Geocentrism (in all its repackagings) is false

[arunma]

I think the title more or less speaks for itself, but I shall elaborate anyway.

As many of you know, this issue has been bothering me for awhile now. After learning that our brother RichardT believes that the Sun orbits the earth, I learned that there is actually an entire movement within the church (hopefully a small one) whose purpose is to purport the doctrine of geocentrism as scientific fact. This theory has been relabelled as "geocentricity," in order to make it seem marginally more palletable to the general public, when in fact this doctrine is simply a modern restatement of an ancient, ignorant, superstitious, and outright false teaching from the dark ages.

I am greatly concerned that there are people out there who really believe that this teaching is true, and that it is scientifically defensible. Therefore, I ask anyone who believes in this doctrine to define geocentricity in clear and unequivocable terms. I would also like to hear a scientific defense of this belief. Specifically (for starters), I am very interested to know how geocentrists explain the fact that the heliocentric model accurately predicts the elliptical orbits of the planets of the Solar System. I would also like to know how geocentricity can be reconciled with the Newtonian theory of gravity (to say nothing of the Einsteinian theory, which predicts an expanding universe, and is justified by such phenomena as stellar redshift and gravitational lensing).

Finally, I would like to ask that any defenders of geocentricity not respond by throwing links or cut & pastes at me. This is an academic subject, and as such, I think that we should all present our own original thoughts in our posts, rather than the thoughts of others.

[DeaconDean]

hew- over my head.

But it will prove interesting to watch.

God Bless

Till all are one

[arunma]

A couple more questions for geocentrists. How does the geocentric model explain the observed magnetic bow shock and magnetotail that the earth makes with the solar wind? The heliocentric model is consistent with the magnetohydrodynamic equations. The geocentric model is not.

[arunma]

hew- over my head.

But it will prove interesting to watch.

God Bless

Till all are one

Actually Dean, I'm very happy to have you here. You are a fellow believer in the sacred and orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith, as taught in our holy Scriptures. The Scriptures are the inspired and infallible words of God, and they can never be broken. Geocentrism is a blatent lie no matter how it is repackaged, and therefore it cannot be consistent with the Scriptures. I would greatly appreciate if you would be available here to point out any errors in Biblical interpretation (on either side).

[DeaconDean]

Actually Dean, I'm very happy to have you here. You are a fellow believer in the sacred and orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith, as taught in our holy Scriptures. The Scriptures are the inspired and infallible words of God, and they can never be broken. Geocentrism is a blatent lie no matter how it is repackaged, and therefore it cannot be consistent with the Scriptures. I would greatly appreciate if you would be available here to point out any errors in Biblical interpretation (on either side).

Oh friend, I will keep an eye on this. I was just making fun of all the "isms" you used. I'm not one who is big in the physics field as you are, but I'm in 100% full agreement with you on this issue. I will be keeping an eye on this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

Here arumna, check this link out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

Here is another one for you:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism_review.asp

And friend, it would seem that from searching the net, geocentrism is mainly supported by Catholicism. Am I reading that correct?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[arunma]

Oh friend, I will keep an eye on this. I was just making fun of all the "isms" you used. I'm not one who is big in the physics field as you are, but I'm in 100% full agreement with you on this issue. I will be keeping an eye on this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Thank you Dean.

As for the "isms," I made the emphasis because modern geocentrists seem to reject the older doctrine of "geocentrism," favoring instead the idea of "geocentricity." Whereas the medieval Catholic Church believed that all of the heavenly bodies moved along so-called crystalline spheres, and revolved in epicycles around moving points on those spheres, modern geocentrists have reformulated their argument. But in the end, they are really saying the same thing: that the Sun orbits the earth, and that the earth does not move. No matter how you slice geocentrism, it remains a blatent lie. I am very concerned about children who grow up in the churches that teach these strange doctrines. What are they learning about science in school? In modern times, children need to have a proper understanding of science to know how and why the created world works. Besides that, the logical deductive processes that scientists use are also very helpful in approaching and interpreting Scripture. As you know, the postmodern movement rests on the assumption that truth is relative, and that personal beliefs create personal truths. Science stands against this notion, maintaining that truth does not depend on personal opinions. If people learn to distrust science, then they will also distrust absolute truth.

Knowing that a geocentrist movement exists, I believe that it absolutely must be revealed as a fraud and an adulteration of science. Given our modern scientific understanding, no one ought to live in such darkness in regards to the created world.

[DeaconDean]

Thank you Dean.

As for the "isms," I made the emphasis because modern geocentrists seem to reject the older doctrine of "geocentrism," favoring instead the idea of "geocentricity." Whereas the medieval Catholic Church believed that all of the heavenly bodies moved along so-called crystalline spheres, and revolved in epicycles around moving points on those spheres, modern geocentrists have reformulated their argument. But in the end, they are really saying the same thing: that the Sun orbits the earth, and that the earth does not move. No matter how you slice geocentrism, it remains a blatent lie. I am very concerned about children who grow up in the churches that teach these strange doctrines. What are they learning about science in school? In modern times, children need to have a proper understanding of science to know how and why the created world works. Besides that, the logical deductive processes that scientists use are also very helpful in approaching and interpreting Scripture. As you know, the postmodern movement rests on the assumption that truth is relative, and that personal beliefs create personal truths. Science stands against this notion, maintaining that truth does not depend on personal opinions. If people learn to distrust science, then they will also distrust absolute truth.

Knowing that a geocentrist movement exists, I believe that it absolutely must be revealed as a fraud and an adulteration of science. Given our modern scientific understanding, no one ought to live in such darkness in regards to the created world.
I'm in full agreement brother. "Geocentrism" is proving to be a very interesting study. I'll be looking into this. See there, your teaching and helping me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Phileoeklogos]

A couple more questions for geocentrists. How does the geocentric model explain the observed magnetic bow shock and magnetotail that the earth makes with the solar wind? The heliocentric model is consistent with the magnetohydrodynamic equations. The geocentric model is not.


Yeah! I'd like to hear'em explain all that too! Of course I don't know what any of that means, but I'd sure like to hear an answer .........................:P

[Matthan]

RichardT, as a (hopefully) trusted friend I hope you will trust me when I tell you the sun does not orbit around the earth. There are certain facts in science that are both proven and provable, and this certainly is one of them. The sun is definitely the central object in our particular solar system, and it has seven, eight, nine, ten (pick one and you will probably be correct to some degree) planets orbiting around it.

I would suggest that you reconsider your relationship to the source of this bogus information. If you place any spiritual trust in it, you are definitely in danger of the judgement. Anyone who would spew out this kind of drivel cannot be trusted with teaching anything to others. I do not care if this person is your father, pastor, or closest friend, do not listen to him regarding anything until he arrives at reality himself (I say "him" because I do not believe any woman could be this stupid on anything).

In Christ's Love,

Matthan

[God_of_Mercy]

Just wondering, where does such a absurd belief even come from?

[Matthan]

This sort of "primitive" thinking is a lot more prevalent than many would think. Does anyone remember reading about the Scopes "monkey" trial? Primitive thinking Christians were actually the ones put on trial in that case, but it was not completely fair because their more biblical spiritual beliefs were not given any weight by the "stacked" court. Therefore, the defendant (and all primitive Christians) was guilty before the trial even began.... But, then again, so was Jesus....

As a side note, I spent four of the greatest years of my life in Morgantown, WV (yes, at WVU). And, in my travels around that state, I met any number of people with "primitive" views on just about everything we might take for granted. It was quite an education within an education for me, let me tell you!

Matthan

[RichardT]

I don't like posting in a thread with so many misconceptions, ad hominem atacks and complete lack of understanding. I would have liked it if you could have at least looked it up and read a bit about our position.

For one, I am probably the only geocentrist on all of CF( I know for a fact that "Lion of God" is also a geocentrist, but he hasn't been on CF in a really long time and I doubt he's comming back.) And so I alone will have to clear up all of these misconceptions, unless of course I can link you to sites that explain what your concerns are, which is exacly what I'm going to do.

Here are some links that I strongly recommend you read before going further.

Answers to why geocentricity is consistant with the data : http://creationwiki.org/Pro-geocentricity

Scriptual support for geocentricity:
http://creationwiki.org/Bible_says_the_sun_goes_around_the_earth_%28response_2%29

Showing the errors of Danny Faulkner:
http://www.refcm.org/RICDiscussions/Science-Scripture/X%20Geocentricity/bouwfaulkner.htm

There are probably some more good links, but you guys should read these first. If you guys don't read them, then I will not continue in this discussion.

[RichardT]

Here is another one for you:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism_review.asp

And friend, it would seem that from searching the net, geocentrism is mainly supported by Catholicism. Am I reading that correct?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I would personnally stay away from marshall hall... I like the man as a brother in Christ, but his science is too out there...

[DeaconDean]

There are probably some more good links, but you guys should read these first. If you guys don't read them, then I will not continue in this discussion.

I did a google search on this subject and this was at the top of the list. I took the time last night to read the mans research, and in my opinion, it was right on. I disagree with your whole premise. And because I do:

If you guys don't read them, then I will not continue in this discussion.

Just as landmarkism is frowned on, this is frowned on also. And if I refuse to read your line of reasoning, then you'll "not continue in this discussion." I don't know much about this sort of thing, but my speciallty is scripture. And I see a lot of misconceptions and misinterpretation of scriptures in this "theory." That is where my expertise comes in. I'm sorry friend, but I must side with brother Arumna on this issue. I'll not offer any specific "scientific" evidence, I'll not side with "science" on this issue. I stand on the scriptures in this.

I will be keeping an eye on this thread.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[arunma]

I don't like posting in a thread with so many misconceptions, ad hominem atacks and complete lack of understanding. I would have liked it if you could have at least looked it up and read a bit about our position.

For one, I am probably the only geocentrist on all of CF( I know for a fact that "Lion of God" is also a geocentrist, but he hasn't been on CF in a really long time and I doubt he's comming back.) And so I alone will have to clear up all of these misconceptions, unless of course I can link you to sites that explain what your concerns are, which is exacly what I'm going to do.

Here are some links that I strongly recommend you read before going further.

Answers to why geocentricity is consistant with the data : http://creationwiki.org/Pro-geocentricity

Scriptual support for geocentricity:
http://creationwiki.org/Bible_says_the_sun_goes_around_the_earth_%28response_2%29

Showing the errors of Danny Faulkner:
http://www.refcm.org/RICDiscussions/Science-Scripture/X%20Geocentricity/bouwfaulkner.htm

There are probably some more good links, but you guys should read these first. If you guys don't read them, then I will not continue in this discussion.

Richard, I will not attempt to argue Scripture, because it is very difficult to argue against your church's arbitrary and selectively literal mode of interpreting Scripture. I can't argue with a church that says, "we're right, and we won't tell you why." But I read your CreationWiki article. I could contest every sentence in this article, so I will only address the first paragraph for the moment.

Foucault's pendulum only demonstrates there is a force moving the pendulum against the earth (http://creationwiki.org/Earth), but it can also be demonstrating the forces of a universe rotating round the earth.

If this is true, then this magic force to which the article alludes is moving everything against the earth. It is thus strange indeed that we don't see clouds swirling in the air in the absence of low-pressure systems.

With regards to the stars and the planetary movement, two assumptions are made by the heliocentrist: firstly, that the speed of light is constant in all of space

The speed of light is constant in all of space, and I can prove it mathematically. I've written up the proof in Microsoft Word, and posted the image here for you to see.

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=90476&d=1164087057

Notice that I assumed no reference frame, and found that the speed of light does not depend on any spatial or temporal coordinates. In other words: the speed of light is not constant in all reference frames.

I used the following initial assumptions:

Electric charges attract and repel each other as we have observed
Magnets work the way we have observedSo you can dispute my claims, but you'll be forced to stop believing that you get shocked by static electricity in the winter time, and you'll need to provide an alternate explanation as to how your refrigerator magnets work.

and secondly that the planets and stars have to move in excess of the accepted speed of light (http://creationwiki.org/Speed_of_light).

Sorry, but heliocentrists do not make this assumption. Because of special relativistic effects, objects can move away from one another and have a near light-speed velocity with respect to a common reference frame, and each object will still travel below the speed of light with respect to the other. The speed of moving objects is relative to the observer.

Based on work by Michelson and Gale, Sagnac, and Anderson, the constancy of the speed of light can be questioned, if not rejected, and the existence of an aether-like substance in the universe can be posited.

The existence of the aether was disproven over one hundred years ago by the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Strangely enough, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley set out to prove the existence of the aether, and encountered a null result. The aether doesn't exist. The "evidence" against the constancy of the speed of light is non-existent. The constancy of the speed of light can be proved entirely from electrodynamics, as I showed above. If you believe that electricity is powering your computer, and you believe that magnets don't attach to metal objects by means of sticky gum on each end, then you have to believe that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Yes, as strange as it is, the phenomenon of light is very intimately tied to electricity and magnetism.

One geocentric theory (http://creationwiki.org/Theory) states that the stars and planets are embedded in such a medium which rotates once a day, which is backed up by some findings by Thirring.

Yet the very experiment which sought to find the speed of this medium returned a null result! Can you explain that?

[DeaconDean]

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=90476&d=1164087057



See brother, I told you:

http://ateau.com/images/2003032.jpg

Over my head!

God Bless

Till all are one.

[arunma]

Sorry about that brother Dean. It's just that vector calculus has become second nature to me, since we use it so often, and I sometimes forget that it's a fairly specialized topic. Please allow me to explain what I've done in plain English.

Waves travelling along a stretched string obey what is called the linear wave equation. The only physical quantity that appears in this equation is the wave velocity. Now light is an electromagnetic wave. Essentially it is like the wave on a stretched string, minus the string. Electic and magnetic fields are governed by a set of four vector differential equations called Maxwell's Equations. I listed three of those equations, namely Gauss' Law, Faraday's Law, and Ampère's Law. I then mathematically manipulated them to look exactly like the linear wave equation. The only difference was that the wave velocity was replaced by the product of two physical constants which happen to be equal to the speed of light.

This proves that light propagates at a specific speed. But more importantly, it proves that the speed of light does not change in any reference frame, and that it does not change with the observer's position. This defeats the geocentrist's argument that the speed of light can change at any point in the universe.

[DeaconDean]

Sorry about that brother Dean. It's just that vector calculus has become second nature to me, since we use it so often, and I sometimes forget that it's a fairly specialized topic. Please allow me to explain what I've done in plain English.

Waves travelling along a stretched string obey what is called the linear wave equation. The only physical quantity that appears in this equation is the wave velocity. Now light is an electromagnetic wave. Essentially it is like the wave on a stretched string, minus the string. Electic and magnetic fields are governed by a set of four vector differential equations called Maxwell's Equations. I listed three of those equations, namely Gauss' Law, Faraday's Law, and Ampère's Law. I then mathematically manipulated them to look exactly like the linear wave equation. The only difference was that the wave velocity was replaced by the product of two physical constants which happen to be equal to the speed of light.

This proves that light propagates at a specific speed. But more importantly, it proves that the speed of light does not change in any reference frame, and that it does not change with the observer's position. This defeats the geocentrist's argument that the speed of light can change at any point in the universe.

No problem friend. No need to explain to me. I know what your strengths are, and you know what my strenghts are. Physics is not one of my strengths. But if you need a good argument from scriptures, I'm your man. I thought Russel Grigg's argument against p=3.0 was significant. If geocentricism bases any part of their argument on this, then logically it will fall apart.

I'm here for ya friend. Thanks for the explaination.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[arunma]

No problem friend. No need to explain to me. I know what your strengths are, and you know what my strenghts are. Physics is not one of my strengths. But if you need a good argument from scriptures, I'm your man. I thought Russel Grigg's argument against p=3.0 was significant. If geocentricism bases any part of their argument on this, then logically it will fall apart.

I'm here for ya friend. Thanks for the explaination.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Thank you Dean. Indeed I know that you are very knowledgable in the Scriptures, and more importantly that you believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. I think it would be very helpful if you could explain the flaws in the geocentrist's Scriptural arguments. Unfortunately these people are setting their hopes on a gross misunderstanding of Scripture, and they are rewriting science to fit this misunderstanding.

[PETE_]

Bishop Colenso wrote: “The miracle of Joshua is the most striking incident of Scripture and science being at variance.” It is said by destructive critics and infidels that this story cannot possibly be true; that if the sun were to stand still in the way here recorded it would upset the whole course of nature.

Whether that statement is true or not no one can tell. It is simply a supposition. But certainly the God who made the earth and the sun and the whole universe could maintain it even if the sun stood still, or (to speak more accurately) if the earth stood still on its axis and the sun appeared to stand still. But by a careful study of the Hebrew of the passage we find that the sun is not said to have stood still.

The command of Joshua in verse 12 rendered in the Authorized and Revised versions thus: “Stand thou still,” literally translated means “Be silent” (see also RV marg.). And the words rendered “stood still” in verse 13 literally translated mean “was silent.” Nine times in the Bible is it translated “keep silence”; five times at least, “be still”; in another passage, “held his peace’; in another, “quiet one’s self”; in another, “tarry”; in another, “wait”; and in another, “rest.” These renderings occur some thirty times, but it is never rendered “stand still” except in this one passage. Indeed, in the very passage in which it is rendered “tarry” (1 Samuel 14:9), the words “stand still” do occur, but as the translation of an entirely different Hebrew word. The word translated “stayed” in verse 13 is sometimes translated “stand still.” It means literally “to stand” or “stand up,” but it is used of “tarrying” or remaining in any place, state or condition, as, for example, in 2 Kings 15:20; Genesis 45:1. So then, what the sun and moon are said to have done in the passage is to have tarried, tarried from disappearing, not that they stood absolutely still, but that their apparent motion (or their disappearance) was slowed up or delayed.

Furthermore, the Hebrew words translated “in the midst of heaven” mean literally “in the half of heaven.” The word translated “midst” in considerably more than one hundred cases is translated “half.” In only five or six cases is it rendered “midst,” and in one of these cases (Daniel 9:27) the revisers have changed “midst” to “half.” In the remaining cases, it would be better translated “half” (e.g., Psalm 102:24). What Joshua then bade the sun to do was to linger in the half of the heavens, and that is what the sun is recorded as doing. There are two halves to the heavens, the half that is visible to us and the other half visible on the other side of the globe.

The Hebrew preposition rendered “about” means primarily “as” or “so.”

So put these facts together, and what the Story tells us is that the sun continued or tarried above the visible horizon “as a whole day.” Apparently this means that an event occurred on this day near Gibeon, in the Valley of Ajalon, that occurs many days every year at the North Pole, namely, that the sun remained visible for the entire twenty-four hours.

We are not told the method by which this was accomplished. It might have been a slight dip of the pole, or possibly by a refraction of the rays of light, or in other ways that we cannot conjecture. It certainly would not have necessitated such a crash in the physical universe as objectors have imagined
[/URL][URL="http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=29099264#_ftnref1"] (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=29099264#_ftn1)Torrey, R. 1998, c1996. Difficulties in the Bible : Alleged errors and contradictions. Woodlawn Electronic Publishing: Willow Grove

[Rhamiel]

Interesting, my advise to the young man who believes in a geocentric universe and a stagnant Earth, give it up, The Church was a little slow in excepting the whole earth goes around the sun thing and we still hear about it to this day, oh and I have never heard of a Catholic in the last 200 years suport a geocentric universe theory so who ever said this is mostly a Catholic idea is wrong

[RichardT]

Interesting, my advise to the young man who believes in a geocentric universe and a stagnant Earth, give it up, The "Church" of rome was a little slow in excepting the whole earth goes around the sun thing and we still hear about it to this day, oh and I have never heard of a Catholic in the last 200 years suport a geocentric universe theory so who ever said this is mostly a Catholic idea is wrong


http://www.catholicintl.com/

[JPPT1974]

Science can be flawed and vulnerable
But God and His word(The Bible)isn't at all
As science is proven wrong from time to time
Mark my words!

[RichardT]

Science can be flawed and vulnerable
But God and His word(The Bible)isn't at all
As science is proven wrong from time to time
Mark my words!

Exacly, science is shown to be not a good scource for absolute Truth.

[arunma]

Exacly, science is shown to be not a good scource for absolute Truth.

If you lack faith in science, then why does your church attempt to scientifically defend geocentrism? They post pseudoscientific explanations of their geocentric beliefs on their website! Clearly your church puts some stock in science. And science testifies that your church's beliefs are patently false.

Richard, heliocentrism is not a disputable theory in modern times. Anyone who believes that the earth is the center of the universe is generally considered to be both naive and ignorant.

[arunma]

Bumping for Richard.

[RichardT]

If you lack faith in science, then why does your church attempt to scientifically defend geocentrism? They post pseudoscientific explanations of their geocentric beliefs on their website! Clearly your church puts some stock in science. And science testifies that your church's beliefs are patently false.

Richard, heliocentrism is not a disputable theory in modern times. Anyone who believes that the earth is the center of the universe is generally considered to be both naive and ignorant.

Man thinks I'm both naive and ignorant, tell me something I don't know...

[UBERROGO]

Functionally the Earth revolves around the sun. Do we gain any insight into looking at the universe as if it is revolving around us?

[arunma]

Man thinks I'm both naive and ignorant, tell me something I don't know...

Richard, this is non-responsive to my questions. What is your response to my refutation of geocentrism? And if you don't believe in science, then why does your church (mis)use science to lead others to believe in geocentrism?

Richard, your church has lied to you and to everyone else. According to the King James Bible, who is the father of lies? I feel that you are looking for devils in Rome when there is one at your own doorstep.

[JPPT1974]

Exacly, science is shown to be not a good scource for absolute Truth.

Science can be wrong and that
Only God isn't wrong at all
If science is wrong, then it
Doesn't come from God at all!
Because God is creator of all things
Good and just.

[RichardT]

Richard, this is non-responsive to my questions. What is your response to my refutation of geocentrism? And if you don't believe in science, then why does your church (mis)use science to lead others to believe in geocentrism?

Richard, your church has lied to you and to everyone else. According to the King James Bible, who is the father of lies? I feel that you are looking for devils in Rome when there is one at your own doorstep.

Unfortunatly I haven't learned calculus yet. I tried to learn on wikipedia but I couldn't figure it out (yet).

[Abbadon]

--Regarding science:
Our understanding of science may be flawed, and we can misread what science says, but science itself is physical fact, it's the laws God wrote in nature to let us know He's there. If God created a world where basic facts and logic (Logos?) can't be trusted, then what sort of deceptive fellow are we worshipping then?

Scientists may be wrong, science is not. Science is pointing to the earth orbiting the sun. We lose nothing in acknowledging this.

--Regarding geocentrism and heliocentrism:

(Arumna, spot me here, I took High School physics, but I'm no physics major.)

Gravity works based off of mass. Gravity doesn't pull down, it pulls all mass together very weakly (particularly weak since it's countered by the universe expanding). That's how tides work, the moon tugs a little bit at the water over the planet (though this doesn't give any credence to astrology, since it's a too wide area being affected).

So weakly that we are indeed being pulled to each other right now. What keeps us on the ol' mud ball? The mass of Earth is so massive that we are that it's pull on us is actually fairly noticable.

The earth's core is heated by the pressure created by all that matter trying to occupy such a relatively small space. In order for the sun to produce as much heat and light as it does, it would have to be really really big in comparison.

The earth's natural path is to fly on straight in whatever direction we're heading in right now. However, the sun is so much larger than us that it's (very very very) slowly pulling us towards it. We'll long since have figured out how to leave the planet before we hit the sun though (and the sun will probably blow up before that happens), assuming the Lord would prefer to come back when things are really really really bad, instead of just kind of bad.

Richard, your church has lied to you and to everyone else. According to the King James Bible, who is the father of lies? I feel that you are looking for devils in Rome when there is one at your own doorstep.

Methinks not his doorsteps, though certainly a door he steps through. And he is right in assuming it is a church, but not the one in Rome...

[RichardT]

--Regarding science:
Our understanding of science may be flawed, and we can misread what science says, but science itself is physical fact, it's the laws God wrote in nature to let us know He's there. If God created a world where basic facts and logic (Logos?) can't be trusted, then what sort of deceptive fellow are we worshipping then?

Scientists may be wrong, science is not. Science is pointing to the earth orbiting the sun. We lose nothing in acknowledging this.

--Regarding geocentrism and heliocentrism:

(Arumna, spot me here, I took High School physics, but I'm no physics major.)

Gravity works based off of mass. Gravity doesn't pull down, it pulls all mass together very weakly (particularly weak since it's countered by the universe expanding). That's how tides work, the moon tugs a little bit at the water over the planet (though this doesn't give any credence to astrology, since it's a too wide area being affected).

So weakly that we are indeed being pulled to each other right now. What keeps us on the ol' mud ball? The mass of Earth is so massive that we are that it's pull on us is actually fairly noticable.

The earth's core is heated by the pressure created by all that matter trying to occupy such a relatively small space. In order for the sun to produce as much heat and light as it does, it would have to be really really big in comparison.

The earth's natural path is to fly on straight in whatever direction we're heading in right now. However, the sun is so much larger than us that it's (very very very) slowly pulling us towards it. We'll long since have figured out how to leave the planet before we hit the sun though (and the sun will probably blow up before that happens), assuming the Lord would prefer to come back when things are really really really bad, instead of just kind of bad.



Methinks not his doorsteps, though certainly a door he steps through. And he is right in assuming it is a church, but not the one in Rome...

I stopped reading when you started talking about gravity, we believe in gravity.

[arunma]

Unfortunatly I haven't learned calculus yet. I tried to learn on wikipedia but I couldn't figure it out (yet).

I wrote up the proof on the spatial invariance of the speed of light to show you that such a thing exists. I am aware that you aren't familiar with vector differential calculus, which is why I explained the conclusions, as well as the assumptions that go into the calculation. If you appeal to your own ignorance on the subject, then why do you summarily come to the conclusion that geocentrism is accurate? Isn't it unwise to form an opinion on a subject without properly understanding it?

Incidentally, I'd advise against learning calculus on the Internet. Those of us who study to be professional physicists must study calculus for two years. You can learn it out of a textbook without the aid of a teacher (that's what I did in high school, anyway), but this requires a certain time commitment.

I stopped reading when you started talking about gravity, we believe in gravity.

No, actually you do not. You may believe in something that you call gravity, but whatever force you believe in does not behave like Newtonian or relativistic gravity as physicists understand it. Anyone who believes in gravity cannot believe in geocentrism (even if you relabel it "geocentricity"), at least not without inventing additional arbitrary, undetectable forces.

Richard, have you ever used a GPS system before? The GPS system would not work if not for the general relativistic theory of gravity. Using Newtonian gravity, you can only locate an object on earth to within a several kilometers. And whatever geocentric theory of gravity that your church has cooked up wouldn't work at all.

(Arumna, spot me here, I took High School physics, but I'm no physics major.)

Gravity works based off of mass. Gravity doesn't pull down, it pulls all mass together very weakly (particularly weak since it's countered by the universe expanding). That's how tides work, the moon tugs a little bit at the water over the planet (though this doesn't give any credence to astrology, since it's a too wide area being affected).

So weakly that we are indeed being pulled to each other right now. What keeps us on the ol' mud ball? The mass of Earth is so massive that we are that it's pull on us is actually fairly noticable.

The earth's core is heated by the pressure created by all that matter trying to occupy such a relatively small space. In order for the sun to produce as much heat and light as it does, it would have to be really really big in comparison.

The earth's natural path is to fly on straight in whatever direction we're heading in right now. However, the sun is so much larger than us that it's (very very very) slowly pulling us towards it. We'll long since have figured out how to leave the planet before we hit the sun though (and the sun will probably blow up before that happens), assuming the Lord would prefer to come back when things are really really really bad, instead of just kind of bad.

I'd just like to offer a few corrections here.

First, the mechanisms that heat the earth and the Sun are different. You are absolutely correct to say that the earth is heated by certain pressures (it is also heated by radioactive isotopes that are found inside the earth). The Sun, on the other hand, is heated by hydrogen and helium fusion.

Secondly, you were right to say that the natural tendency of the earth (and indeed any object) is to travel in a straight line. The Sun's gravity causes the earth to travel in an ellipse. But as far as I know, the earth's orbit is stable, and so on average, our planet does not move any closer to the Sun (although the instantaneous earth-Sun distance is constantly varying). In fact, it is important to note that the earth is in a constant state of freefall towards the Sun. But because it has a linear speed perpendicular to the Sun, it does not get any closer. If the earth were not orbiting the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would actually attract the earth to itself rather quickly.

[UBERROGO]

Functionally the Earth revolves around the sun. Do we gain any insight into looking at the universe as if it is revolving around us?Apparently not.

[RichardT]

No, actually you do not. You may believe in something that you call gravity, but whatever force you believe in does not behave like Newtonian or relativistic gravity as physicists understand it. Anyone who believes in gravity cannot believe in geocentrism (even if you relabel it "geocentricity"), at least not without inventing additional arbitrary, undetectable forces.

Richard, have you ever used a GPS system before? The GPS system would not work if not for the general relativistic theory of gravity. Using Newtonian gravity, you can only locate an object on earth to within a several kilometers. And whatever geocentric theory of gravity that your church has cooked up wouldn't work at all.

Earth centered universe with gravity. Yes I do.

[RichardT]

Apparently not.

This is why I like to stick around with the creationist movement, since my belief of an earth centered universe does not contradict what they have to say.

[chris777]

\ Anyone who believes that the earth is the center of the universe is generally considered to be both naive and ignorant.

Where exactly is the center of the universe then?

[Abbadon]

Where exactly is the center of the universe then?

If Earth were the center of the universe, the other planets orbits are pretty screwed up.

"The Universe is Big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the Universe, that's peanuts." -- Douglas Adams, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

To ask where exactly the center of the universe is at this point is to ask the ancient that just started to realize the earth was round what was on the other side.

[RichardT]

If Earth were the center of the universe, the other planets orbits are pretty screwed up.

"The Universe is Big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the Universe, that's peanuts." -- Douglas Adams, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

To ask where exactly the center of the universe is at this point is to ask the ancient that just started to realize the earth was round what was on the other side.

That is why I absolutely believe what the word of God says about it instead of relatively believing the earth goes around the sun. It's sad that you had to go through that post explaining how gravity works, since I agree with you that gravity does in fact work.

I love the book of proverbs, especially when it says :

Proverbs 18:17 :

He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Which is to say, he who argues first seems right untill his neighbour (me, in this case, there are just an almost infinite amount of cases of this throughout all of hisory) searcheth him...

No worries though, we all make mistakes and false accusations. Especially Talk.Origins, man I can quote so many things from talk.origins...... But that's for another thread.

[Abbadon]

That is why I absolutely believe what the word of God says about it instead of relatively believing the earth goes around the sun. It's sad that you had to go through that post explaining how gravity works, since I agree with you that gravity does in fact work.

If you acknowledged gravity you'd acknowledge that the earth goes around the sun. The sun has so much more mass than the earth does that it would exert millions of times more force. If the sun orbited the earth, then the earth would fall to me!

We know that the center is not here. Because the universe expands, the center is probably a particularly powerful black hole countering the expansion of the universe.

What does the word of God say about geocentrism that isn't possibly misconstrued interpretation? The sites you linked to talk about the earth not staying still. Indeed the ground under your feet is still, but the planet moves. A ship's planks may remain still and the ship may sail. All the verses ever brought up seem to ignore that both the Bible and humans use imagery, and seem to think that the earth orbiting the sun would somehow change the vantage of the sun rising and falling in our sky.

Proverbs 18:17 :

He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Searched us? You looked the other side over.

Then I saw that wisedome excelleth folly, as farre as light excelleth darkenesse. Ecc 2:13, KJV-1611.

No worries though, we all make mistakes and false accusations.

Mistake: ignoring things how screwed up the orbit of other planets are if the earth is the center of the solar system, how gravity would not be a 'law of physics' but a 'suggestion of physics' if the earth were the center of the universe, etc.

False accusation: saying that the person avoiding the mistake is mistaken.

What kind of God would set up the universe with the wavelengths of the light from stars bending in such a way so as to suggest that the center is not earth, set up screwy orbits, and cause an object of much larger mass to orbit millions of times smaller, put all these signs that the earth orbits the sun, and have the sun orbits the earth? That God would be a liar. The ancients didn't know any better* -- You have been given ample opportunity to know better, and you still deny it. Quit calling God a liar. *God gave us the Bible to resolve matters of faith, not matters of science, which is why the law of gravity is not detailed in the good book. When the Bible says "the sun rose" it's accurate from our vantage point. But to say that says the sun orbits the earth is taking it a step farther than what it says. It makes no statement either way regarding heliocentrism or geocentrism, and science points to heliocentrism.

We've sent out satillites and space shuttles. If the sun orbited the earth, NASA would have tons of trouble getting folks back, because they'd have to take the sun's orbit into account instead of the earth's orbit.

[RichardT]

We know that the center is not here. Because the universe expands, the center is probably a particularly powerful black hole countering the expansion of the universe.

I disagree with the "evidence" for an expanding universe, as does almost any other creationist. So since I disagree with your premise, your argument falls.

Mistake: ignoring things how screwed up the orbit of other planets are if the earth is the center of the solar system, how gravity would not be a 'law of physics' but a 'suggestion of physics' if the earth were the center of the universe, etc.

Gravity would still be a "law of physics", just that the universe would be centered on the earth, is that so hard to understand?

What kind of God would set up the universe with the wavelengths of the light from stars bending in such a way so as to suggest that the center is not earth, set up screwy orbits, and cause an object of much larger mass to orbit millions of times smaller, put all these signs that the earth orbits the sun, and have the sun orbits the earth? That God would be a liar. The ancients didn't know any better -- You have been given ample opportunity to know better, and you still deny it. Quit calling God a liar.

The millons of times larger object absolutely orbits the earth since the bible says so.

[chris777]

[quote=Abbadon;29379330]If Earth were the center of the universe, the other planets orbits are pretty screwed up.
But that still doesnt rule out the possibility the earth is at the center of the universe

To ask where exactly the center of the universe is at this point is to ask the ancient that just started to realize the earth was round what was on the other side.

ahh now maby you are beginning to see my point, you compare our knowledge to that of the aincents, a comparison that wuld not be possible unless
A) they werent as big a bunch of fools as "modern" man makes them out to be
or
B) we are just as big a bunch of fools as we claim they were

[chris777]

[QUOTE][quote=Abbadon;29307676]--Regarding science:
Our understanding of science may be flawed, and we can misread what science says, but science itself is physical fact, it's the laws God wrote in nature to let us know He's there. If God created a world where basic facts and logic (Logos?) can't be trusted, then what sort of deceptive fellow are we worshipping then?
Just because we do not comprehand his ways and the universe, does not make God deceptive.
As for science, it cannot explain a parted sea, with dry ground with walls of water on either side, it cannot explain a floating axe head, it cannot explain how Jesus walked on water, and it absolutely cannot explain how he fead thousands with a few fishes and sim loaves of bread. All these things seem to contradict science do they not?

hmmmmm

Scientists may be wrong, science is not. Science is pointing to the earth orbiting the sun. We lose nothing in acknowledging this.What exactly do we gain?

[chris777]

We know that the center is not here. oh it makes perfect sence now , we know it is absolutely not here, but that does not mean we have a clue where it actually is..... Riiiiiight


Because the universe expands, the center is probably a particularly powerful black hole countering the expansion of the universe. probably is so scientific, its almost a hypothesis , which is almost a theory, which acording to science is almost a fact.
Gotta love science

What does the word of God say about geocentrism that isn't possibly misconstrued interpretation? The sites you linked to talk about the earth not staying still. Indeed the ground under your feet is still, but the planet moves. A ship's planks may remain still and the ship may sail. All the verses ever brought up seem to ignore that both the Bible and humans use imagery, and seem to think that the earth orbiting the sun would somehow change the vantage of the sun rising and falling in our sky. i havent had time to check out richards links, but the possibility is so cool, especialy if you try and think about it from our perspective and then zooming out further and further with everything in motion, its quite interesting.


Mistake: ignoring things how screwed up the orbit of other planets are if the earth is the center of the solar system, how gravity would not be a 'law of physics' but a 'suggestion of physics' if the earth were the center of the universe, etc.

the point is we have no clue where the center of the universe is, so therfore how could we possibly know the earth is therefore not in the center. Think about it, scientifically speaking, it is possible.
Now as for the physics, I reiterate I have not looked at all of richards links, but it can't be ruled out either.


What kind of God would set up the universe with the wavelengths of the light from stars bending in such a way so as to suggest that the center is not earth, set up screwy orbits, and cause an object of much larger mass to orbit millions of times smaller, put all these signs that the earth orbits the sun, and have the sun orbits the earth? That God would be a liar.
The same God that had a donkey speak with the voice of a man


The ancients didn't know any better* -- You have been given ample opportunity to know better, and you still deny it. Quit calling God a liar. *God gave us the Bible to resolve matters of faith, not matters of science, which is why the law of gravity is not detailed in the good book. When the Bible says "the sun rose" it's accurate from our vantage point. But to say that says the sun orbits the earth is taking it a step farther than what it says. It makes no statement either way regarding heliocentrism or geocentrism, and science points to heliocentrism.
science points to heliocentrism, of our "solar system", not that the earth could not potentially be at the exact center of the universe.

As for the aincents not knowing any better, do you really think we are any more inteligent than they were?
Their are thousands of aincent things constructed by pagans tha tscience has no more clue about how they were constructed than the goofball new agers who believe it was "crystal " power or "aliens"


We've sent out satillites and space shuttles. If the sun orbited the earth, NASA would have tons of trouble getting folks back, because they'd have to take the sun's orbit into account instead of the earth's orbit.
uh why would nasa need the sun to help land a shuttle, or place a sattelite in the orbit of the earth?

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Dr. Russell Humphreys believes our galaxy is in the center of the universe. This has nothing to do with the sun orbiting the earth though. You can read his scientific journal article here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf).

[RichardT]

By the way, when I said that I believe in a earth centered universe, I should have specified. I believe the sun goes around the earth and that the planets and the stars/galaxies go around the sun. Parallax wouldn't allow the earth to be in the center, the sun going around, and the stars and galaxies to go around the earth. Which is why I believe in the Modified Tycho Brahe model instead of the Tycho Brahe model.

[God_of_Mercy]

So since I disagree with your premise, your argument falls.

Wow...

[RichardT]

Wow...

Wow, I actaully believe the universe is not expanding?

Oh, nm, I just realized that the expanding universe was accepted by many creationists. I would have to study it out...

[arunma]

Earth centered universe with gravity. Yes I do.

Richard, that statement is completely nonresponsive to my post. Yes you do what? And what do you mean by the sentence fragment "earth centered universe with gravity?" There is no such thing as an earth centered universe with gravity. If you believe that the earth is the center of the universe, you cannot believe in gravity. Richard, please remember that this is a technical topic. You can't substitute one liners for genuine and meaningful responses.

That is why I absolutely believe what the word of God says about it instead of relatively believing the earth goes around the sun. It's sad that you had to go through that post explaining how gravity works, since I agree with you that gravity does in fact work.

I repeat: if you believe that the Sun orbits the earth, then you do not believe in gravity, no matter how much you convince yourself otherwise.

Gravity would still be a "law of physics", just that the universe would be centered on the earth, is that so hard to understand?

To someone such as myself who knows how gravity works, it is much more than difficult to understand. It is flat out impossible.

Where exactly is the center of the universe then?

Technically there is no center of the universe. Every point in the universe appears as though it were the center. To ask where the center of the universe is is similar to asking where the center of the surface of the earth is.

But the salient point here is that geocentrism has absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever.

But that still doesnt rule out the possibility the earth is at the center of the universe

Actually it does. If the planets orbits are "screwed up" (to use Abaddon's phrasing), then the law of gravity is false. Anyone who believes in an earth centered universe cannot believe that artificial satellites are capable of orbiting the earth.

Just because we do not comprehand his ways and the universe, does not make God deceptive.
As for science, it cannot explain a parted sea, with dry ground with walls of water on either side, it cannot explain a floating axe head, it cannot explain how Jesus walked on water, and it absolutely cannot explain how he fead thousands with a few fishes and sim loaves of bread. All these things seem to contradict science do they not?

Do you claim that the orbits of the planets are miraculous works? If so, then there is nothing that distinguishes the miraculous works you described above from every day life. This would take away from the glory that God received when the Lord walked on the sea.

probably is so scientific, its almost a hypothesis , which is almost a theory, which acording to science is almost a fact.
Gotta love science

Please do not take this as an insulting or belligerent comment, because it is not intended as such. But what you have said is a gross mischaracterization of the scientific method.

the point is we have no clue where the center of the universe is, so therfore how could we possibly know the earth is therefore not in the center. Think about it, scientifically speaking, it is possible.
Now as for the physics, I reiterate I have not looked at all of richards links, but it can't be ruled out either.

As I said above, the question of the center of the universe has already been answered by physicists. The question itself is invalid. No point in space is the center of the universe anymore than Greenwich is the center of the earth.

The same God that had a donkey speak with the voice of a man

Again, we run into the problem of calling daily life miraculous. If every event that ever occurs is a miracle, then what was so great about God using a donkey to restrain the madness of Balaam?

science points to heliocentrism, of our "solar system", not that the earth could not potentially be at the exact center of the universe.

Science rules out any possibility of the earth being the center of the universe.

uh why would nasa need the sun to help land a shuttle, or place a sattelite in the orbit of the earth?

Many satellites are placed in solar orbit, and this would be impossible without the Sun.

[RichardT]

Richard, that statement is completely nonresponsive to my post. Yes you do what? And what do you mean by the sentence fragment "earth centered universe with gravity?" There is no such thing as an earth centered universe with gravity. If you believe that the earth is the center of the universe, you cannot believe in gravity. Richard, please remember that this is a technical topic. You can't substitute one liners for genuine and meaningful responses.



I repeat: if you believe that the Sun orbits the earth, then you do not believe in gravity, no matter how much you convince yourself otherwise.



To someone such as myself who knows how gravity works, it is much more than difficult to understand. It is flat out impossible.



Technically there is no center of the universe. Every point in the universe appears as though it were the center. To ask where the center of the universe is is similar to asking where the center of the surface of the earth is.

But the salient point here is that geocentrism has absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever.



Actually it does. If the planets orbits are "screwed up" (to use Abaddon's phrasing), then the law of gravity is false. Anyone who believes in an earth centered universe cannot believe that artificial satellites are capable of orbiting the earth.



Do you claim that the orbits of the planets are miraculous works? If so, then there is nothing that distinguishes the miraculous works you described above from every day life. This would take away from the glory that God received when the Lord walked on the sea.



Please do not take this as an insulting or belligerent comment, because it is not intended as such. But what you have said is a gross mischaracterization of the scientific method.



As I said above, the question of the center of the universe has already been answered by physicists. The question itself is invalid. No point in space is the center of the universe anymore than Greenwich is the center of the earth.



Again, we run into the problem of calling daily life miraculous. If every event that ever occurs is a miracle, then what was so great about God using a donkey to restrain the madness of Balaam?



Science rules out any possibility of the earth being the center of the universe.



Many satellites are placed in solar orbit, and this would be impossible without the Sun.

Hey arun, I was wondering if I can see the evidence for an expanding universe?

[arunma]

Hey arun, I was wondering if I can see the evidence for an expanding universe?

For you to fully appreciate the evidence, you would first need to understand tensor calculus. The expansion of the universe is shown by the time-variance of the metric tensor of space-time, which can be shown by solving the Einstein Equations. What I can tell you is that general relativity, which proves that the universe expands, is demonstrated to be true by such accurate predictions as the observed redshift of galaxies, the correction on the orbit of Mercury, and the gravitational lensing effect.

Alas, this defocuses from the issue at hand. And the issue is this: the earth is neither fixed, nor at the center of the universe. Please tell me how you can possibly believe in gravity and reject the fact that the earth orbits the Sun. I would also like to know whether or not you believe that the GPS system works, because without the relativistic theory of gravity, it would not work at all.

[chris777]

[quote=arunma;29403425]
To someone such as myself who knows how gravity works, it is much more than difficult to understand. It is flat out impossible.
You THINK you know how it works, man thinks we know how all sorts of things work but we are nevertheless still limited in our knowledge, I suggest their is more to gravity , than I have ever heard any "scientist" speak of, and thats not saying I know anything,


[QUOTE]
Technically there is no center of the universe. Every point in the universe appears as though it were the center.
yet you fail to comprehend my point
To ask where the center of the universe is is similar to asking where the center of the surface of the earth is.
No it isnt , because the earth is measurable.


But the salient point here is that geocentrism has absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever.
I would ask what merit does science really have in comparison to the power of God?



Actually it does. If the planets orbits are "screwed up" (to use Abaddon's phrasing), then the law of gravity is false. Anyone who believes in an earth centered universe cannot believe that artificial satellites are capable of orbiting the earth.
I never said I agreed with richards view, I asked how do you all know conclusively, that the earth is not the literal center of the universe?




Do you claim that the orbits of the planets are miraculous works?
Uhhh yeah I would say thay are accounted for in genesis?
If so, then there is nothing that distinguishes the miraculous works you described above from every day life. This would take away from the glory that God received when the Lord walked on the sea.
Actualy there is, while both were miracles of God, all of the accounts I gave Directly contradict with scientific "laws" yet God did them nevertheless



Please do not take this as an insulting or belligerent comment, because it is not intended as such. But what you have said is a gross mischaracterization of the scientific method.
I do feel that many christians place more faith, and more belief, in science, than their own God. Science has become an idol, because of the things we have accomplished with it. it is like the tower of babel account, we now believe all things are possible through science, but not nessesarily through God. And as for insulting , and belligerant, I ask you the same, because these issues deeply concern me, as I see many seduced from the faith for Science, which in itself is a Religion of sorts. with its roots in logic, and philosophy, which, are in fact
Derived much from aristotle, and plato the Greeks.
And while many feel that they are compatible with Christianity, I feel it is dangerous to adopt the pagan ways of thinking and comprehension, as they distort our views of reality. brianwashing, and propaganda if you will., Sorry to veer off topic a bit there


As I said above, the question of the center of the universe has already been answered by physicists. The question itself is invalid. No point in space is the center of the universe anymore than Greenwich is the center of the earth.
then I assume by saying it has no center, then you do not believe the big bang occured, as most scientist alledge


Again, we run into the problem of calling daily life miraculous. If every event that ever occurs is a miracle, then what was so great about God using a donkey to restrain the madness of Balaam?
Ahh but it is miraculous, but you make my point for me, science in many ways removes the miraculous, from creation, and in many cases outright defys the bible, (evolution)



Science rules out any possibility of the earth being the center of the universe. How can it rul it out if science by their own admission have to have Proof, in order to do so?



Many satellites are placed in solar orbit, and this would be impossible without the Sun.
We have man made satelites orbiting the sun?
And again what did that have to do with
landing the shuttle, or placing sattelites in earth orbit?

[RichardT]

Quote:
"Actually it does. If the planets orbits are "screwed up" (to use Abaddon's phrasing), then the law of gravity is false. Anyone who believes in an earth centered universe cannot believe that artificial satellites are capable of orbiting the earth. "

I never said I agreed with richards view, I asked how do you all know conclusively, that the earth is not the literal center of the universe?

Well you can now because Arun's argument is nonsense.

[arunma]

You THINK you know how it works, man thinks we know how all sorts of things work but we are nevertheless still limited in our knowledge, I suggest their is more to gravity , than I have ever heard any "scientist" speak of, and thats not saying I know anything,

Do you have an alternate theory of gravity that you would like to present? If so, I would certainly entertain it. But in order to properly refute a scientific theory, one must properly understand said theory. It is not logically accurate to say that my limited knowledge implies that I am wrong.

yet you fail to comprehend my point

Then perhaps you could clarify your point. What did you mean when you asked where the center of the universe was?

No it isnt , because the earth is measurable.

Actually, the finiteness of the earth is not relevant here. Examples such as the earth, basketballs, rubber balloons, and other spherical objects, serve to illustrate the invalidity of the very notion of a center of the universe. But because space and time are both relative to the observer, the universe has no center regardless of its shape. Besides that, the universe, like the earth, is also finite. There are even estimates on the mass of the universe.


I would ask what merit does science really have in comparison to the power of God?

But this is not responsive to the statement I made. I said, "But the salient point here is that geocentrism has absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever." Since everyone here professes to believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures, the power of God is not in question. So referring to God's power does not speak to the issue of where the center of the universe is...unless you believe that the Sun orbits the earth (which leads to your next response).

I never said I agreed with richards view, I asked how do you all know conclusively, that the earth is not the literal center of the universe?

Since you never claims to agree with Richard, I would like to ask you directly. Do you believe that the Sun and other planets of the Solar System orbit around the earth?

We know this because the General Theory of Relativity shows that there is no such thing as a center of the universe. You are certainly free to contest Relativity, but you must first explain scientifically why you disagree with it, and provide an alternate theory which can show the earth to be the center of the universe.

Uhhh yeah I would say thay are accounted for in genesis?

You are referring to the creation of the planets, whereas I am referring to the maintainence of the planets in their current orbits (which is not miraculous). As God is the sustainer of all things, one might say that the very existence of creation is a miracle. But if everything and anything that occurs in daily life is miraculous, then why would God ordain miraculous signs? The very purpose of miracles is to demonstrate the glory of God, and this is why miracles have traits that distinguish them from other daily occurances. If every aspect of the physical world is miraculous, then miracles lose their very definition.

Alas, this is a theological issue, and perhaps it belongs in a separate discussion.

then I assume by saying it has no center, then you do not believe the big bang occured, as most scientist alledge

Actually, the idea of the universe having no center comes from the same cosmological model that gave birth to the Big Bang theory. It turns out that the Big Bang occured at every point in the universe, which is why the universe has no center.

Ahh but it is miraculous, but you make my point for me, science in many ways removes the miraculous, from creation, and in many cases outright defys the bible, (evolution)

Regarding the issue of evolution, the difference here is that wheras the theory of (human) evolution stands contradictory to the Mosaic account of creation, the Bible does not say that the earth is the center of the universe. Regarding the former issue you brought up, yes, science does remove the miraculous from creation. I would prefer, however, to use the word "superstition" instead. In the days of old, people used to think that the planets were pushed in their orbits by angels, and science disproved this notion. Removing superstition from creation is a good thing, since it allows us to distinguish those feats that really are miracles.

How can it rul it out if science by their own admission have to have Proof, in order to do so?

Because science offers proof that the earth orbits the Sun. Can you offer either scientific or Biblical proof to the contrary?

We have man made satelites orbiting the sun?

Yes we do. It is not much of a feat, actually, since the earth itself is a natural satellite of the Sun.

And again what did that have to do with
landing the shuttle, or placing sattelites in earth orbit?

All of these things require an understading of solar plasma physics, since solar phenomena can have negative effects on the Space Shuttle or man-made satellites. And to put it simply, geocentrism just doesn't work, because it's false.

Well you can now because Arun's argument is nonsense.

Richard, please respond with logically accurate statements instead of rhetoric.

[PETE_]

As one poster has pointed out, science takes the magic out of most spectacular physical phenomena.


But it sure adds to my amazement as to how God so intricately put the universe together

[arunma]

Richard, I still await a response more substantial than "your argument is nonsense." These are the words of someone who has run out of valid arguments. Are you unable to defend geocentrism?

[RichardT]

Richard, I still await a response more substantial than "your argument is nonsense." These are the words of someone who has run out of valid arguments. Are you unable to defend geocentrism?

To believe in an earth centered universe does not mean things cannot orbit the earth. I don't understand advanced calculus so I wouldn't be able to check your equations, which is also why I'm asking you to email the expert on the subject.

Gerardus D. Bouw.

edit : Also, I got a calculus textbook from school (I go to a french school btw, so I'm going to have to learn the terms in english after, but w/e)

[arunma]

To believe in an earth centered universe does not mean things cannot orbit the earth.

I was already aware that this is not in dispute. The very premise of my argument is that the earth orbits the Sun, and you haven't addressed this issue.

I don't understand advanced calculus so I wouldn't be able to check your equations, which is also why I'm asking you to email the expert on the subject.

I only performed one mathematical calculation (actually I only used elementary calculus, not that I expect or demand you to be familiar with it at your age). I thus assume that you are referring to my proof that the speed of light is spatially constant. Be sure to give it to your Dr. Bouw, and ask him where I have erred. Though I independently derived it, precisely the same proof is found in any textbook on electrodynamics, so the constancy of the speed of light is not even my original idea.

edit : Also, I got a calculus textbook from school (I go to a french school btw, so I'm going to have to learn the terms in english after, but w/e)

Be my guest. I strongly encourage the pursuit of higher mathematics. Trust me Richard, your study of calculus will not lead you to form a valid contradiction to almost 150 years of electromagnetic theory.