[geocentrism] Re: Is Geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:26:22 +0000 (GMT)
Greetings all.
I'm not a young man and I'm getting older. I'd like to think that this debate
could get started before I shuffle off.
There have been many 'wailings and knashings of teeth' expressed here over the
months on account of not being able to get mainstream science graduates to
debate you on the subjects of Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism, Evolution vs
Creationism. There has been the odd bit of gentle boasting that the reason for
this failure is that they are afraid to debate you because they know they'll be
defeated.
Well now you have a genuine dyed in the wool practising main stream science
graduate on tap, willing and eager to debate you on Geocentrism but thus far
the principal response has been extremely wordy prevarication. For crying out
loud -- have some courage, make an effort! All that is being asked for as a
basis for debate is five non supernatural propositions which you believe
indicate that Geocentrism is the reality. Not reasons why you think
Heliocentrism is wrong, not unassailable proofs of the absolute truth of
Geocentricity in seventeen volumes -- just five indicators in which you have
confidence that you've backed the right horse. If Geocentricity is in fact the
reality, and given that this philosophy has been around for two or three
thousand years, I'd have thought that your principal problem would be which
among the plethora of proofs on offer are your favourites.
Come on folks, if you don't act soon the man may get bored and wander off.
Paul D
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
