by peacefulpete 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • peacefulpete

    OK and I'm serious, please no rabid flame war allowed on this thread. Please, they are not helpful at all. I am posting this link to an article, apparently written in all sincerity, that insists that true science supports a geocentric universe and denounces all supposed evidence for the earth turning and revolving as just "theory". This Catholic writer is very serious about his conviction so no name calling. Take a read, its not long, and privately consider the similarities to another hot issue here. Here's the link:

    Again please don't turn this into a rambling thread about generalities and who's being the bigger idiot. In fact I would really like it if comments were carefully limited to this topic. I really think there would be great value if the word "evo..tion" was not used in any comments. Let's try to discuss the link, it's arguments on it's merits.


  • TheStumbler

    EVOLUTION. shit, sorry

  • TheStumbler

    They seem to misunderstand what a scientific theory is for a start:

    The word “scientific“: “regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science,”

    Whereas for “theory”, we find: “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”

  • TheStumbler

    I was thinking it was going to be a really clever arguement like some Kant style argument against object reality and stuff. But instead it falliciously states that the heliocentricism is a model based on assumption and geocentricism is true because if it is not then the Bible is wrong but the Bible cannot be wrong because.....It's God's word.

    Sorry, but the parallels with evolution are quite strong.

  • cofty
    This Catholic writer is very serious about his conviction

    Perhaps he is but inner convictions are worth nothing when it comes to scientific questions.

    He starts from a wrong premise with his defintion of "theory" and proceeds from there.

    He is not prepared to consider the possibility that the bible is either wrong or needs to be understood in a different way so he is impervious to facts.

    The parallels are painfully obvious.

  • wobble

    Haven't the inclination to read the stuff just now, and he may mention it, but where does the bible say the earth is the centre of the solar system, that things revolve around it ?

    I cannot remember anything that said that directly, yes expressions like the "sunrise" are not quite scientifically spot on, but we still use them today, so where is the bible saying the earth is the centre of the solar system ?

  • ProdigalSon

    About four years ago, when I was still a devout Bible believer and thought that if I could only get to the bottom of all the tampering, I could find the "truth", I really delved into researching the possibility that the universe was geocentric. The truth of this delusion is found by just rearranging the letters into "egocentric". The Biblical idea that the earth is the only place in the universe with intelligent life, and everything else was created solely for the benefit of earth dwellers, is completely egocentric.

    There's a guy named Marshall Hall, an avid Bible enthusiast and prolific writer, whose tirades and diatribes against "Kabbalah", the source of the ages old conspiracy against God and His Inspired Word, are quite enthralling and completely convincing. That is, if you are also a Bible believer. According to him, the Kabbalists control NASA and the entire space program, in fact everything on the planet, is a hoax to discredit the Bible. There are literally hundreds of passages and verses in the Bible that either directly state or indirectly suggest that it is the sun, moon and stars that moves around the earth, which cannot be moved from its place. Here's his website....

    Interestingly, from our perspective, there is not one shred of evidence that can "prove" heliocentrism, except for looking up at the other planets and heavily bodies, as Galileo did, and concluding logically that geocentrism is impossible. Speaking strictly from our standpoint of observation, world class astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said "take your pick" between the two models.

    The only "proof" that mainstream science offers for heliocentrism is "stellar parallax", that stars shift in relation to each other every six months as we move from one side of the sun to the other, a distance of 186 million miles. The only problem with that, is that only one quarter of the stars that NASA monitors, last I saw it was 1.1 million, actually prove the theory. The other 75 percent shift in different directions, and some don't shift at all. So there is more going on that what meets the eye. Personally, I've come to the conclusion that the apparent center of the universe changes from the perspective of the observer as he moves through it, and that black holes and other phenomena are actually gateways to other dimensions.

    Upon looking more closely at the Bible though, it becomes evident that the ancient Jews had no clue that the earth was a sphere, but thought it was shaped like a pizza. They believed this pizza was covered with a dome from one end to the other, and that the outside walls of it were made of gigantic ice plates made into a patchwork quilt or mosaic.

