Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53

Thread: 1/3 Russians believe the Sun revolves around the Earth (Geocentrism)

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Adrift in the swamp of deception
    Posts
    4,617

    Default

    All the recent discoveries concerning the Higgs Boson, Dark Matter and "The Grid" all seem to point to the existence of the Aether (or similar) that was prematurely, and I could say, convieniently discarded by the scientific community. Also remember, this is the same scientific community that is propogating the evolution lie. That is a most important fact to keep in mind as you go from here. This is big!
    How do those things point to the existence of an aether? The Higgs boson is theorized as part of the standard model; finding it, which scientists might have done, will only confirm what people have thought to be true.

    Yes, there are some scientists which are biased towards evolution and I have no doubt that intellectual dishonesty is a big problem in the sciences which deal directly with evolution but there are other realms of science that aren't that way.

    Anyway, the earth most certainly rotates and revolves around the sun. One way we can tell this is because of a device called a Foucault pendulum. From Wikipedia:

    The experimental apparatus consists of a tall pendulum free to swing in any vertical plane. The actual plane of swing appears to rotate relative to the Earth; in fact the plane is fixed in space while the Earth rotates under the pendulum once a sidereal day.
    You can set up a Foucault pendulum with dominoes all around it. It depends on where you are in the world but eventually the pendulum will knock over all of the dominoes because the earth is rotating beneath the pendulum.

    Also consider the size of the universe. It's 150,000,000 km from here to the sun and that's a verifiable fact. The sun would have to be moving at an extremely high tangential velocity to rotate around the earth. The tangential velocity of an object is equal to its rotational speed times its radial distance. Rotational speed is measured in Hertz, or cycles per unit time (usually seconds). If the sun rotated around the earth, that would give it a frequency of 1/86,400 (because there are 86,400 seconds in a day and the sun would make one revolution per day), which is 1.1574 * 10^-5 Hertz. Multiplying that by the sun's distance in kilometers gives a tangential velocity of 1,736 km/s, 6,249,600 km/h. The earth only rotates around the sun at around 100,000 km/h. How could the sun be orbiting the earth at such a velocity?

    Let's look at a star that's a bit farther away. The closest star besides the sun is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.22 light years away, or 3.99*10^13 kilometers. If it rotated around the earth it too would rotate with a frequency of 1/86,400 Hz. This would give it a tangential velocity of 4.62*10^8 km/s or 1.66*10^12 km/h. This presents a bit of a problem, though. The speed of light is only 3*10^8 m/s and Proxima Centauri is moving at 4.62*10^11 m/s (that's 1,541 times the speed of light). This is impossible because as an object approaches the speed of light, it becomes more massive and thus takes more energy to accelerate. As velocity approaches the speed of light, the energy required to accelerate the object approaches infinity. This is why it's impossible to accelerate anything bigger than an atom or two towards the speed of light (and even they can't fully reach that velocity). There are stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away, in other galaxies. Those galaxies can't possibly be orbiting the earth; they would be moving at velocities magnitudes greater than the speed of light.

    Einstein said that all frames of reference are equally valid. If you were in an elevator accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2 it would seem like you're stationary on earth. Which is more likely: that the earth spins and it only looks like everything revolves around us or that everything revolves around us? If you spin in a bar stool is it more likely that everyone else in the bar is rotating around you or that you're rotating?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,718

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    How do those things point to the existence of an aether?
    Probably considering Quantum physics which takes lots of faith.

    It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time.
    The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is.
    The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific NW
    Posts
    6,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logosone View Post
    Something tells me a poll of "informed" Americans might not be much better
    I would probably be one of those "informed" Americans.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    47:30 N - 19:5 E
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve53 View Post
    There's a lot of "info" supporting evolution too. Doesn't make it any more valid.
    Same can be said of heliocentric model. I'll take what God says about the matter, thank you.

    Job 26:7 - He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
    1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
    Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
    Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
    Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
    Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

    Sorry, Gods Word says the Earth aint moving. And just for the record, the Tychonian model was never refuted, only discarded for the more evolution friendly heliocenric model.

    Joshua 10:
    12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; And thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
    13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, And shasted not to go down about a whole day.
    14 And there was not a day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.

    It doesn't say the EARTH STOPPED SPINNING! Can you imagine what the oceans would have done were the earth to suddenly stop then restart? Can you say SLOSH? Get your theology straight people. I could care less what atheist science rambles on about, let God be true, but every man a liar - Romans 3:4

    Why is Polaris always dead center up north if our axis is tilted? Where are the 1056 mph winds if the earth is spinning so fast??? Don't even start by telling me the spinning earth drags the atmosphere along with it, 'cause I don't buy it. I don't see any giant fan blades growing out of the ground to help out with this. If the earth was spinning that fast there should be F6 tornado speed winds, 24 hours a day, along the equator, F5 everywhere else. The weather was pretty nice where I live, today. Just a nice gently north western breese. Don't know about the ol' USA. I did hear things are a bit uncomfortable over there these days.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Adrift in the swamp of deception
    Posts
    4,617

    Default

    Why is Polaris always dead center up north if our axis is tilted? Where are the 1056 mph winds if the earth is spinning so fast??? Don't even start by telling me the spinning earth drags the atmosphere along with it, 'cause I don't buy it. I don't see any giant fan blades growing out of the ground to help out with this. If the earth was spinning that fast there should be F6 tornado speed winds, 24 hours a day, along the equator, F5 everywhere else. The weather was pretty nice where I live, today. Just a nice gently north western breese. Don't know about the ol' USA. I did hear things are a bit uncomfortable over there these days.
    Did you read my post about Foucault's pendulum? A large enough pendulum that is allowed to rotate freely will eventually make a full revolution. If placed directly on one of the geographic poles it will complete a full rotation in 24 hours. The only way this can happen is if the earth is rotating beneath the pendulum. How else could it occur?

    The heliocentric model was developed as early as the 16th century by Copernicus; Darwin's On The Origins of Species wasn't published until 1859. Heliocentrism was created as man started to understand more about the universe; it had nothing to do with evolution.

    As for weather patterns, the rotation of the earth does have an effect on weather patterns; it's called the Coriolis effect.

    Here's some information about why Polaris is the north star: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/...uestion64.html Polaris just happens to be the star that Earth's axis is pointing directly at right now. According to that site, in 3,000 BC the north star was Thuban; in about 13,000 years Vega will be the north star.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    47:30 N - 19:5 E
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    Anyway, the earth most certainly rotates and revolves around the sun. One way we can tell this is because of a device called a Foucault pendulum.
    Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the existence of unresolved forces at the surface of the earth, nothing else. What those forces are is yet to be discovered. Anyone can slap on a reason and call it scientific fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    Also, the heliocentric model was developed as early as the 16th century by Copernicus; Darwin's On The Origins of Species wasn't published until 1859. Heliocentrism was created as man started to understand more about the universe; it had nothing to do with evolution.
    Exactly my point, BOTH models were available and in fact excepted at the time of Darwin. But since the Geocentric model insists that there is a God, it was discarded as anti evolution. We must remember who the ruler of this world is. Well, he want to take us to Hell.

    After 21 years of following the Lord and growing in Him, I have come to the conclusion, that if something is "OK" and "good" and "true" with the world, it is either 99% lie or requires very close scrutinization.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post

    As for weather patterns, the rotation of the earth does have an effect on weather patterns; it's called the Coriolis effect.
    Aam, I wasn't talking about "weather patterns" I was talking about 1055 mph winds. You know, the kind that can level cities, not to mention ever letting them be built. That's one thousand fifty five mile-per-hour winds, the speed of earths supposed rotation. Where are they? A gas will not take up the speed of a flat solid moving underneath it. Try it at home. The atmosphere is not connected to the surface of the earth. The earth surface is over 70% FLAT water. Explain how it revolves with the earth to spare us from those very high winds.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    Here's some information about why Polaris is the north star: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/...uestion64.html Polaris just happens to be the star that Earth's axis is pointing directly at right now. According to that site, in 3,000 BC the north star was Thuban; in about 13,000 years Vega will be the north star.
    I say the firmament containing the stars is on an axis. Same observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    Also consider the size of the universe. It's 150,000,000 km from here to the sun and that's a verifiable fact.
    Really? How did they measure it? Wait, don't tell me, using the orbit of the earth and it's parallax?
    The same way they measured those stars that are billions and billions and billions of lightyears away?
    All these huge numbers sound strangly familiar. Where have I heard them before?

    I say, just as with the age of the Earth, the universe is actually a puniverse with not such big numbers.
    All of a sudden, it's not so hard to comprehend everything revolving around the earth anymore.

    Is it?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,718

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petezzzz View Post
    it's not so hard to comprehend everything revolving around the earth anymore.

    Is it?
    But the earth does spin and revolves around the sun, we are not geocentric here no matter how many nutty websites prove otherwise.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    47:30 N - 19:5 E
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    If the sun rotated around the earth, that would give it a frequency of 1/86,400 (because there are 86,400 seconds in a day and the sun would make one revolution per day), which is 1.1574 * 10^-5 Hertz. Multiplying that by the sun's distance in kilometers gives a tangential velocity of 1,736 km/s, 6,249,600 km/h. The earth only rotates around the sun at around 100,000 km/h. How could the sun be orbiting the earth at such a velocity? The closest star besides the sun is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.22 light years away, or 3.99*10^13 kilometers. If it rotated around the earth it too would rotate with a frequency of 1/86,400 Hz. This would give it a tangential velocity of 4.62*10^8 km/s or 1.66*10^12 km/h.
    Tangenal smangenel, if the earth is spinning at over 1055 miles per hour, HOW COME I CAN'T FEEL IT? Do you realise how fast that is? For reference, A .308 bullet travels at 1838 miles per hour.

    BTW, your measurements are based on the assumption that the heliocentric theory is fact. It is still very much just a theory.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Adrift in the swamp of deception
    Posts
    4,617

    Default

    Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the existence of unresolved forces at the surface of the earth, nothing else. What those forces are is yet to be discovered. Anyone can slap on a reason and call it scientific fact.
    Newtonian mechanics are very well-understood (and with relativity they became a bit outdated, although they work as long as you're not approaching the speed of light). The only forces acting upon the surface of the earth that I can think of are the force due to gravity and the force due to the 30 km or so of air that makes up our atmosphere. There must be a centripetal force too because the earth is spinning on its axis and rotating around the sun but rotational motion confuses a bit more than linear motion does. Regardless, there are no mysterious forces acting upon the surface of the earth. Foucault's pendulum only works because the earth is spinning beneath the pendulum.

    Exactly my point, BOTH models were available and in fact excepted at the time of Darwin. But since the Geocentric model insists that there is a God, it was discarded as anti evolution.
    The geocentric model was discarded long before Darwin and not because heliocentrists are anti-God. Also, the geocentric model has nothing to do with God. Before Copernicus people assumed that the earth was the center of the universe because it appeared that everything in space moved around us. And to be fair to ancient peoples, this is an expected belief. If you and I lived a thousand years ago we too would think that the earth were stationary and that the heavens moved around us because that is what it indeed looks like (I mean, we even still say that the sun "rises" and "sets"). Geocentrism was the dominant theory because it's the best we could come up with. You can still live in a heliocentric world and believe in God. God's existence isn't restricted by having the sun be at the center of our solar system.

    After 21 years of following the Lord and growing in Him, I have come to the conclusion, that if something is "OK" and "good" and "true" with the world, it is either 99% lie or requires very close scrutinization.
    Science is one of those things that can be used for good and evil. It is a tool, much like a hammer. Hammers can be used to build houses or to destroy them (and even the destruction of a house is sometimes good). A heliocentric solar system is just a fact. People didn't make it up to try to disprove God (Copernicus was a Catholic; I think Newton might have even been a believer). Yes, there are certain areas of "science" that are dubious at best (evolution, climate change, etc.) Physics is not one of those sciences. You can work out the math and indeed prove, as Isaac Newton did, that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. You can prove that all frames of reference are equally valid. You can prove that mass and energy are indeed the same. You can measure the speed of light. Just because a non-believing world believes something that's true doesn't make it bad or any less true. Non-believers believe that 2+2=4; should we doubt that 2+2=4?

    Explain how it revolves with the earth.
    For the same reason that everything else does: inertia. An object at rest tends to stay at rest; an object in motion tends to stay in motion. The earth moves, relative to the sun, at about 62,000 miles per hour, which means that everything on the earth is moving, relative to the sun, at 62,000 miles per hour (including the atmosphere). Acceleration is what takes energy. To get a satellite to move through space at a certain velocity you just have to accelerate it to that velocity. Once at a certain velocity it will maintain that velocity for a good chunk of time (there needs to be occasional thrust to correct for gravity and keep the satellite actually in space). If the earth were to suddenly stop moving then there would be destructive winds (because the earth has stopped moving but the air has not (and for that matter everything else not very well-anchored into the ground)).

    I'm also curious about the tangential velocity of objects that are millions of light years away. To rotate around us they would have to violate relativity, which we're 99.999999% sure can't be done (at least outside of a black hole or some other such strange structure). How do you explain that? If an object 100,000,000 light years away is to rotate around us, how could it possibly cover all of that distance in one 24-hour period and not be moving at a velocity that is magnitudes greater than the speed of light?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    47:30 N - 19:5 E
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzardhut View Post
    But the earth does spin and revolves around the sun, we are not geocentric here no matter how many nutty websites prove otherwise.
    Nice to see you speaking for everyone here, Buzz.

    Tell that to the first century apostles. I'm sure they got the same flap, when they claimed Jesus rose from the dead. You know, Jesus the Son of God. He didn't come to some insignificant speck of dust in some insignificant corner of an insignificant galaxy. He came to Gods Footstool. The very center of the Universe.

    But anyway, I didn't post this stuff to debate about it. My mind's already made up. I just wanted to throw a monkeywrench into the complacency I'm noticing around here lately.

    ToodaLoo.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Adrift in the swamp of deception
    Posts
    4,617

    Default

    Tangenal smangenel, if the earth is spinning at over 1055 miles per hour, HOW COME I CAN'T FEEL IT? Do you realise how fast that is?
    For the same reason that if you close your eyes while you're flying in an airplane you can't feel that you're moving at around 500 miles per hour. Humans, by the very definition of velocity, cannot feel velocity; only acceleration. We would be miserable if we could feel velocity; we'd be sick all of the time because not only does the earth rotate but it revolves around the sun. And not only does it revolve around the sun, the entire solar system and everything around us is moving through space as our galaxy itself spins on its axis. Remember, an object in motion tends to remain in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by outside forces. When you accelerate a car on a highway to 60 miles per hour, it will happily cruise along at 60 miles per hour until acted upon by things like friction. Once you hit 60 (assuming the road is smooth, etc.) you can't tell you're moving unless you observe your surroundings.

    For reference, A .308 bullet travels at 1838 miles per hour.
    And once the bullet accelerates to that velocity it will stay there unless acted upon by an outside force (such as gravity and drag). If you shot that bullet into space it would keep going at 1,838 miles per hour until it hit a star (which is pretty unlikely).

    Really? How did they measure it? Wait, don't tell me, using the orbit of the earth and it's parallax? The same way they measured those stars that are billions and billions and billions of lightyears away? All these huge numbers sound strangly familiar. Where have I heard them before?

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=400

    You can bounce a radio wave off of something and, using the speed of light and the time it takes for the signal to transmit, calculate its distance. Apparently they did this with Venus and then, with the help of a bit of trig, calculated the distance to the sun. I'd also like to mention that we've sent probes to Mars. If the universe really were small, did the NASA scientists use too much fuel? Why is it that it takes a certain, calculable amount of time for Spirit and Opportunity (the current rovers, although I think one of them has finally died) to transmit signals back to earth? Mars can be anywhere from 36,000,000 miles to 256,000,000 miles from the earth at any given time. Therefore, assuming an average of 161,000,000 miles, it would take about 14 minutes for light to travel from Earth to Mars, which is around how long it takes to communicate with Spirit and Opportunity.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    47:30 N - 19:5 E
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    If the earth were to suddenly stop moving then there would be destructive winds (because the earth has stopped moving but the air has not (and for that matter everything else not very well-anchored into the ground)).
    OK, now we are getting somewhere. How did the air start rotating in the first place, since you said yourself it is not anchored?

    Tell you what, don't reply, just chew on these things for a while. Do some investigating on the immovable earth theory. Don't believe everything the scientists tell you.

    And above all, never let your guard down. Ever...

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    I'd also like to mention that we've sent probes to Mars.
    They SAY they sent probes to Mars. But that's a whole different can of worms.

    Good night.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    29,566

    Default

    "...earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3b


    Jesus + something = nothing

    Jesus + nothing = Everything

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Adrift in the swamp of deception
    Posts
    4,617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petezzzz View Post
    OK, now we are getting somewhere. How did the air start rotating in the first place, since you said yourself it is not anchored?

    Tell you what, don't reply, just chew on these things for a while. Do some investigating on the immovable earth theory. Don't believe everything the scientists tell you.

    And above all, never let your guard down. Ever...
    Personally, I lean towards a young earth. God could easily have set the earth, including its atmosphere, into motion. But whatever you believe about the age of the earth, the point is that it's moving now.

    As far as investigation goes, I've already done that and I've made up my mind (why do people always seem to assume that I haven't done my homework?). I took AP physics, a class which was taught by an awesome, dedicated, and extremely intelligent gentleman, for my entire senior year. I even got up at 5:30 once a week during my last semester so I could attend the early morning study sessions to prepare me for the AP exam. I've seen and employed Newtonian mechanics. I've worked through the math of basic relativity. It works; it all works. Newtons laws are laws because they have been proven time and time again to work. We do things every day in our modern civilization that are only possible because of the basic physical principles that we've discovered to be true.

    But anyway, I didn't post this stuff to debate about it. My mind's already made up. I just wanted to throw a monkeywrench into the complacency I'm noticing around here lately.
    I don't disagree with you that Christ rose from the dead. I don't deny that He came to save all mankind by giving His life to cover our sins. But there are more than 400 years of empirical evidence which shows irrefutably that we live on a planet which orbits a star which is on the edge of a galaxy which is just one of hundreds of millions of galaxies in a giant universe. Why does that stop Christ from dying for us? It doesn't have to. We can live in a vast, magnificent universe and still believe in Jesus Christ. In fact, ever since learning all that I learned in AP physics in high school I've found the universe even more amazing and beautiful. Because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants I'm able to see God's handiwork. I mean, they might have just discovered a particle which gives other particles mass. Isn't that awesome? Matter is energy and energy is matter. Does that not show evidence of an ingenious Creator? The laws of physics govern the universe and indeed it is God Himself who created them (because He created the universe and the universe needs to have order).

