[GourmetDan]

"The men you mention say either is workable as a coordinate system, either is equally valid. None of them say that geocentricism is MORE valid."

Perhaps we have identified your mistake.

I never said that geocentrism was MORE valid. As you, Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis note, it is EQUALLY valid. Geocentrism is EQUAL to 'geokineticism'. EQUAL.

As I noted in my previous post, I have no reason to accept the pronouncements of men over the Word of God in this area and choose not to. You choose the opposite. That's fine w/ me.

[allmendream]

What part of the Word of God necessitates a Geocentric universe? Once again you have failed to provide substantiation.

[allmendream]

“I never said that geocentrism was MORE valid. As you, Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis note, it is EQUALLY valid (as a coordinate system). Geocentrism is EQUAL to ‘geokineticism’. EQUAL.” GDan (parenthetical comment my own)

Is this another departure from your previous stance? You used to go on about how “limited” Heliocentrists didn't account for the gravity of the entire galaxy and the outer planets but that the superior (and you think Biblical for some reason as yet unexplained) Geocentric model was not limited by this ‘blindness’.

Do I have to find all your previous posts extolling the virtue of Geocentricism to show that this is a new stance, or will you admit to it?