Extraterrestrial Life and Baptist Theology

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Helen:
Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes should NEVER be taken as 'proof' verses for anything -- unless you want to claim that all is meaningless as well! It is Solomon's exposition of the fruitlessness of his labors to satisfy himself and his final conclusion regarding this matter. The entire book is centered on how man sees things.

It is the word of God, written by the Holy Ghost. You may not like what it has to say about the motion of the sun, but it says it. If this is only about how man sees things, what about the rest of the Bible? Is that all about how man sees things? Is, for example, the Genesis account of creation just about how the creation looks like it happened to man? Is the ressurection just what it looked like to man? Is the rest of the Bible just the observations of man? Or are you arguing that Ecclesiastes isn't part of God's word??? Anyway, that was verse 5; why not look at verse 7?

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again."

You cannot argue that this isn't literally true. It is absolutely true. So if verse 7 can accurately describe the water cycle (without giving all the details), why can't verse 5 accurately describe the motion of the sun (without giving all the details)?

As far as the Joshua verse goes, that again only indicates what Joshua SAW, not what the actual occurrance was.

Sorry, sister, but did you actually read verse 13?

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Sorry, but this is narative, authored by God himself. He said the sun stod still, and said it twice, just in case you missed it.

There is NO biblical indication that the universe is earth-centered!

Every mention of the sun rising or going down indicates it. For example,

"And when the sun was going down..." (Gen 15:12)
"And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down..." (Gen 15:17)
"The sun was risen..." (Gen 19:23)
"...the sun rose upon him..." (Gen 32:31)
"...until the going down of the sun." (Ex 17:12)
"...by that the sun goeth down:" (Ex 22:26)
"...the rising of the sun..." (Num 2:3)
"...toward the sunrising." (Num 21:11)
"...toward the sunrising." (Num 34:15)
"...toward the sunrising..." (Deut 4:41)
"...toward the sunrising;" (Deut 4:47)
"...the sun goeth down..." (Deut 11:30)
"...at the going down of the sun..." (Deut 16:6)
"...the sun goeth down..." (Deut 24:13)
"...shall the sun go down..." (Deut 24:15)

Need I go on??? Not a rotating earth in sight... Like I said, if "the rising of the sun" is only apparent, then how can you argue that the "rising of the Son" isn't also apparent?

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[w_fortenberry]

I. In studying the word of God, I eventually began studying Psalm 19:1-6.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,


5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Because of the statement in verse one that "the heavens declare the glory of God," I began a study of cosmology in hopes of finding conclusive proof of creation. During the course of that study, I discovered that the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) measured from the universe as a whole is nearly homogeneous when measured from earth. Those measurements do not vary significantly regardless of the time of day, day of the week, or month of the year. Based on those measurements, I contend that the earth is placed in the center of the universe.

This geocentric contention is acceptable within the realm of science.

"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense."
Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78.

Stephen Hawking holds the same view as Fred Hoyle. He stated that he preferred a non-geocentric model only out of modesty since he did not believe that the earth should have a special place in the universe.

II. This geocentric contention does not demand a non-rotating earth. The earth has mass, and mass cannot exist without motion (energy). Therefore the matter of the earth is in motion. However, that motion is restrained by gravity thus producing a centrifugal effect in which the earth rotates on its axis.

III. The geocentricity of the universe is mentioned many times in the Bible. The verses previously quoted from Psalm 19 refer to the sun's circuit. Other references to geocentricity can be found in II Kings 20:9-11 and Isaiah 38:7-8.

9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?

10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.

11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

7 And this shall be a sign unto thee from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that he hath spoken;

8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

 

[Helen]

The rotating earth is in Genesis 1: there was evening and there was morning, the first (second....) day. Evening and morning are the results of an earth rotating on its axis with a diectional light source hitting it.

Ecclesiastes was written by the Holy Spirit?

OK, then here we go:

I saw the tears of the oppressed --
and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors
--and they have no comforter.

or

Generations come and generations go
but the earth remains forever.

or

For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.

or

Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise --
Why destroy yourself?

or

All share a common destiny -- the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.

As it is with the good man,
so with the sinner;
as it is with those who take oaths,
so it is with those who are afraid to take them.

Now, I can find verses in other parts of the Bible which directly contradict what these verses above are saying.

Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?

And, in the meantime, we still talk of sunrise and sunset. We speak, as they did, in terms of what we see from earth. This does not make it scientifically accurate, however.

 

[Helen]

Mr. Fortenberry,

Could I please ask you to read the top articles on my husband's webpage in the science essays section regarding both stellar and geological history?

www.setterfield.org

Thanks,

Helen

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Helen:
The rotating earth is in Genesis 1: there was evening and there was morning, the first (second....) day. Evening and morning are the results of an earth rotating on its axis with a diectional light source hitting it.

Sorry, but this is just not true. Genesis says nothing of a rotating earth. Evening and morning are caused by a light source rotating about the earth (it is now the sun, and I keep proving that it indeed moves about the earth). But on the subject of Genesis, please tell me, does Genesis say the earth was orbitting a non-existant sun on day 1; or did it suddenly jurk into motion on day 4?

Ecclesiastes was written by the Holy Spirit?

Yes. I cannot believe someone who claims to believe the Bible doesn't think so. Please tell me, which other books in the Bible were not written by God? And how can you tell? I don't pretend to be able to answer every so-called "contradictory" verse in the Bible. But I believe it's all true. Did you know, many people say the gospels contradict each other when they say how many times the cock crowed before Peter denied Jesus. Were the gospels not written by God, either?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...

And, in the meantime, we still talk of sunrise and sunset.

Quite. But that's because the term in English (like probably every other language) developed out of geocentric assumptions. Besides, you're not God. You can say something you don't really believe, but God can't. Of course God can use metaphors, but there is no indication to anyone pre-Copernicus that these passages mean anything other than the sun, not the earth, moved. Like I keep asking, how can you believe the "rising of the sun" is only figurative, but that the "rising of the Son" isn't? If science can tell us one isn't literally true, why not the other?

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[w_fortenberry]

Hellen,

I very quickly scanned several of your husbands essays, and they are very good expositions. However, I did not find any reference to the CBR which I have stated as support for my conclusions. Has your husband done any research on this topic?

A thought on Ecclesiastes...

The introduction to the book of Ecclesiastes found in the first eleven verses is stated as factual. It is not included in "Solomon's exposition of the fruitlessness of his labors to satisfy himself." This part of the book does not begin until verse twelve. In like manner, the conclusion of the book is also stated as fact. Beginning with verse nine of chapter twelve, we find several verses which can be claimed as 'proof' verses. The diligent reader will find the book of Ecclesiastes to contain many passages which are not man centered. Indeed, the more one studies the book with the guidance of the Holy Spirit the more of these "proof" verses he will find.

Keep in mind that Ecclesiastes was written by the wisest man on earth and a man who obtained his wisdom directly from God. The writings produced by the Holy Spirit through such a man must undoubtedly require much study to fully comprehend.

The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
Ecclesiastes 12:10

 

[Johnv]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There was no observed motion of the stars in Tycho's day, and his theory can easily be modified to take this into account (by centering the stars on the sun).

You're kidding, aren't you? They were observing motions of the stars in Jesus' day, as well as Brahe's day. I don't know what revisionist history you've been seeking, but the idea that you believe the sun goes around the earth is simply astounding. Do you also believe the earth is flat? No where does the Bible talk about a round earth.

Jerry Falwell doesn't believe in geocentrism. Billy and Franklin Graham don't believe in geocentrism. Charles Stanley doesn't believe in geocentrism. Thomas Jefferson, Bejnamin Franklin, Mother Theresa, and Albert Einstein didn't believe in geocentrism. I haven't found any information to indicate that the SBC supports geocentrism. Are you saying they're all wrong?

If the Bible says the Sun literally goes around the earth, then the Bible is wrong. But the Bible doesn't say that. However, it's clear to anyone with half a brain that the bible says these things happen from our point of view on earth.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Johnv:
You're kidding, aren't you? They were observing motions of the stars in Jesus' day, as well as Brahe's day.

Sorry, bro.

I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were refering to "stellar parallax", the movement of some stars in relation to others that changes throughout the year. This was not observed in Tycho's day, but a slight modification can take account of it. Anyway, I was answering your comment:

His [Tycho's] theory explained the reversing of the orbits, but not other irregularities that were seen in the orbits, as well as the movement of stars. Eventually, the idea came into being that the orbits of the sun and planets was not round, but elliptical. Again, it answered some questions, but raised new ones that a geocentric elliptical orbit could not explain. One of the questions was why some seemingly stationery objects shifted right for half a year, then shifted left.

I'm not sure what you're refering to (if not parallax), but since Tycho's model was geometrically identical to Copernicus', there can be no astronomical observation that can prove one, but disprove the other. The yearly motion of the stars is simply explained by the universe's axis of rotation moving all the way around the earth in a year.

I don't know what revisionist history you've been seeking, but the idea that you believe the sun goes around the earth is simply astounding.

I know. But that's because everyone is so brainwashed. I don't know if you're a creationist, but people are absolutely astounded when I tell them evolution isn't true. I don't blame you for being astounded; but please look to the Bible for the truth.

Do you also believe the earth is flat? No where does the Bible talk about a round earth.

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" (Isaiah 44:22)

There is more scriptural support, but the subject is irrelevant, because scripture nowhere speaks of a flat earth. It cannot be contradictory to scripture, then, to believe the earth is round. However, it is contradictory to scripture to disbelieve that the sun goes around the earth. And since it does, there's no reason to think there'd be any aliens anywhere out there.

Jerry Falwell doesn't believe in geocentrism. Billy and Franklin Graham don't believe in geocentrism. Charles Stanley doesn't believe in geocentrism. Thomas Jefferson, Bejnamin Franklin, Mother Theresa, and Albert Einstein didn't believe in geocentrism. I haven't found any information to indicate that the SBC supports geocentrism. Are you saying they're all wrong?

Yes. But guess what? The pope doesn't believe in salvation by faith; neither did Mohammed; neither did Buddha; neither did Krishna; neither did the Pharasies; and neither do millions of the most religious people in the world! Are you saying they are all wrong? Of course. But it's because we're saying the Bible is right.

If the Bible says the Sun literally goes around the earth, then the Bible is wrong. But the Bible doesn't say that. However, it's clear to anyone with half a brain that the bible says these things happen from our point of view on earth.

Sorry, I mustn't have half a brain. Perhaps I have a whole one?

When the Bible talks about the sun's motion, does it say, "And the sun appeared (from earth) to rise"? No? It just says, "the sun rose". And I'll ask the question again:

If science can tell you that the sun only appeared to rise, can it also tell you that the Son also only appeared to rise???

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Helen]

Bartholomew,

I'm interested in where you draw the line at all this.

The Bible says, also, that rabbits chew the cud, and that insects are four-legged.

Yes or no?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Every mention of the sun rising or going down indicates it. For example,

"And when the sun was going down..." (Gen 15:12)
"And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down..." (Gen 15:17)
"The sun was risen..." (Gen 19:23)
"...the sun rose upon him..." (Gen 32:31)
"...until the going down of the sun." (Ex 17:12)
"...by that the sun goeth down:" (Ex 22:26)
"...the rising of the sun..." (Num 2:3)
"...toward the sunrising." (Num 21:11)
"...toward the sunrising." (Num 34:15)
"...toward the sunrising..." (Deut 4:41)
"...toward the sunrising;" (Deut 4:47)
"...the sun goeth down..." (Deut 11:30)
"...at the going down of the sun..." (Deut 16:6)
"...the sun goeth down..." (Deut 24:13)
"...shall the sun go down..." (Deut 24:15)

Need I go on??? Not a rotating earth in sight... Like I said, if "the rising of the sun" is only apparent, then how can you argue that the "rising of the Son" isn't also apparent?

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

Uhm...a couple of words and phrases come to mind:

figure of speech
vantage point
gravity
physics

You know, stuff like that. Anyway...back to the really real world.

jason

 

[w_fortenberry]

If science can tell you that the sun only appeared to rise, can it also tell you that the Son also only appeared to rise???

But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
Malachi 4:2

_____________________________________

The Bible says, also, that rabbits chew the cud, and that insects are four-legged.

I would like very much to answer this statement; however it strays too far from the topic for me to do so in good faith. If you would start another thread to discuss this, I would be glad to join in.

[ October 15, 2002, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: w_fortenberry ]

 

[Johnv]

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" (Isaiah 44:22)

Isaiah is not describing a spherical earth, but an earth's surface that's flat and disc-shaped.

Yes, they thought the earth was flat, not round.

As to whether I'm a creationist or not, yes, I'm a creationist. I believe God created the earth and all living things. Whether he did them in six days ot six billion years is irrelevant.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Uhm...a couple of words and phrases come to mind:

figure of speech

What evidence is there that these are figures of speech? There is no biblical evidence of such. Also, remember that the people who were around at the time probably all believed the sun went around the earth. To them the phrase "rising of the sun" was plainly literal. Hence it cannot have been a figure of speech.