    Truly, the vast realms of the intelligent hierarchy "up there" must be hysterically laughing at our stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance. Those that care about us just shake their heads and marvel, knowing how silly we will feel when we find out just how retarded we are. It will only take UFO disclosure to completely wipe out the Bible and all its bullshit. As it turns out, these Kabbalists that Hall claims are trying to discredit the Bible are the ones who WROTE IT, knowing that it would convince the masses of their "special place" in God's Universe, and therefore the whole false theology of how WE were the ones that screwed up the whole universe and God needed to provide a ransom sacrifice to save it from what we did to it. I believe the opposite is true. Jehovah, a lesser God, created this universe from pre-existing matter, formed it into what we can see, was given the God-spark from the TRUE God through mankind in order to guide its evolution back to the PRIME CREATOR, to whom Jehovah is a subordinate.

  • cofty

    Just a tiny sample..

    Psalm 92:1: “…For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.”

    Psalm 95:10: “For he hath corrected the world, which shall not be moved: he will judge the people with justice.”

    Psalm 103:5: “Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.”

    Isaias 24:18: “…for the flood-gates from on high are opened, and the foundations of the earth shall be shaken.”

    Isaias 48:13: “My hand also hath founded the earth, and my right hand hath measured the heavens: I shall call them, and they shall stand together…”

    So if the earth doesn't move then the sun must...

    Psalm 103:19: “He hath made the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.”

    Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again.”

    Ecclesiasticus 43:4-5: “The sun three times as much, burneth the mountains, breathing out fiery vapours, and shining with his beams, he blindeth the eyes. Great is the Lord that made him, and at his words he hath hastened his course”

    Ecclesiasticus 46:4: “Was not the sun stopped in his anger, and one day made as two?”

    Isaias 38:7-8: “And this shall be a sign to thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this word which he hath spoken: Behold I will bring again the shadow of the lines, by which it is now gone down in the sun dial of Achaz with the sun, ten lines backward. And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down.”

    Habacuc 3:11: “The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.”

    Remember it is a Catholic website so they have lots of additonal books to trawl for references

  • cofty

    Interestingly, from our perspective, there is not one shred of evidence that can "prove" heliocentrism, except for looking up at the other planets and heavily bodies, as Galileo did, and concluding logically that geocentrism is impossible. Speaking strictly from our standpoint of observation, world class astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said "take your pick" between the two models.
    Please tell me you are being ironic?
    The only "proof" that mainstream science offers for heliocentrism is "stellar parallax",
    How about the evidence that we can launch probes based on calcualtions of planets and distant moons millions of miles away and land precisely on target years later?
  • bohm

    The article is right up there with the flat-earth crackpot society.

    Perhaps most telling is the authors complete and utter lack of knowledge of elementary physics, this is illustrated by his first "assumption" heliocentrism "rest on":

    1) The sun is not moving in relation to the “solar system”

    WRONG. newtonian mechanics predict the sun moves with respect to the center of mass of the solar system. The author does not even understand the simplest consequences of the theory he tries to examine.

    from here on it only gets worse. at item 3 he throws out the principle of relativity. Why? he find it ridiculous to imagine the earth moves fast (circular logic). He claim the michalson morley-experiment somehow support this idea, and in doing so he throw out both theories of relativity. Since the only way to make sence of a bunch of results in quantum mechanics is through relativity, he has just thrown out pretty much all of 20th century physics.

    In other words, the author lives in a bizarro world where every prediction made by relativity and subsequently checked (sometimes more than 70 years after it was made!) to great numerical precision, this must just have happened as some kind of lucky guess.

    unfortunately we are never told how come he can cite the earlier popes as proofs he is right, but when the more recent popes disagree with him we can just disregard them. But he do manage to cite galileos admission of geocentrism (made under the thread of death!) as proof.

Share this