Scientific errors in the Bible

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Of course there is!
It is the evidence which led to acceptance of heliocentric theory.
That evidence was rejected by all Bible writers.
It was rejected by the Inquisition which condemned Galileo and anyone else who dared to espouse that Godless Theory.

​

Have you not accepted heliocentric theory?

​

If so, then you harbor a belief which is, to quote the Inquisition . . .

​

"contrary to holy scripture."

---

You appear to be proposing that the falsity of the geocentric theory is proof of the errancy of the Bible. However, I have not as yet discovered conclusive proof of such falsity. Could you please provide such proof as necessary to explain how the geocentric view held by the Bible is wrong?

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
However, if you are a geocentist I will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. Galileo was a better man than I in that game and look what happened to him. Seems to me that espousing antiquated theory for the sole purpose of validating scripture is about as regressive as regressive gets. Yet you employ the computer to argue Bronze Age cosmology.

---

First of all, I have not requested persuasion of any kind. I have simply asked that you provide proof for the validity of the position which you appear to be advocating.Secondly, if the geocentric view has been so well refuted as you seem to be implying, then there is no reason for you to fear Galileo's fate. Thus, it appears that you refrain from providing proof simply because you have no proof. Please correct this possible misconception of your character and present proof of the errors in the geocentric view found in the Bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Don't do it doctrbill! You have a duty to preserve diversity and geocentrists are one of the most threatened minorities out there. It would be a shame to disabuse one of his beliefs.

---

Allow me to repeat myself. It appears that you refrain from providing proof simply because you have no proof. Please correct this possible misconception of your character and present proof of the errors in the geocentric view found in the Bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
So taking this excellent advice - are you honestly aware of any of the evidence for heliocentrism. If not, I can help you find it. If you are aware of it, and as it is generally uncontroversial in the field of science, perhaps you would like to say if you reject it and, if so, why.

---

Doctorbill has claimed that the falsity of the geocentric view as evidence of error in the Bible. All I have done is ask for proof of that claim. If no evidence can be presented in support of that claim, then doctorbill's statements regarding error in the Bible are themselves erroneous.

quote:

---

I am suggesting that given

​

(a) the uncontroversial nature of doctrbill's claims about heliocentrism and
(b) the unlikelyhood of your not being aware or having considered the evidences for these claims

​

that it is really up to you to preent your reasons for rejecting that which the overwhelming majority would regard as "presumptive evidence."

---

Your argument appears to be that the accepted position of yesteryear is wrong because it disagrees with the accepted position of today, but you have not given any evidence of error in the previously accepted position. Why do you claim that the geocentric model proposed in the Bible is evidence of error within the Scriptures?

quote:

---

What I am saying is that doctrbill is justified in not providing evidence that the overwhelmingly accepted position is correct, because he has good reason to believe you and the others on the board are already aware of the evidence, or have easy access to it should be honestly unaware of it.

---

Allow me to quote myself once again. In my first post on this thread I stated: "You appear to be proposing that the falsity of the geocentric theory is proof of the errancy of the Bible. However, I have not as yet discovered conclusive proof of such falsity."I am aware of much evidence which is claimed to support heliocentricity, but I am also aware of claims that the same evidence is in keeping with the geocentric model proposed in the Bible. What I have been unable to find is proof of the supposed falsity of geocentricity. Doctorbill appears to be claiming that the Bible is wrong because geocentricity is wrong. Thus he is not merely proposing a possible heliocentric view; he is proposing definite error in the geocentric view. It is proof of that definite error which I have requested, and it is proof of that definite error which has not been provided. I am not asking for evidence which may prove the validity of the currently accepted position. I am asking for evidence which might affirm the supposed falsity of the geocentric position. Without this evidence, one cannot say that the Bible is wrong because geocentricity is wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
It is, however, evidence of the Bible's antiquity and of its inadequacy as a scientific text for today...But it is no match for today's insight on the origin and structure of the universe.

---

Please explain to me how holding to a geocentric perspective is proof of scientific inadequacy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Therefore, as you hold the minority opinion, and in order to hold your particular opionion must be aware of our evidence, and indeed, must be aware of it in some detail, and as we are unaware of what your evidence or objections may be - the ball is very much in your court. What is your evidence for geocentrism, or objection to heliocentrism?

---

Please notice that I have not, as yet, expressed my position in this particular debate. This being the case, I fail to see why you are so insinstent on demanding that I provide proof for my position. All I have done is request proof of doctorbill's claims.You have responded to that request rather negatively. In fact, I could compare the responses to my questions to those Copernicus received to his questions. He stated, there are so many authorities for saying that the Earth rests in the center of the world that people think the contrary supposition inopinable and even ridiculous; if however we consider the thing attentively, we will see that the question has not yet been decided and accordingly is by no means to be scorned. I only ask that you consider the "contrary supposition...attentively" and tell me why you propose that geocentricity is false.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Ok. Define geocentric.

---

Geocentricity is the concept that the earth is located at the geometric and gravitational center of the universe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
So the two are the same then?

---

According to the geocentric model, both the geometric and the gravitational center of the universe coincide with earths locality within the universe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
How does one test this theory,

---

That is a very good question. Doctorbill has claimed that the geocentric view of the Bible is evidence of its scientific inadequacy. How did he test the theory of geocentricity to find out that it is inadequate? Percipient has stated that the evidence of the falsity of the geocentric model is well known. What tests were done to obtain this evidence? If you are of the same mind as these two, please inform me of what tests you have performed and explain how their results prove that the geocentric model is false.

quote:

---

since the Earth is definitely not the gravitational center on any scale that we can measure?

---

There are those who would disagree with you. What proof can you provide for this statement?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Well, we observe the smaller thing to orbit around the bigger thing (or about the common center of gravity, more accurately)

​

hmmmm... tie a golf ball to a bowling ball and throw them like a bolo. Note which orbits the other.

​

The light thing orbits the heavy thing, right? Lets say the less massive orbits the more massive. This is measurable in the lab.

​

Well, Earth is smaller than the Sun. Add up all the mass in the solar system, factor in its distibution and you get an center of gravity that is definitely not the Earth.

​

The same can be done with the galaxy. By far the most massive area is the galactic core and we are far from it.

---

You appear to have a good concept of gravity, so let me ask you what would happen if you were to attach a bowling ball to either end of the string and place the golf ball in the middle. If the whole were rotated, which ball would end up as the center of the system?Going back to your original model, what type of orbit would the orbiting body prescribe around the object orbited, circular, eliptical, hexagonal?

quote:

---

And secondly, the math doesn't work with geocentrism.

---

Please provide proof of this statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Let's assume that your pose is not really a pose, but that you're really and truly ignorant of the evidence against the geocentric view. In that case the truly interesting question is how this dismaying lapse in your education could have happened. Were you excused from all science classes? Raised by bears in the woods? Did you recently suffer some mysterious brain malady? Come on now, tell us, we want to know! I'm sure there must be an intriguing story behind this.

---

If such evidence is so readily available as you seem to imply, it should not require any great effort on your part to clearly state that evidence. That you do not do so, resorting to cynicism instead, does not support your claims.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

​

That you do not give your evidence does not negate your claims either.

---

What claims have I made that require evidence?

quote:

---

However, note the following. You do say "I am aware of much evidence which is claimed to support heliocentricity" in post 59. You admit to being aware of evidence, even much evidence - so you are merely asking for either repetition or supplementation.

---

You do not appear to comprehend. Immediatley after making the statement which you quoted (and the qualifier which you did not quote), I stated, "What I have been unable to find is proof of the supposed falsity of geocentricity."

quote:

---

freely admit to knowing of [b][i]no[/b][/i] evidence for your position: emprically, and through common politeness, the ball is in your court.

---

Again, what position have I stated that demands evidence?

quote:

---

That you admit to knowing of evidence yet refuse to address that which you already admit to know while demanding more, does not augur well for your bona fides in any discussion.

---

Let me repeat, I am not aware of any evidence of the falsity of the geocentric view found in the Bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

• Both the one and two bowling ball systems behave in a manner consistent with the mathematics for dynamic mechanical systems.
  ​
• The orbits of planets around the sun and moons around planets is consistent with the mathematics of orbital mechanics.

---

quote:

---

One proof can be found by examining the earth/moon system. We know from observation that the moon doesn't really orbit the earth, but rather that both orbit a point about 1000 miles beneath the earth's surface on a direct line between their centers. This agrees completely with the math for gravitational attraction between two objects:

---

Where is the point about which you propose the sun and the earth orbit?