Re: geocentrism and geology

GRMorton@aol.com
Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:01:53 -0400

Jim Blake wrote:
>>Agreed. It took thousands of years of scientific endeavor to dump it.
However, it is presently decisively refuted. Period. You only need one good
counter-example to refute a theory. Light gyroscopes provide such a
counter-example.<<

and

>>I hope Christians can get off this issue. Unfortunately, the geocentrist
fringe in the science realm reaches a bit into the Christian rank and file
We, who live in university and professional communities probably only rarely
see it, but it is there.<<

The problem is that their theology almost requires a geocentrist position.
The facts of light gyroscopes and stellar parallax notwithstanding. Thus
these observational data points will not be likely to move them. They will
say it is misinterpreted data or that the scientists are forced to advocate
such heliocentric views in order to advance their careers.

I am terribly saddened by the course Christianity has taken in many areas
were we are forced to choose between a theological view and what we can
observe.

Jim, multiply your frustration by a thousand fold and you will come close to
what I feel when I see hundreds of simple geological facts and observations
totally ignored by the advocates of the widespread view of the flood. As I
have said before, I have not encountered a one single geological fact
advanced by the YEC's, differing from standard geology, which turned out to
be true. And neither have the guys, going into the oil industry, who
graduated from ICR's affiliated school, Christian Heritage College.

My views may be different, but they do not violate observational data.

glenn
16075 Longvista Dr.
Dallas, Texas 75248