[geocentrism] Re: geocentrism
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:30:24 +1000
Cut the hate filled name calling Bernie!!!!!
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:13 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: geocentrism
Me ( Bernie ) in red
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bernie,
Two things regarding Phillip's conclusion:
a) The planets go around the sun in the geocentrism model, so there is no
conflict there. Even the Brahe Model had this worked out over 400 years ago.
b) The heliocentricity model is one of the five essentials of the Big
Bang Evolutionary Paradigm.
No.
Big bang says nothing about a dinky little Solar System, whether it is ours
or not.
The material in the "Solar System" would've had to have come from
the Big Bang material or matter.
Big bang says nothing about life anywhere in the Universe
The material or matter of the Big Bang would've had to organise itself
to become animated.
, and less so about the
evolution of life on a dinky little blue planet that we misnamed Earth (It
ought to
be water
If you include the guts of the Earth, then there is probably more earth
than water.
...).
Bernie - tell me: Does the calculation of tides here on Earth (I hope you
agree that
we are able to perform such calculations) say anything about the fish
caught up in
that tide?
I'm afraid you have to disagree with each of these scientific theories -
not believing
in a particular one of them does not imply that you think God did a genesis
6000 years ago.
Sounds better than a "Nothing" did a "Big Bang" 16 Billion Light Years ago.
What a joke.
"So I told the sucker, all the universe started with a
"Big Bang" from nothing and by Mr. Nothing. Then the
stuff inside the big bang organised itself to become
humans and birds and water and a sun."
"What a sucker, what an imbes-sal, what a gulli-bull, what an ultra-maroon,
what a nin-cow poop, what an ignoranimous!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not read the rest of your post.
- Regner
All of those essentials form an "alternate creation scenario" promoted by
anti-Christ, anti-Bible Pharisaic Kabbalists. If one concludes that geocentrism
is "unique" science based "solely on a supernatural/theological position" then
what can one conclude about the "unique" science based "solely on a
supernatural/theological position" of another religion which contradicts the
Bible on every major doctrine (and,
of course, hates Jesus and has Him boiling in crap in hell)? Instead of
starting with the geo/helio controversy--the truth of which is indispensable to
both theological positions--perhaps we should start with the the Religions and
their Holy Books and the God/g'd which is behind these theological positions.
When that is done--usisng only facts and excluding
assumptions based upon other assumptions...along with the willfully
deceptive "secular" science claim...and certifiably fraudulent use of virtual
reality technology--one is faced squarely with which religion and which God/g'd
one trusts. And, oh yes, it is useful to note the admitted
theological position of the Pharisee Kabbalists
is that Satan is their g'd.
The heliocentricity keystone of the Kabbalilst Kosmos is pure illusion in
defiance of all observational evidence; e.g.:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_andStructure%20Part%20IV.htm Is this
"science" ?
http://www.fixedearth.com/Virtual%20Reality%20Fraud.htm
Marshall
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Geocentrism as a science.
I know you all have noted my often presented defense of main stream
science, not that I want to debunk geocentrism, but to be just plain fair.
Perhaps it needs to be said outright...
I have just spent several minutes looking at the side by side
animations (GWW.) of the daily orbits of the solar system from both the
geocentric and heliocentric perspective.
It cannot be denied when considering all the natural motions of the
planets around the central sun, as shown in both systems, that to claim an
unmoving and central earth is very very unique, and goes against the natural
order presented by the rest of the cosmos. Indeed against our own experimental
evidence in earth bound laboratories.
Its unfair to say otherwise.. Its going to require unique science to
prove our claim, which we base solely on a supernatural/theological position.
Philip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: 16/03/2008
10:34 AM
Other related posts:
