Re: Geocentricity

From: Dale K. Stalnaker (
Date: Fri Sep 22 2000 - 00:32:02 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Random processes create meaning"


    The rebuttals that you mention here as well as other scientific arguments
    posted on the ASA list should be enough to persuade most educated people
    that Galileo had the right idea. Since these folks are convinced that
    science is anti-God, they willingly reject science and will probably ignore
    any evidence you have for them.

    When I was a student at Cleveland State University (around 1977), I was
    shocked to learn that there was a member of the CSU faculty who believed in
    geocentricity! He was the advisor for a fundamentalist Christian student
    fellowship group that met at the campus.
    He based this belief on Psalm 104:5, which says (in the KJV) "Who has laid
    the foundation of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever". In
    the NIV, the same verse is "He set the earth on its foundations, it can
    never be moved." Here is a simple rebuttle that does not involve much
    science. Even an ancient person who believes the earth to be flat, could
    not interpret this verse literally, because this would rule out earthquakes!

    Dale Stalnaker

    At 01:44 PM 9/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
    >I was stunned recently to discover that several people in my church (an
    >independent Reformed Baptist church) believed in geocentricity!
    >Otherwise normal, rational, and very nice people, I believe they have
    >been suckered into taking some Biblical references literally and not
    >figuratively. They are aided in this mistake by the Biblical Astronomer
    >site of Dr. Gerardus Buow.
    >I have read his material and as well as I can decipher it, he claims to
    >have a solution for the apparent rotation and revolution of the Earth.
    >There is a response to these claims on TalkOrigins by E. T. Babinski and
    >a theological response posted on the web by Bernard E. Northrup, Th.D.
    >What I am looking for are arguments, both scientific and theological,
    >which will, to the best extent possible, refute the arguments of
    >'modern' geocentricity. Some of the best scientific arguments against
    >geocentricity are the superluminal velocities of almost everything in
    >the universe required to have them rotate the Earth every 24 hours; the
    >variations in the length of the day caused by earthquakes (how would an
    >earthquake affect the rest of the universe?); and the latitudinal
    >variation in the diurnal aberration of starlight, that is, the apparaent
    >displacement of star postions caused by the speed of the Earth's
    >rotation, which varies from the equator to the poles. Can anyone think
    >of others?
    >I know these people are sincere in their desire to honor the Word of
    >God, but it seems they have strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.
    >--Bill Yates

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 00:28:14 EDT