[geocentrism] Re: Response to Geocentric 2-pager

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:20:07 -0000

Dear Bernie,
The next time you send one of your e-mails to an MS scientist, why not send him 
the various arguments against heliocentrism just as we are doing with Regner. 
You may get a more positive response.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bernie Brauer 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:53 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Response to Geocentric 2-pager

  Qd wrote:
  Hello Bernie,

  I am sorry that you are so badly misinformed
  and misguided and lacking of understanding of science.

  1. The logic and preponderance of scientific evidence in support of a moving
  Earth is SO enormous that to believe otherwise is simply to lack knowledge
  or understanding of that evidence.  I am sorry, but to believe the Earth is
  not moving is about as ridiculous as believing the Earth is flat.  Of course,
  there is also a "Flat Earth Society," isn't there?  I guess some people will
  never understand experimentation within the framework of the scientific 

  2. Simple experiment you can do at home to demonstrate that the Earth rotates:
     i) Drain bathtub (or sink, or any basin of water with a relatively flat
    ii) Observe that the water eventually circulates in a counter-clockwise
  direction in the northern hemisphere, and in a clockwise direction in the
  southern hemisphere.  In fact the propensity for this circulatory flow
  gets greater as you get closer to the Earth's poles.
     Explanation: the Earth rotates.
     This little demonstration is not a proof, but it is certainly compelling
  evidence that you can see everyday.
     More sophisticated demonstration of the same principle: a Focault pendulum.
  If the Earth didn't rotate, you could tell with this pendulum.  Such pendulums
  all over the world show unambiguously that the Earth does rotate.  In fact
  they can measure the rate of rotation.  Guess what rate they all show?
  You don't need comparisons with celestial objects to show that the Earth is

  3. Your email stated, "The Bible says The Earth is NOT Moving and cannot
  be moved. What'll it be folks? False science as the source of absolute
  truth... or God's Word?"
     Point number 1: The vast preponderance of scientific evidence in support of
  a moving Earth is not false.
     Point number 2: Let's assume that God exists.  On what basis do you
  accept so unquestionably that the bible is God's word?  Who says it is??
  Your parents?  Your priest?  Just because you've been taught by your priest
  and your parents (perhaps) that the bible is God's word, and just because
  you believe it is, does that make such a claim an "absolute truth"?  To me,
  it doesn't.  No offense, but the body of scientific evidence in support
  of a moving earth is far more convincing to me than the argument that the
  bible is the word of God just because some people believe it is.  How about
  this hypothesis: the bible does not contain the word of God, but rather
  contains the word of men.  I challenge you to prove that hypothesis wrong.
  (From my perspective, that hypothesis would explain an awful lot.)

  Be well (and, I hope, better informed...).
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

Other related posts: