posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 12:43 PM
FWIW, this right here makes me stop reading further (from the link above):
It talks about the heavens, the firmament, and tells us that the lights in the sky were made for the earth, for man, to give light by day and
by night, to serve as signs, and to determine the seasons.
This takes the wind out of the sails for the geo
centric theory by making it more into a human
centric theory. What's so special about
us that we get a universe created for our viewing pleasure? I have yet to see anything that justifies that level of arrogance.
From a scientific standpoint, I was open minded about geocentricity until I heard that it had been disproven several centuries ago, and was laid on
the shelf next to the flat world theory, spontaneous generation, and honest politicians. I believe that was sometime during elementary school, and I
have yet to see any reason geocentricity--or even heliocentricity, saying that the sun is the center of the universe--is valid.
Aside from that, regardless of which theory is correct, I doubt it would matter in the slightest. All of our astrophysics have been calculated to be
correct regardless of what is the center of the universe, so it's not like the space program would have to be rethought.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I offer mine as well and you can take it or not. I personally think that any religious scriptures that were
written before the introduction of modern scientific techniques and that tried to explain natural phenomena were valiant efforts to (somewhat)
logically deduce what was going on around those writing it. If any higher power was directly involved in the explanation, then most likely the people
were interpreting the "story" as best as they could. We may make discoveries in the next 2K years that make our current theories look just as
ignorant as many of the theories we now discredit, but the ones we have now work great for all intents and purposes, and explain things much better
Just my two cents...