[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Regner,
I reworded the 5 points at the bottom and I show how/where Sugenisis' and
Jones' "reasons" are in my original 5......You & others may have little time
to devote to this, I can appreate our time, but sooner or latter, one way or
the other, you are going to have to face your own contridictions and in your
own assumptions.
If you need a few days to digest all of this ..take your time, please take
it, by all means..(i'm taking this weekend off)...This is imporataint for you
and everyone else here.......
I realy do enjoy these converstaions and I am glad you are here....but.....
You stated" Thanks for your response, Philip. My name, however, is Regner...
You ask: ``2. Why is evidence ("reasons" cause thats what you asked for) that
claims doubt on "alleged facts" (reasons) proving the earth moves not
acceptable as a "potential fact" (reasons) in support of the case that it
doesn't.'' ( geocentrism)..Phill continuies his original posting added for
context.."After all if we claim the earth cannot be proved to move, that fact
must support the case for it being still.
Regner: I have actually never said that, and I would very much encourage that
kind of arguments.....
Well that is Exactly what i have done in my point #1, but you have done
everything to avoid that point when I made it..??
previously you object to my "reasons" with your reasons as follows:
Your point 5 is a summary if the consequences if 2-4 are true, which
meansit is not a point in itself. Your point 1 is irrelevant here, since it is
not in support of a geocentric Universe."
Which is it!?.......I guess i will have to address both sides since you seem
eager to play both sides of the fence on this issue. If your far too busy to
address your inconsitincy.....well.... maybe you dont have time for the big
questions..?
The fact that "we cannot assume the earth to be in motion" does "support
geocentrisim" logicaly. Further, it is, by defintion of motion and
geocentriticy, a relevant "reason" . .What is the major malfunction here?
As for my point #5......
First: Let me get this strait you think that the "reasoning" or logic path,
used "in fact" to evaluate other "relevant" facts is a invalid or a
"irrelevant" "reason" for acceptance or rejection of a Theory!?......Let me
get this strait again, you wish to examine only certain facts eternal of any
examinaion of the very logical frame work in which to evaluate them in !?
Ok how about these "reasons" for geocentricity..
1. The sky is orange
2 fish swim in the sea
3. The sky is blue
4 birds fly
5. everyone dies...!?
How are you going to argue that these do not "support", ney, even prove
geocentrism false, eternal of a "reasoned" construct.....UH!? If the logic
employed is a "irrelevant" "reason" as you say for accepting or rejection of a
theory, then you can just make any list and claim it as evidence for "a reason"
for anything,( the reasons don??t even have to have any relevance to any
meaningful discussion or logical path, because you have already decided it is
"irrelevant"? ) ...Well....I can do the same here and proclaim that the
"reasons" for your objections to my "5 reasons" are "irrelevant" to this
discusion..........I guess you can go home now.....?
Second: Even in the common everyday vernacular if one were to ask the
question .."why(reason) do you believe xyz? and the respondent answered
"because it makes sense (logical). No one would question the fact that his
"reason" (he felt it was logical) was "relevant" for why he believes xyz?.!??..
This is true regardless of whether or not he had a open or closed mind,
regardless of if his "reasoning" could be shown to be ultimately justified/
sufficient or insufficient/unjustified. The issue of sufficiency or
justification would be what was examined next if you were to attempt to
convince him otherwise?.. It would not be proper to claim is "reason" is
irrelevant..? how is it irrelevant? how does the logical path he used to arrive
at his conclusion not a Reason for what he believes!? this is utter nonsense,
in an attempt to avoid the issue. This is not a attempt to develop meaningful
progress on the issue of science as it relates to motion of the earth this is
called
avoiding the inevitable thing you do not want to face.
Third: These are my reasons not yours! Now, you are arguing with your own
construct (list my 5 reasons) to this very discussion!? You stated"it is not in
support of a geocentric Universe." I thought that was the point of this
disscusion was to decide if my "reaons" supported a Geocentric universe. I
guess we can all thank you for making a determination about our own reasons for
us .....We should all just stop now and ask you what the correct answerer to
the issue under consideration is..!? Wether or not my reasons are invalid or
irrelevant is what you must demonstrate, not merely assert!. I have already
demonstrated their "relevance". If think you are just going to wave your "magic
pen" and proclaim my reasons as invalid or "irrelevant" external of any logical
reason for such a proclamation, then i too hereby proclaim any and all
"reasons" that you may offer up, that i don?t like, as irrelevant to this
discussion? .....How can you claim my "reasons" don?t support
geocentrism if you don?t apply or consider the "logic" they are framed in as a
"reason" or not? If you do agree we must consider the "reasoning"/ logic, then
what in the world are you protesting? You asked for my reasons, not yours! I
gave you "my 5 reasons". You can't demonstrate how they are irrelevant
"reasons" .
Finally: Here let me word it this way for you .......this is
exactly....Philip: 2. Why is evidence (reasons) that claims doubt on "alleged
facts" proving
the earth moves not acceptable as a "potential fact" (reasons) in support of
the case that it doesn't.'' ( the earth does not move)....."After all if we
claim the earth cannot be proved to move, that fact must support the case for
it being still
Regner: I have actually never said that, and I would very much encourage that
kind of arguments.
Reason #1 (restated to "support Geocentrism" ;-)......... there are only two
basic possibilities, there is no valid logic path that can a demonstrate the
a-centric position...( this is the "reason" i dont accept it)
2. All attempts to prove motion have come up short & or non existent......( I
will defer further comment on this to Robert Sungenis? posting since he has
already addressed this very point as his point #1, in much more detail)
3. All observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double galaxies show
concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth ......
4. .....The relative motion of the stars nightly produce an observable
pattern ( nightly star trails)....However, annually around the north
secondary Northern annual axis of rotation there is no observable pattern
that can or has ever been demonstrated to coincided with that supposed
motion....(I will defer this point to Nevile & Steven Jones as they make this
point in their/his post as well)
Reason #5 (restated to "support Geocentrism" ;-)..........there are only two
basic possibilities and the only valid logical path can and will demonstrate a
geocentric position...( this is the "reason" i do accept it)
............................................................................................
Other related posts:
