Geocentrism: What's It Hurt?

You wasted a lot of time not answering my question, Ms. Jean-Pierre.
Oh, I pegged you as someone able to synthesize information. I apologize. They presume it goes around the sun, and indeed it does. It makes no difference, as I explained above.
 
Oh, I pegged you as someone able to synthesize information. I apologize. They presume it goes around the sun, and indeed it does. It makes no difference, as I explained above.
I was just gauging the extent of your cultish belief in pseudoscience.
 
What does it hurt? It hurts my head! What a boring subject...a subject only a "Braying Ass" could love!
 
This is ironic, coming from someone who thinks the universe is a literal gigantic water bubble.
LOL. Not even close. More like a 3d space 'bubble' if you like that word.

I definitely believe it is finite, spherical, and has an edge and a center. If we could reach the edge, if Genesis is to be believed, we would find water. And if the CMB temperatures are any indication, very cold water.

I don't know what is beyond that layer, but certainly not 3d space if anything.
 
This is ironic, coming from someone who thinks the universe is a literal gigantic water bubble.

I definitely believe it is finite, spherical, and has an edge and a center. If we could reach the edge, if Genesis is to be believed, we would find water. And if the CMB temperatures are any indication, very cold water.

I don't know what is beyond that layer, but certainly not 3d space if anything.
So the universe is spherical and surrounded by a water layer of finite thickness.

In other words, a literal gigantic water bubble.
 
So the universe is spherical and surrounded by a water layer of finite thickness.
That would seem to be the description in Genesis, with the caveat of the understanding that the waters above the heavens are part of the universe and exist in 3d space.

We're not told what is surrounding the universe of 3d space, if anything, but thinking that it is more 3d space is a departure from Big Bang cosmology, which is what you're calling 'science,' and the reason you visualize a bubble.

Big Bang cosmology is not about a big explosion within 3d space, it is about 3d space coming into existence. The so-called expansion of the universe is not about the galaxies moving farther away from one another within 3d space, it is about 3d space itself expanding inside a fourth dimension.

You may or may not be informed of some of that. You don't appear to be, judging from some of your statements.

Basically, your flat universe is theorized to explain the observations of astronomers while, at the same time, keeping the earth out of the favored location their observations so eminently imply that it occupies.
 
That would seem to be the description in Genesis, with the caveat of the understanding that the waters above the heavens are part of the universe and exist in 3d space.

We're not told what is surrounding the universe of 3d space, if anything, but thinking that it is more 3d space is a departure from Big Bang cosmology, which is what you're calling 'science,' and the reason you visualize a bubble.

Big Bang cosmology is not about a big explosion within 3d space, it is about 3d space coming into existence. The so-called expansion of the universe is not about the galaxies moving farther away from one another within 3d space, it is about 3d space itself expanding inside a fourth dimension.

You may or may not be informed of some of that. You don't appear to be, judging from some of your statements.

Basically, your flat universe is theorized to explain the observations of astronomers while, at the same time, keeping the earth out of the favored location their observations so eminently imply that it occupies.
You keep accusing people of being "flat universers"...the only thing falling flat here are your arguments.
 
Since geocentrism is such a vitally important issue for some folks, I decided to check out how the major Creation Science organizations stand on the issue. It turns out that Answers in Genesis, Institute For Creation Research and Creation Ministries International all repudiate geocentrism.

"There Is a Wealth of Data Indicating That the Earth Revolves Around the Sun"​



"Does the Bible teach or demand geocentrism? Hardly. Does good science indicate that the earth is motionless? Certainly not."


"In contrast to the bountiful evidence in the Bible which teaches that the earth is special, nowhere is it taught that the earth is the center of the universe. . . . The Biblical status of the doctrine of creation contrasts sharply with that of geocentricity."


"I have examined the claims of leading modern geocentrists and have found that their insistence that the Bible teaches geocentrism is not well founded."


"Creationists should distance themselves from even the best defence of geocentrism for reasons given in the article Geocentrism and Creation"

 
I myself am a firm bus-centrist.

If you ride the Greyhound along the highway, you don't feel any motion, and indeed, you are not affected by any external forces, as proven by the fact that you can get out of your seat, stand up, and move around freely without being slammed against the back wall of the bus.

Meanwhile, you look out the window, and you see trees, mountains, the highway, and other vehicles moving all around you. Everything but you is in a constant state of motion.

The only logical conclusion is that a Greyhound travels from A to B not by moving along a highway, but by remaining stationary and moving the earth underneath it.
 
Since geocentrism is such a vitally important issue for some folks, I decided to check out how the major Creation Science organizations stand on the issue. It turns out that Answers in Genesis, Institute For Creation Research and Creation Ministries International all repudiate geocentrism.

"There Is a Wealth of Data Indicating That the Earth Revolves Around the Sun"​



"Does the Bible teach or demand geocentrism? Hardly. Does good science indicate that the earth is motionless? Certainly not."


"In contrast to the bountiful evidence in the Bible which teaches that the earth is special, nowhere is it taught that the earth is the center of the universe. . . . The Biblical status of the doctrine of creation contrasts sharply with that of geocentricity."


"I have examined the claims of leading modern geocentrists and have found that their insistence that the Bible teaches geocentrism is not well founded."


"Creationists should distance themselves from even the best defence of geocentrism for reasons given in the article Geocentrism and Creation"

That's fine. It's the astrophysicists themselves saying that a geocentric model is a valid model and cannot be proven wrong. It can be rejected only on philosophical bases.
 
I myself am a firm bus-centrist.

If you ride the Greyhound along the highway, you don't feel any motion, and indeed, you are not affected by any external forces, as proven by the fact that you can get out of your seat, stand up, and move around freely without being slammed against the back wall of the bus.

Meanwhile, you look out the window, and you see trees, mountains, the highway, and other vehicles moving all around you. Everything but you is in a constant state of motion.

The only logical conclusion is that a Greyhound travels from A to B not by moving along a highway, but by remaining stationary and moving the earth underneath it.
Flat universers :rolleyes:
 
You keep accusing people of being "flat universers"...the only thing falling flat here are your arguments.
The universe, to keep the earth out of the center of the observed phenomena and still logically explain them, cannot have an edge or a center, and therefore no center of mass. It has to be flat, and curved in on itself like the membrane of a balloon. Our 3D space is the 2D surface of the balloon. Hyperspace, or subspace, for you Sci-Fi fans (because they're not actual theories), is the idea of shooting through the 'interior' of the balloon (which exists in another dimension) to another point on the surface.

If you've come across the terminology, physicists speak of models of the universe as bounded or unbounded. That doesn't mean finite or infinite. A bounded universe has an edge and a center. An unbounded universe has no edge or center, like the surface of a balloon. But whether or not the universe is bounded, can only be presumed. If our universe is bounded, then earth is at or very near the center. If it isn't bounded, then what we observe, with the exception of a couple of late discoveries, would look the same no matter which platform we're viewing from.

Relativity can justify either model. A model is chosen and presented based on one's philosophical bent. An earth in the center smacks of purpose, and we can't have that. Our star is humdrum. The earth is an insignificant speck, and we are accidents. Therefore, the universe is obviously flat.
 
Last edited:
Since geocentrism is such a vitally important issue for some folks, I decided to check out how the major Creation Science organizations stand on the issue. It turns out that Answers in Genesis, Institute For Creation Research and Creation Ministries International all repudiate geocentrism.

"There Is a Wealth of Data Indicating That the Earth Revolves Around the Sun"​



"Does the Bible teach or demand geocentrism? Hardly. Does good science indicate that the earth is motionless? Certainly not."


"In contrast to the bountiful evidence in the Bible which teaches that the earth is special, nowhere is it taught that the earth is the center of the universe. . . . The Biblical status of the doctrine of creation contrasts sharply with that of geocentricity."


"I have examined the claims of leading modern geocentrists and have found that their insistence that the Bible teaches geocentrism is not well founded."


"Creationists should distance themselves from even the best defence of geocentrism for reasons given in the article Geocentrism and Creation"

Also, I think you'll find that though they assert that the earth moves (a presmise as yet scientifically unproven) Almost all of them reject Big Bang cosmology and would affirm that our universe is bounded, and we are located very near the center. Some of them call themselves 'galactocentric.'
 
The universe, to keep the earth out of the center of the observed phenomena and still logically explain them, cannot have an edge or a center, and therefore no center of mass. It has to be flat, and curved in on itself like the membrane of a balloon. Our 3D space is the 2D surface of the balloon. Hyperspace, or subspace, for you Sci-Fi fans (because they're not actual theories), is the idea of shooting through the 'interior' of the balloon (which exists in another dimension) to another point on the surface.

If you've come across the terminology, physicists speak of models of the universe as bounded or unbounded. That doesn't mean finite or infinite. A bounded universe has an edge and a center. An unbounded universe has no edge or center, like the surface of a balloon. But whether or not the universe is bounded, can only be presumed. If our universe is bounded, then earth is at or very near the center. If it isn't bounded, then what we observe, with the exception of a couple of late discoveries, would look the same no matter which platform we're viewing from.

Relativity can justify either model. A model is chosen and presented based on one's philosophical bent. An earth in the center smacks of purpose, and we can't have that. Our star is humdrum. The earth is an insignificant speck, and we are accidents. Therefore, the universe is obviously flat.
And who gets the credit for this statement, because it's clear that you didn't come up with this? )
 
I posted something you didn't know, so it must be plagiarism. :rolleyes:
I seriously doubt you're intelligent enough to think like this. And your ASSumption I didn't know it is stupidity on your part. Of course, we've come to expect such stupidity from you.
 
Back
Top