[geocentrism] Re: Leonardo and Richard

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:31:45 +0100

Dear Neville,
That's a nice idea about R.D. but I reckon hell will have to freeze over first. 
In any kind of public debate or forum he would be decimated. Have you listened 
to the Oxford debate CD and read Wilder-Smith's book yet?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Neville Jones 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:09 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Leonardo and Richard


  At the risk of starting another pointless "discussion" with you, what points 
were you trying to make in asking about The Da Vinci Code and Richard Dawkins? 
Philip seems to have gotten your drift, but I am completely at a loss.

  Would you like to invite Richard Dawkins onto this forum? By all means do so 
(Jack will supply you with his e-mail address). We would all benefit I'm sure 
from his enlightened input on the matter.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:05:12 +0100
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

    I have swapped many an e-mail with Dawkins and he is the thickest person 
I've ever had to discuss evolution with. 

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Paul Deema 
      To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 4:43 PM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

      Jack L
      From Jack Lewis Mon Sep  3 10:08:53 2007
           No I haven't read it, its not the kind of book that interests me.
      Would it surprise you to learn that it doesn't interest me either? (It's 
a conspiracy you know!)
      How about anything by Richard Dawkins?
      From Jack Lewis Mon Sep  3 10:13:00 2007
          Thank you for the correction to my assertion about Armstrong, however 
there is still much evidence to refute the moon landings.
      Jack it wasn't a very good reference and it was the only reference I've 
found, though I did stop on the second Google page once it was found. Yes there 
is other 'evidence' to refute ... but it is pretty much all just as easily 
disposed of. The reason it isn't disposed of to your satisfaction is that those 
in a position to authoritatively do so have learned that there is a section of 
the population which never runs out of suspicion, doubt and distrust and will 
never accept the plain unvarnished truth so long as it doesn't support their 
chosen view. They have other things to do. No one I know understands why I 
spend such an enormous fraction of my disposable time in the role of 
'disposer', I don't know myself. I think it is because I can't walk past 
confused people without wishing to help.
      Paul D

      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get 
it now. 

Other related posts: