Galileo Was Wrong

[Agonaces of Susa]

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.

I agree with you that fundamentalists on both sides are not persuaded by disconfirming evidence.

However, not everyone is a fundamentalist one way or the other.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

"Classical" geocentrism described astronomical features as they were seen from the earth. Every bit of description and every verse in the Scripture are literally true.

Modern geocentrism explore the nature of the universe. It is as foggy to us as the earth-sun relationship was to Moses. But all the "descriptions" of the modern geocentrism are also true. For example, the earth looks like to be at the center of the universe. We only report what we see.

In fact, the modern geocentrism provides the BEST argument for creationism. At this very moment, a lot of space is created in the universe.

 

[Papias]

Agon of S wrote:

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.

Somebody doesn't understand expansion. May I recommend Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for starters, which has:

An observation stemming from this theorem is that seeing objects recede from us on Earth is not an indication that Earth is near to a center from which the expansion is occurring, but rather that every observer in an expanding universe will see objects receding from them.

Papias

 

[Mallon]

"Classical" geocentrism described astronomical features as they were seen from the earth. Every bit of description and every verse in the Scripture are literally true.

Surely you can't be advocating an accommodationist hermeneutic. I thought that wasn't allowed, according to geocentrists and YECs, for fear of treading down a slippery slope.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Somebody doesn't understand expansion.

LOL.

I don't understand it and neither did Hubble.

"... it seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." -- Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1947

May I recommend Hubble's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL. So they claim.

They also claim that there is one magical place in the universe that is not expanding and that is the Earth.

May I recommend: Expanding Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

In fact, the modern geocentrism provides the BEST argument for creationism.

LOL.

That is absurd.

The BEST argument for creationism is the existence of Almighty God.

That we observe the universe caused by God and read His Holy Bible and other sacred scriptures that He gave to humanity.

At this very moment, a lot of space is created in the universe.

So-called "space" (unless you mean so-called "outerspace") is imaginary, does not exist except in Meinong's Jungle, and has never been observed.

 

[marlowe007]

Is anyone here going to the "Galileo Was Wrong" symposium in support of biblical geocentrism this November?

Galileo Was Wrong

Apparently, not only does the Bible teach geocentrism, but True Science (TM) supports geocentrism, too.

Geocentrism?

Galileo?!

NOBODY HAS BEEN AGAINST GALILEO FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS! He's not the new kid on the block, like Darwin!

Now, assuming they are serious, I applaud their efforts to play "Don Quixote" against those towering windmills. Darwin, sure, he's fair game. But not even Tim LaHaye is going to question Galileo. That takes a special kind of originality. One day, I can only hope to be that insane. I'm working on the idea that my thoughts are not my own, and that I'm merely a tabula rasa, a puppet for a benevolent deity who sits at my corpse at the end of my life and broadcasts my thoughts backwards in time to me in the order I thought them. I tend to think that this benevolent diety is Superman's faithful super-dog, Krypto, but it's also equally likely that he is Luigi, Mario's brother. One day I will believe this. In fact I'll believe it nine times before breakfast.

Now, assuming they are trolls, I applaud their commitment to their role. That takes talent as well.

 

[Mallon]

Geocentrism?

Galileo?!

NOBODY HAS BEEN AGAINST GALILEO FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS!

Geocentrists have been.

Now, assuming they are trolls, I applaud their commitment to their role. That takes talent as well.

Why do you think they're trolls when they claim to be devout, Bible-believing Christians?

 

[shernren]

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

But at the time of Leibniz (and Newton), the fixed stars were considered to be an inertial reference frame. The question then is: Is the Earth fixed, and the Sun moving, relative to the fixed stars? Or is the Earth moving and the Sun fixed relative to the fixed stars? Those are two relativistically different situations.

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

I see your Apocrypha and raise you the Bible:

And God made the two great lights-the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-and the stars. (Gen 1:16, ESV)

The Moon rules the night, according to Moses; yet nobody has ever proposed a Selenocentric model of astronomy. Therefore how can the "rule of the sun" be a clear reference to heliocentrism?

 

[Chris81]

I would be interested to hear how a YEC can defend compromising with science in regards to heliocentrism when a literal interpretation of the bible supports geocentrism.

 

[marlowe007]

Why do you think they're trolls when they claim to be devout, Bible-believing Christians?