But I'll ask the question again! If science can tell us that a phrase thought to be literal by the original author is actually a figure of speech, why can't it do so elsewhere? e.g. If science can tell us the sun doesn't really rise (despite what the Bible says), why can't it tell us the Son didn't really rise???

vantage point

EXACTLY!!! The Bible is God's word, hence it is taken from his vantage point. God is the only person outside the universe, so God is the only one who can tell us whether it is the earth that rotates, or the sun that orbits.

gravity

describes the motion of bodies with respect to the universe. It says nothing about what the universe itself is doing.

physics

tells us that a rotating earth is identical to a rotating universe. Since it is held that nobody has a better 'vantage point' than anyone else (they ignore God), then to them it's all a question of relative motion. Notice, however, that this view was only generally accepted after science (in the form of the Michelson-Morely experiment) failed to show any evidence that the earth revolved about the sun!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Johnv:
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" (Isaiah 44:22)

Isaiah is not describing a spherical earth, but an earth's surface that's flat and disc-shaped.

How do you know? There's no Biblical evidence of such. This is a red herring. The Bible is pretty silent on the flat/round earth issue. However, it is very vocal on the fact that the sun moves about the earth every day; the earth does not rotate!

Yes, they thought the earth was flat, not round.

Do you believe Isaiah is part of God's word? Or are we going to throw it away, along with Ecclesiastes? If God said that the earth was flat (which he didn't - you're guessing), then that's what must be so. You apparently believe God either made an error, or that not all of the Bible is true. Either way, there's no point discussing this issue with you, since your final authority doesn't seem to be the Bible. However, I'm interested to know what good reason you have for believing the earth goes around the sun. One thing's for sure - science hasn't (at least yet) proven it! But, hey, just for fun, I'll ask my question again. Apart from that verse from Malachi posted by w_fortenberry (which actually backs up my argument), nobody's given me an answer:

If science can tell you that the sun only appeared to rise, can it also tell you that the Son also only appeared to rise???

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Helen:
There are a couple of very simple evidences against a geocentric universe:

2. If the earth were the center, then the outer reaches of the universe would have long since disintegrated into a uniform smear of subatomic particles from the faster-than-light speed at which they would have to be travelling. Instead we see distinct galaxies out there...

Sorry, Helen, forgot to answer this post of yours. I'm assuming you're refering to the special theory of relativity. However, that theory does not require what you suggest. Firstly, special relativity applies only to straight-line motion, not rotations. And secondly, in the geocentric model, the speed of light with respect to the universe itself is (or at least might be!) constant. However, this means that if the universe itself is spinning about the earth, then the further out you go, the faster the rotational speed of light will be with respect to the earth. Thus distant galaxies will not be going faster than the rotational speed of light, because the rotational speed of light is much faster out there!

I hope that helps,

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" (Isaiah 44:22)

Isaiah is not describing a spherical earth, but an earth's surface that's flat and disc-shaped.

How do you know? There's no Biblical evidence of such. This is a red herring. The Bible is pretty silent on the flat/round earth issue. However, it is very vocal on the fact that the sun moves about the earth every day; the earth does not rotate!

Yes, they thought the earth was flat, not round.

Do you believe Isaiah is part of God's word? Or are we going to throw it away, along with Ecclesiastes? If God said that the earth was flat (which he didn't - you're guessing), then that's what must be so. You apparently believe God either made an error, or that not all of the Bible is true. Either way, there's no point discussing this issue with you, since your final authority doesn't seem to be the Bible. However, I'm interested to know what good reason you have for believing the earth goes around the sun. One thing's for sure - science hasn't (at least yet) proven it! But, hey, just for fun, I'll ask my question again. Apart from that verse from Malachi posted by w_fortenberry (which actually backs up my argument), nobody's given me an answer:

If science can tell you that the sun only appeared to rise, can it also tell you that the Son also only appeared to rise???

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew</font>[/QUOTE]Hey, I was only getting in this to point out that the bible clearly has figurative writing it it, but if you want to get plainly proven wrong, that is fine by me:

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

Obviously this is figurative, otherwise you hold a flat earth perspective. Since you don't (I assume), you don't take this passage literally. Rather, you realize the meaning of the text and apply it to our world. Hence, the view that the angels are not at the corners of a 4 cornered flat world (you see, sphere's don't have corners), but are at opposite ends of the world.

