you can see that it is viable as an alternative
for scientific discussion. This does not mean it happened that way. We believe
it didn't.
I say the exact same thing as regards the heliocentrism debate, although the
potential of proving our aether involvement in matter is still also a viable
alternative for geocentrism.
As a means of converting a scientist or any ordinary person with reasonable
intelligence, in to accepting the word of God as true, then I agree most
definitely there is no point in the discussion. Both sides of the evolution
debate are theoretical and as such, and only for that reason, worthy of
discussion.
Let me offer an example to clear up my meaning and use of viable alternative.
In faith we believe that Lazarus was truely dead and that the body was already
corrupting, when jesus brought him back to life.
A viable alternative for discussion is that Lazarus was merely in a coma, a
hypnotic state known as ...... where the vital signs are near zero, and he only
appears to be dead.
This is a viable alternative because it is a theoretical probability in science
and happens reasonably often.
Given that we can produce no direct provable evidence of this event, it cannot
be used as proof that God exists, or that the Bible is His word.
Therefore, indeed from a scientific point of view it is a pointless discussion
if your motive or objective is to prove God raised Lazarus from the dead, or
that there is a God.
You, and everybody else apparently, have consistently avoided my challenge that
God , by His own word, created an old or aged world. This validates the
evolutionists and Pauls claim of an aged world beyond 10,000 years. That their
speculations on this age may be varied and possibly erroneous has no bearing on
the fact that it is or was much older than the nominal 7,000 years given at
creation.
To prove creation, you need to prove the existence of God first, and finding
"speculative flaws" in evolution, which the science admits is part and parcel
of the learning process of science, is definitely not the way to go about that.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:50 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia
Dear Philip,
Of course I'm biased, but not against true science.
I don't understand your comment below. Your sure its a viable alternative?
It's not a viable alternative! If it were there would be no point in discussing
it!
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism list
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: excuse my paranoia
Not me. I am absolutely certain that evolution is a viable alternative as
to how we arrived today. I just happen to know with certainty that it did not
happen that way, and that the world has existed no more than 10,000 years and
probably less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.31/1031 - Release Date: 26/09/2007
12:12 PM
Other related posts:
