[Debater]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

I am not denying the existence of God! I never was! And you're missing the point. Tell me, how can the sun be just 500 miles away when America itself is by far larger than 500 miles long??

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

I am not denying the existence of God! I never was! And you're missing the point. Tell me, how can the sun be just 500 miles away when America itself is by far larger than 500 miles long??

I'm not understanding the point of what you're trying to say. Why would the sun have to be further away than the length of America? The sun is not as massive and hot as secular science says it is. Doesn't the fact that the universe is so finely tuned make you open to accepting God as the one true creator of it all?

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

I am not denying the existence of God! I never was! And you're missing the point. Tell me, how can the sun be just 500 miles away when America itself is by far larger than 500 miles long??

Listen carefully friend; the sun is not on the same plane as Texas and Main, it is up. The size of the United States makes no difference to the size of the sun. Obviously the sun has to be smaller than the earth if the sun is orbiting it.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

I am not denying the existence of God! I never was!

Well I'm sure we're all overjoyed to hear this news. Now how about elaborating on your belief in Him instead of wasting everyone's time with this prattle about science. Tell us about the Church you attend. Share your testimony with us. Tell us about your personal relationship with Jesus.

And you're missing the point. Tell me, how can the sun be just 500 miles away when America itself is by far larger than 500 miles long??

No, you're missing the point. By embracing all these scientifical lies, you are siding with satan.

[Debater]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

First of all, "scientifical" is not even a word. Learn English.

And second, did ANY of you complete school? From what I've read, I doubt it. If the sun were 500 miles away, we would surely be burned by its intense heat. And if it is as small as you are saying, it could not have lasted as long as it has; it also would not be able to provide sufficient heat for life.

Earth's atmosphere is about 22.7 miles thick. It requires a great amount of radiation to be able to penetrate something that massive. If the sun were as small as you suggest, it would not be able to provide enough energy to reach Earth's surface. If the sun were large enough to have enough energy, then life could not survive one million miles away from it, let alone 500.

Don't believe me? There's this wonderful thing called Google. Look it up. Don't trust the internet? No problem. There's encyclopedias.

Please, go educate yourselves.

[WWJDnow]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

You believe in gravity, correct?

Of course.

I hope so, considering you are not floating about in the air. Do you know how gravitational forces work?

Yes, God said let things fall toward the Earth, so they fall toward the Earth.

It is where a massive object pulls less massive objects towards its center.

That's not what the physicists say. The physicists say that both objects pull each other, not that the more massive pulls the less massive. Anyway, you promised to tell us how it works, so how exactly does it work?

However, if that less massive object is still considerably large, it will orbit rather than simply plummet to the bigger object which is pulling it along.

You ought to at least look up gravity on wikipedia before you come in here to lecture us. What your saying isn't what the Bible says, and it's not what the physicists say, either. So either way, you're wrong.

I'm not reading any more of this drivel. Seriously, dude, Wikipedia. It's the ignorant man's best friend. Yeah, that means you.

[Debater]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

I apologize, I worded my explanation poorly. Yes, two objects do pull against each other. I just found it more concise to say that a small object is drawn to a big object, since the force of the big object is greater. Thank you for pointing that out. These are the kinds of debates I can tolerate: where BOTH sides have solid knowledge and understanding.

However, the simple argument itself still stands. Gravity makes the Earth orbit the Sun. Not the other way around.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

I never said I did not believe in God. I believe that God created a heliocentric universe, though, because it corresponds with basic laws of physics and conclusive evidence.

Really, you believe that the sun is the center of the whole universe?

And second, did ANY of you complete school? From what I've read, I doubt it. If the sun were 500 miles away, we would surely be burned by its intense heat. And if it is as small as you are saying, it could not have lasted as long as it has; it also would not be able to provide sufficient heat for life.

It's obvious that you didn't even take a look at my proof, even though you were given the link two times. All of those concerns are addressed in this thread. Please read it.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[WWJDnow]

Re: A Healthy Discussion

I apologize, I worded my explanation poorly. Yes, two objects do pull against each other. I just found it more concise to say that a small object is drawn to a big object, since the force of the big object is greater. Thank you for pointing that out. These are the kinds of debates I can tolerate: where BOTH sides have solid knowledge and understanding.

Oh, I didn't say the physicists were right, just that you were wrong.

However, the simple argument itself still stands. Gravity makes the Earth orbit the Sun. Not the other way around.

Have you ever studied General Relativity? Well, I have, and while I don't normally go in for all of that Jew nonsense, according to Einstein any point of reference in the universe is as valid as another. Here's what Einstein had to say on the subject:

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics (1938) (CS refers to coordinate system)

Or how about Fred Hoyle:

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. Astronomy and Cosmology -- A Modern Course (1975)

Or Max Born:

...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right. Einstein's Theory of Relativity (1962)

Thus there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in modern physics that says that the Earth is NOT the center of the Universe, or that the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth, and the sooner you athiests stop lying by claiming that there is, the sooner we can start discussing the issues rationally.