[geocentrism] Re: geocentrism

  • From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:17:05 +1100

Bernie Brauer wrote:
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.
Big bang says nothing about a dinky little Solar System, whether it is ours or not.
Big bang says nothing about life anywhere in the Universe, and less so about the
evolution of life on a dinky little blue planet that we misnamed Earth (It ought to
be 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. 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" ?

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.

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Other related posts: