[geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:09:00 +0100
Dear Bernie,
Have you left out your input here??
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 7:59 PM
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:
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
Other related posts:
