[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[coffeeelover]

No I wouldnt agree with that. Your just making massive assumptions thats all.

I'll take it by your reply you dont wanna go into those scientific methods you mentioned. Pity.....I was looking forward to blowing them out of the water. .

My stellar parralax rebuttle is particularly concise and very telling of much of what the theoretical science (falsely so called) establishment is all about. i.e. circular reasoning.

Never mind then.

I'm still going with stationary Earth.

It's Biblical.

It's scientific.

It's logical.

It's good enough for me.

I am so glad you are a member here. All people who take genesis literally use the same logic as you. The rest just think they are smarter for not believing the Sun revolves around the Earth.

 

[Strangelove]

I am so glad you are a member here. All people who take genesis literally use the same logic as you. The rest just think they are smarter for not believing the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Thanks Brother.2

 

[lordkalvan]

...Heres our solar system. Notice the orbits. Its all very simple. And we have a true Christian and real scientist, Tychoe Brahe to thank. Note: Uranus and neptune hadn't been discovered then. Pluto has been "demoted" by modern science as a non-planet....

Brahe developed his model for two immediate reasons: to deal with the fact that the Copernican model suggested that stellar parallax should be observable (which, with such instruments as were then available, it wasn't) and to conform with certain biblical passages which could be interpreted as implying that the Sun moves while Earth does not. As soon as evidence of stellar parallax could be observed in the 19th century, it became clear that Brahe's model was incorrect (it had already been demonstrated to be faulty by the early 18th Century discovery of stellar aberration).

 

[jasoncran]

Jason can you just ease up on the bitterness please.

It's not very Christian or Brotherly. Theres alot of pride in you.

Heres our solar system. Notice the orbits. Its all very simple. And we have a true Christian and real scientist, Tychoe Brahe to thank. Note: Uranus and neptune hadn't been discovered then. Pluto has been "demoted" by modern science as a non-planet.

any one up to date, and thanks tony. i was hoping some one would chime in. and cl show me evidence that ancient writers of hebrew believed what the gentile and enemy of persian empire. would think in that time.

actually any hebrew writings and teachings of that time.

 

[Free]

Yeah...your absolutley right Free. No proof. Just wanted to see what peoples general view of it was. I'm just tackling basic observation at the moment here.

To me it looks like whatever the camera is mounted on is totally still. Just my observation. I mean....the framing of the shot doesnt change a millimeter throughout the whole 24 hours. Remember this geostationary satellite is supposed to be flying around the Earth at 70,000mph.

Add to that, the Earth hurtling around the Sun (aledgedly) at the same speed. So we've got all those things going on and yet....the perfect, eerie stillness?

Just sayin'

I don't think you understood what geostationary means.

Can you bring forth your proofs one at a time please Free.

I'm off to bed now but I'll catch up with you guys tomorrow....

.......when the Sun rises ((Lolz))

The son appears to rise but it obviously doesn't. And, no, I'm not going to bring forth proofs. Take some courses or read some books on physics and astronomy.

 

[coffeeelover]

any one up to date, and thanks tony. i was hoping some one would chime in. and cl show me evidence that ancient writers of hebrew believed what the gentile and enemy of persian empire. would think in that time.

actually any hebrew writings and teachings of that time.

What difference does it make what bronze age Hebrews believed. I am just trying to figure out why sun orbiting earth is stupid but people living hundreds of years and talking snakes are obviously literal truth.

 

[Strangelove]

As soon as evidence of stellar parallax could be observed in the 19th century, it became clear that Brahe's model was incorrect (it had already been demonstrated to be faulty by the early 18th Century discovery of stellar aberration).

How? Show me how stellar parallax disproves Brahe's model please.

 

[Strangelove]

I don't think you understood what geostationary means..

Why>?

The son appears to rise but it obviously doesn't. And, no, I'm not going to bring forth proofs. Take some courses or read some books on physics and astronomy.

Ok hold on...
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:_vhwonK5oQpc6M:http://www.britgo.org/files/images/books.jpg

Nope. Still cant find any proof that the Earth moves. Nothing even close to proof.

 

[lordkalvan]

How? Show me how stellar parallax disproves Brahe's model please.

Stelar parallax provides important evidence that Brahe's model concerning a stationary Earth does not provide a complete and satisfactory explanation for the structure and dynamics of our Solar System.

If stellar parallax could be observed, Brahe knew that the Copernican model would demonstrate greater robustness and better explanatory power than his own. As this parallax could not be observed, Brahe's model was preferred by institutions such as the Catholic Church. As soon as stellar parallax could be observed, Brahe's model could no longer be supported as it failed to account for this observed phenomenon. While Earth's diurnal rotation is sufficient to observe lunar parallax with the naked eye, it is quite insufficient to observe either planetary or stellar parallax. In order for either of these phenomena to be observed, both better instruments and a much longer baseline are required. Once those instruments were developed, stellar parallax could be observed and it became obvious that Earth was in effect passing from one end-point to the other of a significant baseline, in other words Earth was not stationary.

And, as already pointed out, stellar aberration had already demonstrated that Brahe's model was inadequate as an explanatory model of the Solar System. This is your problem, of course, because there are several lines of independent consilient evidence that point to a heliocentric model of the Solar System being correct.

I notice you have yet to elaborate the 'massive assumptions' I made in respect of inferences that can be drawn from observations of other non-stellar bodies in this and other solar systems. Why is that?

 

[Strangelove]

Stelar parallax provides important evidence that Brahe's model concerning a stationary Earth does not provide a complete and satisfactory explanation for the structure and dynamics of our Solar System.

If stellar parallax could be observed, Brahe knew that the Copernican model would demonstrate greater robustness and better explanatory power than his own. As this parallax could not be observed, Brahe's model was preferred by institutions such as the Catholic Church. As soon as stellar parallax could be observed, Brahe's model could no longer be supported as it failed to account for this observed phenomenon. While Earth's diurnal rotation is sufficient to observe lunar parallax with the naked eye, it is quite insufficient to observe either planetary or stellar parallax. In order for either of these phenomena to be observed, both better instruments and a much longer baseline are required. Once those instruments were developed, stellar parallax could be observed and it became obvious that Earth was in effect passing from one end-point to the other of a significant baseline, in other words Earth was not stationary.

And, as already pointed out, stellar aberration had already demonstrated that Brahe's model was inadequate as an explanatory model of the Solar System. This is your problem, of course, because there are several lines of independent consilient evidence that point to a heliocentric model of the Solar System being correct.

I notice you have yet to elaborate the 'massive assumptions' I made in respect of inferences that can be drawn from observations of other non-stellar bodies in this and other solar systems. Why is that?

Ok. So....Stellar Parralax. This is the most scientific thing that most people can come up with to prove that the Earth moves.

The satement is "We can measure star distances using Stellar Parralax therefore we know the Earth is orbiting the Sun"

Now I'm gonna show you how this is a classic case of CIRCULAR REASONING.

[SIZE=+1]Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.[/SIZE]

Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.

Look at the diagram below that shows the method of Stellar Parralax:::::::

Lots of comlicated science stuff there. Dont worry, you only need to notice one thing. Look at the base of the diagram. There you have the Earth. The entire method of measuring stellar parralax is based on the ASSUMPTION THAT THE EARTH IS ORBITING THE SUN!

So they take a measurement of a distance to a star and then 6 months later they take another measurement ASSUMING the Earth is on the OTHER side of the sun. And thats how they get their calculations. Infact ALL star distances and ANY calculations based on star distances are based on this and therefore fundamentally flawed.

Thats the method. So by bringing this forward as proof your basically supporting the premise that the Earth orbits the sun by saying we measure star distances using the premise that the Earth orbits the sun. Its circular.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ok. So....Stellar Parralax. This is the most scientific thing that most people can come up with to prove that the Earth moves.

The satement is "We can measure star distances using Stellar Parralax therefore we know the Earth is orbiting the Sun"

Nope, the statement is: we can measure stellar parallax, therefore Earth is at different ends of a given baseline or stellar parallax could not be observed. Because such parallax could not be observed, Brahe concluded that earth did not move, which sat comfortably with a particular theological interpretation of biblical folklore and myth. Analogously, lunar parallax can be observed as Earth rotates around its own axis, i.e. as a baseline for observation is established as the point from which the measurement is taken changes as it moves in relation to the Moon.

Now I'm gonna show you how this is a classic case of CIRCULAR REASONING.

[SIZE=+1]Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.[/SIZE]

Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.

Yes, I know what circular reasoning is and, no, this isn't circular reasoning, no matter how much you wish it was.

Look at the diagram below that shows the method of Stellar Parralax:::::::

Lots of comlicated science stuff there. Dont worry, you only need to notice one thing. Look at the base of the diagram. There you have the Earth. The entire method of measuring stellar parralax is based on the ASSUMPTION THAT THE EARTH IS ORBITING THE SUN!

Nope, the entire method of measuring stellar parallax would fail if there was not a baseline from which that parallax could be observed and measured. The inference (not assumption) of that observation and measurement is that Earth has moved from one point on that baseline to another.

So they take a measurement of a distance to a star and then 6 months later they take another measurement ASSUMING the Earth is on the OTHER side of the sun. And thats how they get their calculations. Infact ALL star distances and ANY calculations based on star distances are based on this and therefore fundamentally flawed.

All that appears to be fundamentally flawed is your understanding of what this methodology implies. What alternative and better explanation do you have for the observed and measured phenomenon of stellar parallax, then?

Thats the method. So by bringing this forward as proof your basically supporting the premise that the Earth orbits the sun by saying we measure star distances using the premise that the Earth orbits the sun. Its circular.

Nope, I point out that the existence of a baseline from which parallax can be observed leads to the inference that the times at which measurements are taken indicate that Earth is at a different point in each instance along that baseline. No baseline = no parallax; there is nothing circular about this reasoning. Therefore Earth is not a stationary object in the cosmos.

If this amounts to a 'particularly concise and very telling' rebuttal of the implications of stellar parallax, then you have a much more generous and forgiving idea of what constitutes a 'rebuttal' than I do.

By the way, I still remain interested in what your take is on the 'massive assumptions' I made in respect of inferences that can be drawn from observations of other non-stellar bodies in this and other solar systems.

 

[jasoncran]

What difference does it make what bronze age Hebrews believed. I am just trying to figure out why sun orbiting earth is stupid but people living hundreds of years and talking snakes are obviously literal truth.

then why do believe in Jesus, after all he talked to devils, was that not just as foolish.
of course the hebrews didnt understand science, to them it plainly appeared how the sun did stop. so why would the lord have them write that the sun was stopped by the lord. so that they could see the power of the Lord.

what is equally dubious how the evolutionist tells the child they teach in a science he or she is special, when they also teach that nothing but untillegenlty guided laws of nature with plum chance of survival and with some random mutations we can to have a personality, and etc.

how is a kid special when theres nothing but chance behind it all? he isnt , kinda contradictory.

 

[Strangelove]

Forgive me are you serious???

Nope, the statement is: we can measure stellar parallax, therefore Earth is at different ends of a given baseline

And I said this is circular. "We can measure stellar parralax" USING THE PREMISE THAT THE EARTH IS AT DEFFERENT ENDS OF A GIVEN BASELINE (ORBITS THE SUN) "therefore Earth is at different ends of a given baseline". You are using the premise to prove the premise! CIRCULAR!

The inference (not assumption) of that observation and measurement is that Earth has moved from one point on that baseline to another.

Lolz??>> What is this double talk? "inference (not assumption)". Whatever it is its NOT REAL!

All that appears to be fundamentally flawed is your understanding of what this methodology implies. What alternative and better explanation do you have for the observed and measured phenomenon of stellar parallax, then?

That its fundamentally flawed.

Nope, I point out that the existence of a baseline from which parallax can be observed leads to the inference that the times at which measurements are taken indicate that Earth is at a different point in each instance along that baseline. No baseline = no parallax; there is nothing circular about this reasoning. Therefore Earth is not a stationary object in the cosmos.

Are you joking or are you actually a theoretical scientist?

By the way, I still remain interested in what your take is on the 'massive assumptions' I made in respect of inferences that can be drawn from observations of other non-stellar bodies in this and other solar systems.

Because whatever "inferences" you make ARE assumptions. Dont matter what kind of funky word you use.

 

[lordkalvan]

Forgive me are you serious???

Three interrogatives must make your question more pertinent penetrating, I guess.

And I said this is circular. "We can measure stellar parralax" USING THE PREMISE THAT THE EARTH IS AT DEFFERENT ENDS OF A GIVEN BASELINE (ORBITS THE SUN) "therefore Earth is at different ends of a given baseline". You are using the premise to prove the premise! CIRCULAR!

Yes, I know you said it's circular; however your assertion to that effect does not make it circular. The point is that without a baseline, stellar parallax cannot be measured. However, stellar parallax can be measured, therefore what inference do you draw from that observation? How you imagine this to be circular reasoning, I have no idea.

Lolz??>> What is this double talk? "inference (not assumption)". Whatever it is its NOT REAL!

Your simple assertion to this effect is neither evidential nor persuasive; capitalization does not make your point more effective. Do you understand the difference between an inference and an assumption?

That its fundamentally flawed.

This is not an explanation. If you think that simply declaring something to be 'fundamentally flawed' amounts to a reasoned refutation of that thing, then your standards of reasoning and argument are somewhat lacking. Why is it 'fundamentally flawed' and what better explanation can you offer that accounts for the observations in question and that better explains them in a manner consilient with other, independent observations that also support the inferences drawn (stellar aberration, Doppler effect and the behaviour of other non-stellar bodies that are parts of this and other solar systems)?

Are you joking or are you actually a theoretical scientist?

Do you have an argument to offer in rebuttal, or are rhetoric and ridicule your only debating tools?

Because whatever "inferences" you make ARE assumptions. Dont matter what kind of funky word you use.

Again, your assertions are not explanatory and, for your information, 'inference' is not a 'funky word' - perhaps you should go away and look it up. You have yet to show how the observations of non-stellar objects in this and other solar systems amounts to making 'massive assumptions'. Simply restating your assertions in a slightly different form does not make them any less unsupported or any more convincing.

 

[Strangelove]

Lolz...

Ok Kalvan...

Cant workout whether your just trolling for a reaction now or if you are truly hoodwinked by this concept.

I'll let you have the last word on that particular exchange.

We'll just let the reader discern the truth.

 

[lordkalvan]

Lolz...

Ok Kalvan...

Cant workout whether your just trolling for a reaction now or if you are truly hoodwinked by this concept.

I'll let you have the last word on that particular exchange.

We'll just let the reader discern the truth.

And answer came there none....

No doubt avoiding answering any of the points raised allows you to maintain the illusion that your arguments remain unrefuted and your 'rebuttal' of stellar paradox a paradigm of intellectual rigour and inarguable logic. Unfortunately, that you have chosen to abandon even a pretense of defending your case and replying to points made and questions asked only suggests that you have no reasoned case to make and no answers to provide.

And you proclaimed so much....

 

[coffeeelover]

So strangelove what do you think is the reason so many people who say they believe the word of God literally don't want to acknowledge your view? I have seen posters who in every other topic slam science, but in this one they point to it. On one hand they say the verses that point to the Earth being the unmoving physical center of the universe are poetry, but what they like to believe in is literal. How do you counter this?

It appears your fellow literalists are throwing you under the bus.

 

[Strangelove]

So strangelove what do you think is the reason so many people who say they believe the word of God literally don't want to acknowledge your view? I have seen posters who in every other topic slam science, but in this one they point to it. On one hand they say the verses that point to the Earth being the unmoving physical center of the universe are poetry, but what they like to believe in is literal. How do you counter this?

It appears your fellow literalists are throwing you under the bus.

The bigger the lie the more people accept it.

 

[lordkalvan]

The bigger the lie the more people accept it.

A bromide which no doubt helps maintain the illusion that you have defended a stationary Earth and refuted arguments offered against it, but which does nothing but paper over the cracks in your arguments and your abject failure to respond to questions asked and points made. Simply declaring something to be a lie does not make it a lie, no matter how much you wish that it might. You have indicated that you think those who disagree with you have been hoodwinked, but the only example of hoodwinking I have seen in this thread is that which you apply to yourself.

 

[Pard]

Would someone be so kind as to post all the scripture that even remotely supports a stationary earth?