Galileo Was Wrong

[Mallon]

Darwin 200: Celebrating Charles Darwin's bicentenary lol
Are you going?

I can't. The Darwin bicentenary celebrations were last year.

 

[Greg1234]

I can't. The Darwin bicentenary celebrations were last year.

Yeah I corrected it a while ago. Did you celebrate good times?

 

[Mallon]

Yeah I corrected it a while ago. Did you celebrate good times?

I didn't go. Please stop trying to derail the thread.

 

[Greg1234]

I didn't go. Please stop trying to derail the thread.

But "TE" and Geocentrists in the link have so much in common. For one, they are a part of the church and two, they reject scientific evidence contrary to their claims. Anyways,your attempt at literalism, was addressed in parentheses a couple posts back. Scientific evidence. Common denominator.

 

[Mallon]

But "TE" and Geocentrists in the link have so much in common. For one, they are a part of the church and two, they reject scientific evidence contrary to their claims. Anyways,your attempt at literalism, was addressed in parentheses a couple posts back. Scientific evidence. Common denominator.

You see, the geocentrists use the same language that you do. They claim that there is a conspiracy out there to cover up the True Science (TM) that attests to their interpretation of the Bible (geocentrism). As the link I provided in the OP states "Come with an open mind and allow these two authors to show you facts and figures that have been hidden from the public for a very long time... For once you see that God, his Church, and Holy Scripture have given us the unadulterated truth, proven by modern science itself, you will have no choice but to put yourself completely in His trust and care for everything else in your life." You both claim that the Bible teaches certain things about science and that there is a global conspiracy of evil scientists trying to cover it up. But you know the truth, right? You know that True Science (TM) supports your interpretation of the Bible. Nothing will change your mind, and nothing will change the minds of the geocentrists. According to them, the Bible is in their favour.

 

[Greg1234]

You see, the geocentrists use the same language that you do. They claim that there is a conspiracy out there to cover up the True Science (TM) that attests to their interpretation of the Bible (geocentrism). As the link I provided in the OP states "Come with an open mind and allow these two authors to show you facts and figures that have been hidden from the public for a very long time... For once you see that God, his Church, and Holy Scripture have given us the unadulterated truth, proven by modern science itself, you will have no choice but to put yourself completely in His trust and care for everything else in your life." You both claim that the Bible teaches certain things about science and that there is a global conspiracy of evil scientists trying to cover it up. But you know the truth, right? You know that True Science (TM) supports your interpretation of the Bible. Nothing will change your mind, and nothing will change the minds of the geocentrists. According to them, the Bible is in their favour.

The test results are as open as Galileo's. You can deny it. You can try to jump over it. You can claim that it is "mine" But it'll still be there.

 

[Mallon]

The test results are as open as Galileo's. You can deny it. You can try to jump over it. You can claim that it is "mine" But it'll still be there.

Duly noted. And as the geocentrists tell us:

The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed:

The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.

The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.

Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".​

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The Bible does not say the Earth is the center of the universe.

There is simply no verse that says that.

However, mainstream orthodox science does say the Earth is at the center of the universe because all objects in outerspace, save the Andromeda Galaxy, are redshifted away from the Earth. And this would not be the case if Earth were not at the very center.

Therefore so-called "science" is geocentric.

 

[Greg1234]

Duly noted. And as the geocentrists tell us:

The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed:

The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.

The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.

Today’s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".​

I would quote Darwinists, about their random mutation and what not which is aptly compared to the quote above, but youre probably getting the point right now. You are the Geocentrist.

 

[Mallon]

I would quote Darwinists, about their random mutation and what not which is aptly compared to the quote above, but youre probably getting the point right now. You are the Geocentrist.

Indeed. I am the one who uses the Bible as a science textbook. I am the one espousing conspiracy theories.

 

[Greg1234]

The Bible does not say the Earth is the center of the universe.

There is simply no verse that says that.

Of course not. But Darwinism needs that. It is a depiction of dumb hominids to intelligent modern beings. As a Darwinist you have to attack ancient text. Its not an option.

 

[Greg1234]

Indeed. I am the one who uses the Bible as a science textbook. I am the one espousing conspiracy theories.

Scientific evidence <---. You know what, you'll get it.

 

[Mallon]

The Bible does not say the Earth is the center of the universe.

There is simply no verse that says that.

Right. It just says that the earth doesn't move and that everything in the heavens (sun, moon, stars) moves around it.

 

[Mallon]

Scientific evidence <---. You know what, you'll get it.

Are you referring to the evidence taught in public science classrooms, researched in publicly-funded labs, and published in peer-reviewed journals?
Or are you talking about the evidence that all the evil scientists "don't want you to know"? Because that's what a geocetrist would say.

 

[shernren]

The funny thing is that Galileo was wrong. Not that I am a geocentrist! Heliocentrism easily explains all the properties of the solar system.

However, Galileo's arguments for heliocentrism simply don't work. His Dialogue poses four main arguments: that the philosophers' objections are wrong (so, for example, our lack of a "sensation of speed" of the Earth's motion does not show that the Earth is not actually moving); that the phases of Venus and the motion of sunspots show the Earth's motion; that Aristotelian philosophy is wrong about the heavenly bodies being perfect and spherical; and that the tides prove that the Earth is moving.

The first two are sound lines of argument. The third is a straw man, as there were notable astronomers of the time like Clavius who were quite willing to throw out Aristotelian assumptions of perfection while still retaining geocentric dynamics for the Solar System. And the fourth is plain wrong: if there is no "sensation of speed" on a moving Earth, then there can be no tides due solely to a moving Earth either. This is a serious objection because it is his main line of argument: indeed, he wanted to call his book the Dialogue on the Tides, instead of on the Two World Systems!

At that time the Church's judgment was not simply one of dogma. Yes, Galileo was trying to overturn the traditional readings of the Bible. While that in itself was problematic to the Church (and wrongly so), it was also problematic because he was proposing to do so on very inadequate evidence.

People like to present the three historical science-Christianity interactions of flat earthism, geocentrism, and creationism as if they form a unified narrative; but the truth is that the only thing they have in common is that a literalistic reading of the Bible can be used to support all three theories in question. The chronology and sociology surrounding these three disputes are otherwise fairly different, and make for very fascinating study. Having said that, the commonality of being supported by literal interpretation does stand, and I leave you with a quote from a gentleman who earnestly believes that the Bible literally teaches geocentrism:

Following the rule of St. Augustine, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to interpret the Sacred Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense unless the interpretation is untenable or necessity requires otherwise. The Church also dogmatically teaches that it is not permissible to depart from the early Church Fathers&#8217; interpretation of Scripture when they are unanimous (Councils of Trent and Vatican I). What does this have to do with cosmology? Everything, because in interpreting the plain meaning of Scripture, all of the Church Fathers believed in geocentrism (that the Earth is a motionless body in the center of the universe). Moreover, this view was endorsed by three popes in authoritative decrees which condemned Copernicanism as &#8220;heretical&#8221; and &#8220;opposed to Scripture.&#8221;

- John Salza, from the "Galileo Was Wrong" website.

Now John Salza is an earnest geocentrist and (like many of his fellow geocentrists) also an earnest creationist. He is not a Darwinian out to destroy Christianity (as if all of them are); he really believes what he is saying. My question to Greg is: why does this man believe that the Bible teaches geocentrism?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Right. It just says that the earth doesn't move and that everything in the heavens (sun, moon, stars) moves around it.

Verse?

Anyway, that is true according to General Relativity because there is no absolute Cartesian coordinate system unless you are God.

"Since we have already proved through geometrical considerations the equivalence of all hypotheses with respect to the motions of any bodies whatsoever, however numerous, moved only by the collision with other bodies, it follows that not even an angel could determine with mathematical rigor which of the many bodies of that sort is at rest, and which is the center of motion for the others." -- Gottfried W. Leibniz, polymath, 1689

However, Moses was well aware of the heliocentric model, this being passed down to him from Methuselah.

"And he [Methuselah] was moreover with the angels of God these six jubilees of years, and they showed him everything which is on the earth and in the heavens, the rule of the sun, and he wrote down everything." -- Jubilees 4:21

And this is confirmed by Isaac Newton.

"Newton considered Moses to be a trained physicist. Moses knew about gravity and other natural forces, and Copernican astronomy. And he depicted the historical events of creation in the order they had occured. His only change was linguistic. Instead of reporting the events of creation in the technical language of a trained scientist, Moses deflated his depiction to make it comprehensible to uneducated people. He did not falsify his knowledge. By necessity, he simplified his report to improve the understanding of non-professionals. According to Newton, had Moses described these events in scientific terms, his narration would have been confusing and boring. And it would have amused his audience who would have viewed him more as a philosopher than as a prophet." -- Peter A. Redpath, philosopher, Masquerade of the Dream Walkers, 1998

 

[Mallon]

Verse?

I provided many verses back in post #13.

And shernren, thanks for pointing out that geocentrists are, in fact, largely young earth creationists convinced that the Bible teaches both geocetrism AND young earth creationism. This flies in the face of Greg's idea that geocentrism is somehow linked to "Darwinism".

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Of course not. But Darwinism needs that. It is a depiction of dumb hominids to intelligent modern beings. As a Darwinist you have to attack ancient text. Its not an option.

I love you.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I provided many verses back in post #13.

And shernren, thanks for pointing out that geocentrists are, in fact, largely young earth creationists convinced that the Bible teaches both geocetrism AND young earth creationism. This flies in the face of Greg's idea that geocentrism is somehow linked to "Darwinism".

Did you read my scripturally-based scientific refutation of this fallacy?

 

[Mallon]

Did you read my scripturally-based scientific refutation of this fallacy?

Just as YECs don't accept Scripturally- or scientifically-based arguments from evolutionists, geocentrists don't accept Scripturally- or scientifically-based arguments from heliocentrist YECs because they favour their interpretation of the Bible over yours. You can post it if you like, but I doubt that it would change the mind of a geocentrist.