Is there figurative writing in the bible? Yes.

jason

 

[Johnv]

What evidence is there that these are figures of speech? There is no biblical evidence of such. This is getting ridiculous. There's no biblical proof to show that Jesus' parables weren't real. Does that make them real? No, we know that from context. There's no biblical proof that the Israelites had bowel movements either. So are we to assume that they didn't because the Bible doesn't say so?

Do you believe Isaiah is part of God's word? Or are we going to throw it away, along with Ecclesiastes? If God said that the earth was flat (which he didn't - you're guessing), then that's what must be so.

I'm not saying the Bible says the earth was flat. I'm saying that Isaiah describes a flat earth. It's no secret that Genesis describes a flat earth as well, we just don't read it that way.

Likewise, the Bible doesn't say the sun revolves around the earth. It describes the sun rising and setting from our point of view. That in no way makes it unbiblical to say that the earth revolves around the sun.

[ October 14, 2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
There are a couple of very simple evidences against a geocentric universe:

2. If the earth were the center, then the outer reaches of the universe would have long since disintegrated into a uniform smear of subatomic particles from the faster-than-light speed at which they would have to be travelling. Instead we see distinct galaxies out there...

Sorry, Helen, forgot to answer this post of yours. I'm assuming you're refering to the special theory of relativity. However, that theory does not require what you suggest. Firstly, special relativity applies only to straight-line motion, not rotations. And secondly, in the geocentric model, the speed of light with respect to the universe itself is (or at least might be!) constant. However, this means that if the universe itself is spinning about the earth, then the further out you go, the faster the rotational speed of light will be with respect to the earth. Thus distant galaxies will not be going faster than the rotational speed of light, because the rotational speed of light is much faster out there!

I hope that helps,

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew</font>[/QUOTE]has nothing to do with the speed of light. It has to do with the speed of mass and the effects of that speed on the cohesiveness of the mass. We know very well that something as simple as a centrifuge spinning will separate blood. And that is not even a very fast speed. The speed at which the various galaxies would have to move in order to circle the earth once every 24 hours would have torn them into shreds of invisible particles by now if not simply destroyed them altogether.

The entire geocentric theory is ludicrous from a position of physics.

 

[Helen]

JohnV, you are falling into the same trap you are accusing B. of falling into. We still refer to the four corners of the earth today. It is an idiom referring either to north, east, south, and west, or north-east, north-west, south-east, and south-west.

It is just as ludicrous to say the Bible speaks of a flat earth as it is to claim geocentrism. The area of Israel is/was at the hub of international trade routes. They knew there was stuff over the horizon!

I never cease to be amazed at the implied insults to the Jews in some of these posts -- they are a very intelligent people. They have known better than a lot of this garbage for a very, very, very long time.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Helen:
has nothing to do with the speed of light. It has to do with the speed of mass and the effects of that speed on the cohesiveness of the mass. We know very well that something as simple as a centrifuge spinning will separate blood. And that is not even a very fast speed. The speed at which the various galaxies would have to move in order to circle the earth once every 24 hours would have torn them into shreds of invisible particles by now if not simply destroyed them altogether.

Hi, Helen.

I'm sorry, but you're misunderstanding the geocentric theory. How do you know that a centrifuge is spinning? To tell that something is moving in any way, you have to compare it to something that isn't spinning. A centrifuge separates blood because it spins relative to the distant stars (i.e. the universe itself). The laws of physics are true relative to these distant stars. However, how do we know that the distant stars aren't themselves moving? If they were, this would cause no centrifugal effects on them, because these centrifugal effects (as all physical laws) are true relative to the distant stars. If they were all moving about the earth, they would be still relative to each other, and hence would experinece no centrifugal effects.

So, to know whether the distant stars are moving around us or not, we have to have something we know isn't moving, and compare it to them. However, this is a problem because the daily motion of the stars can be explained by, 1. the stars rotating about the earth; 2. the earth spinning beneath the stars; or 3. a combination of both. Therefore we can't know which of the earth or the stars or both is moving. To find out we'd have to go outside the universe and take a look. God is outside the universe, but nobody seems to believe what he's told us.

The entire geocentric theory is ludicrous from a position of physics.

I'm sorry, sister, but you're mistaken. It was shown over a hundred years ago that the geocentric system is essentially identical to any other. Rather than being ludicrous from a position of physics, physics demands that it gives the same results as the heliocentric model. I have several papers written by respected physicists proving that this is the case.

Professor Sir 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.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew