[geocentrism] Re: Leonardo and Richard

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 06:05:15 -0800

Dear Jack,

I am part-way through Wilder-Smith's book (you were completely right about his style!), but I haven't listened to the Oxford Union debate yet because I have been trying to allocate enough time that I can hear it all the way through.

Have watched a couple of Dawkins videos on YouTube.

Neville.


-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:31:45 +0100
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Leonardo and Richard

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?
 
Jack
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 12:09 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Leonardo and Richard

Paul,

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.

Neville.


-----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.
 
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
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.
Prevent accessing dangerous websites - Protect your computer with Free Web Security Guard!
More information at www.inbox.com/wsg

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2007