[_ Old Earth _] Geocentricity versus Heliocentricity

[Green Man]

Good afternoon everyone[smile].
Pard, it is good to finally hear from you, however I am confused. What is it that you think I did that you are you accusing me of?
I was asking you questions within my last post here because I am curious about how you determine/define reality. Those were questions I asked, Pard, not character judgments or "bashing". Someone with good reading skills and eyesight would have noticed the question marks at the end of those sentences...and an emotionally secure adult probably wouldn't have taken offense at them either. As you have admitted at being bad at science, not paying attention to detail, and cheating to pass your classes[Thread titled "The Amazing Discovery of D.N.A.", POST#20, page 2], I was merely curious about the degree of your knowledge on the subject of modern Astronomy/Astrophysics. As someone much different than myself, your opinions are valuable to me. But, if you'd rather be blindly insulting and not answer my questions[Which should have been easy, as they only involved your personal thoughts/opinions. It's not as if I was quizzing you on mathematics or something.], well then, that's just fine, for you have more to lose in this relationship than I do[Try and think looooong term, Pard. I plan on being here for awhile, and it's not as if you're only going to hear from me within the "Christianity and Science" threads.].
So....your thoughts[smile]?

 

[Free]

Uh, you are aware the entire Bible (with the exception of the various histories and such) goes against "all known scientific data", right?

No, I am aware of no such thing.

The earth was made 5000 years ago and it took seven days...

There was a world wide flood and the water that flooded the earth came from the sky and the ground and it tore the world into the seven continents we know today...

Those are up for discussion and are not necessarily the case.

A guy died, but then came back to life three days after he was killed...

That same guy than ascended into heaven...

This involves a miracle but is not necessarily against science. Miracles do not negate science.

And let's not forget the biggest "in your face science" that the Bible has:

There is a God!!!

Again, this is not necessarily against scientific data, as the existence of this forum suggests.

So I'm just going to totally disregard your last bit. Heck, I didn't even scratch the surface of what the Bible says and that science utterly disagrees with!

According to your interpretation, which may not be correct.

 

[Free]

however for Free he ought to come tot he conclusion that he cannot use the silly argument that "science says geocentricity is wrong" because he than has to also use that to say the entire Bible is wrong, and as a Christian I don't think he could do that.

Science shows that the geocentric model is wrong and the language of the Bible does not in any way necessitate such a model. Neither relies on the other but both agree and support the other.

And that in no way means that I have to say the entire Bible is wrong. It could veyr well be your understanding of what the Bible says is wrong. Can you admit that?

 

[tim-from-pa]

Even us gnomonists teach people that the sun moves around the gnomon at the rate of approximately 15º per hour, so somebody who reads what we write may conclude that we are not only geocentric, but gnomoncentric. They may even say that what we say is unscientific and proves that we believe the sun goes around us. The odd thing is when we calculate the equation of time, we have this funny habit of using the heliocentric model. Anyone want to bring spherical trigonometry into the "equation"?

 

[Deavonreye]

So, it APPEARS that a few believe counter to scientific discovery. Why? What purpose would there be in doing that [and this can go for many topics, not just a geocentric belief]. For example, if there was a verse that stated that any true believer could stand upon and walk on water, yet even though the science of surface tention states that a person cannot, . . . which would you choose to believe?

I'm just trying to figure out why someone would take a geocentric [or other equally unscientific notions] stance

 

[Free]

So, it APPEARS that a few believe counter to scientific discovery. Why? What purpose would there be in doing that [and this can go for many topics, not just a geocentric belief]. For example, if there was a verse that stated that any true believer could stand upon and walk on water, yet even though the science of surface tention states that a person cannot, . . . which would you choose to believe?

I'm just trying to figure out why someone would take a geocentric [or other equally unscientific notions] stance

These are not equal. If the Bible stated that any true believer could walk on water, I would believe it. Introducing the miraculous is something quite different.

 

[Deavonreye]

These are not equal. If the Bible stated that any true believer could walk on water, I would believe it. Introducing the miraculous is something quite different.

In my analogy, there would be a scripture that stated "all true christians would be able to stand on water". When it becomes clear that no one is able to do so, I would hope that christians would see it AS some sort of metaphore, not a literal thing.

That is where I think anyone who reads scripture that makes them believe in a geocentric solar system . . . SHOULD recognize that these passages cannot be taken literally based upon what science has obviously discovered.

 

[tim-from-pa]

That is where I think anyone who reads scripture that makes them believe in a geocentric solar system . . . SHOULD recognize that these passages cannot be taken literally based upon what science has obviously discovered.

If I may jump in here, I believe that the passage in the bible can be taken literally just as my sundial example is literal, not figurative or parable. I think the whole issue here is a matter of semantics. The observation is literal, but that does not mean that the literal description is explaining why that observation took place. The literal observation is being confused with the cause in other words. So, the fact that the sun moves 15º around that gnomon is literal, as it can be expressed in precise calculation. But that statement does not bind one to believing in a geocentric universe.

 

[Pard]

Green, sorry if I took you the wrong way. I am currently in the heliocentric house, but I'm very open to the reality that it could be the other way around. Frankly I don't see how science can honestly prove one way or the other because it seems to me either model would look the exact same.

Free, clearly we will not agree than. I believe the Bible is giving the truth in regards to the creation of everything and I also believe that it happened in a literal six 24-hour day time frame with a seventh day for rest. My point will, obviously, make no impact on you and you can just disregard it.

Devon, the problem with your argument is that there is this ever-so-looming "if". Could you try to give an example that is in the Bible? Because I will simply counter anything you say that is in the realm of "if" with the fact that obviously the nature of, in this case, water would be different or something like that. It's like shooting a gun, even the most minute change at the point of firing will vastly change the outcome down range.

 

[jasoncran]

pard we have lanched probes to look at uranus and neptune that the geocentric charts dont acknowledge. as stated voyager 3 has left the system.

 

[Deavonreye]

If I may jump in here, I believe that the passage in the bible can be taken literally just as my sundial example is literal, not figurative or parable. I think the whole issue here is a matter of semantics. The observation is literal, but that does not mean that the literal description is explaining why that observation took place. The literal observation is being confused with the cause in other words. So, the fact that the sun moves 15º around that gnomon is literal, as it can be expressed in precise calculation. But that statement does not bind one to believing in a geocentric universe.

Right, because it isn't the actual sun moving. It moves relatively to the center of the galaxy. Sundials only track via the spin of the earth [of course].

Physics dictate exactly what science has discovered about our solar system. Heavier objects do not revolve around significantly lighter objects.

 

[Pard]

pard we have lanched probes to look at uranus and neptune that the geocentric charts dont acknowledge. as stated voyager 3 has left the system.

I fail to see how that disproves or proves anything.

Deavon, I know what you are talking about, but this is God's creation, I don't think some puny laws of physics will stop Him from doing what He wants.

 

[jasoncran]

pard, creation points to the creator in that that its not chaotic, the universe in many ways is quite predictable. God isnt bound by his laws that he created but seldom does he violate them.how many dead men walk the streets? few are raised if it all by the charismatic faith healers these days. God set the universe in order. the probes the were launched were slinghot off jupiter or saturn those planets had to be where they were according to observation

besides the geocentric idea doesnt buy the the idea of gravity as we know it. the sun uses emf to attract things.gravity and magneticism is one and the same to them that believe that. big problem the moon doesnt have a magnetic field yet has gravity.

 

[Deavonreye]

I fail to see how that disproves or proves anything.

Deavon, I know what you are talking about, but this is God's creation, I don't think some puny laws of physics will stop Him from doing what He wants.

I realize that this is your belief, but firstly, I have seen no evidence that any god did any sort of creating. Secondly, there isn't anything that is beyond physical laws. If there is, feel free to post evidence of that here.

 

[Green Man]

Good evening everyone[smile].
It is good to hear from you again Pard. Apology accepted:D.
And you can call me John if you wish. I only called myself "Green Man" because this Forum wouldn't let me use my read name.

