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