[geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Me ( Bernie ) in green.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Bernie,
It would be uncharitable, perhaps unkind for me to make any sequential
comments regarding the assertions made in response to my post by Marshall Hall
below.
I was not debating the truth of heliocentrism as a denial of Geocentrism. I
do not deny the truth of the Bible, or that the church has declared the truth
of the Geocentric system. Saying something, even the Bible saying it, is a
statement. It is not scientific evidence that can be used as proof. We must
argue with rational purely scientific evidence.
Anyone who states this as evidence,
We know we see the sun, moon, and stars go around the Earth daily ... is
speaking with the simplicity of a child
Luke 18:16-17
16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, ?Let the children come to me, and do
not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to
you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter
it.?
"If we don't receive the kingdom like a child, we don't get the kingdom!
There is a right way to receive the kingdom that gives us access and a wrong
way that shuts us out. The consequences are dire, and we must understand what
receiving the kingdom like a child means."
who has never experienced the illusion caused by two trains side by side in a
railway station when one begins to move.
What we see is the sun traversing the sky. We do not see it circling the
Earth. The Earth from what we see, might as well be flat.
You're shifting the argument from sun or Earth movement to
shape of Earth.
Marshall is denying a basic observational experience, that when we are on a
ship at sea, we cannot SEE whether it is the ship that is moving, or the water
that is moving with a tidal current.
A moving ship would have a wake that you could see.
I cannot debate physical phenomena with a person so severely limited in
perception.
"I will not debate physical phenomena with a person who shaves with
Occam's razor":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution
tends to be the right one," or alternately, "we should not assert that for
which we do not have some proof." In other words, when multiple competing
theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the
theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest
entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
Marshall Hall wrote: In Red...
philip madsen wrote:
No, I mean the opposite.. Geocentrism is shaky..
the helio postion is NOT based on a presumption that the world moves..
Not the issue. The issue is that the modern cosmological model of billions
of years of evolution rests on acceptance of the heliocentric model which is a
contrived mathematical construct that denies the unvarying observational
evidence of the sun, moon, and stars going around the earth 24/7. Why must "a
rational person" throw out that overwhelmingly solid evidence in favor of
hypotheses drawn from ephemeral "laws" which declare that solid evidence
untrue?
We based our belief on a rotating world upon sound rational science that the
following is observed. planets all orbit the sun.. They do in Tycho Brahe's
geocentric model.
Physics as proven in a laboratory, requires that lighter bodies must orbit a
larger more massive body. Observed and proven. Observed; not proven. In a NASA
lecture on TV the scientists said in so many words: "If I had a glove big
enough and heat resistant enough, I could stick my hand right through the sun."
Science doesn't know that the sun is a thermonuclear entitity. It doesn't
know that stars are suns. It does know that there has never been a resolution
of any star; hence everything about them is unproven hypothesis. Its distance
measuring techniques (26 of them) are models of lies and fraud. Textbook
cosmology is a virtual reality video game:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Virtual%20Reality%20Fraud.htm
http://www.fixedearth/com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20VI.htm
That the earth is not heavier than the sun is proved and observed..
The rational observer must conclude the sun cannot orbit the earth, but
follow the same laws that mars or venus does.
That the earth is the stationary centre of the universe and holding on to an
orbiting sun, is irrational and contrary to already well proved mechanical
laws. Most of which "laws" are tied to wholly hypothetical gravitational
metaphysics now under heavy attack by physicists and electrical engineers, etc.
http://www.fixedearth.com/electric.html
We hold to our unique position of a stationary world on no obviously
observable phenomena or law of science. Ridiculous. Depends upon one's
definition of "science" (scire: to know). We know we see the sun, moon, and
stars go around the earth daily and we know all of the rest of the known
phenomena works with a geocentrism model. We hold to that position purely based
upon the word of God. We hold to that position because we see it confirmed with
our own eyes. We claim we believe in hundreds of miracles in the Bible that
"science" denies out of hand. Why do we make that claim and simultaneously
reject the geocentric order of the universe for which we have had hard visual
evidence every hour of every day throughout all history and which Scripture
teaches repeatedly? http://www.fixedearth.com/sixty-seven%20references.htm
Such is contrary to science as currently known, observed and well proven. We
have a most difficult task to prove our case using science, and not basing it
upon our presumption that the Word of God cannot err. If it's the Word of God
then it cannot err lest God err. If He errs on this most plainly seen of all
cosmological miracles, geocentrism, then who can blame anyone for counting
Genesis creation, the virgin birth, resurrection, heaven, and all other
miracles that no one today has seen, as being errors? Rejecting Biblical
geocentrism destroys Bible credibility. That's why modern history's defining
concept is called "The Copernican Revolution". That concept began placing a
"science falsely so called" Idol before the world to rob God and His Word of
the basis of all knowledge, i.e., the truth about the origin of all that is.
