Talk:Bible says the sun goes around the earth (Talk.Origins)

Allowing Pro-geocentrism
Would the CreationWiki editors please comment regarding permitting or restricting pro-geocentric material. While there are many credible arguments for a galactocentric positioning of the Milky Way, I'm not sure we should be supporting the geocentric view. --Chris 09:58, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

Not completely opposed, but recognize danger
I'm not totally opposed to reading pro-geocentric views, although I personally don't accept them. There are many fine Christians who believe in geocentrism, but this doesn't make it right of course, because there are many fine Christians who believe men have fewer ribs than woman, that Darwin was converted on his deathbed, and that dinosaurs never existed.

But if CreationWiki allows articles from a geocentric viewpoint, the editor base will change. For example, I feel comfortable writing for CreationWiki because I hold much of the same views as the majority of CreationWiki editors and writers. But if geocentrists start writing a lot of articles, I will be outta here, because there will be conflicting viewpoints and confusion for readers. At the moment CreationWiki tolerates slightly different views without actually promoting diametrically opposed opinions. I believe that's probably the best we can expect unless we tighten the rules (which I wouldn't oppose either).

So what's the solution?

I believe that a GeocentricWiki is the ideal answer. It could then totally present geocentric articles, which I would read but am unlikely to contribute to, and it wouldn't create a hotchpotch of opposing views for readers. I even think an "old earth" wiki is preferable to a "young-earth-old-earth" CreationWiki &mdash; but others may disagree. Tim Talbot --Klang 22:56, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

Why restrict pro-geocentric proposals?
I'm not understanding something. It is not as though what is said in the pro-geocentric side is untrue. It may be an unpopular view, but does that make it a view that should be restricted or cut out? Globally speaking, creationism is an unpopular view, and it is being forced out of a lot of academic places and ridiculed by the media. Why treat pro-geocentric arguments the same in this creationist setting?

This is a vast website. Such a very small percentage is used to even discuss the subject. Why eradicate it?


 * The majority of the creationist community would strongly disagree with you about its truthfulness. Discretion regarding permitting or restricting material goes to credibility. Regardless of the size of the site or the overall quality of the material, if one overtly erroneous claim is allowed, it can damage the credibility of the entire archive. --Chris 19:33, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

The need for truth
Whether this site accepts or rejects geocentricity, isn't it supposed to be standing up for truth? With regards to geocentricity, you do not have to believe in it to still critically analyze Talk Origins' comments about it. Talk Origins made a false claim as a title of one of their pieces that geocentrists believe that relativity proves geocentricity, which is untrue. They only believe that it makes both models equivalent, understanding that the notion that all motion is relative cuts both ways, neither proving nor disproving either model. Why did creationwiki simply say "we agree with Talk Origins" when they made a straw man out of the case? There's no point in saying "it doesn't say that" because I was the one who had to change what creationwiki had allowed to be said, so it did say that and would have stayed that way. Creationwiki chastises Talk Origins when they do that (misrepresent) to any other aspect of the creationist argument.

And when looking at the evidences that Talk Origins uses to make the earth's spin and orbit observable in this claim, the evidence is evidently circumstantial and can be explained by both sides of the fence. A person doesn't need to wholeheartedly accept and promote geocentricity because of that. Showing them to be wrong in their claims of somehow observing the earth to move when that is not the case doesn't mean "we accept geocentricity".

I never wrote the conclusion of the geocentricity article on this site, but it is significant in showing the truth about the issues: "In light of the fact that measurements will remain the same whether the universe turns around the earth, or the earth rotates and orbits the sun, this debate becomes more a philosophical, metaphysical issue, than a strictly scientific issue."

For anyone who has fears, it is not as though this site is gonna become geocentricity-central, since it is plain that the majority of people here are antagonistic to the idea, with a very very small minority being at least open to it, and with a handful, possibly less than the amount of fingers of one hand (not including the thumb), holding it to be true. And this lonely one, me, is probably the only vocal one, not necessarily vocal in trying to convince people to believe in geocentricity, but rather vocal in trying to show the errors in Talk Origins comments and in the comments of others. It is extremely doubtful, to the point of impossibility, if even I would dare attempt to put a totally pro-geocentricity article on this site. That would be done on a geocentric website.

But facts are facts, and it is not right, good, or true to present the view that heliocentricity is proven, and geocentricity is "overtly erroneous". Nor is it good, right, or true to allow a group or its views to be misrepresented, as Talk Origins does concerning geocentricity. Nor is it good, right, or true to say that something is observed (as though that is the only conclusion) when the evidence has something else entirely being observed.


 * David, your views regarding geocentricity are already well known to the administration. It is the other editors that we want to hear from.--Chris 11:00, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Allow Geocentric Views
How can this be an encyclopedia of creation science if all of its views are not presented. A case can be made, and has been made for Geocentricity, therefore it should be included. Plus you already know that I am personnally a Geocentrist, Dr. Bouw, who has a Ph.D in astronomy from Case Western Reserve University has absolutely convinced me of it. I don't care how silly I sound anymore, I am more sure of this than I am for alot of other creationist claims defended here on the wiki.

--RichardT 19:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)