Yeah, well, so did Bob Tilton, but never for one minute did I take him and his clown show seriously.

If they aren't trolling, at the very least they're in it for the $$$.

Except for Sungenis, the squabbly sedevacantist with a penchant for controversy in pretty much any topic he touches.

 

[shernren]

Yeah, well, so did Bob Tilton, but never for one minute did I take him and his clown show seriously.

If they aren't trolling, at the very least they're in it for the $$$.

Except for Sungenis, the squabbly sedevacantist with a penchant for controversy in pretty much any topic he touches.

I'm not sure the profit motive can account for a fifth of America's population ...

 

[marlowe007]

I'm not sure the profit motive can account for a fifth of America's population ...

I do not believe that 20% of America, or any first world nation for that matter, thinks the sun orbits the Earth.

There are lies, darned lies and statistics.

 

[chilehed]

Is anyone here going to the "Galileo Was Wrong" symposium in support of biblical geocentrism this November?..

There's no such thing as biblical geocentrism, because geocentrism isn't taught in the bible. And Galileo was wrong not because he thought that the earth orbited the sun, but because he thought that the orbits were circular rather than elliptical.

 

[Mallon]

There's no such thing as biblical geocentrism, because geocentrism isn't taught in the bible.

Geocentrists disagree.

 

[shernren]

I do not believe that 20% of America, or any first world nation for that matter, thinks the sun orbits the Earth.

There are lies, darned lies and statistics.

Well here you go.

From the 2008 General Social Survey, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago: (full data set here: SDA - GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Datafile )

View: EARTHSUN - entry for Earth goes around Sun or vice versa

View: SOLARREV - entry for, if Earth goes around Sun, how long does it take to complete one revolution

653 respondents believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as compared to 2,445 who believed the opposite, making for 21.1% of responses.

Of the 2,445 "heliocentrists", a further 474 (21.1% of (2445 - 195) <- subtracting people who did not answer this next question) believed that the Earth goes around the Sun once every day - effectively they are geocentrists too! That makes about a third of survey respondents.

Quite frankly, the thought of there being even a thousand Americans who have not conceptualized the rotation of the Earth on its axis scares me to bits.

(So does the thought that I've just spent two hours hunting down the GSS instead of writing my thesis!)

 

[shernren]

You can have some fun by seeing what variables correlate with belief in geocentrism in the GSS data: select EARTHSUN (or SOLARREV) in the "Row" blank, then the other variable in the "Column" blank. Here's a fun example:

Across the general survey sample, 40.6% were "very interested" in new scientific discoveries (key: INTSCI). Of that "very interested" subsample, however, 19.1% believed that the Sun goes around the Earth! That's a proportion that's not too different from the general populace. Morton's Demon anyone?

Also, geocentrists tend not to believe that humans evolved (key: EVOLVED), or that the Big Bang happened (key: BIGBANG), to a larger extent than the general populace. Surprise, surprise. (Having said that, though, I'd probably answer no too if someone asked me if "The universe began with a huge explosion"!)

 

[Assyrian]

What is the
49,674 0 IAP
about?

 

[Papias]

Agon wrote:

They also claim that there is one magical place in the universe that is not expanding and that is the Earth.

Um, you are aware that scientist recognize many places in the universe that are not expanding, right? That would include most planets, many stars, many galactic regions, and so on, right? You also know that you are confusing objects with space, right?

And most importantly, that all of this, including the expansion, is testable (indeed, tested) physics, and not magic, right? Which would you consider more magical, the fact that populations change over time, or the story that a dirt man and a rib woman got banished for eating magical fruit?

Papias

 

[shernren]

What is the
49,674 0 IAP
about?

Re: [tips] definition for abbreviation "iap"

IAP = inapplicable. The database includes data from 1972 all the way up to 2008, but the science questions were only asked in 2008; I guess the ~50,000 "inapplicable" records are simply people who were surveyed before then.

Today's random spurious correlation: 15(+/-3)% of geocentrists are not too happy, as compared to 11(+/-1)% of heliocentrists. On the other hand, 30(+/-3)% of people who believe that we evolved from apes are very happy and 13(+/-2)% are not too happy; but 36(+/-3)% of people who said no to that are very happy and only 11(+/-2)% are not too happy.

Maybe there are more creationists than geocentrists simply because creationism makes people happy.