[GourmetDan]

Again, you misrepresent me. The evidence is all the same, as I have pointed out now for the third time.

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416, (Quoted in Spring, 02 BA, p.64.)

My position should be clear enough that even you can understand. There is no difference with any physical significance. It is interesting to watch you continue to misrepresent my position, since after saying it twice before, you still demand a 'physically significant' difference.

You are the one who claimed in post 643 that geocentrism "defies all scientific evidence",so the onus for providing "all scientific evidence" rests on you, not on me. My claim is that there is no physical difference between a heliocentric model and a geocentric one and you have provided none.

A difference of 'relative motion only' has 'no physical difference'. I'm sure that didn't get through again, but perhaps someone other than you can understand that.

All you can do is continue to misrepresent my (and Hoyle's) position, probably because you have no other argument. But I understand why. You have been taught *what* to think, not *how* to think.

[ml1954]

IOW, you have no evidence that the earth is the center of the universe.

[ml1954]

Again, you misrepresent me...It is interesting to watch you continue to misrepresent my position...All you can do is continue to misrepresent my (and Hoyle's) position...

Here's your position, in your own words.

GourmetDan: I believe that God created the universe and life ~ 6,000 yrs ago and that the universe is geocentric.

[freedumb2003]

But I understand why. You have been taught *what* to think, not *how* to think.

I love that. The ultimate egotism when there is no argument or facts.