The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
The treating any point in the universe as stationary (or central) is just a mathematical game. Doesn't mean that saying that the Earth is stationary is true for any everyday sense of the word "stationary".
The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
Stile
Emperor
I'm not so sure. I think treating Earth as moving around the CM of the Earth/Sun system seems more like a mere effort in mathematics. For everyday living and the verses in the Bible it makes perfect sense to consider the Earth stationary, since that's the way it feels. Or do you feel like you are spinning through the heavens at 30km/s?The Last Conformist said:
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Geocentralism is an aspect of bible literalness that just throws everything out but the holy book.
The Earth is not at the centre of the Solar Sytstem, neither is the Solar System at the centre of the Galaxy. To assume that we can regard our location as special in any way (ie; the centre of the universe) is arrogance. to base this assumption on the words of a 2 thousand year old book is...
The Earth is not at the centre of the Solar Sytstem, neither is the Solar System at the centre of the Galaxy. To assume that we can regard our location as special in any way (ie; the centre of the universe) is arrogance. to base this assumption on the words of a 2 thousand year old book is...
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
@Stile: Well, yes. I'm experiencing my life exactly as if I were on a planet spinning around at enormous speed compared to the cosmic background. I am not experiencing my life as if I sat on a planet at rest in an inertial frame (which is the concept closest to "stationary" that has physical meaning).
classical_hero
In whom I trust
That is BS. The Bible never says anything about earth being the centre of the universe. All you are doing is twisting common phrases and then saying that the Bible means that the earth is the centre of the universe.brennan said:Geocentralism is an aspect of bible literalness that just throws everything out but the holy book.
The Earth is not at the centre of the Solar Sytstem, neither is the Solar System at the centre of the Galaxy. To assume that we can regard our location as special in any way (ie; the centre of the universe) is arrogance. to base this assumption on the words of a 2 thousand year old book is...
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Ah, you are taking my description of someone else's beliefs and telling me those beliefs are wrong. This happens a lot. Go argue with the geocentralists.
Stile
Emperor
@ TLC: Oh, I guess I'll drop it then. My personal view is that centrism is irrelevant. The Bible verses referred to to say the Earth is the center I assumed would be obvious ways to refer to things if one is on Earth, relative to Earth (Ex: the sun moving back in the sky, the Earth being immobile), but since that is contrary to people's experiences... (what? do you fly in planes much or something? I just can't imagine it effecting my life.)
OT: Heliocentrism probably has a lot in common with evolution. It's hard to accept as it isn't necessarily obvious to the average man going about his life. Also if one accepts it's true, it only changes his perspective and only rarely would he do things differently with the knowledge.
@ brennan: It did seem you were arguing geocentrism invalidated the Bible.
OT: Heliocentrism probably has a lot in common with evolution. It's hard to accept as it isn't necessarily obvious to the average man going about his life. Also if one accepts it's true, it only changes his perspective and only rarely would he do things differently with the knowledge.
@ brennan: It did seem you were arguing geocentrism invalidated the Bible.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The Last Conformist said:
It's not a scientific claim therefore it's not a valid scientific claim, therefore it's an invalid scientific claim. That makes sense, right?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
No. Allow me an analogy:warpus said:It's not a scientific claim therefore it's not a valid scientific claim, therefore it's an invalid scientific claim. That makes sense, right?
The Statue of Liberty is not a dog, therefore it's not a well-bred dog, therefore the Statue of Liberty is an ill-bred dog.
warpus said:It's not a scientific claim therefore it's not a valid scientific claim, therefore it's an invalid scientific claim. That makes sense, right?
The sun is not a red car. That doesn't mean the sun is a non-red car.
Ali Zaybak
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 53
To begin with, hello to all. I have joined the Civ Fanatics discussion today after having pored over the previous "Perfection KOs Creationism" thread yesterday, when I should have been working on more productive schemes. Alas, now I am implicated. Having (I think, I hope) sufficiently plumbed the depths, let me dive in.
I believe that what Brennan referred to as Biblical support for geocentricism consited of selections such as these, handily supplied to me by my faithful homunculus Wikipedia:
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Joshua 10:1014
Then Joshua spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies.
Isaiah 66:1
Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
While many would view such statements as metaphorical or indicative of an ancient worldview, those who are more literally minded are more inclined to take these assertions at their (holy) word.
Personally, I am not aware of any of my acquaintances subscribing to Ptolemaic doctrine, but I do have friends who are young-eart creationists, and their rote interpretations of dogma lead me to believe that Biblically-founded geocentricism may still be alive.
I hope I have acquitted myself valiantly in my first posting: I haven't offended anyone yet, but you've got to give a fellow a chance, eh?
classical_hero said:
I believe that what Brennan referred to as Biblical support for geocentricism consited of selections such as these, handily supplied to me by my faithful homunculus Wikipedia:
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Joshua 10:1014
Then Joshua spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies.
Isaiah 66:1
Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
While many would view such statements as metaphorical or indicative of an ancient worldview, those who are more literally minded are more inclined to take these assertions at their (holy) word.
Personally, I am not aware of any of my acquaintances subscribing to Ptolemaic doctrine, but I do have friends who are young-eart creationists, and their rote interpretations of dogma lead me to believe that Biblically-founded geocentricism may still be alive.
I hope I have acquitted myself valiantly in my first posting: I haven't offended anyone yet, but you've got to give a fellow a chance, eh?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Tangentially, Martin Luther rejected Copernicanism on the strength of this passage.Ali Zaybak said:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
sanabas said:
but it is a non-(red car)
much like creationism is an non-(valid scientific theory)
which is just another way of saying invalid scientific theory.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
No it isn't.warpus said:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Ok, this is just getting silly.
But technically, Jessica Alba is an invalid scientific theory.
Doesn't have to be a theory for it to be an invalid scientific theory.. is all I'm saying.
Is that even what this semantic debate is all about??
But technically, Jessica Alba is an invalid scientific theory.
Doesn't have to be a theory for it to be an invalid scientific theory.. is all I'm saying.
Is that even what this semantic debate is all about??
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
That is what this debate is about, and you're rejecting a fairly fundamental law of logic saying that an object cannot simultaneously be A and not-A.warpus said:
Edit: Let's put it in set theory form and see if that convinces you.
Consider the set S of scientific theories. Consider know the set I of elements of S that have the property "invalid". You're claiming that something can be a member of I without being a member of S.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Your brackets are in the wrong place:warpus said:
the sun is not a red (car)
nor is it a non-red (car)
...because it is not any sort of (car)
creationism is not a valid (scientific theory),
neither is it an invalid (scientific theory)
It is not any sort of (scientific theory)
Your mom is an invalid scientific theory.
(because she is, after all, not a valid scientific theory . . .)
At any rate, it is clear the sun is the center of the solar system. It is not accurate to say that every point is the center of the universe, rather it is accurate to say that there is no center, just as there is no center to the surface of a sphere, or the perimeter of a circle.
(because she is, after all, not a valid scientific theory . . .)
At any rate, it is clear the sun is the center of the solar system. It is not accurate to say that every point is the center of the universe, rather it is accurate to say that there is no center, just as there is no center to the surface of a sphere, or the perimeter of a circle.
- Status
