[_ Old Earth _] Geocentricity versus Heliocentricity

[Deavonreye]

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.

How about YOU start one, then show me the link. Look, . . . you are being illogical here. You said that you have no evidence for your god, but then pull out a verse that can NEVER be able to point someone to a god [viewing nature, and by doing so, coming to the ONLY conclusion that there was a Jewish deity who created everything, things went bad, and eventually came himself, as "his son", died after a short life, and believing it all happened granting a person a happy afterlife, . . . . . again JUST by looking at nature]. Yet that very STUDY of nature points to a completely different conclusion, when I DO look at the evidence [nature] and do not see any specific deity in it???

 

[jasoncran]

pard, nothing in nature points directly to the god that we serve. it merely makes one think is there something out there and to begin inquiry, for if i take it pards way then the bible and our preaching isnt needed. yes the spirit isnt bound by men and can use whatsoever he wishes to win souls but the bible says that faith cometh by hearing the word, and the word by the preacher.

i will use this example.
YouTube - ‪Star Of David In The Eclipse‬‏

google star of david seen in solar eclipse. and its there at 1:39. this means that we look to see what we want to see. yes God does use nature to declare his glory. but often it when we come to him that we are able to see his handiworks.

a sinner wont see him in nature as satan has blinded him. till then he wont give god glory. again God does use nature to get men to think on these things. and that leads to searching and if openly desiring the truth God will make that person come to him sooner or later.

 

[Pard]

Deavon, I'm sorry but I fail to see your point here at all. You're view is skewed because you have denied God for so long. Furthermore, you take your evidence from an atheistic world.

Jason, I couldn't disagree more. And I think Romans 1 would back me up on that one.

 

[Free]

totopic

 

[lordkalvan]

Obviously to didn't understand my post. Go read it again, I'll wait...

Oh, I understood it; I was just interested in the conclusion you draw based on it.

I said that I have no clue what you will conclude. You're an atheist (or some variant of one) and I will not even pretend to understand you. So I have no idea what YOU will conclude, 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.

Umm, I thought you were referring to scientific conclusions rather than the Bible as a whole, hence my interest in a part of the board devoted to scientific matters as they impact Christianity. Are you arguing that if anything in the Bible contradicts our best understanding of a phenomenon based on considerable scientific observation, measurement and analysis, then the Bible's explanation should trump the scientific explanation?

 

[lordkalvan]

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.

All this said without a trace of irony while typing on a computer and posting the result via digital technology to the Internet, i.e. obvious consequences of the ideas that science provides. Go figure.

 

[lordkalvan]

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....

If you learnt this in science classes, then they weren't very good science classes.

....and that the Earth revolved around it and that Science had proven that ages ago.

Stellar aberration, stellar parallax, phases of the Inner Planets, Doppler effect, laws of gravitation, geostationary satellites, interplanetary probes....

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.

And the reasons behind this hoax would be what, exactly?

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.

Why would you expect a pre-scientific culture to understand cosmology?

Could it be that God told some people knowledge and left others in the dark?

Could it be that God left it to human curiosity and learning to come to an understanding of God's creation?

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.

In solar systems we observe no example of a smaller body that is orbited by a larger one (Jupiter orbits the Sun, Jupiter's moons orbit Jupiter, etc). What are the physics that you propose that would allow the Sun (and every other Solar System body) to orbit Earth?

 

[jasoncran]

Deavon, I'm sorry but I fail to see your point here at all. You're view is skewed because you have denied God for so long. Furthermore, you take your evidence from an atheistic world.

Jason, I couldn't disagree more. And I think Romans 1 would back me up on that one.

the audience he was talking to was the jews and the gentiles in rome who were in a church. it gets one asking. the ordered universe doesnt have a id of this is the God of the bible who created this. its ordered and that implies and intellgence behind it but one must want to find this intellegence. its his still small voice that does that calling or drawing to himself. once saved i knew this voice of God and even stated man i heard that for yrs and didnt even know it!!!!!!!!

satan blinds men to see if theres any possibility of God out there(of the bible).

 

[Deavonreye]

Deavon, I'm sorry but I fail to see your point here at all. You're view is skewed because you have denied God for so long. Furthermore, you take your evidence from an atheistic world.

Jason, I couldn't disagree more. And I think Romans 1 would back me up on that one.

But how would YOU know? If you admitted having "no evidence of god", why take the words written in a book over solid scientific discovery? It is obvious that the earth rotates around the sun. Because a few verses make it SEEM the other way around, why be so entirely literal about it when it could have VERY well been analogy/poetic language? There is a skew involved here, but it isn't I who is affected.

 

[Deavonreye]

Originally Posted by 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.

All this said without a trace of irony while typing on a computer and posting the result via digital technology to the Internet, i.e. obvious consequences of the ideas that science provides. Go figure.

Exactly exactly exactly exactly exactly exactly exactly times a million!! It is really quite simple. There isn't any conspiracy in the science community. Conspiracy has no place there, only repeatable/consistent data from the tests done.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Exactly exactly exactly exactly exactly exactly exactly times a million!! It is really quite simple. There isn't any conspiracy in the science community. Conspiracy has no place there, only repeatable/consistent data from the tests done.

Well, although it's a little off the subject, I have to disagree. Some "science" so-called has a leftist leaning. And example is that saturated fats are bad for you, cholesterol causes heart disease and salt is bad for you are examples of severe myths. And the real scientists who dare buck the trends of Big Pharma and say otherwise pay dearly. So please don't make the scientific community sound like a community of saints. They have their prejudges too if it supports their cause. As a matter of fact, when their human nature comes out, I'd say they are a little more close-minded than Christians are portrayed to be as the pot says to the kettle.

I'll let someone else take a swing at global warming myth if they want ---- I'm more interested in the medical myths.

 

[jasoncran]

Well, although it's a little off the subject, I have to disagree. Some "science" so-called has a leftist leaning. And example is that saturated fats are bad for you, cholesterol causes heart disease and salt is bad for you are examples of severe myths. And the real scientists who dare buck the trends of Big Pharma and say otherwise pay dearly. So please don't make the scientific community sound like a community of saints. They have their prejudges too if it supports their cause. As a matter of fact, when their human nature comes out, I'd say they are a little more close-minded than Christians are portrayed to be as the pot says to the kettle.

I'll let someone else take a swing at global warming myth if they want ---- I'm more interested in the medical myths.

on spaceport this was a subject and theres a book on that. it describes who scientists would conspire agiasnt the more open one from the group and get them fired or shushed .

 

[Jake]

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.

God is not mandated by physical laws, and you would not believe examples if we posted.

Over the years, there has been a vast contradiction among scientists about what and what is not a physical law, albeit there are a few accepted worldwide - like, wow, gravity exists. Some physical laws, accepted by the scientific community, were disproved later. So the constant changing and manipulation of studies has highly discredited some "highly intelligent" scientists - yet, some people insist on continuely putting their faith in these types.

 

[jasoncran]

that is the nature of science. it was meant to be that way it was more christian friendly(so to speak) i believe a creationist came up with the idea of the scientific method. science proves nothing, it only eliminates possibilities and raises more questions when one is answered.

 

[Jake]

that is the nature of science. it was meant to be that way it was more christian friendly(so to speak) i believe a creationist came up with the idea of the scientific method. science proves nothing, it only eliminates possibilities and raises more questions when one is answered.

agree. it puts what seems to be placing limits, until they discover it wasn't a limit in the first place. lol

 

[jasoncran]

AlbertMohler.com – Throwing the Bible Under the Bus

its real related to these discussion, if you note what the theistic evolutionists do. and i have seen it here by some(note:not all)

 

[lordkalvan]

God is not mandated by physical laws, and you would not believe examples if we posted.

How very convenient.

Over the years, there has been a vast contradiction among scientists about what and what is not a physical law...

Can you cite some of these 'vast contradiction' that you allege exist amongst scientists about what is and is not 'a physical law'?

...albeit there are a few accepted worldwide - like, wow, gravity exists.

Umm, 'gravity' is not a law and, if you think that Newton's law of universal gravitation is apparently so obvious, then one wonders why it took so long to be formulated.

Some physical laws, accepted by the scientific community, were disproved later.

For example?

So the constant changing and manipulation of studies has highly discredited some "highly intelligent" scientists - yet, some people insist on continuely putting their faith in these types.

Rhetoric is easy and cheap. Do you have anything of substance to put forward to illustrate your claims of 'manipulation'?

 

[Pard]

You know what I find both humorous and saddening at the same time? The millions of people who look into the face of God and even study His face, and yet never even realize what they are gazing upon.

 

[Green Man]

Pantheism, Pard?:p

Be that as it may for a Theist Pard, it is not within the realm of Science/The Scientific Method to be able to confirm such a thing. But a Heliocentric Solar System is.
I can see the face of my Goddess within a nest of baby, tweeting, birds,...but I would be an absolute fool to try and think that this perception of mine has any place within a scientific discussion involving Cosmology.
A scientist must ever strive to remain impartial.
Use scientific discovery to better help you understand how things within the Universe work, and use that to convince yourself of the majesty of your Deities complex creative powers,....not the other way around, using your personal faith to effect how science should be used and what it should predict.

 

[Pard]

But luckily for me, the Bible is the Word of God and as such it speaks only Truth. So I can use it to confirm and deny scientific ideas. Like this concept of panspermia or abiogenics or TOE or the big bang theory.