Heliocentricism - the latest atheist conspiracy

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Heliocentricism - the latest atheist conspiracy

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

link
Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine
Filed under: Faith, Science — Sisyphus @ 10:04 am

What’s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless doctrine of evolution, is the non-debate over an issue that rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Now, it has to be granted that there may be some mathematical evidence going either way; mathematically speaking, Copernicus may be on ground nearly as firm as that of Tycho Brahe. Right-thinking people know the correct doctrine, however:

Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,[1] and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations

It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of Copernicus and Kepler were mathematically sound. However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don’t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There’s also the Word of the Lord:

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18 )

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

“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. 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 hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)

Moreover, as Answers in Genesis points out,

omething 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.

The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism is http://www.fixedearth.com/. The website contains numerous links to essays and analyses proving that the embrace of Copernicus is almost as foolish as the embrace of Darwinism. To quote from just one of these astounding essays:

Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid “scientific” concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe–and do believe–that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning, now long since freed from religious superstitions based on the Bible.

Indeed, it was this Copernican heliocentricity concept that gradually broke the back of Bible credibility as the source of Absolute Truth in Christendom. Once the Copernican Revolution had conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.

This embrace of Darwinism then quite predictably emboldened increasingly secular-minded mankind to further reject Biblical Absolutism and replace its teachings with yet more new “truths” in areas of learning having to do with economics and government. Thus was unsuccessful and floundering Marxism given new life. Marx openly tried to dedicate his own books to Darwin, exulting: “You have given me the basis for my system”. Thus, the “Social Science” disciplines were born and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility…

Darwin, of course, only popularized evolutionism with his book in 1859, giving it a supposed mechanism thru natural selection and mutations, both since demonstrated to be utter nonsense. The actual roots of the evolutionary concept can be traced back to antiquity…as indeed can the roots of Copernican heliocentricism. Certainly the neo-heliocentrists, i.e., the early Copernicans such as Kepler were evolutionists. Galileo, like Kepler his friend, a neo-heliocentrist, was probably an evolutionist. Newton gave Copernicanism its biggest boost with his book in 1687, but I’ve seen no overt evidence that he was an evolutionist. (If you know of such evidence, I’d like to see it….)

Thanks, however, to Newton’s invented math and the excesses of his gravitational hypotheses (HERE), Copernicanism dug in its heels in the universities in the 1700’s, and by the last quarter of that century had produced a large crop of hard core heliocentrists, not a few of whom were advocating ape-man theories (amongst them, Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, Voltaire’s disciples in France, etc.). This was the age of “The Enlightenment” which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as “that filthy little atheist”. Thomas Jefferson’s and Ben Franklin’s Deism was commonplace in Europe as well as amongst the rebellious American colonies. During the French Revolution of the 1790’s the Bible was actually outlawed.

These developments were sixty to a hundred years and more before Darwin, but the damage to Bible credibility done by the Copernican Revolution by that time was making an ever-widening open door for Evolutionism to take root. By 1830–even before Darwin (with his Degree in Theology, not Biology) went to the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his mythology, Charles Lyell (with his degree in Law, not Geology) had advanced his idea of a “geologic column” with great ages attached to alleged descending layers of the earth. Though such a column has never, ever been confirmed, and though there are mountainous examples of the theoretically old layers being on top of the supposedly more recent ones, and though the Cambrian layer shows a sudden profusion of highly developed life forms with no antecedents, Darwin picked up on Lyell’s fantasy and it is still taught as a proof of an ancient earth and macro-evolutionism.

If that, alone, isn’t enough to convince you of the folly of embracing a soulless, atheistic pseudoscience like Heliocentrism, perhaps this will soften your stony head:

God, thru His Word, teaches a non-moving and immovable earth just as surely as he teaches a six-day Creation 6000 years ago and a universal Flood some 1600 years later. All attempts to twist and even boldly reverse geocentric Scriptures by claiming that God just used a “language of appearance” are extremely reckless for the Christian devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, the same argument has been employed with near devastating effect upon the Creationist Movement by Theistic Evolutionists, has it not?