    We don't need to be at the center of the solar system or the universe for Christ's sacrifice to hold true.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    47:30 N - 19:5 E
    Posts
    290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenguin View Post
    We don't need to be at the center of the solar system or the universe for Christ's sacrifice to hold true.
    Fair enough. To each his own. Just as the Rapture, it's not a salvation issue.

    Have a great weekend Penguin. It was a pleasure. I need to get to bed now. It's 1:30AM here LOL

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Out of the mountains and into the Piedmont
    Posts
    19,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petezzzz View Post
    I'll take what God says about the matter, thank you.
    Get back to us once you've figured out exactly what was meant by the verses you quoted.

    Get back to us also once you've figured out the whole satellite phenomena - you know, geostationary, polar orbiting and low earth orbiting.....

    Gravity too, don't forget gravity....

    Next time you're driving in your car, hurtling through space and time at 60MPH, have a passenger toss a ball up and down inside the car. Explain why the ball didn't fly away.....

    And while we're talking about gravity - Don't mistake the gravity of the situation you will find yourself in if you persist in proselytizing geocentric nonsense on this forum. Enough is enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petezzzz View Post
    But anyway, I didn't post this stuff to debate about it. My mind's already made up.
    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    Come soon Lord Jesus - Take us Safely Home

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.



  17. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,718

    Default Geocentric Gobbledegook

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...n2/geocentrism
    Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. These people believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded. The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology. Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, their presence among recent creationists produces an easy object of ridicule by our critics.

    Many critics of creationists attempt to malign by suggesting that what creationists teach is akin to belief in a flat Earth. This attack is easy to refute, because the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat, and virtually no one in the history of the church taught this. In fact, the belief in a flat Earth is a 19th century myth that was concocted to discredit critics of Darwinism. The supposed lesson of this myth was that the Church got it wrong before, so the Church has a chance to redeem itself by getting it right on the issue of evolution. This false lesson has been indelibly impressed upon common perception.

    However, the Church did support the wrong side of a scientific issue four centuries ago. That issue was the question of whether the Sun went around the Earth (geocentrism) or if the Earth went around the Sun (heliocentrism, which could be called geokineticism since the Sun is not regarded as the centre of the universe either, as discussed below). Being based upon real history, creationists in theory could be accused of repeating this mistake by rejecting evolution.

    Alas, there are recent creationists in the world today who are geocentrists. They teach that the rejection of God’s Word did not begin with Darwin’s theory of biological evolution or even with Hutton and Lyell’s geological uniformitarianism. Instead, they argue that the scientific rebellion against God began much earlier with heliocentrism.

    Many evolutionists claim that disbelief in evolution is like disbelief that the Earth goes round the Sun. The obvious flaw is that the latter is repeatable and observable while the former is not. But geocentrists give evolutionists a target, so then it behoves the creation community to have a ready response.

    So far, there have been few critiques of geocentrism in the creation literature. One example is Don DeYoung’s defence of geokineticism in Creation magazine, where he presented some scientific arguments against a rigid geocentric view.1DeYoung has also debated a geocentrist called Martin Selbrede.2

    Another is Aardsma’s ICR Impact article, where he points out something well known to high-school physics students, but apparently not to bibliosceptics—that it’s valid to describe motion from any reference frame, although an inertial one usually makes the mathematics simpler.3 But there are many times when the Earth is a convenient reference frame; i.e. at some point we all use the geocentric model in one sense. For instance, a planetarium is a geocentric model. Calculation of rising, transiting, and setting of various celestial objects is calculated geocentrically. There are numerous other examples. Since modern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference frame, it’s unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the same.

    But this is hardly the issue, and the use of the geocentric model under these circumstances hardly makes one a geocentrist. I’m using the term to describe those who claim that the Earth is the only valid reference frame and oppose the use of any other reference frame. What we need is an examination of the claims of such geocentric creationists to see if there is any merit to what they claim. The claims will fall into three broad areas: 1) the Biblical issues 2) historical record and 3) scientific evidence.

    Perhaps the best-known geocentrist in the world today is Gerardus Bouw, who has been a professor at Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio for many years. He is founder and director of the Association for Biblical Astronomy, as well as editor of Biblical Astronomer. Both are organs for geocentrism. To distinguish modern geocentrism from ancient geocentrism, Bouw has coined the term ‘geocentricity’ for the former. Bouw has a Ph.D. in astronomy from Case Western Reserve University, so he certainly is in a position to know and understand the issues and literature involved. Given Bouw’s stature as the chief champion of geocentricity, we will use his book by the same name as the primary source on the topic.4 A much lesser source is a book by Marshall Hall.5 This book is poorly written, and thus will not be treated as a primary source for discussing modern geocentrism. However, Hall’s claims are examined in a separate book review in this issue of TJ.
    Biblical issues

    Early in his book Bouw quotes the atheist Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and the supposedly agnostic6 Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871) on the supposed geocentric nature of the Bible.7 The appropriateness of quoting these two gentlemen apparently never occurred to Bouw. Since when did two mathematical logicians become authorities in Biblical exegesis (like most bibliosceptics, they were ignorant of Biblical languages and historical context8—see also Bible ‘contradictions’ and ‘errors’)?

    Being antagonistic toward the Bible and Christianity, both6 of these men had a vested interest in discrediting the Bible. What better way to do this than for them to falsely claim that the Bible says things that are patently not true? This straw man technique is a very common strategy in attacking the Bible. A good example is the supposedly incorrect value of p in 1 Kings 7:23–24 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, a topic that Bouw addresses very well.9

    Bouw does quote10 an anonymous evangelical source on the geocentric nature of the Bible, but one must ask if that is indeed what Scripture teaches. There are few Biblical texts that in any way even remotely address the heliocentric/geocentric question. In each instance there is considerable doubt as to whether cosmology is the issue. Some of these verses are in the poetic books, such as the Psalms. It is poor practice to build any teaching or doctrine solely or primarily upon passages from the poetic books, though they can amplify concepts clearly taught elsewhere. It is also important not to base doctrines upon any passage that at best only remotely addresses an issue. That is, if cosmology is clearly not the point of a passage, then extracting a cosmological meaning can be very dangerous.

    The Galileo canard

    In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.

    Confusion persists to today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs science, when it actually was a matter of science vs science. Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming. This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang, billions of years, or biological evolution.11 Therefore, any evangelical Christian misinformed of this history who opines that the Bible is geocentric is hardly any more credible a source on this topic than an atheist or agnostic.

    Flat Earth myth

    In his second chapter Bouw discusses the allegation that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat. His refutation is good,12 except that he apparently accepts the notion that through the Middle Ages belief in a flat Earth was common, which is simply not true. The historian Russell demolished this idea,13 and I have written on this as well14 (see also Does the Bible really teach a flat earth?).

    This includes the urban myth that Columbus was a lonely voice for a round Earth, invented by Washington Irving in his 1828 book The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, a self-confessed mixture of fact and fiction.
    Biblical support for geocentrism?

    In the second chapter, Bouw also develops what he considers a Biblical model of the Earth’s structure.15 Others would legitimately question the soundness of his Biblical argument here. Much of this model and what follows in the next chapter is based upon a distinction of the words ‘world’ and ‘Earth’ in the KJV. While this distinction is generally true, it is not obvious that the distinction is universal, and it is the original languages of Scripture that matter, not any translation.
    ‘ … it cannot be moved’

    Bouw quotes part of Psalm 93:1 from the KJV, ‘ … the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved’.16 He claims that ‘stablish’ is the proper translation as opposed to ‘establish’, that is used in most modern translations. He states that the former word means to stabilize, while the latter means to set up. However, none of the English dictionaries (including the Oxford) I consulted support this distinction. All of the dictionaries revealed that ‘stablish’ is an archaic variation of ‘establish’. Bouw further alleges that this subtle distinction is also present in the Hebrew. This is patently not true, as can be demonstrated with Strong’s Concordance.17 The Hebrew word used in Psalm 93:1 is kûwn, which is translated as ‘stablish’, ‘stablished’, and ‘stablisheth’ only one time each outside of Psalm 93:1. The same word is translated as ‘establish’, or ‘established’, 58 times elsewhere in the KJV. A closely related Hebrew word, qûwm is translated ‘stablish’ three times and as ‘establish’ or ‘established’ 28 times in the KJV. Indeed, kûwn appears twice in 2 Samuel 7:12–13, but is rendered ‘establish’ and ‘stablish’ in the same passage. Thus the distinction that Bouw claims in these two words does not exist in either Hebrew or English.

    Bouw uses this unfounded distinction to draw some questionable meaning from 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10,18 where the word ‘establish’ is used in the latter verse. These passages declare that the world is not to be moved, from which Bouw concludes that the world does not move.