Copernican "science" torpedoed Bible credibility amidships and paved the way
for Darwinian "science" and Einsteinian "science" and on through
Saganian "science" and Wickramasingheian "science" until now the False Science
Idol (straight out of the Kabbala, not the Bible!) stands on the brink of hate
crimeing the Bible and Jesus out of business. I don't believe God is going to
stand for it because He has said repeatedly not to change the Book That Book,
as we know, says God cnnot lie and all that contradicts His inspired truths
given to mankind is deception from Satan. Of course we can deny that too if we
choose to. But it is a choice that is duly noted according to the same Book as
you know, I'm sure (John 12:48; etc.).
If it was just basic observation, Roberts Bennett and Sungenis Catholic
scholars long ago (1546-1563) declared that contradictions between the Bible
and the Church were to be resolved by following the church. would have no need
for such a comprehensive book as GWW.
To confirm our point we must add to those established scientific laws, as
ennunciated by Paul Does Paul denounce Biblical geocentrism? I missed that.,
something new and prove it,
NOT , I repeat not seek to destroy them..
Philip. Philip: We both could go a lot further with our separate themes here.
For my part, it is enough to know that: a) Modern Big Bang Evolutionary
Paradigm cosmology--with its 15 billion light year thick and 15 billion year
old universe--rests squarely on the continued maintenance of heliocentricity
and denial of Bible geocentrism; b) Every single concept of that helo paradigm
is found in another "holy book" (Zohar/Kabbala) of the Christ-hating Pharisee
Religion. c) We cannot serve two masters.
Marshall
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 7:27 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
Phil,
You mean, "the helio position is the most shaky......?????
Bernie
philip madsen wrote:
Bernie Marshall said,
Does Regner not know that the Geocentrism model--which just happens to be the
Biblical Model--answers all known phenomena without resorting to the
observation-etc..
But this is just as much a presumption, scientifically, it is an unproven
assumption that the Bible is stating the truth.
Both sides of this debated rest on a base presumption. But the geocentrist
position is the most shaky, having no consistency in the rational scientific
approach to what is observed, scientifically..
Such an argument as Marshall presents, cannot stand in physics, as physics is
currently observed.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:28 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Is geocentrism supported by facts?
Bernie,
I scrolled through the listings on the link...on down to Regner's
commentaries.
Everything he says is based on one foundational belief, viz., the ASSUMPTION
that the Earth is rotating on an axis. He cannot prove that ASSUMPTION. He can
build a layer of other assumptions on it all the way to the Big Bang Paradigm
and call it proof--which is what modern cosmology has done--but that proves
nothing. Does Regner not know that the Geocentrism model--which just happens
to be the Biblical Model--answers all known phenomena without resorting to the
observation-denying assumptions that are indispensable to the
heliocentricity-dependent Big Bang Model, which just happens to be the Kabbalic
Model??
Ultimately--as far as a search for truth is concerned--this pivotal helio/geo
issue drives the proponents into a spiritual corner where they can only say: I
support the Biblical Geocentism model of the Christian Religion, or, I support
the Kabbalist heliocentricity model of the Pharisee religion. There is no
secular science involved in either model.
I understand that this demonstrable fact has barely seeped into the
mainstream of the knowledge tsunami on the Net, but fact it is nonetheless.
Regner and the whole heliocentricity-based theoretical science establishment
will--however traumatic it may be--have to face that spiritual imperative and
overtly align with one holy book and one religion or the other holy book and
the other religion before this is over.
Those two books and those two religions cover both models. Just as there are
two choices and two alone relevant to whether the Earth moves or not, there are
two choices of holy books and religions ( Koran: same Moses creation account
with no evolution ). And let it be underscored again: There is no secular
science involved in either model. That claim to be "secular science" is the
great deceptive label under which the theoretical science
establishment--wittingly or unwittingly has masqueraded, especially from
Copernicus to the present. Thus has this now demonstrable deception steadily
and surreptitiously guided the implantation of the 15 billion year Pharisee
evolutionary "alternative creation scenario" in the minds of modern mankind.
This fact has brought the Bible--and its Author--to the brink of mockery,
echoing Nietzsche: "God is dead. We have killed him with our science."
We shall soon see about that echo.
Marshall Hall www.fixedearth.com email: fefinc@xxxxxxxx
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DIV { MARGIN: 0px }
Regner T
Thank you for your kind words.
I appreciate that you do not have unlimited time at your disposal and it is
not my wish to burden you. I also note that you have managed to respond to all
posts on this subject (unless I missed one) suggesting a streak of thoroughness
to your character! However I did post to you on 2007 Oct 13 (prior to your
suggested framework for discussion) in a "Welcome to the forum" message in
which I drew your attention to a submission of mine to this forum which can be
found here ->
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/09-2007/msg00298.html. It
contains three propositions in excess of the five you requested but it does
bear on the matter at hand.
I mention this against the possibility that it may have escaped your
attention.
A side note -- I see from a post from Jack L that you appear to have an
association with Stromolo in Canberra. I was posted there in the early 1970s
and visited the observatory. That of course was before the disastrous fires of
a few years ago. Have you been there since? I'd like to think it has been
reinstated.
Paul D
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.3/1082 - Release Date: 20/10/2007
2:59 PM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