Attacking vulnerable Copernicanism is a strategy that outflanks the entire secular science establishment (overrunning the Theistic Evolutionist’s position in the process!)

In addition to all that, being men and women of sound mind (II Tim. 1:7), Creationists should be eager to learn that:

1) No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.

2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.

3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880’s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his “relativity” hypothesis.

4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.

5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.

6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments–especially the light fringe results–prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God’s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.

7) The Bible not only flatly states scores of times (HERE) and in several ways (HERE) that the earth does not move, it actually has a built-in geocentric assumption–sun rise, sun set–from beginning to end. (One scholar, a geocentrist and mathematician, is cataloguing some 2000 (!) of these.)

In the beginning, the Bible makes clear, the earth was the center of our “solar” system, with no sun for it to go around until the 4th day of creation (Gen.1:14-19; HERE). At the End we read of a New Earth (HERE) replacing in the same location this old one (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,2). This New Earth which occupies the same location in the cosmos as the old one which has “fled away” is the place where God the Father and Jesus will dwell with the redeemed forever (Rev. 21:3).

Given that unpreached but clear teaching, do you think that God the Father and Jesus the Son will eternally be somewhere out on the edge of Their NEW Universe in the boonies…or at the center?

If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propogation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.

I can’t wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.

UPDATE: Sheer idiocy.

UPDATE II: Look, people, even your Heliocentric hero Galileo recanted his idiotic notions about the Earth revolving around the Sun. If he’s your so-called reliable source on this, I think it does wonders to shatter the idea’s credibility that one of its main proponents backed away from it so abruptly.

UPDATE III: Further Scriptural evidence refuting Heliocentrism. To me, this settles the debate. The Earth does not move. To assert that the Earth does move is to renounce Christianity. It really is as simple as that.


War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

Is this for real? :?

It seems almost like a spoof.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Oh ye of little faith. Seek the link and ye shall find.

But srsly, folks, I too had my doubts, and continue to do so. But considering how long this blog has been up and how long this guy has been at it, I wouldn't consider it unrealistic, considering that the Bible is involved.
User avatar
DPDarkPrimus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18399
Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Post by DPDarkPrimus »

Ahahahaha "even Galileo recanted"!

Yeah, because he was FORCED to.

Fucktard.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
User avatar
Darth Raptor
Red Mage
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2003-12-18 03:39am

Post by Darth Raptor »

Okay, you guys will have to help me out here. Cosmology is one of those subjects I find very interesting but difficult to comprehend. As far as I know, the universe has no discernable center. Furthermore, the "all reference points are equally valid" thing is, in fact, true. Terra is not stationary, but niether is Sol as both orbit a superior body, so wouldn't that make both equally arbitrary and equally valid "centers of the universe"? Unless of course the claim is that Sol orbits Terra and not the other way around. My point is to ask if it's heliocentrism claimed that Sol was the center of the universe, because I didn't think it did. I though heliocentrism was all about Sol being the center of its own system. :wtf:
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Heliocentricism can be applied to either definition, but in recent parlance typically means that the sun is merely the center of the universe. Some creationists and ID'ers will tell you, however, that the sun merely offers the appearance of being the centre of the solar system because the Earth is in fact the centre of the universe and all other bodies merely move around it in a fashion that offers the appearance of heliocentricism.
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Ghetto edit; that should say "merely means that the sun is the center of the solar system".
User avatar
Spyder
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4465
Joined: 2002-09-03 03:23am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Spyder »

:lol:
His reply to one of the comments says it all.
Who is Jon Swift?
:D
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

Darth Raptor wrote:Okay, you guys will have to help me out here. Cosmology is one of those subjects I find very interesting but difficult to comprehend. As far as I know, the universe has no discernable center. Furthermore, the "all reference points are equally valid" thing is, in fact, true. Terra is not stationary, but niether is Sol as both orbit a superior body, so wouldn't that make both equally arbitrary and equally valid "centers of the universe"? Unless of course the claim is that Sol orbits Terra and not the other way around. My point is to ask if it's heliocentrism claimed that Sol was the center of the universe, because I didn't think it did. I though heliocentrism was all about Sol being the center of its own system. :wtf:
Heliocentrism has developed over a long course of time: initially it was thought that it was the center of the Universe, later, it was the center of our system.

Heliocentrism was devised initially as a means to simplify models of the obervable universe.

Later, Newton trots out his Mechanics and the heliocentric (rather, the center of mass centric) model gains an intrinsic, priviledged place.

With the advent of relativity, we see that there is no center of anything: one can describe the universe using any point as the reference point, and there is no intrinsic preference for one center or another. That would seem to undermine Heliocentrism, but actually, when desribing the solar system overall, the math is still more straightforwards if you use a center of mass, which was the point of heliocentrism to begin with: eliminate biblical ideas to gain a model that is more practical and accurate.

More importantly, it makes biblical geocentrism not only wrong but irrelevant, so fundies are far worse off than anyone else.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
Darth Raptor
Red Mage
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2003-12-18 03:39am

Post by Darth Raptor »

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks guys.
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Re: Heliocentricism - the latest atheist conspiracy

Post by Lord Zentei »

Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine
Filed under: Faith, Science — Sisyphus @ 10:04 am

What’s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless doctrine of evolution, is the non-debate over an issue that rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Oh, this ought to be good. :roll:
Now, it has to be granted that there may be some mathematical evidence going either way; mathematically speaking, Copernicus may be on ground nearly as firm as that of Tycho Brahe. Right-thinking people know the correct doctrine, however:
Of course, it escapes our fundy friend that we have moved quite some way since Copernicus.
Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,[1] and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations
Which makes biblical geocentrism irrelevant. See: the whole point of heliocentrism was to produce a simpler and more elegant model of the universe. Moreover, when you are looking at the solar system as a whole, the center of mass calculation remains more practical. Therefore, we teach heliocentrism.
It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of Copernicus and Kepler were mathematically sound. However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move.
"Moral reasons"? :wtf:

And incidentally the calculations of Copernicus and Kepler were mathematically sound. :roll:
If it moved, we would feel it moving.
No, we would not. Inertia, you see. Try sitting in a car moving at a constant velocity: you don't feel it moving.
That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don’t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There’s also the Word of the Lord: <BLAH BLAH BLAH>
Misrepresentation of empiricism.
omething 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.


Incorrect: the Bible claims that the Earth is immovable in the centre of the Universe; by relativity that statement makes no sense. The whole point of Heliocentrism was to discard such religious dogma and to embrace the model that was simplest mathematically. With the advent of Relativity, Geocentrism is far more damaged than Heliocentrism: it's core postulate is not just wrong, but irrelevant.

Indeed, it was this Copernican heliocentricity concept that gradually broke the back of Bible credibility as the source of Absolute Truth in Christendom. Once the Copernican Revolution had conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.


Good.

This embrace of Darwinism then quite predictably emboldened increasingly secular-minded mankind to further reject Biblical Absolutism and replace its teachings with yet more new “truths” in areas of learning having to do with economics and government. Thus was unsuccessful and floundering Marxism given new life. Marx openly tried to dedicate his own books to Darwin, exulting: “You have given me the basis for my system”. Thus, the “Social Science” disciplines were born and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility…


Guilt by association. Elementary bullshit.

Darwin, of course, only popularized evolutionism with his book in 1859, giving it a supposed mechanism thru natural selection and mutations, both since demonstrated to be utter nonsense. The actual roots of the evolutionary concept can be traced back to antiquity…as indeed can the roots of Copernican heliocentricism. Certainly the neo-heliocentrists, i.e., the early Copernicans such as Kepler were evolutionists. Galileo, like Kepler his friend, a neo-heliocentrist, was probably an evolutionist. Newton gave Copernicanism its biggest boost with his book in 1687, but I’ve seen no overt evidence that he was an evolutionist. (If you know of such evidence, I’d like to see it….)


Alas for our fundy friend natural selection and mutation have been verified time and again. And though some semblance of change in nature as well as heliocentrism were to be found in antiquity that does not undermine the ideas themselves, nor the contribution of the scientists involved with the research in question, does it? :)

Galileo, "probably an evolutionist", before evolution was put forwards as a scientific theory. Whatever.

Thanks, however, to Newton’s invented math and the excesses of his gravitational hypotheses (HERE), Copernicanism dug in its heels in the universities in the 1700’s, and by the last quarter of that century had produced a large crop of hard core heliocentrists, not a few of whom were advocating ape-man theories (amongst them, Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, Voltaire’s disciples in France, etc.). This was the age of “The Enlightenment” which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as “that filthy little atheist”. Thomas Jefferson’s and Ben Franklin’s Deism was commonplace in Europe as well as amongst the rebellious American colonies. During the French Revolution of the 1790’s the Bible was actually outlawed.


Newton's "invented math". :lol: :lol: :lol: I guess someone doesn't realize that Calculus is as alive and well as ever. And boo hoo on the social progress whining.

These developments were sixty to a hundred years and more before Darwin, but the damage to Bible credibility done by the Copernican Revolution by that time was making an ever-widening open door for Evolutionism to take root. <SNIPPA>


Again, good. Damn, this guy is listing consequences of the Copernican revolution that he doesn't personally like as though they were arguments against the veracity of the ideas that emerged from it.

If that, alone, isn’t enough to convince you of the folly of embracing a soulless, atheistic pseudoscience like Heliocentrism, perhaps this will soften your stony head:

God, thru His Word, teaches a non-moving and immovable earth just as surely as he teaches a six-day Creation 6000 years ago and a universal Flood some 1600 years later. All attempts to twist and even boldly reverse geocentric Scriptures by claiming that God just used a “language of appearance” are extremely reckless for the Christian devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, the same argument has been employed with near devastating effect upon the Creationist Movement by Theistic Evolutionists, has it not?


Right, and that is of course justification for this geocentrist bullshit?

Of course, I'd personally counter that "god" had nothing to do with the Bible in the first place, for obvious reasons. ;)

Attacking vulnerable Copernicanism is a strategy that outflanks the entire secular science establishment (overrunning the Theistic Evolutionist’s position in the process!)

In addition to all that, being men and women of sound mind (II Tim. 1:7)....


:lol:

Creationists should be eager to learn that:

1) No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.


Within Newton's mechanics it is indeed moving. As for Einstein's mechanics..... prove that it is stationary! Thing is, Relativity is truly relative: that puts the nail in Geocentrism's coffin.

2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.


Incorrect. The mathematics was devised to provide a coherent model that could predict the outcome of observations.

3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880’s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his “relativity” hypothesis.


That is how science progresses. Out with the old, in with the new.

Apparenly our friend wants out with the old, in with the even older.

4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.


Oh, wait a goddamned minute! Just a while ago, this fool was using relativity as an argument, now he claims that it is claptrap!

5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.


These things prove a moving Earth within Newton's mechanics. Within Einstein's mechanics, an absolute center is meaningles, making Biblical Geocentrism irrelevant.

6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments–especially the light fringe results–prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God’s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.


No: the Michelson-Morley experiment proves no such thing. It proves that it is meaningless to claim a preferred frame of reference. There are numerous experiments that would seem to the naive to show that the Earth is stationary, there are also numerous experiments that show it to be moving, such as stellar abberation experiments. Thus the Earth was both moving and not moving, depending on how you looked at it. Result: relativity.