    This is fallacious. The Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (mowt) is in the niphal stem, which often refers to the passive voice, as indeed it does here. This is reflected in the English translations—to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring about change in position, but does not exclude the possibility of motion apart from an external agent. Bouw frequently chides those who disagree with him on Biblical passages that speak of the rising of the Sun by claiming that they accuse God of being a poor communicator. Therefore, we may apply Bouw’s standard to his own work: the Lord could have rendered these passages to read, ‘… the world does not move’, if that is what He intended. As is, these passages are hardly geocentric.

    It is important to note that the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (môwt) in the same niphal stem is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved’. Presumably even Bouw wouldn’t accuse God of poor communication if he didn’t believe that the Bible taught that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! Rather, the passage teaches that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. If that’s so, then it’s impossible to deny that ‘the world … cannot be moved’ could mean that Earth will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has set for it.

    In both 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 96:10, the word ‘shall’ appears, which Bouw obviously and correctly takes as an imperative. However, the next passage that he discusses, Psalm 104:5,19 reads, ‘ … laid the foundations of the Earth that it should not be removed forever’.

    Bouw notes that the word ‘should’ is a conditional that does not necessarily reflect things as they are. While it is true that many people today use the word ‘should’ in this sense, this is not the correct and original meaning of the word (the usual intended meaning when many people say ‘should’ is better conveyed by the word ‘ought’). The word ‘should’ actually is the past tense of ‘shall’, and as such has the same imperative meaning that that word has. Here Bouw makes much ado about the dictionary meaning of the word ‘remove’, but he is very selective in the use of the dictionary, as he apparently did not bother to consult the meaning of the word ‘should’. As an aside, the words for ‘shall’ and ‘should’ are understood but absent in Hebrew and were inserted into English to make the passages intelligible. As such, the choice of when, where, and which word to insert is a matter of preference or sense of the translator, and ought never be used as the basis for any doctrine.

    Sunrise and sunset

    Much of the case for geocentrism relies upon many Biblical passages that refer to sunrise and sunset. Geocentrists argue that since the Bible is inspired of God, then when He chose to use such terminology, the Lord must mean that the Sun moves. By this reasoning, virtually all astronomers and astronomical books and magazines are geocentric, because ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ is exactly the language that such sources use. Anyone who has spent much time watching the sky can testify that each day the Sun, moon, planets, and most stars do rise, move across the sky, and then set. Such observation and description do not at all address what actually causes this motion. However, the geocentrists will have none of it, insisting that language and usage must conform to their standards. For instance, Bouw has suggested the words, ‘tosun’ and ‘fromsun’20 for sunrise and sunset to better acknowledge what heliocentrists mean. It is extremely unlikely that these words will catch on, because the terms sunrise and sunset work so well.

    The attempted coining of these new words demonstrates the desperate attempt to argue the point here. Quoting Bouw:

    ‘Either God meant what he wrote or he did not mean what he wrote and would, presumably, revise his original writing as well as write differently if he were to write today.’21

    No, He would not, because there is probably not a language now or ever in existence that has simple expressions that concisely and accurately describes the heliocentric rising and setting of the Sun. Why do we need such expressions when the ones that we now possess work so well and are understood in all cultures?

    Elsewhere Bouw suggests that those who disagree with him are virtually accusing God of being a bad communicator or grammarian. Of course, we do not. However, Bouw has painted himself into a corner: if Bouw is wrong, then he is the one who has made this accusation against our Creator. What he misses is that cosmology is not being addressed at all in these passages. This extremely literal approach to the Bible is reverently intended, but it badly misses the mark. At some points it almost reads as a parody (and sadly it’s not much different from those of bibliosceptics).

    Firmament

    Bouw makes a similarly poor case for his Biblical model for space. Light is a wave. All waves require a medium. For instance, sound waves travel in air and water waves obviously use water as a medium. What is the medium in which light travels, given that light apparently can travel through empty space? In classical physics the medium for light is called the ‘ether’ or ‘aether’. However, modern physics takes a different approach, which will not be discussed here.22 Bouw maintains that modern physics is in error, and that the classical aether indeed does exist. He further insists that the firmament first mentioned in Genesis 1:6 is to be equated with the aether, going so far as to claim that the firmament is God’s chosen name for the aether.

    Physics aside for the moment, is this good exegesis? Hardly. First, there is a problem with the use of the word ‘firmament’ in the King James Version. The Hebrew word is raqiya‘, which is a noun that comes from a verb that means to beat out as into a thin sheet. Gold is a good example of this process. Gold is so malleable that hammers and other tools can be used to flatten and stretch the metal into very thin sheets that can be applied to objects to gild them. The question is, what property or properties are intended by the word raqiya‘? If one wants to get across the hardness of the object, usually a metal, being beaten out, then ‘firmament’ may not be a bad translation.

    However, what if the intended property is the stretched out nature of the raqiya‘ rather than hardness? This is consistent with the terminology of Psalm 104:2, which speaks of the stretching out of the heavens, though admittedly the Hebrew word used there for heaven is shamayim. However, Genesis 1:8 explicitly states that God called the firmament (raqiya‘) heaven(s) (shamayim). Therefore, there is contextual Biblical evidence for equating these two Hebrew words, at least in some cases. If the stretched out nature of the raqiya‘ is what is intended, then ‘firmament’ is a bad translation, while ‘expanse’ used in many modern translations is very good.

    How did the KJV come to use ‘firmament?’ The Septuagint rendered raqiya‘ as stereoma, which gives the meaning of something very hard. This was an obvious incorporation of Greek cosmology current at the time of the Septuagint translation. That cosmology had the Earth surrounded by a hard crystalline sphere upon which were suspended the stars. In the Vulgate, Jerome followed the lead of the Septuagint and used the Latin equivalent firmamentum. The KJV translators merely anglicized this.

    There are at least two ironies in Bouw’s insistence of the correctness of the word firmament. The first is that Bouw severely criticizes both the Vulgate and the Septuagint as being terrible translations, going as far as to express doubt that the Septuagint even existed before the New Testament.23 The second is that Bouw completely trashes ancient Greek philosophy, but blindly accepts the heavy influence of the same ancient Greek science on this point.

    A second problem with Bouw’s equating the raqiya‘ (firmament) with the aether is how the firmament is further discussed in the creation account. The first appearance of the word is on Day Two of Creation Week when the waters were separated above and below and with the firmament between. On Day Four, the Sun, moon, and stars were set in the firmament. On Day Five, birds were made to fly in the firmament. It is quite a stretch to conclude that the firmament must be all of space or even any stuff that may fill space. The most obvious conclusion is that the raqiya‘ is the Earth’s atmosphere or the sky. If this is true, then much of Bouw’s case is destroyed. [Ed. note: see also Is the raqiya‘ (firmament — KJV) a solid dome?]

    The various issues briefly discussed here are just a few of the many examples of how poorly Bouw handles Biblical matters. But these key issues are enough for readers to question Bouw’s credibility on Biblical matters and his insistence that the Bible is geocentric.
    Historical issues

    Bouw claims that heliocentrism has led to all sorts of moral degeneracy.24 The example he discusses is astrology. This is a bizarre assertion, given that astrology flourished for millennia before the heliocentric theory became popular, and seems to have decreased where heliocentrism has flourished. Ironically, the dominant geocentric theory of history, the Ptolemaic system, was devised primarily as a tool to calculate planetary positions in the past and future as an aid for astrological prognostications.


    Kepler comes under great criticism by the geocentrists because of the great role that he played in the acceptance of the heliocentric model. Some of this criticism is quite strained. He is blasted for having dabbled in astrology, although it was common and, as shown, hardly confined to heliocentrists. He is also blasted for his supposed anti-Biblical beliefs25 as well as the insinuation that Kepler was dishonest in his co-authoring the work of Tycho Brahe (1546–1601) after he had died.26 This latter charge includes a hint of a plagiarism charge, even though a few pages earlier Bouw stated at the time this was an acceptable practice.27 Bouw concludes that Kepler was not a Christian,26 which places him at odds with many other creationists who claim that Kepler was indeed a Christian. For instance, Morris included a section on Kepler.28 In addition, Morris listed Copernicus (1473–1543), Galileo, and Tycho at the conclusion of the chapter that briefly discussed Kepler as examples of people, though while they may have not have been true believers in Christ, at the very least were theistic creationists. Bouw rejects all, save Tycho, as Christians.

    Tycho Brahe

    Bouw goes to great lengths to salvage the reputation of Tycho, whose cosmology he and modern geocentrists advocate. That is, other planets orbited the Sun, and the Sun and its retinue orbited the Earth. While admitting Tycho’s well-known faults and failings during most of his life, he claims without documentation that in the last year of his life some who worked with Tycho noticed a change in his life.29 Bouw concludes that this was salvation, though he has absolutely no evidence for this.

    Bouw blasts the heliocentrists of four centuries ago as being ungodly and insinuates that it was their ungodliness that motivated their acceptance of the heliocentric theory. However, by Bouw’s own account of the events of Tycho’s life, his rejection of heliocentricity and the suggestion of his alternate Tychonian cosmology far predated Tycho’s alleged conversion. Thus the model favored by modern geocentrists was hatched in the mind of an unregenerate man, even granting Bouw’s own revisionist historiography. Therefore, modern geocentrists teach that the heliocentric model is wrong because ungodly men originated it, but fail to apply the same standard to their favored geocentric theory.

    Nicolaus Copernicus

    While Bouw finds little or no fault in Tycho, he relentlessly finds fault with every heliocentrist. For instance, Bouw takes a swipe at Copernicus’ mathematical skills by noting that the best mathematicians of his day were consumed with the laborious task of calculating horoscopes. According to Bouw, Copernicus had the time to spend investigating alternate cosmological models, because Copernicus was not gifted enough to be in demand for astrological calculations.30 With Bouw, Copernicus cannot win—if he had done horoscopes, Bouw would have castigated him as a mystic dabbling in the occult; but since he did not do horoscopes, it was because Copernicus was a poor mathematician.

    A few decades after the death of Copernicus, the situation had not changed much, so it is not surprising that such a good mathematician as Kepler spent a good deal of time calculating horoscopes. Apparently it has never occurred to Bouw that the reason that Tycho was available to pursue astronomical measurements rather than produce horoscopes may have been the same reason that he claimed that Copernicus had time to pursue other matters. Indeed, late in life, Tycho realized that he was not the best mathematician around and needed help in making sense of his observations. This caused Tycho to seek the best mathematician available, who happened to be Kepler. The simultaneous sycophantic treatment of Tycho and harsh criticism of heliocentrists exposes some the logical flaws in Bouw’s case.

    Another criticism of Copernicus is that he opined that the 10,000 epicycles required to make the motions of the Sun, moon, planets, and stars was an ‘unseemly’ large number and ‘unworthy’ of the Creator.31 Bouw takes Copernicus to task for failing to notice that the obvious flaw in his reasoning was the assumption that heavenly bodies must move in circles. However, the model under scrutiny at the time was the Ptolemaic model, thus this error came from the philosophical musings of the ancient Greeks, not from Copernicus. Copernicus merely discussed the only geocentric model of his day (the Tychonian model was still more than a half-century away). How Bouw can level this charge at a heliocentrist rather than at geocentrists where it properly belongs boggles the mind. It is as if the modern geocentrists wilfully ignore the Ptolemaic model. Indeed, that model is barely mentioned in Bouw’s book.

    Heliocentrist vs geocentrist comparisons

    Another example of Bouw’s poor logic is the observation that ‘… the first heliocentrists were pagans who did not hold the Bible in high esteem’.32 While this statement is technically true, it plants a very false and misleading impression. Such a statement plants in the minds of many people that the near converse is true, that is, that the first geocentrists were not pagans and held the Bible in high esteem. Of course this is nonsense. Virtually all that we know of ancient science and cosmology comes from the Greeks. Most of them were geocentrists. All of them were pagans. Claudius Ptolemy (fl. AD 127–145), who is credited with the longest-lived geocentric model of all time, was a pagan. By Bouw’s own ‘reasoning’(leaving aside the blatant genetic fallacy), geocentrism should be rejected, because it has a long pagan history.

    Of course, Bouw would respond that the Bible is explicitly geocentric.33 Since much of the Old Testament predates many of the secular sources, Bouw would claim that the earliest geocentrists were not pagan. But this begs the question—most of the quotes used to support the geocentricity of the Bible are from fellow geocentrists or from bibliosceptics. Nearly all Bible-believing heliocentrists think that the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric, but Bouw holds their opinions on the matter in low regard.

    As another example of Bouw’s poor logic, consider that at several locations Bouw states that the heliocentric theory came to be accepted in the seventeenth century without any proof. Here Bouw seems to be arguing against the legitimacy of heliocentricity, because it was prematurely accepted before there was any evidence. Yet, he also admits that by 1650 there was no solid proof for or against either the heliocentric or Tychonian models.26 Therefore, by Bouw’s standard we should reject both models in favor of the Ptolemaic model or some other alternative, but of course Bouw insists that only the heliocentric model be subjected to such scrutiny. This sort of double standard is common in geocentric arguments.

    Bouw blasts the perceived arrogance of Kepler,34 all the while overlooking or forgiving similar misgivings in Tycho. Ad hominem attacks are common in modern geocentric literature as well. As an example, Bouw spends some time trashing Kepler for alleged witchcraft and dabbling in the occult.34 Even Kepler’s mother and other family members are brought into the discussion. Bouw mentions that Marshall Hall, a fellow geocentrist, has speculated that Kepler may have poisoned Tycho.35 It’s a shame that two of the most prominent geocentricists feel that they need to resort to baseless inflammatory accusations.


    Galileo also comes under fire for his role in establishing the heliocentric model. While he did not invent the telescope, Galileo was apparently the first to put the telescope to use observing celestial objects. He found a number of things in the sky that ran counter to what the church, parroting ancient Greek ideas, said. Examples are the craters on the moon and spots on the Sun. Greek philosophers had reasoned that the moon and Sun, as celestial objects, had to be perfect. As such, they ought to have been free from blemishes such as craters and spots.

    Galileo also claimed evidence for the heliocentric theory in his discoveries. One of them, the rotation of the Sun, was bogus as proof of heliocentrism, as Bouw states,36 but it was a persuasive argument in the pre-Newtonian world (cf. Isaac Newton 1643–1727 Gregorian Calendar). However, Bouw’s poisoned attitude toward all heliocentrists has prevented him from correctly discussing two other evidences for heliocentrism. One was the discovery of four satellites, or moons, that orbit Jupiter. Galileo used this to counter the objection to heliocentrism that the moon would be left behind if the Earth moved. It is obvious that Jupiter moves, and it is also obvious that its motion does not leave behind the satellites of Jupiter. Bouw is correct that this is an argument by analogy, but one cannot so easily dismiss this argument. The critics of heliocentrism must explain how the motions of Jupiter and its moons and the Earth and its moon are different.

    However, Bouw misses one of the most important points of Galileo on this. The geocentric model of Galileo’s day was that all celestial objects orbited the Earth. Here Galileo had found four celestial objects that did not directly orbit the Earth, but instead orbited something else. The geocentrists were not willing to give up an inch on this, because their already overly complicated Ptolemaic model had already endured a tremendous amount of tinkering. They feared that surrendering this would lead to the discovery of other objects that did not orbit the Sun, which would further chip away the geocentric model.

    Phases of Venus


    Bouw completely misconstrues Galileo’s third evidence for heliocentrism, the phases of Venus.37 The full set of Venereal phases can happen only if Venus passes both in front of and behind the Sun as seen from Earth (Figure 1, left). The Ptolemaic model placed Venus orbiting the Earth closer than the Sun, but always near to the Sun as constrained by observations, but that would preclude gibbous phases from being seen since that would require the Earth to be roughly between the Sun and Venus. On the other hand, moving Venus’ orbit beyond that of the Sun would allow gibbous phases, but would not permit crescent phases to be seen.
    Tychonian vs Ptolemaic geocentric models

    The Appendix contains a fuller comparison of these two geocentric models and the Copernican one, but it’s important to point out a number of points in the main text.

    Bouw suggests that the phases of Venus are a problem for the Ptolemaic model only if one insists upon using circles, and that Galileo’s argument falls flat if ellipses are allowed. The only thing that falls flat here is Bouw’s argument. The very reason that the Ptolemaic model existed was to preserve ‘perfect’ uniform circular motion, with the massive tinkering involving epicycles (circles on circles) and even more complex extensions. The introduction of ellipses would have destroyed the Ptolemaic model every bit as much as what Galileo was suggesting. Bouw’s defence of the status quo Ptolemaic model here and elsewhere is puzzling. Throughout much of his book it is easy to draw the wrong conclusion that this is the model that Bouw is defending. Bouw does correctly point out that Galileo’s argument about the phases of Venus does not distinguish between the heliocentric and Tychonian models, but this needlessly clouds the issue since the Tychonian model was not even being discussed at the time.

    The truth of the matter is that the Tychonian model was a far less significant contender than either the heliocentric or the Ptolemaic theories than modern geocentrists would have us believe. The reason is that the Tychonian model was a sort of halfway house for geocentrists. Geocentrists could hold on to a stationary Earth while discarding virtually everything else that was in the Ptolemaic model. Like so many other compromises, the Tychonian model failed to satisfy many on either side. Nevertheless, Bouw does a clever slight of hand trick. He insists that heliocentrists of four centuries ago did not offer real proofs and further claims that they improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof to the status quo. That is, in the absence of a real challenge to the status quo, the status quo should prevail. Bouw claims that that status quo was geocentrism, so his favoured geocentric model, the Tychonian system, should prevail. This is preposterous. The Tychonian system was not the status quo then; the Ptolemaic model was. Again and again Bouw takes this sort of sloppy approach—he argues for the Ptolemaic model and then slips his model in as a substitute. This is most blatant when in a very late chapter in his book Bouw explicitly discusses geocentric models. There is no heading for the Tychonian model, but there is one for the Ptolemaic model.38 The problem is, the discussion and diagram clearly represent the Tychonian model.

    Scientific issues

    As mentioned earlier, Bouw fails to apply the same rigorous standards that he applies to the heliocentric theory to his own pet model.

    Parallax

    For instance, while he correctly notes that the failure to detect stellar parallax was an argument against the heliocentric model, he quickly concludes that this was circumstantial evidence for geocentrism (or as he prefers, the Tychonian model).39 Of course the heliocentric model can explain the lack of trigonometric parallax if the stars are at incredible distances. This turned out to be the case, and there is compelling evidence that even the nearest stars are more than 200,000 times farther from us than the Sun is. If lack of parallax was evidence against heliocentrism and for geocentrism, then one would expect that when parallax was finally detected in the 1830s, trigonometric parallax would be taken as evidence against geocentrism and for heliocentrism. However, this is not Bouw’s conclusion. Instead, Bouw modifies the Tychonian model so that the Sun in its annual motion drags along the distant stars. In other words, Bouw cries foul whenever physicists change models (as with modern relativity theory) to correctly describe new data, but he feels free to tinker with his model at will to meet the challenge of new results. It is impossible to refute any theory with these kinds of rules.

    Bouw uses the same skewed rules in discussing star streaming.40 The Sun is moving through space, as can be deduced by proper motions (the gradual motion of stars across the sky) of many stars. The first measurement of this was done more than two centuries ago by the great German-born English astronomer William Herschel (1738–1822), though the measurement has been refined many times since then. When the proper motions of many stars are considered, we find that stars seem to stream out of a region called the solar apex, presumably in the direction in which the Sun is moving. Conversely, stars appear to stream toward a convergent point, called the solar antepex, diametrically opposed from the solar apex and presumed to be the direction from which the Sun is moving. This would appear to be strong evidence that neither the Sun nor the Earth is the centre of the universe, but Bouw baldly asserts that stars could be moving past the Sun rather than the other way around.
    Rejection of Relativity

    One geocentrist assumption is that modern relativity theory is wrong. Unfortunately, many creationists reject general relativity or at least are very suspicious of it, mainly because they misunderstand it. Common misconceptions include the beliefs that general relativity does not allow for a preferred standard of rest and that general relativity leads to moral relativism. Mach’s principle, which is an important assumption of general relativity, postulates that the sum of all the mass in the universe offers the correct rest frame. This standard of rest is not very different from the concept of absolute space assumed by Newton. General relativity does posit that there are absolutes. Therefore, if two objects have relative motion, it is possible to determine which, if either, is at rest and as such has not undergone acceleration. This explains the so-called twin paradox that Bouw mishandles.41

    The speed of light is always a constant, regardless of one’s motion. The laws of physics are invariant under transformation of coordinates. In fact, Einstein himself preferred the name ‘Theory of Invariance’ for his ideas, rather than ‘General Relativity’.

    Early in the 20th century, moral relativists misappropriated the widespread acceptance of Einsteinian relativity theory as support for their contention that there are no moral absolutes. Even aside from the scientific misunderstandings, this is an elementary blunder in ethical theory known as the naturalistic fallacy, i.e. trying to derive what we ought to do from the way the natural world is. We should not be repelled from relativity theory by this misapplication by the moral relativists.

    Fortunately, there are many creationists who have no problem with relativity. For example, Humphreys accepts and uses general relativity as a physical basis for his cosmology and has offered a very brief defence of relativity.42,43 A detailed defence of relativity from a creation perspective is badly needed. That will not be attempted here, but a few claims of those opposed to Einsteinian relativity in the context of geocentrism will be briefly discussed.

    Many of the critiques of relativity are repeated arguments that are often out of date. For instance, Bouw is critical of the much acclaimed 1919 and 1922 total solar eclipse observations that was taken as the first evidence for general relativity.44 Bouw calls the 1922 observations (the better of the two sets of data) ‘an obvious sham’ because there are 44 points below and 25 points above the curve supposedly fit to the data when a good fit should have about as many points above as below the curve. However when the reference quoted by Bouw on this point is checked, one finds that the curve is not a fit to the data at all. Rather, the curve is the prediction of general relativity with the data plotted for comparison. The data fit the curve pretty well, especially near the limb (edge) of the Sun, where gravitational deflection is most pronounced. Bouw further clouds the issue by claiming that other classical theories can explain the amount of deflection, though no plots comparing the predictions of general relativity and these classical theories are presented.

    An even larger problem is that Bouw and other anti-relativists continue to bring up the 1919 and 1922 data as if the experiment has never been repeated or improved upon. Similar experiments have been conducted at many eclipses since 1922 with the same results. However, all of these experiments suffer from errors of measurements that are comparable in size to the amount of deflection.

    The good news is that for years Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) has been used to make the same sort of measurements.45 VLBI is the use of several radio telescopes separated by great distances to produce very accurate positions of point radio sources. Usually the point sources used for gravitational deflections due to the Sun are quasars. An advantage to this method is that it is not necessary to wait for a total solar eclipse. All one must do is observe during the brief time once per year that the Sun passes near a particular quasar(s) in the sky. The unprecedented positional accuracy of VLBI produces results that are in very good agreement with general relativity and not at all with classical predictions. These measurements even have allowed discrimination between variations upon general relativity. A related experiment involves time delays of radio signals of interplanetary probes as they pass behind the Sun. The results of these studies also agree with the predictions of general relativity. Anti-relativists never mention these experiments.

    Bouw also discusses the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit.46 He claims that relativists tout Mercury’s orbit, because that is the only orbit’s precession for which relativity can account. While that may technically be true, it is very misleading in that it suggests to most readers that the predictions of general relativity do not fit the orbits of other planets. This is not true, as Bouw’s own Table I shows. That table lists observed precession, the general relativity calculations, and residuals for the four innermost planets. The total precession of Mercury’s orbit is actually quite a bit larger than what the table presents—the table’s value is what is left after all perturbations of classical physics are removed. The >40 arc seconds per century remaining was an unsolved mystery of classical physics. Bouw implies that the relatively large O-C’s (observed minus calculated) for Venus and the Earth demonstrates that relativity fails for those two planets. However, the residuals for those two planets are well within the errors of observation as given in the second column of the table. The fit is very good. In other words, if general relativity fails to account for all of the orbit precession of Venus and Earth, it is not because of any shortcomings of the theory, but because the observations are of insufficient precision to act as a discriminator.

    Perihelion advance is most pronounced for strong gravity (near the Sun) and elliptical orbits. Mercury works so well because it is so close to the Sun and has a very elliptical orbit for a planet. The Earth and Venus are slightly farther from the Sun, but both have nearly circular orbits, so their perihelion advance is modest. The residual for Mars is slightly greater than the error, a fact for which I have no explanation at this time. Bouw did not bother to include data on the remaining planets, because, being so far from the Sun, the predictions of general relativity would have been virtually zero, regardless of the eccentricities of those orbits. This trend of decreasing effect with distance can be seen in the third column of Bouw’s table.

    Also, relativistic advance of periastron has been studied and confirmed in certain binary stars with elliptical orbits. Of particular interest are binary pulsars, where the stars are extremely close together and hence have very strong gravity. Here, both the measurements and calculations are very large and hence offer a good laboratory not only for testing general relativity but also for suggested variants. The predictions of general relativity and the data agree well. Therefore, Bouw’s claim on orbital precession is out of date, just plain wrong, or both.

    Much of the rest of Bouw’s writing on general relativity demonstrates a similar lack of understanding of the model. For instance, his question as to how a photon detects the gravity of an object that it just left reveals that he has overlooked the role of space-time curvature in general relativity.47
    Orbital resonances?

    Misconceptions abound elsewhere. Bouw claims alleged orbital resonances between the Earth and other solar system objects as evidence for geocentrism.48 Venus is said to display the same face toward the Earth each time that the Earth and Venus are closest. However, the reference cited for this says something quite different. The reference acknowledges that an older value for the rotation period of Venus did suggest a resonance, but that the new measurement of the period does not.

    The discussion of Mercury’s alleged resonance is completely garbled. Bouw says that its rotation is weakly coupled to the Sun at ‘roughly two-thirds of the length of its year’. It is coupled at a 2:3 ratio by a factor of nearly one part in 10,000, which is hardly rough agreement. Furthermore, any resonance with the Earth is illusory in that Mercury is not well placed for observations except during its brief greatest elongations near its aphelion. The aforementioned 2:3 ratio with the Sun assures that a similar side will face the Earth each time similar viewing opportunities present themselves.

    While conceding that the outer (Jovian) planets do not appear to exhibit such resonances, Bouw also casts doubt upon the exact rotation periods of the these planets, because they are determined from motions of cloud tops in the atmospheres of these planets. However, Voyager data fixed the true rotational periods of these planets by the rotations of their magnetic fields. In each case these periods matched those determined from average cloud measurements quite well.

    Many of these problems could have been avoided if Bouw’s work had been peer reviewed. It appears that it was self-published without the benefit of outside review. Independent review could have caught other unfortunate lapses and poor use of terms even though they are not factual errors. These include the use of the word ‘nebulae’ to describe external galaxies,49 a term that has been out of favour for decades, the misnaming and garbling of Kepler’s third law of planetary motion,50 and what appears to me to be the blurring of rotation and revolution.51

    Only some of the problems with Bouw’s scientific case for geocentrism have been discussed here. But they should be enough to show that Bouw’s argument is poorly founded.
    Conclusion

    I have examined the claims of leading modern geocentrists and have found that their insistence that the Bible teaches geocentrism is not well founded. It would be helpful if someone with formal theological training could further explore and refute this claim.

    Geocentric arguments are predicated upon a rejection of modern relativity theory, based on ignorance of what it teaches. Humphreys suggests that ‘creationists who oppose relativity have mistakenly identified the "baggage" with the theory itself’ and would like ‘all creationists to see relativity as a somewhat odd and well-intentioned friend’.43 A detailed contribution on general relativity by a creationist with expertise in the field would be most welcome.

    Geocentrists improperly handle other scientific and historical information as well. While it is true that four hundred years ago most embraced the heliocentric theory a century before there was direct evidence for the theory, that does not mean that there was evidence against the theory. Acceptance of heliocentrism came about because of application of Occam’s razor. The Sun-centred system was far simpler than the primary geocentric model, the Ptolemaic system. Note that William of Ockham was a Christian, and both Copernicus and Galileo believed that a simpler model glorified God who is ‘simple’ (theologically, this means not composed of parts).

    The geocentrists’ claim that the proper and logical alternative of the Tychonian model should have been accepted is not founded by the facts of history—the Tychonian theory was never a serious contender. Subsequent experiments, such as aberration of starlight and trigonometric parallax are better explained in the heliocentric model rather than any geocentric theory.

    While the intentions of the geocentrists are good, they offer a very easy target of criticism for our critics. We should establish some distance between the mainstream creation movement and the geocentrists.



    To better understand geocentricism and heliocentrism, we should compare the models. In reality, there are three theories, two geocentric and one heliocentric.

    The heliocentric model is easiest to explain and understand. This is the model described and/or diagrammed in almost every astronomy book: the planets orbit the Sun in nearly circular orbits. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), a Polish astronomer and mathematician (and a Canon in the Roman Church), is generally credited with the establishment of the heliocentric theory, though he did not originate the idea. Copernicus’ great achievement was authoring a book, De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) published about the time of his death. In his book Copernicus put forth arguments for the heliocentric theory, but also worked out the relative sizes of the orbits and the correct orbital periods of the planets for the first time.

    Later, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) refined the Copernican system by positing that the planets’ orbits are actually ellipses with the Sun at one focus of each ellipse. This is the first of Kepler’s three laws. His other two laws establish the rates at which planets move in their orbits (at all times in any planet’s orbit, the planet-Sun vector sweeps out the same area per unit time) and a relationship between the periods and sizes of the planets’ orbits (the cube of the radius (strictly the semi-major axis) is proportional to the square of the period). Kepler’s three laws were empirically deduced using two decades of careful observations of planetary positions made by Tycho Brahe (1546–1601).

    Decades after Kepler, Isaac Newton (1643–1727), using his newly discovered calculus and mechanics, was able to deduce Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion theoretically. This was taken as a great triumph of Newtonian mechanics and verification of Kepler’s work.

    The most famous geocentric theory is credited to Claudius Ptolemy, an Alexandrian Greek of the second century ad, though it is unclear exactly how much of the model was original to him. Ptolemy wrote a lengthy book originally called ‘H Maqhmatikh SuntaxiV (Hè mathèmatikè syntaxis = The Mathematical Collection). This became known as ‘O MegaV AstronomoV (Ho Megas Astronomos = the great astronomer). 9th century Arabs used the Greek superlative megisth (megistè) meaning ‘greatest’, then prefixed the Arabic definite article al, so the book is now best known to us as the Almagest. This is a compilation of all ancient Greek astronomy, and is the primary source of information on the subject. Also in the Almagest is a complete treatment of the Ptolemaic cosmology.

    As seen from the Earth, the five planets visible to the naked eye slowly move through the stars, generally in a west-to-east direction. This motion is called direct, or prograde. However, from time to time the planets reverse direction and move east to west in what is called indirect or retrograde motion. This seemingly erratic behavior is easily explained in the heliocentric theory. Figure 2 (right) is a diagram of the orbits of the Earth and a superior planet (those with orbits larger than those of the Earth), such as Mars. As both planets orbit the Sun, Mars usually exhibits direct motion. However, whenever the Earth passes between Mars and the Sun, Mars undergoes retrograde motion. Mercury and Venus are inferior planets, those with orbits smaller than the Earth’s. Inferior planets undergo retrograde motion when they pass between the Earth and the Sun.

    The ancient Greeks needed to explain planetary motion in a geocentric way, which would not have been difficult to do, but they also had a couple of artificially imposed constraints that greatly complicated the problem. They believed that objects in the heaven were perfect, and as such, followed perfect motion. To the ancient Greeks, the most perfect motion was uniform motion on circles. The Ptolemaic model explains planetary motion with these constraints, but it is not simple, as shown in Figure 3 (left). A planet moves uniformly on a circle called an epicycle, and the epicycle in turn moves uniformly on a circle called the deferent.

    For the time being we will assume that the deferent is centred on the Earth. By adjusting the sizes of the epicycle and the deferent, and the speeds with which the planet moves on the epicycle and the epicycle moves on the deferent, the planet will occasionally exhibit retrograde motion. Retrograde motion occurs whenever the planet passes close by the Earth between the Earth and the centre of the epicycle. At all other times the two motions will combine to produce direct motion.

    While this relatively simple model will explain prograde and retrograde motion qualitatively, it fails on detail, so additional complications were added to improve the fit to reality. For instance, the Earth is not exactly at the centre of the deferent, but is a little off-centre. This actually is an attempt to approximate Kepler’s first law, i.e. that planets move in elliptical orbits about the sun, which is at one of the ellipse’s two foci. This is because the elliptical orbits of the planets deviate so little from a circle that off-centre circles can approximate them. Furthermore, the epicycle does not move at a uniform rate with respect to the centre of the deferent or the Earth. Instead, the epicycle moves at a constant rate with respect to a point called the equant. The equant is collinear with the centre of the deferent and the Earth and is at the same distance from the centre that the Earth is, but on the other side of the centre.
    Diagram of Kepler's Second Law -- equal areas swept out in equal time
    Figure 4: Kepler’s second law of planetary motion: The straight line joining a planet with the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal amounts of time. (This means that the planet travels faster when it is closer to the sun.)

    This refinement is an attempt to model Kepler’s second law of planetary motion (see diagram, right). While the epicycle is moving at a uniform rate with respect to the equant, it does not move at a uniform rate with respect to the centre of the deferent or even with respect to the Earth. Therefore the introduction of this concept is a desperate attempt to salvage uniform circular motion, all the while violating the spirit of that assumption.

    Still other refinements were required. The planets do not follow orbits in the same plane of the Earth’s orbit (the ecliptic). This causes the planets to alternately dip above and below the ecliptic. Ptolemy’s model explains this by epicycles that are in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the other epicycles. While the Sun and moon do not experience retrograde motion, they do have inhomogeneities in their motions that required additional small epicycles to explain their motion around the Earth.

    For nearly 1,500 years the Ptolemaic model was used, making it one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. Throughout the Middle Ages, small discrepancies between the predictions of the Ptolemaic model and reality were fixed by the addition of more epicycles. By the Renaissance, the Ptolemaic model had become very unwieldy, which led many people, such as Copernicus, to conclude that the model may not be correct. It is not clear if Ptolemy actually intended the theory to be taken as a statement of reality. It could be that he meant it merely as a method of calculating planetary positions. If so, this would have been a very modern view of what a theory is. Whether Ptolemy intended this or not is immaterial, because during the Middle Ages the Ptolemaic model was elevated to the status of truth, and even the Church had sublimated certain Biblical passages to fit this perceived truth.


    Tycho realized the problems with the Ptolemaic model, but he could not bring himself to fully reject geocentrism. Therefore, Tycho proposed his compromise geocentric theory, as shown in Figure 5 (left). In the Tychonian system the Sun orbits the Earth once per year, and the other planets orbit the Sun. In the modern Tychonian system, Keplerian and Newtonian principles are maintained, as in the heliocentric theory. Mathematically, the essential difference between the heliocentric and Tychonian models is a co-ordinate change from the Sun to the Earth. Apparently no one has believed the Ptolemaic model for a long time. Therefore, all modern geocentrists support the Tychonian model.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...entrism-review

    I have demonstrated the errors of geocentrism, as exemplified by the views of Gerardus Bouw,1 in the same issue of TJ (Geocentrism and Creation). The problems with Bouw’s book pale in comparison with those of this book by Marshall Hall. Hall’s book is written as a dialogue between two people in a very conversational style filled with contractions, slang and nicknames. The reasoning is so erroneous at many points that one has to question whether the book was actually intended as some sort of weird parody or satire. Private communications with a few people who have met Hall suggest that this is not the case. It appears that Hall simply failed to understand many of the things that he wrote about. Lest association with Hall malign Bouw, we should emphasize that there are marked differences between these two gentlemen’s books, hence the separate articles.

    For instance, Hall claims that the Foucault pendulum,2 Coriolis effect3 and the oblateness of the earth4 that are cited as evidence of a rotating earth are fakes. Bouw accepts the reality of all of these, but explains them in terms of a rotating universe. Hall even quotes Bouw on the matter that a rotating universe can explain the Foucault pendulum.5 Apparently it never occurred to Hall that this places him in the curious position of simultaneously denying the reality of the Foucault pendulum experiment and claiming that it could best be described geocentrically.

    Hall engages in dubious mathematical calculations to argue that ocean tides are not caused by the moon’s gravity, but are instead supernatural in origin and timed to lunar phases.6 Bouw does not agree with this, but accepts the usual explanation for tides, albeit in a rotating universe. Hall’s arguments on this point betray a complete lack of understanding of the basic theory of tides. If Hall had consulted any good discussion of the tides, such as the one in the astronomy textbook by Abell et al.,7 he could have avoided embarrassing himself on this issue.

    Hall repeatedly engages in egregious errors, most of them resulting from failure to understand the concepts that he is discussing. Throughout his book, he parrots the common misconception that modern relativity theory means that all motion is relative with no absolutes.8 This is incorrect, for a key postulate is the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, regardless of the observer’s motion. Einstein himself preferred to call it the ‘invariance theory’, but the name ‘relativity’ stuck. (See my article Geocentrism and Creation for further refutation of geocentrists’ fallacies about relativity.)

    Hall ridicules non-Euclidean geometry, where the sums of the interior angles of triangles are not 180 degrees as in Euclidian geometry. Hall apparently is ignorant of spherical trigonometry where the sum of the interior angles of every triangle exceeds 180 degrees. Since the earth is spherical, this can be detected on the earth’s surface by surveying techniques, if the area being surveyed is greater than about 200 acres. A discussion with any surveyor would confirm that non-Euclidian geometry is necessary on the earth’s surface.

    Hall’s leaps of logic in discussing Kepler are immense. With no evidence, he suggests that Kepler murdered Tycho.9 He notes that Kepler’s mother was tried for witchcraft and, though he admits that she was acquitted, Hall concludes (using the logic of ‘where there is smoke, there is fire’) that she was indeed guilty.10 Besides the outrageous and unjust equation of indictment and guilt (violating biblical principles), Hall fails to understand that the charge of witchcraft was a frequent accusation in the early 17th century, not only in Europe but in the Massachusetts colony of North America as well. Having assumed Kepler’s mother’s guilt, Hall then proceeds to tar Kepler with the same brush.11

    Hall ridicules Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion without ever really adequately describing them or offering any real and valid criticism.12 He states that geostationary satellites, if they are orbiting at all, must violate Kepler’s first law, because they must have circular orbits when the first law demands that orbits be ellipses.13 Apparently Hall does not know that a circle is a special case of an ellipse, with an eccentricity of zero.
    Visit our Q&A Page on Astronomy

    Throughout his book Hall confuses the words rotate and revolve,14 words for which astronomers have very specific meanings—rotation means a body’s cyclic motion about its own axis, while revolution refers to cyclic motion about another object (or centre of mass).

    Hall calls Isaac Newton’s ‘… ideas on gravity nonsensical and unscientific …’.15 As for his theology, Hall claims that Newton denied the deity of Jesus Christ,16 a claim made by others. This is at odds with Bouw, who believes that Newton was a devout Christian who held views similar to those of independent Baptists of today.17 Hall included in his book a copy of a brief article about a man named Robert Cook18 who supposedly invented a machine that defies Newton’s third law of motion. Unfortunately Hall did not include a reference for this article, so it is impossible to check. This is odd, because the book has hundreds of references.

    There are other non-existent or incomplete references. For instance, the cryptic reference19 used in making a charge of Satanism against Karl Marx is missing information and includes the words ‘copy lost.’ Apparently Hall once saw or possessed the reference, but no longer has it and is working from memory. More puzzling is that the title of the reference suggests that it is the collected writings of Marx when Marx was a student in the year 1818. This would have been difficult, considering that Marx was born in that year.

    Hall uses an ancient argument against the earth’s motion: that it would leave the atmosphere behind.20 Earth’s gravitational force holds the atmosphere around the earth. Some very low mass molecules/atoms, such as hydrogen, are not held with sufficient force to stop them from escaping, but the higher mass molecules, such as nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide are bound to earth. However, since Hall dismisses both Newton and Einstein, perhaps he does not believe in gravity either?

    Hall also suggests that geostationary satellites are held in place by magnetic forces.21 He also quotes another reference to the effect that parallax measurements have been greatly misunderstood, and so the universe is far smaller than most astronomers think.22 This is followed by what appears to be a suggestion and diagram illustrating that some or perhaps all of the stars are located on a transparent sphere surrounding the earth.23 While Hall seems to think that this represents a return to biblical Christianity, it actually is a return to ancient pagan teachings.

    One of the more pathetic sections is Hall’s use of solar eclipses as an argument for a non-rotating earth.24 Hall points out that during a solar eclipse the shadow of the moon moves from west to east. He attempts to show that if the earth is rotating, the earth’s rotation should carry the moon’s shadow from east to west instead. Hall does correctly calculate the motion of the earth at various latitudes. In what follows here, the scientifically obsolete units of miles will be used so that comparison with Hall may be facilitated. The maximum speed of rotation is a little over 1,000 mph at the equator, with speeds a bit less in temperate latitudes. What Hall fails to consider is that the moon is moving west to east in its orbit around the earth. The radius of the moon’s orbit is about 240,000 miles, which gives a circumference of about 1.5 million miles. The moon’s synodic period is 29.5 days, which means it moves roughly 51,000 miles per day, or at a speed of more than 2,100 mph. Thus the eastward movement of the moon’s shadow is about twice the maximum rate of the earth’s rotation that would carry the shadow toward the west. Foreshortening of the shadow’s motion further increases its ground speed. Thus Hall’s argument is easily refuted.

    Hall’s book is replete with this sort of sloppy reasoning. It should be an embarrassment to the geocentric community, but there does not appear to be any criticism of Hall from that camp. In fairness to Bouw, his book should not be compared to Hall’s book. For that reason I have separated the discussion of the two books as much as possible, and have treated Bouw’s book as the definitive defence of geocentricity.

    In conclusion, since creationists should distance themselves from even the best defence of geocentrism for reasons given in the article Geocentrism and Creation in the same issue of this journal, much more so should we distance ourselves from Hall’s book.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The United State of Texas
    Posts
    27,718

    Default

    http://www.gotquestions.org/science-God.html

    Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.

    Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.

    Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.

    Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.

    Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Petezzzz View Post
    Nice to see you speaking for everyone here, Buzz.

    Tell that to the first century apostles. I'm sure they got the same flap, when they claimed Jesus rose from the dead. You know, Jesus the Son of God. He didn't come to some insignificant speck of dust in some insignificant corner of an insignificant galaxy. He came to Gods Footstool. The very center of the Universe.

    But anyway, I didn't post this stuff to debate about it. My mind's already made up. I just wanted to throw a monkeywrench into the complacency I'm noticing around here lately.

    ToodaLoo.
    Take it to Russia

    http://www.gotquestions.org/geocentrism-Bible.html

    Question: "Does the Bible teach geocentrism? Does the Bible teach that the Earth is the center of the universe?"

    Answer: This is a very important question because the answer helps to shape our belief system and worldview, both of which have eternal consequences. The short answer to this question is “no.” Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the Earth is at the center of the universe. For many centuries, however, people believed that Claudius Ptolemaeus and others were correct when they advocated an Earth-centered universe. They wanted to believe this theory because some thought, incorrectly, that this is what the Bible teaches.

    Taken in order, Genesis 1:14-18, Psalm 104:5, Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22 were often cited to support the geocentric theory of Ptolemaeus. Yet none of these Scriptures, taken in any order whatsoever, state that God designed the universe with Earth at its center. In fact, Earth isn’t even the center of its own small solar system; the sun is. We can understand why Copernicus and, later, Galileo, who posited the sun-centered (heliocentric) theory, caused such a controversy in the church. It was thought that heliocentricism contradicted the biblical teaching of geocentrism. But, again, the problem was that God’s Word doesn’t say that the Earth is at the center of anything. Sadly, as time went on and people came to understand that the Earth did in fact revolve around the Sun, many simply lost faith in God’s Word, because they had falsely been taught geocentrism.

    We must remember that Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. How ironic that science has never disproved one word of the Bible, yet it has caused many people to walk away from God. The ever-changing theories of fallible man come and go. Not so with the Word of God, however, as it endures forever (Matthew 5:18). Any time there is an irreconcilable difference between the two, the Bible is where we need to place our faith
    Quote Originally Posted by Petezzzz View Post


    They SAY they sent probes to Mars. But that's a whole different can of worms.

    Good night.
    All filmed with the moon landing in a garage in Hollywood.



    Revelation 22:17a The Spirit and Bride are now saying, "Come!" The ones who hear are now saying, "Come!" The ones who thirst are now saying, "Come!" so come LORD Jesus !
    Buzzardhut.net |The Watch Parables | The Rapture | Romans | The Virgin Mary | Roman Catholicism
    Never Heard of Jesus? | The Evidence Bible | Tent Meeting | The Beast/666 | The Kingdom of Darkness | The Nephilim

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Missing Bubba. Loving Elsa Rose...
    Posts
    14,972

    Default

    What a silly thread.
    The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
    Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
    (Psa 19:1b-2)

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    29,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hootmon View Post
    What a silly thread.
    ThePenguin did an excellent job with great patience.
    "...earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3b


    Jesus + something = nothing

    Jesus + nothing = Everything

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •