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
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.