[Qingu]

Since the topic of "how do we know evolution is proven" keeps on coming up in other threads, I would like to take this opportunity to lay down what exactly it means, to creationists, for a theory to be "proven." In this thread, I invite anti-evolutionist Christians to scientifically prove, to me, that the earth revolves around the sun. I will play the devil's advocate role of a geocentrist (Jerry and other pro-evolutionists, if you like, you can join in).

I'd like to limit this discussion to science, not apologetics, so I will not be mentioning any of the pro-geocentric positions of the Bible. Like I said, I am more interested in finding out what creationists consider "proof" to mean.

Any takers?

[cuziamthecaptai]

enabling the advocate...

Venus has various shading, like our moon, depending upon the light reflecting off the sun.

If venus were revolving around the earth, it would have a similar reflection pattern like our moon. Instead, we see the shading we'd expect to see if venus revolved around the sun in an interior orbit.

[ChrisHarbison]

Originally Posted by Qingu

so I will not be mentioning any of the pro-geocentric positions of the Bible

I just want to know where the Bible claims the earth's the center of the universe.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

enabling the advocate...

Venus has various shading, like our moon, depending upon the light reflecting off the sun.

If venus were revolving around the earth, it would have a similar reflection pattern like our moon. Instead, we see the shading we'd expect to see if venus revolved around the sun in an interior orbit.

Dude, you can't play the heliocentrist!

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by ChrisHarbison

I just want to know where the Bible claims the earth's the center of the universe.

That would be the topic for another thread. I explicitly said this thread has nothing to do with Bible. Creationists supposedly dispute evolution on scientific grounds, so I want to establish how and why they consider a scientific theory "proven."

[Rich*]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

enabling the advocate...

Venus has various shading, like our moon, depending upon the light reflecting off the sun.

If venus were revolving around the earth, it would have a similar reflection pattern like our moon. Instead, we see the shading we'd expect to see if venus revolved around the sun in an interior orbit.

although that doesn't prove that the earth revolves round the sun or vice-versa

God Bless, Rich

[doulos777]

How dare you even assume that the Copernican Theory has merit. It is a slap in the face of us Christians.

If the earth revolved around the sun, then as we looked from the earth to a star (whose place in the heavens is fixed) we should see it at a somewhat different angle in summer and in winter, in the same way that we see a distant building from different angles when we stand in two different places.

The change in the star's angle of sight is what pagans and athiests call "parallax."

While this does not prove that it revolves around the sun, it does demonstrate that the earth is not in a fixed position.

Thus it does not rise to the level of proving the ungodly notion that the earth is not the center of the universe.

[cuziamthecaptai]

Originally Posted by Rich*

although that doesn't prove that the earth revolves round the sun or vice-versa

God Bless, Rich

It suggests that venus does. And if venus does, that's a strong indication that the earth does as well. After all, if venus goes around the sun, why not the earth?

Although it doesn't 'prove' it, there is a strongstrong indication.

[s0233425]

Originally Posted by Quingu

I'd like to limit this discussion to science

Perhaps the fact that a manned flight has taken place, and from photographic evidence we observe that the earth isn't the centre of the universe, but that it revolves around the sun?

That might not count as a scientific proof, but it is proof nonetheless.

[doulos777]

Originally Posted by cuziamthecaptai

It suggests that venus does. And if venus does, that's a strong indication that the earth does as well. After all, if venus goes around the sun, why not the earth?

Although it doesn't 'prove' it, there is a strongstrong indication.

You are concluding that all planets revolve around the sun based upon the observation of the motion of Venus.

All that you "prove" is the motion of a single celestial body. While it is an important datum, it would be a gross generalization to assume that all planets follow this heliocentric pattern.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by doulos777

How dare you even assume that the Copernican Theory has merit. It is a slap in the face of us Christians.

If the earth revolved around the sun, then as we looked from the earth to a star (whose place in the heavens is fixed) we should see it at a somewhat different angle in summer and in winter, in the same way that we see a distant building from different angles when we stand in two different places.

The change in the star's angle of sight is what pagans and athiests call "parallax."

While this does not prove that it revolves around the sun, it does demonstrate that the earth is not in a fixed position.

Thus it does not rise to the level of proving the ungodly notion that the earth is not the center of the universe.

Parallex in stars is incredibly small, and it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the few stars that exhibit parallax revolve around smaller epicycles, just as the wandering stars (the planets) have their own epicycles.

By the way, Venus' shading can also be explained by epicycles. The planet revolves around the earth, along with the sun, but Venus also spins around in a circle-within-a-circle as it orbits earth. It's pretty complicated, but that is the wonder of the universe.



Though that is oversimplifying. Actually, Venus and most of the planets revolve around several epicycles-within-epicycles, within epicycles. Again, very complicated stuff, but it can all be worked out to explain retrograde motion and even Venus' shading (I believe)



So that was your only "proof" of heliocentrism? That it is "impossible" that we would observe this data in geocentrism? As I have shown, it is entirely possible. Why should we then accept your ridiculous and completely counter-intuitive theory when we can plainly see the earth does not move at all and the heavenly bodies do?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by s0233425

Perhaps the fact that a manned flight has taken place, and from photographic evidence we observe that the earth isn't the centre of the universe, but that it revolves around the sun?

That might not count as a scientific proof, but it is proof nonetheless.

I quote from Astronomer Dr. Bouw on Geocentricity and the Space Program:

"...Again, once more for the record:
it has been shown at least six different ways
this century alone that the equations
and physics used by NASA to launch satellites
are identical to the equations derived
from a geocentric universe.
Thus, if the space program is proof of anything,
it proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism."
G. D. Bouw, "News Extracts", Bulletin of Tychonian Society, Spring, 1990, #53, p.28, (Quoted p. 43, The Earth Is Not Moving, by Marshall Hall, 1994 printing.)

What pictures have you seen that demonstrate the earth revolves around the sun?

[doulos777]

Okay... this is going to be trickier than I thought...

I am assuming that by geocentric, we are not just talking about the terran system but the entire universe.

Everything revolves around the earth. Shall we also assume that the earth is completely stationary and that all motion is extraterrestrial?

In order for the Sun to be able to go around the Earth once in 24 hours, the Earth’s mass (or its gravitational pull on the Sun) would have to be incredibly large. Otherwise the Sun would break free and shoot out of orbit and into space.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by doulos777

Okay... this is going to be trickier than I thought...

I am assuming that by geocentric, we are not just talking about the terran system but the entire universe.

Everything revolves around the earth. Shall we also assume that the earth is completely stationary and that all motion is extraterrestrial?

In order for the Sun to be able to go around the Earth once in 24 hours, the Earth?s mass (or its gravitational pull on the Sun) would have to be incredibly large. Otherwise the Sun would break free and shoot out of orbit and into space.

Can you prove that the revolution of the planets is due to gravity? "Gravity" is something which you must assume exists. Newton assumed that there was a mysterious magical force that connects everything in the universe, and Einstein assumed that this force was actually the curvature of space. Furthermore, when developing his theory of gravity, Newton assumed that Copernicanism was true! Can you show that their assumptions are necessarily true?

If the earth is the center of the universe then obviously things will revolve around it. That would be part of its nature as the center, just as it is part of the nature of the center of the earth itself to attract everything towards the center of the earth. You are simply making gravity--or this mysterious unobserved force you are calling gravity--mass-dependent. Can you prove that it is not position-dependent?

Tell me what is a bigger assumption: that there is a mysterious force or curvature in the universe invented out of thin air by a crazy alchemist in the 1600s (Newton), or that the heavenly bodies rotate around the earth because that is simply their nature?

Which one have you personally observed: this mysterious all-encompassing force, or the sun and planets moving across the sky?

[Qingu]

By the way, yes, the earth is fixed, and all motion is indeed extraterrestrial. The whole rest of the universe revolves around the earth, as should be obvious to anyone standing on earth looking out at the universe.