[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 16:05:42 +0000 (GMT)
Jack L
Your two indented posts below answered unindented.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Dear Paul,
If Regner conceded and accepted that the geocentric proof of geocentrism, using
star trails as part of their evidence, was sustainable, would you also accept
it or would still keep up the fight? And if so why? What is your overriding,
burning reason for persisting in your support for heliocentrism?
Jack
It seems I will never convince a number of people that I make my own decisions
based on what I have learned from others, what I have learned from my own
observations and from analysis of this knowledge.
Did you see my acknowledgement that star trails are not proof that the Earth
rotates or that the stars rotate? Or both? They certainly are proof that
something is rotating but not what is rotating. Regner may concede the truth of
Geocentrism -- a possibility I consider remote in the extreme but -- I'll go
out on a limb here -- it won't be on the evidence of star trails. Whatever he
decides however will be one more piece of knowledge I'll cram away while there
is still room for it.
My overriding, burning reason for continuing to support heliocentrism? All my
life I have sought knowledge and understanding. It is pretty much the centre of
my life. The way we think influences the way we think that others think and if
someone saw a gap or an error in my store of knowledge or my understanding of
that knowledge, I would hope that that person would seek to fill that gap or
correct that error. Are you then surprised that that is what I seek to do for
others? Of course anyone seeking to do me that service would need to convince
me with rational argument, just as I would be prepared to do for them.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Dear Paul,
Maybe you might find this helpful. In considering that the celestial poles
discussion may be confirming the fact of geocentrism instead of heliocentrism,
why not accept that through pure chance and nothing else - no suggestion of a
creator here, that the Earth just happened to become the centre of the universe
when it came into being. It's an incredible idea I know but if you are happy to
accept that chance and the randomness of bringing together inanimate chemicals
to form the most complex mechanism that man has never, with all his ingenuity
and resources, been able to duplicate - living matter, then why not accept the
same coincidence for a geocentric cosmos? It shouldn't compromise your
atheistic world view.
Jack
No, perhaps it would not, but it would be surrender to one of the things I
particularly abhor -- blind acceptance. Better to wait in hope or confidence
that an explanation will arise. I'm sure people were given similar advice when
the black death stalked the land -- "Just accept it dear. No one will ever
solve this problem. It is just God's way". Well it was beaten, and so was small
pox and a dozen other scourges. Those who laboured on every front to increase
Man's mastery of his environment were given similar advice. Next time you
accept a commission to record some proud owner's prized internal combustion
engined conveyance on canvas, be grateful that that advice was rejected by so
many -- you might not have the skills to paint horses.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Paul D
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/national-bingo-night/
Other related posts:
