For Geocentrists

[lesliedellow]

At 16:57UTC on Thursday, the Sun will cross the equator, and Spring will arrive in the northern hemisphere. So how do you explain the cycle of the seasons in your scheme of things?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

At 16:57UTC on Thursday, the Sun will cross the equator, and Spring will arrive in the northern hemisphere. So how do you explain the cycle of the seasons in your scheme of things?

I can't speak for them, but... could seasons be explained by an Earth that rotated at 22.5° to the plane of the Sun's orbit? Soft geocentrism permits rotation.

A hard geocentrist explanation was that the seasons come about when the plane of the Sun's orbit moves up and down by20-odd degrees of latitude - it corkscrews up and down every six months. How and why is as yet unexplained, of course.

 

[lesliedellow]

I can't speak for them, but... could seasons be explained by an Earth that rotated at 22.5° to the plane of the Sun's orbit? Soft geocentrism permits rotation.

A hard geocentrist explanation was that the seasons come about when the plane of the Sun's orbit moves up and down by20-odd degrees of latitude - it corkscrews up and down every six months. How and why is as yet unexplained, of course.

It's incredible that there are enough of them to even come in "hard" and "soft" varieties.

 

[Old Ned]

It's incredible that there are enough of them to even come in "hard" and "soft" varieties.

I don't consider that incredible... I consider it terrifying.

The thing I will never understand and no one can ever answer is these redicules ideas come from things like the Bible, they hold onto them because the alternative suggests their particular book is incorrect.
Yet not many of them, at least in the western world are willing to stone a child for talking back to a parent, nor condone slavery or rape or genocide... all those things have been "changed".... so the fallibility of it has already been admitted.

Narrow minded thinking like this with massive contradictions just blow my mind and sadden me.

After all.... it's 2014.... Two Thousand and Fourteen.

 

[AV1611VET]

The thing I will never understand and no one can ever answer is these redicules ideas come from things like the Bible, they hold onto them because the alternative suggests their particular book is incorrect.

Oh, please, Ned.

Scientists say that the Bible teaches geocentrism.

Did you get that?

Scientists say that.

Scientists also say the Bible teaches a flat, immoveable Earth.

Yet not many of them, at least in the western world are willing to stone a child for talking back to a parent,

Should we in the western world also go back to sacerdotalism?

In eight years here, I've never once seen a scientific methodist complain because we aren't sacrificing sheep and cattle as thank offerings, peace offerings, heave offerings, sin offerings, and meal offerings.

I'll tell you what, you bring me a Red Heifer, and I'll consider it -- briefly.

... nor condone slavery or rape or genocide...

Ya ... ya.

... all those things have been "changed".... so the fallibility of it has already been admitted.

It's called Dispensation Theology, chief; and dispensation theology is not based on fallibility -- unless you think like a scientist.

Narrow minded thinking like this with massive contradictions ...

... need to stay in the laboratory.

... just blow my mind and sadden me.

Then don't think it.

After all.... it's 2014.... Two Thousand and Fourteen.

Yes and that doesn't stop scientists, who keep on pushing their brand of exegesis on the population.

 

[Old Ned]

Oh, please, Ned.

Scientists say that the Bible teaches geocentrism.

Did you get that?

Scientists say that.

Scientists also say the Bible teaches a flat, immoveable Earth.

Are you suggesting it does not teach that?

Should we in the western world also go back to sacerdotalism?

In eight years here, I've never once seen a scientific methodist complain because we aren't sacrificing sheep and cattle as thank offerings, peace offerings, heave offerings, sin offerings, and meal offerings.

I'll tell you what, you bring me a Red Heifer, and I'll consider it -- briefly.

No, you missed my point, if you are going to stand there and willingly say "I believe the bible word for word and it's gods word etc " then you have to believe these things are morally right because it says so in the bible.

My point is, if you can admit one part of the bible is wrong, then why not other parts?

It's called Dispensation Theology, chief; and dispensation theology is not based on fallibility -- unless you think like a scientist.

You mean think like a rational human being?

... need to stay in the laboratory.

How can you say Science is narrow minded? ... By it's very definition it REQUIRES open mindedness, nothing we know would exist in technology and advancements if people had not had open minds to new ideas.

Then don't think it.

Well I'm afraid my good man, not one single human being has complete control over his thoughts.

Yes and that doesn't stop scientists, who keep on pushing their brand of exegesis on the population.

Av, stop it. It is not pushed, it is taught in a science class in the same way Greek Mythology is taught in it's respective classes, math, English, German, Geography.... there are people who believe these other things should not be taught, well you know what?... The majority of people want their kids taught these things and since it's tax dollars that pay for it then the majority rules the vote... the vote is to teach Science in Science class in publicly funded schools.
You only see it as being pushed because the Internet and media is allowing free learning throughout the world, information can no longer be destroyed or hidden, information is free and science is providing the answers to the questions being asked.

Scientists do not stop people in the streets to convert them, they do not go door to door to spread the word... Scientists give us the choice WITHOUT forcing it down our throats... unlike some belief systems.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh, please, Ned.

Scientists say that the Bible teaches geocentrism.

Did you get that?

Scientists say that.

Scientists also say the Bible teaches a flat, immoveable Earth.

So do Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

So do Christians.

Christians can be scientists, can't they?

 

[Old Ned]

Christians can be scientists, can't they?

Av, you crack me up... yes they can and are.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Christians can be scientists, can't they?

Yep. They can also be non-scientists and say the Bible says the Earth is flat.

 

[AV1611VET]

Av, you crack me up...

Then you'll love this one!

Wood boat?

Most people think Noah's Ark was a ship -- but the Bible never calls it a 'ship'.

It was actually a submarine.

Notice that it is described as having 'one window' (periscope) at the top:

Genesis 6:16a A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above;

... thus the Ark was not subject to the stresses that would have been placed on ships on the surface.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. They can also be non-scientists and say the Bible says the Earth is flat.

I would say they are either Bible literalists, who are taking literalism too far; or else they are just wanting the attention.

 

[Old Ned]

Then you'll love this one!

Yeah that one is good, one inherent problem... a submarine is subjected to a massive amount of stress, much more so than a boat/ship on the surface, this would also mean Noah would have had to totally water seal the wooden joints AND created an oxygen supplying mechanism AND a pressurization control method.
This would also have to apply to the window, was this window made of glass? in which case it would have to be water sealed too, if it was just a hole then the ship/boat would have pretty much had to stay just below the surface which is subjected to much more violence than being on top of the surface.
Also chances are a wooden submarine would warp and buckle so much it would be crushed under water.
Not to mention that wood is naturally buoyant and getting one to submerge would require a huge amount of ballast and require a power source to get it to the surface again. Ever tried holding a lump of wood under water?... wont stay there.
And to escape the violent turbulence of the surface it would have to go down a fair depth... sooo... yeah

 

[Strathos]

Has AV somehow missed the Christian geocentrists around here?

 

[RealityCheck]

Yeah that one is good, one inherent problem... a submarine is subjected to a massive amount of stress, much more so than a boat/ship on the surface, this would also mean Noah would have had to totally water seal the wooden joints AND created an oxygen supplying mechanism AND a pressurization control method.
This would also have to apply to the window, was this window made of glass? in which case it would have to be water sealed too, if it was just a hole then the ship/boat would have pretty much had to stay just below the surface which is subjected to much more violence than being on top of the surface.
Also chances are a wooden submarine would warp and buckle so much it would be crushed under water.
Not to mention that wood is naturally buoyant and getting one to submerge would require a huge amount of ballast and require a power source to get it to the surface again. Ever tried holding a lump of wood under water?... wont stay there.
And to escape the violent turbulence of the surface it would have to go down a fair depth... sooo... yeah

And how did he release the birds?

 

[Nithavela]

Do we even have geocentrists on here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do we even have geocentrists on here?

RichartT used to be one.

Recently another one just started posting here.

I can't remember his name.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do we even have geocentrists on here?

There are at least two. Having said that, geocentrists tend to be an embarrassment even to their fellow creationists.

 

[Nithavela]

Well, in a group of people as big as those frequenting these forums, you'll always get a handfull believing even the strangest stuff, I guess.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are at least two. Having said that, geocentrists tend to be an embarrassment even to their fellow creationists.

I'm not embarrassed in the least.

Should I be?