$ 1000 offered for proving Earth revolves around the sun

[pskouson]

I just reread the Catholics' points, and I just realized that they are more serious than I thought they were. No matter. I still think the 2 points above are the ones they should have made. None of the Catholics I know believe the Earth is flat, nor that the Sun revolves around it.

[Darth Wong]

I have read this thread with great interest. I notice no one has, at least on this thread, proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I know it does, so does everyone else I know. But none of you have yet proven it. I certainly don't have the expertise to prove it, and yet I am sure the Earth orbits the Sun. All my observations seem to point to it, but I don't think I can prove it.

I hope you will forgive any perceived 'preachy' or 'fundie' tone in this post. I assure you none is intended.

You seem to have deviated a bit from the OP, but you still seem to be making the Catholics' points for them:

1) You will NEVER be able to convince someone of something they refuse to believe. You are all extremely intelligent, yet can't convince each other. Pride often trumps brains.

Actually, if you had bothered reading the thread, it was largely a semantics argument over the meaning of the word "orbit". Tharkun never disputed that the natural gravitational orbit of the Earth was around the Sun. He only disputed that we should restrict ourselves to natural gravitational orbits because he apparently disagreed that this type of orbit was implied by the terms of the question.

2) You can't always prove what you know.

Proofs are irrelevant to science; accurate of empirical data to theoretical prediction is all that is important to science.

Now, I grant you that these are not ALL the points they are trying to make, but doesn't it weaken the position of those who disbelieve God's existence due to lack of proof or credible evidence?

What kind of moron leaps from "we disagree about the terms of the question" to "it's OK to believe in something without a shred of evidence"?

[tharkûn]

I have read this thread with great interest. I notice no one has, at least on this thread, proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I know it does, so does everyone else I know. But none of you have yet proven it. I certainly don't have the expertise to prove it, and yet I am sure the Earth orbits the Sun. All my observations seem to point to it, but I don't think I can prove it.

As Mike put it the natural gravitational orbit of the Earth is around Sol (and to avoid SN being more of an ass it technicly 'is around' the center of mass for the solar system minus Earth). There are an infinite number of 'unnatural' nongravitational orbits for Earth in other frames of reference, these are valid in that they give consistent observations and experimental data, but they are needlessly complex in most cases. In practical terms, the natural gravitational orbits are the best because they make things simpler. Some exceptions exist, but those tend to be obvious or forced (as in, work this problem from Ceres centered frame of reference).

Personally I'm an acentrist, both geocentrist and heliocentrist views are insufficient to 'easily' explain the cosmos. I'm comfortable working simple problems in either frame and use whichever one is handy for the problem at hand.

[pskouson]

Actually, if you had bothered reading the thread, it was largely a semantics argument over the meaning of the word "orbit". Tharkun never disputed that the natural gravitational orbit of the Earth was around the Sun. He only disputed that we should restrict ourselves to natural gravitational orbits because he apparently disagreed that this type of orbit was implied by the terms of the question.

That wasn't my point. I did indeed read the thread, and understand the crux of the current argument. I was just trying to get back to what appeared to me to be the main point of the thread, was that "Oh, yeah? So prove it!" is often worthless and a waste of time, at least as far as convincing anybody is concerned. No chance that the Catholic Apoligists International are ever going to convince you to be baptized Catholic, and less of a chance that they will make Jedi Council on Star Destroyer forums.

That's all I'm saying.

Proofs are irrelevant to science; accurate of empirical data to theoretical prediction is all that is important to science.

I like the way you put that. I had never thought of it that way, and I like it.

Finally,

What kind of moron leaps from "we disagree about the terms of the question" to "it's OK to believe in something without a shred of evidence"?

I think you misunderstand me. I was careful to phrase it in terms of evidence of nonexistence of God, not in terms of excuses to believe in God.

What I am trying to get at is this: If we fail to prove heliocentricism to the CAI's satisfaction, what does that mean? How much weight do we give this inability or ability to prove or disprove something? The CAI seems to put a lot of weight on it indeed, and in other threads on this site, you guys seem to put a lot of weight on it as well.

Now, I am not a scientist or a professional debater. If I am wrong, or jump to incorrect conclusions, please correct me. There is no need for name-calling.