reply to post by jmdewey60
Astrology has for ages used the geocentric model with no problems
Except for the problem that when it was laid down the constellations were at entirely different points than they are today. And that astrology proves
to be an exceedingly useless and vague attempt at foretelling the future.
Newtonian gravitation does not really work perfectly to describe the motions of the planets.
Considering how old Newtonian physics is I find it amazing it is still a fundamental part of our understanding of physics. A testament to the
brilliance of Newton. Newtonian physics is adequate still today, at least when it comes to our own solar system.
and the large Venus is gaseous, so no great mass is required to hold them.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you are suggesting that Venus is a gas giant you are gravely mistaken. If are you suggesting that a gas planet would
be "easy" to hold than you are again mistaken.
The earth has a very dense core and is enough to hold the sun, which is not much more than a hollow plasma field, in orbit.
Even if we were to entertain the idea of a plasma sun I highly doubt the Earth could hold something as super massive as the sun. The size of the sun
is pretty well understood, as is its distance and functions.
What's next, you attempt to resurrect the glass firmament and tell us outer space is filled with water?
Jeffrey Grupp is offering a $200 reward to someone who can prove that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around
It really is too bad that Galileo is dead, if he wasn't he'd be 200 dollars richer
So there must be something to this
Why? Simply because there are people clinging to a long dead idea does not mean that idea has merit. There are people who still think the Earth is
hollow and gods in the sky cause Hurricanes. Anyone can assert and believe anything they want but merely the act of belief, even when done by millions
or billions, does not make something true.
who are the crowning achievement of God's creation and that we were put into the center of that creation.
I hate the idea that we're the best God can come up with. If we are the best he can do than I am not impressed, not in the slightest.
I really don't think we are the center of God's creation, if there is a God, because if we were would ten year old's get cancer and die? Would
people be brutally torn apart by wild animals? Would some animals have better eye sight, sharper claws, and razor fangs while we are left with weak
fingernails, teeth adapted for eating primarily plant matter and legs that can't carry us fast enough to escape an apex predator?
What we see when we look at nature is the not signs of intelligent design but signs of survival, of animals competing to pass on their genes, of
adaptation and Evolution.
When we look out at the cosmos we see endless galaxies, a sea of stars and suns like ours. One doesn't need to destroy the idea that we are not the
center of the Universe, all it takes is a telescope to see the vastness of the Cosmos. To think that all of this was made for us, this beauty, this
majesty, is selfish and arrogant even if there is a God.