[geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:01:50 +1000
No, I mean the opposite.. Geocentrism is shaky..
the helio postion is NOT based on a presumption that the world moves..
We based our belief on a rotating world upon sound rational science that the
following is observed.
planets all orbit the sun..
Physics as proven in a laboratory, requires that lighter bodies must orbit a
larger more massive body. Observed and proven.
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.
We hold to our unique position of a stationary world on no obviously observable
phenomena or law of science. We hold to that position purely based upon the
word of God.
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 was just basic observation, Roberts Bennett and Sungenis 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, something new and prove it,
NOT , I repeat not seek to destroy them..
Philip.
----- 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 <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
Get it now.
__________________________________________________
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: 269.15.3/1081 - Release Date:
19/10/2007 5:41 PM
__________________________________________________
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
Other related posts:
