[geocentrism] Ancient science?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:52:53 +1000
I said : The aforementioned authors may have had a thousand times the
scientific knowledge that abounds today.
I wanted to add to this.. I truely believe that man after eating of the fruit
of the tree of knowledge, did know all things.. almost all that God Himself
knew.. within his human limits.
22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now,
therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
life, and eat, and live for ever. 23 And the Lord God sent him out of the
paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. 24 And he cast
out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming
sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Notice "one of
us" Three persons.. one "And the Lord God "
Have we any records in the past ? I heard yesterday of the finding of
artifacts proving that the ancients had electrical dynamos and even
electroplated articles were found..
I'm checking it out..
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: [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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.9/907 - Release Date: 18/07/2007
3:30 PM
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Ancient science?
