[geocentrism] Re: The Christain Bible AND True Science AND Logic Declare: The Earth is NOT Moving!!
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 13:55:04 +0000 (GMT)
Bernie B
Polite? Yes!
Respectful? Yes!
Accurate? Yes!
Articulate? Yes!
Spelling? Not perfect but better than some.
Grammar and punctuation? Good!
Integrity? Yes!
Motivation? Amazing!
What more could you ask?
btw -- do you have a hits and misses breakdown of your jihad?
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 5 April, 2008 6:34:22 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The Christain Bible AND True Science AND Logic
Declare: The Earth is NOT Moving!!
Forwarded to geocentrismforum by Bernie
Edward wrote:
Hi Bernie,
I rec'd an email from you advocating geocentrism, and how much better off human
society would be if everyone agreed that the cosmos circles the earth daily (by
the power of God). Personally, I think we're all a long way from Eden and even
in a world of geocentrists, people would find plenty to disagree about.
I am not anxious to become a geocentrist if only because it involves a lot of
"explanations" that don't ring true. The speed of every planet, star, and
galaxy lying further away than Saturn has to be faster than the speed of light
in order for the cosmos to be revolving around the earth daily, many many times
faster-than-light in the case of the furthers galaxies that astronomers so far
have detected.
A similar question arises if you are a young-earth creationist because any
object in space lying more than 6,000 or so light-years away is not giving off
light created by that object but just light created "in transit." Such light is
FAKE HISTORY, and not showing us the objects as they once were, nor showing us
what really happened in the past out there in space. It's all FAKE HISTORY
beyond 6,000 light-years away.
And if the cosmos is young and does not need to last longer than the time
humanity has left on earth, then why were stars created to burn via a fussion
reaction that makes them last for billions of years? The lifetime of the
average star is billions of years. *(See at the end of this email the
admissions by young-earth creationist astronomers concerning this question,
and concerning the evidence that exists in favor of stellar evolution.)
And if God "made" the sun, moon, and stars and "set them in the firmament above
the earth" on the "fourth day" of creation "to light the earth and for signs
and seasons on earth," then why are the vast majority of stars invisible to
human beings? The average human, like the ancients, can see only about 6-7
thousand stars in the sky on a cloudless night in the desert, all stars just
from our single galaxy, the Milky Way. There's over a hundred billion other
galaxies out there that we didn't even know about until the first nearby
galaxies were spotted at the beginning of the 1900s with superior-made
telescopes. So the vast majority of the cosmos does NOT appear to have been
made and set in the firmament to "light the earth" nor for "signs and seasons"
on earth. The vast majority of the cosmos, even it's object that give off
light, were invisible to human beings until the 1900s.
Same goes for the moons that astronomers discovered circling nearby planets
only after the invention of the telescope. The Bible only mentions God
creating "two great lights [literal Hebrew word is "lamps"] only two of them.
One lamp was the sun, the other was the moon. And they were created "for signs
and seasons on earth" and to "rule the day and the night." However even our
moon abdicates it's "rule of the night" for a few nights each month when it
goes completely dark. And even worse, astronomers with telescopes discovered
planets in our system with far more moons ["great lamps"] than we have, yet
there is no evidence that any human-like ceatures live on those planets, so why
create so many moons to "rule the night" and "for signs and seasons" on those
other planets? And the number of telescopically discovered stars is now in the
trillions which makes one wonder why the Biblical authors didn't mention that
our sun was like unto countless
"great lamps" in the sky, instead of writing, "He created TWO great lamps, the
sun and the moon...and the stars also." With the Bible never demonstrating any
knowldge that there are trillions of "great lamps" out there, each built to
last for billions of years, and not unlike our own.
Also, there's more evidence astronomically speaking than I can even share with
you concerning the fact that new stars are forming and have been discovered in
various stages of formation in thick interstellar dust clouds/nebulae. We've
even seen some of them bloom forth, like Fu Orionus. Astronomers have also
measured the speed of inwardly collapsing gases in such clouds and the rise of
temperatures inside the area toward which the dust is collapsing. Yet the
biblical authors placed the creation of the sun, moon, "and the stars also," on
"fourth day" of the Genesis story. Yet God is creating stars still.
We also have increasing evidence of nearby "solar" systems that feature a star
with one or more visible/detectible planets. Such stars also feature rings of
matter that can be seen slowly revolving around the star. Such nearby systems
look very much like the one we live in, with a central star and a ring of
matter and planets revolving around the central star.
Also, our galaxy, the Milky Way, looks very much like other spiral-shaped
galaxies, over a hundred billion of them, with all the stars of each galaxy
revolving around the center of that galaxy.
To be a geocentrist in this day and age is to have to face lots of questions
like the ones I mentioned concerning planets and galaxies travelling
multiple-times the speed-of-light if they lay anywhere further out in space
than Saturn does; and fake history for all objects lying beyond 6,000
light-years away; and stars being built to last for billions of years; and new
stars continuing to arise from dust clouds; and plenty of planets out there
circling nearby stars (with the planets near us in our own system having plenty
of extra moons circling them); and the questions concerning why so many stars
are invisible when it comes to lighting the earth or for signs and seasons on
earth; and the way we can see rings of matter and planets circling nearby
stars, and also see all the stars in each galaxy circling each galaxy's center.
In place of all this you and Bouw give us "geocentrism" in which literally
every object circles the earth? And you even claim that
converting people to geocentrism will solve the world's inter-religious
differences and geo-political and economic problems as well, which I doubt.
One Evangelical Christian and man of science, George Cooper, who contributes to
the Evangelical Christian listserv run by "The American Scientific Affiliation"
recently had this to say about Geocentrism:
"There is a better argument against Geocentrism. Astronomers can measure the
angular movement of the Earth relative to distant quasars to an accuracy of
about 20 milliarcseconds, IIRC. There is a continuous program that monitors the
Earth's minute changes to its rotation rate: IRES:
http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=163-253
So the so-called 'immovable' Earth is constantly moving by twisting back and
forth due to primarily air mass current changes. The 2004 tsunami produced a
change that was measurable by IRES, too.
"Though lengthy, there is a thread debunking the Galileo Was Wrong supporters
at bautforum.com":
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/47291-galileo-wrong.html
________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Other related posts:
