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