7) The Bible not only flatly states scores of times (HERE) and in several ways (HERE) that the earth does not move, it actually has a built-in geocentric assumption–sun rise, sun set–from beginning to end. (One scholar, a geocentrist and mathematician, is cataloguing some 2000 (!) of these.)

In the beginning, the Bible makes clear, the earth was the center of our “solar” system, with no sun for it to go around until the 4th day of creation (Gen.1:14-19; HERE). At the End we read of a New Earth (HERE) replacing in the same location this old one (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,2). This New Earth which occupies the same location in the cosmos as the old one which has “fled away” is the place where God the Father and Jesus will dwell with the redeemed forever (Rev. 21:3).


Too bad that the Bible is bullshit, then.

Given that unpreached but clear teaching, do you think that God the Father and Jesus the Son will eternally be somewhere out on the edge of Their NEW Universe in the boonies…or at the center?

If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propogation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.


Heliocentrism encourages "anti-Americanism"? :lol: And yes, of course that settles it right there! Naturally the LORD wouldn't want to live in the boonies (if he existed). Don't expect him to call you anytime soon then. :lol:

I can’t wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.


Amazing how a few paragraphs earlier he listed Thomas Paine as an atheist, and Jefferson and Franklin as Deists, lamenting these as products of the Copernican revolution. :roll:

UPDATE: Sheer idiocy.


This sums up this blog very well indeed.

UPDATE II: Look, people, even your Heliocentric hero Galileo recanted his idiotic notions about the Earth revolving around the Sun. If he’s your so-called reliable source on this, I think it does wonders to shatter the idea’s credibility that one of its main proponents backed away from it so abruptly.


Ah, yes: Galileo's trial, where he was forced to recant under dueress by the Inquisition. Amazing evidence right there! :roll:

UPDATE III: Further Scriptural evidence refuting Heliocentrism. To me, this settles the debate. The Earth does not move. To assert that the Earth does move is to renounce Christianity. It really is as simple as that.


I'm OK with that.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12267
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

TithonusSyndrome wrote:Heliocentricism can be applied to either definition, but in recent parlance typically means that the sun is merely the center of the universe. Some creationists and ID'ers will tell you, however, that the sun merely offers the appearance of being the centre of the solar system because the Earth is in fact the centre of the universe and all other bodies merely move around it in a fashion that offers the appearance of heliocentricism.
That's the cosmological version of the "God created it to make it look like it evolved" argument.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Vaporous
Jedi Knight
Posts: 596
Joined: 2006-01-02 10:19pm

Post by Vaporous »

George Washington referred to [Tom Paine] as “that filthy little atheist”.
No. That was T.R. Way to be off by a century.

I'm convinced this is a joke.
User avatar
Spyder
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4465
Joined: 2002-09-03 03:23am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Spyder »

Promoting secularism really does seem like a one step forward, two steps back process when you realize that we're still at the point of convincing people that the Earth revolves around the sun.
:D
User avatar
Jericho Kross
Padawan Learner
Posts: 188
Joined: 2007-03-10 08:24pm
Location: Spruce Grove/AB/Canada

Post by Jericho Kross »

You have got to be kidding me! :shock: What the fuck are these people smoking?
I may be just a redshirt but guess what?
I'am the only one who brought a gun!!

"Wake me, when you need me"
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

Image
I have imbeciles for followers.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Post by Flagg »

Jericho Kross wrote:You have got to be kidding me! :shock: What the fuck are these people smoking?
Jesus's cock.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
SpacedTeddyBear
Jedi Master
Posts: 1093
Joined: 2002-08-20 11:54pm
Location: San Jose, Ca

Post by SpacedTeddyBear »

And yet, these people are using technologies that were created using principles and techniques ( IE:Scientific method) developed and used by these heliocentrists. How unsurprisingly hypocritical. :roll:

Just to be sure though, in case the bible is true word for word, I think we should all get our iron chariots ready.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

...rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun
I can't help but ask the question: who's the fool? He acknowledged that rational people are heliocentrists. But I guess "rationality" among fundies is a swearword, ain't it? :lol:
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

Stas Bush wrote:
...rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun
I can't help but ask the question: who's the fool? He acknowledged that rational people are heliocentrists. But I guess "rationality" among fundies is a swearword, ain't it?
In their view, rationality gets in the way of Truth™ and is therefore false and untrustworthy.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Brain_Caster
Youngling
Posts: 120
Joined: 2005-04-27 02:45pm

Post by Brain_Caster »

This has to be a satire. I mean, come on, what kind of idiot would bring up Galileos recantations to support this point of view?