Pard, to make this simple[I can complicate the heck out of things later if you wish],......do you think that modern science and the space programs of organizations such as NASA and ESA has sufficiently proven that the Sun within this Solar System is of greater mass than planet Earth?
I ask because if you will refer back to posts #10 and #11 by character AKJVReader, you will notice that within the Geocentric models of our Solar System, the Sun is much much smaller in mass/size[almost equal to or smaller than that of Earth]than what modern mainstream Astronomy and Astrophysics has revealed.
If you do trust modern science enough to accept that our Sun is of an incredibly greater mass than that of our planet Earth, well then it's just a case of planetary gravitational effect/pull to help confirm that Earth rotates around the Sun in a roughly elliptical orbit along with all of the other planets within this one little Solar System.
Just think about that for this moment, and we can discus other things and get really complicated tomorrow if you wish[unless someone else beats me to it, which wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit, ha.ha.].

 

[Pard]

I realize that this is your belief, but firstly, I have seen no evidence that any god did any sort of creating. Secondly, there isn't anything that is beyond physical laws. If there is, feel free to post evidence of that here.

Uh God is beyond the laws. I have no proof of His existence, but nor do you have any proof of His nonexistence. And don't even try, if there was any proof that He doesn't exist that wasn't straight up garbage than atheists would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

And I will continue to operate on the premise that there is a God. If you don't like it than please, be my guest and avoid conversing with me. But I am not going to lower myself because you have to lie to yourself everyday in order to continue with your disbelief*.

*no hard feelings meant in that, and I realize it can sound cold. If you would like an explanation I'd be more than happy to PM you my reason for stating this.

John, I do. And I know where you are going and I must disappoint you, you will find me in no disagreement with you. My own reservations on the matter are more along the lines of "well, the Bible does say these things and it is the truth and though I do feel these scriptures are probably meant to be taken in a non-literal meaning, I cannot be sure about God's meaning on anything because I am Ian, a human, and He is God, God."

 

[Deavonreye]

Uh God is beyond the laws. I have no proof of His existence, but nor do you have any proof of His nonexistence. And don't even try, if there was any proof that He doesn't exist that wasn't straight up garbage than atheists would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

And I will continue to operate on the premise that there is a God. If you don't like it than please, be my guest and avoid conversing with me. But I am not going to lower myself because you have to lie to yourself everyday in order to continue with your disbelief*.

You have no proof of his existence, yet feel that what science has discovered must be incorrect, just because of your "strong belief"? You are free to hold whatever beliefs you wish, but reality doesn't bend to them.

What I find most interesting is that you consider me to be lying. You are in no place to pass such judgement. What I do is look at ALL of the evidence available and make an informed, logical, and HONEST decision on the position I take. You have NO evidence of your god, nor "his creation", yet somehow you see yourself better/higher than those who agree with reality.

 

[Pard]

Uh... You can't prove He doesn't exist either. In fact it seems to me there is far more evidence pointing to an intelligent designer than a bunch of random design happening all within the exact right second of time. Actually, the more I think about it the more the idea science provides sounds like the thing people make up while smoking pot and drinking cool aid.


This isn't the place for this and as I have offered before, in other threads, if you wish to bring up theological matters than make a thread and I will be more than happy to show you why you are wrong.

 

[AKJVReader]

I only came across this topic a week ago. I had thought as from my Science classes that the Sun was the center of the Universe and that the Earth revolved around it and that Science had proven that ages ago. If the Sun really did revolve around the Earth rather than the Earth revolving around the Sun it would have to be one of the biggest hoaxes that people have believed that has ever been heard in Science.

At this stage i'm believing what the Bible says, i will have to revisit the Bible passages and see how it fits into a heliocentric Sun. Could it be that God told some people knowledge and left others in the dark? God chooses who He wants to give knowledge to. When i wanted to find out if there was a God at age 13, God showed me that He was real. (Yes with miracles). So i'm going to search for knowledge about this Heliocentric idea.

 

[Green Man]

Good morning everyone[smile].
Bear in mind AKJVReader that the Christian Bible is not a modern science text book and should not be treated as such. The men who wrote the books of the Bible didn't know anything about Germs and Viruses, North America, genetics, electricity, or the rings of Saturn. It's poetry, stories, teaches about the beliefs and lifestyles of ancient people in one little section of the world, and helps the faithful try to understand how they can have a better relationship with their Deity, keep out of Hell, and get into Heaven.
That's it.