There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"

but do seeds fall to this flat earth fall to the sun on purpose or do seeds fall to a moving Earth (to Sun? Moon? Asteriod? Earth? etc??) By projecting the Copernican question to matter from mind Freud is removed from history. Wa LA. (since earth falls to sun seeds can fall to sun by falling under gravity provided they are adapted to do this.)

With respect to biology becuase one can not scientifically be certain whether the data extracted is a geometry or a geography only in the given topography during dussions of taxa independce as in TOFF query about rabbits etc not released in Australaisa etc etc the Earth or FARADAY's CONCEPT of Earth(with magnetic lines raditating) must be held constant as if in an experiment when examining the correlation vaiables. That there is some rotation or some revolution into morphogeny is not at issue for the morphometrician but as to how to express if a seed is more adapted to fall to the sun or this earth (which is not statistically thes sum of earth elements (but has some order infintily larger than the simple w of the table arragned by weight) is an open question and should not be put in the creation evolution DEBATE unless each side is willing to come up with a Statemtn that answers the question rather than as Shumer and company extc did for interest legally in the Bill Clinton in re: case.The question as to orbit vs trajectory is clearly defined in Newtonina Science and extends the Galelio problem to projetible Objective psychological objects (must have an empriical psychology from which to link and other correlation involved).

The sound of this is suspicious but interesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
Originally posted by gene90:
RC,

​

Both the Sun and the Moon appear to rise out of the ground in the east, cross the sky, and return to the ground in the west. That is why they mentioned both the Sun and the Moon staying still. Also remember that the passage refers to both bodies moving, not the Earth. You completely missed the point I was making. Sorry for not explaining it clear enough. But here goes, I'll try again.

​

Basically, if the earth was the center of the universe than both the sun and the moon would rotate seperately around the earth (the center). Right?

---

I am finally happy to see my question that was avered on True Seeker's and anoying dimensionally to the Campfire Chat appear here. Thanks to all the work that went into this board!!!This is the whole question I have been trying to address as to if the answer implies a continuum or discontinumm. I will assume the reader will be smart enough to go from this moon that is not the one on NBC.If one goes so far as to believe in Panspermia then one can imagine that the center refered to quoted in bold above is actually inertia by mendelian mechancis moved AROUND by life. And because Crick made such a inference possible that is beyond my scietific prudence but not fancied imagination I have attempted time and time again tried to impress that this force that he may have done good molecualar work on can not be brought out in macroscopic discussions this way. That is my scientific opinion. But again people have failed to see my siding with Kant over Humer for some mental as opposed to philosophical rejection of the point. I am sorry to all those confused who occasionally saw something of interests in my posts.This point must be made if Croizat is to retain the actual place he already retained but the elites and even Gould's very work is in question here. I go no farther to remain threaded more narrowly to the center of the earth.
[b] [QUOTE] However, they didn't just say the sun stood still, the moon stopped at the same time. Which leads me to believe that the sun and the moon didn't stop, but the other way around, the earth stoppped. Or better still, slowed down to half of its pace to turn one day into two days. Get what I mean?What your claiming doesn't fit with what's written (or from what I can understand). If this is just a myth like I'm sure your supposing. Than why the heck did they say the moon stopped too? [/b][/QUOTE]

Doc,Why did you say that I need only rework the TWO papers of Newton, one a letter on unisons and the other on a certain spirit to respond.I had thought that by trying to let another poster know immediately the better to faciiliate a chagned response but my net expeierence showed not otherwise but that the two-sided ness to creation/evolution discussion no one seems willing to ameliorate. I said this for a specifi rendering that is ongoing this week in Croizat methodlogy but not many pursue panbiogeography and Grehan has rejected my English not my existence as the people at Cornell did. Sorry to see you feel this way about what Croiat wrote approvingly of Schmidt the herpetologist. But that said nothing of either creation or evolution but of the speciality you may not be as familiar with as I am. Thanks just the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. And THAT is what I was talking about. Get it?

​

My apologies if you are dyslexic. But come on! Can YOU understand what you have written?

---

Yes, my friend and thanks again for responding. I am not a machine and in every post if I am not that dysleic I try to leave myself an out should one re-calling me wish to re-engage but in this case I have the time to respond since you think that I will not understand what I myself wrote. If you ask anyone who has had any series of volleys with me over the net you will see that aside from some presumption on one or the other poster the communication indeed has gone to exhaustion.I have not the space or money given me to spend the day first researching your query so as to give you an even longer response which no doubt searching would permit. So you can branch off in your claim of "unitelligibility" prior, which though an observation of yours about my typing skills , granted, was false when extending the physical psychologically to the mental that I do not presume in this post.As to Newton, it had always struck me about the X nerve relation he noted in the Opticks relative to brain anantomy and when one compares the two letters (not WORDS) of Newton (one in Conant's review of the PRINCIPIA) and the other to a friend it is clear now to me how to understand the hints of "entropy" in Newton's work WITHOUT having to heed philosophically Kant's cateogorization which would be needed in any creation/evolution asethitic which the emoticoms fill in this transmission medium. Please do not post from igonorance. I know that people generally do not understand me. That is just about a given by now. That does not mean that I might (am) rather more correct than is generally percieved, but I leave that for you or Sumac or the system adminstrator of Taxacom to judge for or against natural selection NOT ME!!!Newton did not want to convice or other word I forget his corresponder and I do too. You problem is clearly with my understanding of nervous system anantomy and I must say that founder or no the filtering in the periferal nervous system is not the outside circumference of any radius contained in orbit but not necessarily in trajectory. But such a sentence is just not good enough for you?? That is scientific inference that is not inductive for you. It may be for someone else. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel but it often should not appear the same. Now that sentence is closer to ungraspable. You choose which to invert.When you look sideways at a lizard is not the same way as looking a turtle head on. Newton explained this with reference to the structure of the nerves. This is learnable. I did. I had thought prior you were interested in deriving the total system once again from Wright correction of a Fisher totality. So unless the claim of dyslexia was only an attempt to not raise my suspicion then I and not you was very wrong about the continuance of a thread between us.

And I thank you all for trying>. It will be a new day when "evolutionists" understand (and I take it Simon Levin would be considered in the number) that there is different understanding of Sewall Wright than the one Will Provine had built his transition from a historian to a biologist on.The difficulty arises, if I am right, then, that this means a change in the way biology is done in the UK and not even Will is trying for this goal, except possibly in his narrowing influence through "neutral" evolution. Here math enters before some sentence of Will about selection. The proper use of words is all that is at issue for Will really, but the biologist anywhere is concerned more with details than with appearing in form for peers. I came to Cornell with a KNOWLEDGE of the evoked response of frogs but this knowledge was never invloved in rejecting me or my writings so I am very confident that while I had tried to do "molecular" things rather than staying with the known herpetology these "elites" as I found out researching in the library were simply not good readers but good distributors of their own teachings. As it offen happened, I would bring information in the library to their "collective" attention that they would say , No , I never heard of that but if it was true I would have.Well know my maturity has outgrown those simple demonstrations and I am able to do the same from within the the very writings they refer rather than having to use some out side science (which in this boards more narrow case I use creationism). Look sex dimorphim is not why fish look different possibly by frequency filter seleciton but frequencey filters whether selected or not is how it is that fish appear differentiated to the investigator. This is the base of something to know BEFORE discussing with the lights of a Provine or a Levin. They can not deny the fact only the interpretation which if known is no reason to bother to communicate any way.Again thanks for the trial.