The text seems to be designed to present the writer as an imbecile. I'm fairly sure it's satirical.
User avatar
Setesh
Jedi Master
Posts: 1113
Joined: 2002-07-16 03:27pm
Location: Maine, land of the Laidback
Contact:

Post by Setesh »

Brain_Caster wrote:This has to be a satire. I mean, come on, what kind of idiot would bring up Galileos recantations to support this point of view?

The text seems to be designed to present the writer as an imbecile. I'm fairly sure it's satirical.
Nope, this is apparently serious, if you read the previous blog posts and the comments section this is indeed a blog of fundie morons. If this is satire the guy's been holding the joke for quite some time.

Some fundies will bring up anything no matter how stupid to support their view. The 'Darwin deathbed recants evolution' story was debunked within months of it surfacing, but I've seen fundies use it within this year! (More on that Here )

Even worse is his misuse of 'empirical evidence', saying that because we can't 'feel' the Earth move it doesn't. He must have skipped the highschool lesson on inertia. Yet empirical evidence would indeed fail him thanks to modern transportation. In the middle of winter get on a plane and fly to the other hemisphere (north or south), notice something different? That's right they have the opposite season, because as the earth revolves around the sun the tilt axis of the planet changes orientation relative to the sun, so one hemisphere is closer than the other. (Distance from the sun also plays a role but let's not get to deep into this.)
"Nobody ever inferred from the multiple infirmities of Windows that Bill Gates was infinitely benevolent, omniscient, and able to fix everything. " Argument against god's perfection.

My Snow's art portfolio.
User avatar
wautd
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7588
Joined: 2004-02-11 10:11am
Location: Intensive care

Post by wautd »

Avoid reading the blog to prevent further brain damage.

Exhibit A:
As for those offering evidence the Earth is flat, I have to say that you may be on to something
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

EXHIBIT B:
The True Enemy Has Revealed Itself

Filed under: Defending America, Justice/Law, Media Bias, Breaking News, Terrorism, Republicans, Media — Sisyphus @ 8:51 am

Wolfowitz correctly identifies the source of wrongdoing in his ouster:

Departing World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz in a radio interview broadcast Monday blamed an overheated atmosphere at the bank and in the media for forcing him to resign…

“I think it tells us more about the media than about the bank and I’ll leave it at that,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp. “People were reacting to a whole string of inaccurate statements and by the time we got to anything approximating accuracy the passions were around the bend.”

Wolfowitz said that he was pleased the bank’s board accepted that he had acted ethically, and in good faith in his handling of a generous compensation package for his girlfriend and bank employee Shaha Riza in 2005.

Classy to the end, Wolfowitz has spared the media the full brunt of his wrath, a wrath fully justified by the conduct of the media in this matter. A decent man has lost his career; meanwhile, the buzzards and vultures continue to caw over the corpse they’ve slain. But he who laughs last laughs best. Wolfowitz may be down now, but history will remember him as a Promethean figure, languishing as a martyr for helping us all.

For my part, I only hope that one day I have the signal honor of voting for Paul Wolfowitz in a Presidential election. A wiser, more mature nation will probably see him enter the White House in 2017, or perhaps 2021. For now, we can only hope that he enjoys his well-earned respite from public office, and doesn’t turn his back on a nation of ingrates forever.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Post by Mange »

No, no, no!!! :shock: My belief in humanity just dropped a notch or two.
Post Reply