Talk:Modern geocentrism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Dispute resolution 1.1 The modern scientific point of view 1.2 Philosophical assumptions (of an acentric universe) 1.3 The quotes from Hoyle and Ellis: 1.4 Biblical references 1.5 Frames of reference 1.6 The connection between modern geocentrism and creationism — major controversy 2 Does this article belong in the creationist category? 2.1 Opposed 2.2 Support 3 edit warring. 4 From RFC 5 Joshuaschroeder's crusade 6 fundamentalists. 7 reference please 8 reference frames. 9 reference frames II 10 Most bible scholars and creationists 11 More Ungtss editorializing 12 Coordinate systems 13 a request 14 Why my edit is better 15 Another Ungtss addition

Dispute resolution

I want to try to sort out the substantive edit disputes on this page. There is currently an edit war, primarily between Joshuaschroeder, supporting an earlier version, and 203.213.77.138 and 138.130.201.204, who have made a bevy of edits starting on 23 March. A recent version with their edits is 11663065. I find the discussion up to now wordy and aggressive, so I want to distill out the substantive arguments in this section. I will take the liberty to remove personal attacks and irrelevant material and to condense and reorganize arguments. If I misrepresent your statements in the process, please scold me. In the interest of disclosure, I should announce that I currently tend to agree with Joshuaschroeder. That does not mean that I am not willing to change sides in response to good arguments. I expect the same from all participants here. Art Carlson 10:54, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

It seems to me that the hottest arguments are less about facts and more about how much detail should be presented on certain issues, such as these:

The modern scientific point of view

This section was developed in response to misrepresentations in early versions of the article. At a minimum, the three-point summary is needed. The more extensive explanation should probably appear somewhere else if not here, e.g. in the article on heliocentrism or the main article on geocentrism.

• The most logical place to put details is under heliocentrism.
  • The con is that most people looking up heliocentrism are looking for historical information.
• Another logical location would be cosmology.
  • The con is that the big questions of cosmology are elsewere.
• The argument for modern geocentrism is that the scientific viewpoint is tacitly accepted everywhere else except there.
  • The con is? What’s so bad about leaving it here?

203, you are apparently not yet satisfied. Please tell us (1) which article you think is the best home for this information, (2) why you think that place is better than any other, and (3) whether you would be willing to leave it here for the time being so we can concentrate on other (more important?) disputes? Art Carlson 11:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

As long as the philosophical basis for acentrism (at least according to major figures like Hubble and Ellis) is somewhere and wikilinked, I will be satisfied if it is not here.203.213.77.138 08:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since 203's response concerns only the philosophical basis for acentrism and does not object to leaving the discussion of "The modern scientific point of view" in this article, it looks like we have consensus on this point. Art Carlson 07:27, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Philosophical assumptions (of an acentric universe)

If details of the modern scientific point of view are left here (and only then), one might expound of this point.

I think that it is objectively true that science feels an obligation to assume the cosmological principle until proven false, and that science currently sees no evidence contradicting it. I think this is, though not strictly necessary, relevant enough that (at least) a sentence could be included stating it. Is there consensus on this? Art Carlson 11:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

The cosmological principle is, as present, unfalsifiable. it cannot be proven false by its very nature under the present level of scientific knowledge. Ungtss 14:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The discussion about falsifiability is fun but not to the point. I repeat my question to Ungtss: Do you agree with the above statement or not? Art Carlson 14:54, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

It is certainly not true that science "feels obligated" to accept the principle. Science is a process, not a person, and as such it can feel nothing. it is, however, true that most (but not all) contemporary scientists feel entitled to accept the principle. it is also true that their perceived entitlement is grounded in their unfalsifiable philosophical and metaphysical assumptions. the assumption is definitely worth mentioning in the article. It would be nice to describe it as an assumption, rather than a fact. perhaps it should be mentioned in context with the views of others who don't make that assumption. Ungtss 16:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that with the deletion of the discussion, the fact that there is observational evidence for acceptance of the cosmological principle cannot be denied. If there is observational evidence for something, it is inherently falsifiable. Joshuaschroeder 19:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The observational evidence is equally consistent with a geocentric interpretation, absent the assumption that things are everywhere as they are within our range of visibility. it is that assumption that you and your ilk are unwilling to acknowledge. Ungtss 19:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The observational evidence is equally consistent with a geocentric interpretation --> This is false. There is direct observational evidence that is inconsistent with a geocentric interpretation involving observations of homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. See the discussion of this on the Big Bang page. Joshuaschroeder 19:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait until you address my above statement before continuing to chase you down your latest rabbithole. (to clarify which point you're evading this time, it's this: the cosmological principle depends on the assumption that things look everywhere as they look here, which is unfalsifiable by its very nature).Ungtss 19:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The confusion that Ungtss seems to be having is that just because you can't be everywhere at one time doesn't mean that you can't measure the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe everywhere. This is done through two ways: one) the CMB nails down the homogeneity of the universe to one part in 10^5. This is everywhere, not just in from our vantage point because the information associated with the CMB comes from all parts of the sky. Very clever observations of the excitement of certain elements due to the CMB also eliminate the possibility that we just happen to be located at a place in the universe where things have conspired to be this way. The Cosmological Principle is falsifiable and is currently undergoing a whole battery of tests.

In the meantime I'm not sure that I even accept my statement myself. The hypothesis of homogeneity is certainly falsifiable, and I can't for the life of me imagine what Ungtss is thinking when he says otherwise. For instance, if we really did observe quasars only at certain radii, that would be proof that the cosmological principle is false. The hypothesis of geocentricity is probably not falsifiable because the concept of "center" is not unambiguously defined. As Joshuaschroeder points out, there are many ways that the hypotheses of homogeneity and isotropy can be tested, and many ways that they have been tested. Up to now, there is no evidence that contradicts these hypotheses. This is made clear in the article (at least in the unmutilated versions). But what are we arguing about? Can you help me Ungtss? What exactly do you want to say about philosophical assumptions, and why exactly is it important to understanding modern geocentrism? Art Carlson 07:16, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

The cosmological principle holds that "On large scales, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic." this principle is a generalized extension of the observable fact that "the universe is homogenous and isotropic from our point of view." we can falsifiably say that the universe is homogenous and isotropic from our point of view. but we cannot say that the universe is homogenous and isotropic from another point of view, because we have never observed the universe from another point of view. in order to concoct an acentric universe, we are assuming that the universe looks everywhere as it looks here. we have never observed that. am i being clearer? Ungtss 11:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If "the universe is not homogenous and isotropic from our point of view", then "the universe is not homogenous and isotropic on large scales" in general. The cosmological principle can be proven false by proving the weaker statement false. In any case, I still don't know what you want the article to say or why you think something important is missing. Art Carlson 14:33, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

My goal here was stated explicitly above. you said:

<<I think this is, though not strictly necessary, relevant enough that (at least) a sentence could be included stating it. Is there consensus on this?>>

I said:

<<the assumption is definitely worth mentioning in the article. It would be nice to describe it as an assumption, rather than a fact. perhaps it should be mentioned in context with the views of others who don't make that assumption.>>

That is my position. the cosmological principle should definitely be mentioned. but it should not be mentioned as fact. it should be mentioned as an idea accepted under the current scientific consensus, not as fact, and the views of those challenging the principle should also be included. Ungtss 14:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you find someone who refers to the specific tests of the Cosmological Principle that are outlined in the Big Bang article while simultaneously claiming that the idea is an assumption that cannot be falsified?

<<If "the universe is not homogenous and isotropic from our point of view", then "the universe is not homogenous and isotropic on large scales" in general. The cosmological principle can be proven false by proving the weaker statement false.>>

We are currently incapable of proving the weaker principle false by traveling elsewhere. we do not have the means. the generalized cosmological principle is therefore an assertion which is unfalsifiable under our current level of science. It is fundamentally unlike scientific principles like gravity (i can throw it up and if it doesn't come down then gravity doesn't exist). the cosmological principle is unfalsifiable at the moment. falsifiability holds no meaning if it allows for experiments or observations we cannot make. it's like saying, "the existence of heaven is falsifiable because if we die and there's no heaven, then we'll know." well that's nice. but we can't see it now, so it's no good. you see? Ungtss 14:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Ungtss is making an incredulity argument about cosmic variance, stating basically that one can consider two possibilities: one) that we aren't in a privileged position and two) that we are in a privileged position. The measured homogeneity and isotropy assuming possibility one) would imply that there were two equally valid theories that explained things equally well (basically, that the universe looks isotropic, homogeneous accidentally due to our vantage point). He's saying that we cannot falsifiably choose between options one) and two). But he's incorrect. What Ungtss basically saying is that the Copernican principle is impossible to falsify, but it turns out that the detail effects of the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe can be tested by looking at the interaction of the CMB with atoms in distant quasars. So the entirety is actually falsifiable. Joshuaschroeder 06:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quotes from Hoyle and Ellis:

There is controversy over the need for more than one sentence on the subject in this article. (It may be appropriate to expand other articles, such as Cosmological Principle.) Could the pros please explain why they think this is important to understanding modern geocentrism? In particular why does 203 feel that the philosophical preference for acentrism has anything to do with the question of whether the Bible teaches geocentrism. Art Carlson 11:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

No, the philosophical assumptions pertain to the "modern scientific POV". I would agree ti have them in the article on Cosmological Principle and wikilinked. Hoyle, Hubble and Ellis are major figures in cosmology, even if they aren't good enough for Schroeder.203.213.77.138 08:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a lot of the material is already covered in Cosmological Principle. Joshuaschroeder 14:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Schroeder had bothered to check, he would have found out that this article is very skimpy! I have no objection at all if these points were transferred to Cosmological Principle with a link, as has been suggested. 138.130.201.112 09:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit the article if you want. However a link near the biblical arguments would make no sense. There may be another place in the article to put this, though. Joshuaschroeder 15:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, time and again, it's not that these aren't major figures in cosmology, it's that their relativism is a bit of a stretch for most scientists. Joshuaschroeder 14:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And what is "relativism" about pointing out that the acentric viewpoint is a philosophical choice.138.130.201.112 09:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "acentrism" arguments are made for observational reasons and not just philosophy. Cosmic variance wouldn't be applicable otherwise. Joshuaschroeder 16:29,

Not at all. Many astronomers, including Hubble, have agreed that the observations that most things are receding from earth COULD be explained by the Earth being near the centre of the universe, but this view was unacceptable for PHILOSOPHICAL reasons. 138.130.201.227 09:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

because he said that the observations seem to imply that we are at or near the center, but this is "intolerable" for philosophical reasons. Ellis argued that the observations would fit equally well with an earth-centered view and was explicit that the acentric model is chosen for philosophical reasons. Hoyle explicitly said that neither geocentrism nor geokineticism is "right" or "wrong" but simply a matter of transformation of coordinates. Anyone trained in physics knows this. 203.213.77.138 05:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The observations do not imply this as discussed in this very article!
• Ellis' point was made to some effect back when we didn't have a CMB to work with. It is now not even close to being the justification that is provided to us. This comment belongs in the history of cosmology.
• Hoyle's relativism is interesting from a philosophic sense, but it really isn't an argument that works well in this article in this context. Joshuaschroeder 15:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Come off it. Ellis knew perfectly well about CMB. And Hoyle's "relativism" deserves to be quoted because he was a major figure in cosmology, and we don't need the approval of a total nonentity like Schroeder before we post quotes from world experts. 138.130.201.227 09:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biblical references

– The more general arguments on the presentation of the relationship between modern geocentrism and creationism has been moved to a separate topic below. Only arguments directly related to the Bible section should be presented here. Art Carlson 11:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

In his latest edits 203 has completely removed the section on "Biblical references". This is totally unacceptable. There is absolutely no way to make any sense of modern geocentrism without reference to these passages from the Bible. I urge 203 to reconsider this position and return to serious efforts at producing a good encyclopedia article. Art Carlson 11:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Ungtss, do you believe it possible for a good article on modern geocentrism to not mention these Bible verses? Art Carlson 15:00, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

No. but neither do i believe these verses cannot be mentioned without a thorough mainstream interpretation of them not stifled by schroeder. (why was this "trimmed?"). Ungtss 15:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In this paragraph we are establishing consensus on the question of whether we need a section on the Bible at all. Except for the fact that 203 once removed this section without responding here, we all seem to agree on this point. I trimmed your supplementary comment because it belongs in the next paragraph, where we are trying to establish consensus on the question of whether we need to include the mainline interpretation. If you will take note, in the following paragraph I specifically directed your attention to the fact that we all agree with you. The only remaining question is how "thorough" the discussion should be and with what phrasing. Your additional statements at this point and my whole response here just get in the way, so I will trim them again in a day or two. Art Carlson 14:45, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

thanks. sorry. i'm not used to having talkpage discussions trimmed:). Ungtss 14:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus that this section must include the statement that the geocentrist interpretation is a minority view, and that a brief description of the mainline interpretations (common-language, phenomenological, poetic, symbolic) is a good idea. (Emphasis added for the sake of Ungtss.) There does not seem to be significant disagreement over the proper level of detail either. (?) (It is further agreed that the subheading formulation "Biblical scholarly reasons why the Bible doesn't teach absolute geocentrism" is POV, and also a poor description of the contents of the section, and will not be used.) Art Carlson 11:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

The neutral rephrasing gets around this problem. And what is the problem with pointing out that "earth is God's footstool" is most likely not intended to be literal -- God has no feet that need to rest on anything for one thing!203.213.77.138 05:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no problem. The point is we can simply say: "Most people believe that the all the passages mentioned were not intended to be taken literally." at the end of the section and be done with it. That's the entirety of the argument, it's straightforward and damaging to the conceit of modern geocentrism. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Or, schroeder, we can develop a quality article that explains why. Ungtss 11:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think, with the possible argument over whether creationists/biblical scholars actually make scientific arguments invovling the horizontal reference frame, we have come to a good consensus on how to explain "why". Joshuaschroeder 06:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frames of reference

There is still controversy over where "frames of reference" should be discussed.

• In the science section? — Obviously, as is the case in both versions.
• In the Bible section as well? — Joshuaschroeder, and Art Carlson believe it is better to present this argument in only one place. 203 apparently believes it is necessary to present this argument in the Bible section as well. Ungtss has made comments that seem to go both ways. (Would you like to clarify your position, Ungtss?) 203's argument, if I may attempt to rephrase it, if I have properly understood it, is this: If the Bible is presented as teaching geocentrism, then some people rejecting geocentrism will for that reason also reject the Bible. It is not the business of Wikipedia whether people reject the Bible or not, but Wiki is committed to fairness. The earlier version of the article makes it clear that most people do not believe that the Bible teaches geocentrism, because they do not interpret the Bible with such strict literalism. Where is the problem, 203? Art Carlson 11:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Simple. Frame of reference is is an essential part of the usual geokinetic creationst response to those who ask about these passages. It is not enough to explain that most creationists disagree with Bouw et al. and not why they do.203.213.77.138 08:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are using "frame of reference" in this context in the same way as "natural language" or "phenomenology", i.e. when Joshua said the Sun stood still, he was simply using the Earth as a frame of reference for convenience, without intending to make any statement about absolute motion. Is that it? I'm sure we can agree on a wording to express that, and I think Joshuaschroeder can be convinced, too. He and I just think that the quote from Hoyle is overkill, out of place, and not exactly appropriate for the argument. If you can agree to leave out the quote, we may be nearly finished here. Art Carlson 08:52, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the quote? Do you and Schroeder think Hoyle was wrong? If so, why?

The reason the Hoyle quote is overkill is twofold: one) the context of his quote is from a book about the implications of general relativity/cosmology NOT on the way to interpret Bible verses,

Wrong again Schroeder, it was a book about Copernicus!! 203.213.77.138 05:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the perspective of modern physics. Joshuaschroeder 15:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

two) his interpretations of relativism are interesting but do actually obscure the general argument that geocentrism is ridiculous. You don't need to appeal to Hoyle to make the argument. You can simply state that there are ways of describing the universe as though we were stationary and there are ways of describing the universe as though we aren't.

Why do you need this long-winded and mostly irrelevent argument from Hoyle to support your ideas? It's as simple as what I pointed out. The documentation of the point is very straightforward. What is your problem? Joshuaschroeder 15:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the crux of Copernicus' description of heliocentrism (and why he wasn't persecuted for his ideas). In fact, most modern geocentrists welcome the Hoyle quote because Hoyle's extreme relativism provides them a cheap way out. They accept all his arguments except they claim that there must be an absolute and the absolute is geocentrism which Hoyle misses because of his mamby-pamby philosophical naturalism. In short, this diversion is too great for inclusion in this part of the article. Elsewhere in the article we go into great depth at explaining the intracies of relativity and why strict, absolute geocentrism cannot be allowed. Hoyle might be more appropriate there, but I think his wording is too convoluted to be of good use (the article as it stands does a better job at explaining this IMHO). Joshuaschroeder 23:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a perfectly reasonable point that expresses clearly that it's just a matter of reference frames. Evidently Schroeder still doesn't understand that ALL motion must be described WRT a reference frame, and you can choose whatever frame you like.203.213.77.138 05:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's quite simple, 203: 1) The Hoyle point is far from clear and lends itself to an overkill explanation that obscures the point that motion is relative. 2) You need to calm down and realize that the article already shows that all motion must be described with respect to a reference frame. We don't need a redundant inclusion. Joshuaschroeder 15:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I won't speak for other editors but I have no problem with what you said, "when Joshua said the Sun stood still, he was simply using the Earth as a frame of reference for convenience, without intending to make any statement about absolute motion."138.130.201.112 09:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we make this a bit more general? Why refer to the individual verses? It seems to me that the same argument is made for every verse so we only need to point out the argument once. Joshuaschroeder 16:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would have no problems if it was likewise pointed out that "every verse" says much the same thing so there is no need to spell it out.203.213.77.138 05:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They don't say the same thing. They say different things that modern geocentrists take to mean one idea. The idea can be easily debunked by simply stating that most people don't buy the modern geocentrist interpretation. Joshuaschroeder 15:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also, "strict literalism" is a straw man. Most creationists don't interpret the Ecclesiastes phrase about the sun rising and setting any differently from the way they interpret a modern astronomer's use of "sunrise" and "sunset". This is a perfectly reasonable thing to point out. 203.213.77.138 08:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a different phrase to describe the way that geocentrists interpret the Bible? Art Carlson 08:52, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Well, how would you describe a modern astronomer using sunrise and sunset, and how would you describe a pedant who rebuked him with pretentious verbiage about how the earth really rotated so that our line of sight to the sun passed close to the horizon?203.213.77.138 05:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you arguing against your own point, 203? The simple explanation is the best so why should we include "pretentious verbiage" in the description of why saying sunrise or sunset doesn't imply necessarily that the Earth is still. Joshuaschroeder 15:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Since the majority of creationists are non-geocentrists for the same reason as the majority of scientists and everyone else, I propose that there is no need to mention creationists explicitly in the science section or the Bible section. At most one might want to make the language more inclusive. Is there consensus on this? Art Carlson 20:21, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Agreed. Joshuaschroeder 05:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A good reason to leave it out of the creationism category too then.

I take that to be agreement by 203 to this statement. Art Carlson 08:52, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

This is conditional on removing it from creationism.203.213.77.138 05:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you agree that the above point is true then making it conditional on another one of your agenda is ridiculous. Keeping a bad edit in because you're sore about another edit is not good Wikiquette. Joshuaschroeder 15:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• That would leave the history section as the best place to expound (to an extent and in a manner that has yet to be determined) on the reasons that (most) creationists in particular reject geocentrism. Is there consensus on this? Art Carlson 20:21, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Agreed. Joshuaschroeder 05:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No again. Reference frame discussions are germane to the biblical arguments.203.213.77.138 08:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How would you incorporate this given that the Bible doesn't talk about reference frames per se? Joshuaschroeder 14:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, any more than normal people have to explain what they mean by "sunset" in technical language.138.130.201.112 09:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well if "normal" people don't use the argument about "reference frames" maybe we can just say, "Most people do not consider use of the term "sunrise" or "sunset" to be an endorsement of a geocentric universe". Forget the reference frames all together. Joshuaschroeder 16:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No way, because it is fair game so show that "sunset" and "sunrise" are right even in a technical sense because they use Earth as a reference frame. Don't you love how schroeder always wants to emasculate any arguments contrary to his agenda? 203.213.77.138 05:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Emasculate? You've got to be kidding me. The best argument is the one that's the easiest to understand, not the one that uses the most jargon. Joshuaschroeder 15:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This argument seems to be resolved by the reference to a horizontal coordinate system which is really what people are talking about when they say "sunset". Joshuaschroeder 06:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The connection between modern geocentrism and creationism — major controversy

Is it important to mention that modern geocentrists are creationists and that they see an important connections between the two beliefs? Yes. (Any disagreement from the gallery? 203's objection concerned not this question but the creationist category, discussed below.)

Given that, is it important to mention that the large majority of creationists are not geocentrists? Yes. (Objections? 203's objection concerned not this question but the extent to which the reasons should be expounded.)

Given the fact creationists are not geocentrists for the same reason that almost everybody else is not a geocentrist, is there any reason to discuss creationists' reasons apart from the general reasons? Obviously not. (Objections?)

Is more discussion of the connection needed? Well, some, anyway. In what way can the discussion in the old version be improved? What is missing?

My opinion: The quote from Bouw is very telling and should be kept. It might, however, be misinterpreted, so a comment should be added that his statement is hotly disputed by most creationists. I can't make much sense of the paragraph from 203 starting "However, creationist geokineticists ..." and would drop it. Art Carlson 11:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a sentence afterwards that talked about creationists who opposed Bouw would be telling. Something along the lines of "There are, however, a number of creationists who are actively opposed to modern geocentrism and continue to object to it as a legitimate perspective even after having read Bouw's work on the subject." Joshuaschroeder 15:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK. In fact, it would be the majority, including creationist Ph.D. astronomers such as Danny Faulkner and Jason Lisle (YEC) and Hugh Ross (OEC).203.213.77.138 07:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If there is a paragraph from Bouw, then there should be a paragraph presenting the contrary viewpoint. 138.130.201.112 14:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The parity argument in terms of paragraph for paragraph makes no sense here. A paragraph needs to have substance to be a paragraph. I think a singly sentence has the potential to hold all the substance (see above). Joshuaschroeder 15:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True NPOV would present both cases adequately. It is also a statement of fact that all the alleged proofs of geocentrism in the Bible boil down to the same basic thing, words like "sunset", which we use today all the time. And it is common for creationists to discuss the frame of reference when discussing the issue, so this is essential to mention in the interest of fairly representing this viewpoint. Also, it was an excellent chance to use a modern Bible translation, 138 -- any objections to this? 203.213.77.138 07:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to get into a fight over it, but I think that the King James translation is most appropriate here because it is the version that the geocentrists explicitely and emphatically insist on using. Art Carlson 08:59, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Do they? In any case, we should use a modern language translation which is far easier for most readers.203.213.77.138 09:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bouw does at least. [1] (third-to-last paragraph) Art Carlson 10:21, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Robert Sungenis prefers the Douay-Rheims. Joshuaschroeder 14:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, he is a Roman Catholic. So just leave it back at the modern English translation that I had so readers understand it.138.130.201.112 09:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there a standard Wikipedia policy on this? I don't think it reasonable to use a translation that no cited modern geocentrist thinks is appropriate. Joshuaschroeder 16:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any problems with a modern translation? [Pre-modern translations] make the Biblical propositions seem archaic.203.213.77.138 05:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[M]any modern geocentrists object to the translation you are proposing (though there is no way to satisfy all the people all the time). Joshuaschroeder 16:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does this article belong in the creationist category?

I am cutting this discussion loose from "Dispute resolution". It doesn't seem to be going anywhere. To do that, the participants would have to take two steps back and agree on what categories are for in general, but I think most of them are too tied up in the implications they see or fear about this particular category to do that. Besides, as long as the text is stable, I can live with a category war. You are welcome to tear each others' eyes out (though I would recommend an RfC instead). Have fun! Art Carlson 17:57, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Opposed

This article does not belong in the Creationism category if only a small minority of creationists hold this view. 203.213.77.138 12:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geocentrism and creationism are totally different issues. one has to do with the position of the earth, and the other has to do with the origin of the earth.

The placement of the template here suits schroeder's pov, with his demonstrable intent to draw a false link these two together to tar creationism with guilt by association. the page cannot be allowed to make this false link. for an illustration of this tactic, consider this exchange on talk:creationism

<<They're not Earth-centrists, though, because their acceptance isn't a conscious position held against the scientific evidence and methodology.>> --> correction: check out Modern geocentrism. Joshuaschroeder 19:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, you're right. Sigh. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's not creationism. that's geocentrism. you can be a non-creationist geocentrist (as was ptolemy, the DEVELOPER of geocentrism ), and a creationist non-geocentrist (as are ALL the mainstream creationist orgs), because they are two different ideas. schroeder likes to equate the two because it aids his pov. but NONE of the cited creationist organizations are geocentrist, because it's fringe and quite stupid. schroeder, schroeder, schroeder, when will you learn? Ungtss 19:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(after five edit conflicts again) Er, I'm afraid that you've lost track of the discussion (unsurprisingly; I've had a minimum of two edit conflicts for my last few edits). I used the example of geocentrism as an analogy. he was responding to me. Ptolemy wasn't the developer of geocentrism, incidentally. That was really Aristotle (though even he didn't start it &mddash; it goes way, way back before him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I find amusing is that I honestly had an editing conflict with ungstss's above post while trying to post this: There's such a thing as 'Modern geocentrism'? Wow. That almost puts creationism into perspective. Aaarrrggh 19:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Count me everywhere else alongside with Joshuaschroeder, but I'd fine with removing this category. Unless our category systems becomes fuzzy (to let you specify a percentage of fitting the category), using the category system in disputed cases just causes trouble. --Pjacobi 14:32, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

The category is not a tactic. It is a legitimate categorization because geocentricity uses the assumptions defined in the creationism article and the Young earth creationism model to define itself. Whether they do that correctly is another matter, but it belongs in the category of creationism. It is a movement of a religious group opposed to mainstream science in the same manner as creationism. They all consider themselves to be true creationists. Including them in the category is like including the Hutterites in the category of Christianity. Joshuaschroeder 15:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're avoiding the argument and setting up a false analogy.

1) Geocentrism addresses a totally different issue: the position of the earth in the universe, not the origin of the earth

Incorrect. Modern geocentrism relies on the assumption of God's creation of the earth to work. There are no modern geocentrists that believe otherwise. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Relying on similar assumptions does not make topics analogous. addressing similar issues makes them analogous. Ungtss 17:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They aren't just similar assumptions, they are the same assumptions. They are dealing with the issues of whether the accounts from scriptures about the creation of the Earth are valid. Joshuaschroeder 17:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The creation accounts don't speak to geocentrism. the validity of genesis has no reflection on geocentrism, and the validity of geocentrism has no reflection on genesis. Ungtss 18:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the creation accounts don't speak to geocentrism. The fact is, modern geocentrists believe that God created the Earth at the center and believe the evidence is in the Bible for this. Are you going to claim that only arguments that come from creation myths should be included in creationism? If that's the case, then the flood would be out. Joshuaschroeder 18:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what matters, all by yourself, without any discussion, schroeder? The fact is that creationism is the idea that god created, and specifically, that he created as according to genesis -- as such, it encompasses the genesis account, including the flood. but there's nothing in genesis about the earth being at the center of the universe. you have to get that somewhere else. Ungtss 18:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've already established that the Genesis account isn't all there is to creationism since many Muslims which are listed on the creationism page reject the Genesis account as being anything more than a bastardized version of their own more pure Qur'an. Moreover, are you honestly telling me that it's only Genesis that creationists care about? Should we look at the statements of belief of AiG or ICR? The entirety of the Bible is used by both of these organizations. Why should you not extend the same privilege to proponents of geocentricity? Joshuaschroeder 18:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AiG is concerned with more than creationism. there are articles on that site about a lot of things, like the trinity. Ungtss 19:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in that one. ICR too? Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep. [2]

Not their statement of purpose, but I'll buy that they're interested in other things. However, can you indicate to me any statement that limits their interpretation of creationism to being just about the Genesis account? Joshuaschroeder 19:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose such a statement (or the absence thereof) would prove. Ungtss 20:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is, we don't need to limit ourselves to Genesis. Joshuaschroeder 21:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is, we need to limit ourselves to things relevent to the genesis account of creation. "The Earth is the Lord's footstool." and "the day the earth stood still" are not among those things. Ungtss 22:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you get to decide what is relevent? Joshuaschroeder 22:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schroeder is the self-appointed spokesman for the "scientific community' despite not being qualified in science himself. And he feels free to dismiss statements by recognized leaders in cosmology such as George Ellis, first because he is a "theist" (Schroeder only wants theistic opinions if they compromise evolution with the Bible or claim that the Bible teaches absolute geocentrism). Then Schroeder decrees that Ellis, Hubble and Hoyle are extremists, and insists instead that an unnamed "scientific community" on whose behalf he speaks says otherwise.203.213.77.138 07:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poisoning the well in this instance makes no sense. Especially since the argument is about whether creationists only refer to Genesis in describing the creation of the world or if they rely on other parts of the Bible as well. Joshuaschroeder 16:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2) false analogy -- the hutterites were a sect within christianity with views on the practices and doctrines of christianity. geocentrism addresses a totally different issue than creationism.

Incorrect. Modern geocentrism reperesents a group of creationists who believe that the divergeance between science and religion occurred in accepting heliocentrism rather than Darwinian evolution. This is similar to the Hutterite sect being a part of Christianity. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and christian science and the amish represent groups who think it happened a bit later. that doesn't make them creationist. what's your point? Ungtss 17:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian science adherents do not hold to the fundamental definition of creationists necessarily. Neither do the Amish. Furthermore, they base their beliefs on more than simply the creationist conceit. Modern geocentrists believe that their beliefs are based on the creationist conceit. Most creationists disagree with that assessment, but that's beside the point. Joshuaschroeder 18:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're dodging my argument. you said that creationists were similar to hutterites because they "diverged from science." the amish and creation scientists did too. you've set up a false analogy, and then dodged counterexamples. Ungtss 18:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, the analogy I set up was Hutterites:Christianity::Modern geocentrism:creationism. Joshuaschroeder 18:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and that is a false analogy, because modern geocentrism relates to issues that are NOT related to the belief that God created the earth. Ungtss 19:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to a modern geocentrist. They believe that their issues are directly related to the belief that God created the earth. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

if i were to tell that to a creationist modern geocentrist, they might respond that way. but non-creationist modern-geocentrists would respond very differently. incidentally, it's bery noble of you to take up the geocentrist cause here at wikipedia. I do wish you were so concerned about clearly expressing the views of created kinds and flood geology. Ungtss 19:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please show me the existence of non-creationist modern geocentrists as per described in the article. Joshuaschroeder 19:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are the one wishing to prove the link. please show me some academic cited statement holding that there are no non-creationist geocentrists, anywhere in the world.

A) the issue isn't with geocentrism the issue is with modern geocentrism. Keep it straight.

B) You are unable to come up with a single counterexample of a modern geocentrist who isn't a creationist.

C) The call for a cited statement holding that there are no non-creationists modern geocentrist is as laughable as asking for a cited statement that there are no creationists who are atheists. (Though, apparently, according to Ungtss there are creationists that are atheists). Joshuaschroeder 22:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You might, incidentally, look at the history of this page. I'm friend to no pseudoscientific argument. Joshuaschroeder 19:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to be a "friend" to anything. I simply wish you were as concerned about making sure the ridiculous, pseudoscientific arguments on other pages were as described on their own terms as you are here. Ungtss 20:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calling modern geocentrism a form of creationism is pseudoscientific? Joshuaschroeder 21:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. Creationism is pseudoscientific. You seem very concerned with making sure geocentrists have all their arguments aired before refuting them. Why are you so hesitant to give created kinds equal treatment? Ungtss 22:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying they shouldn't have their arguments aired? Are you saying the creationists don't get to make their arguments in created kinds? Are you saying that I haven't been involved heavily in the NPOV editting of this article when there was a modern geocentrist editting it? Joshuaschroeder 22:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am saying, if you would bother to read, that you are quite willing to allow the geocentists to make all their arguments before knocking them down, but steadfastly refuse to allow creationists to make their arguments at all, an indication that you are unable to knock them down with reason, and are therefore only able to censor them in your persistent efforts to avoid cognitive dissonance. Ungtss 13:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really? Would you care to look at the way in which we editted the article when User:Truth Seeker was around? I understand that you have a personal axe to grind with respect to my editorial style, but that doesn't mean I have one with respect to you. Joshuaschroeder 16:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3) <<It is a movement of a religious group opposed to mainstream science in the same manner as creationism.>>

So perhaps Christian Science should also go on the creationism template?

No. Christian Science opposes medical science and not for the same reasons that creationists share(beliefs associated with the creation of the universe, the Earth, and life). Likewise, scientology is not creationism because its religious beliefs that are in contradiction with psychology are not due to a beliefs about the creation of the unverse, the Earth, and life. Modern geocentrism is, by the definition provided on the creationism page, a part of creationism. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You truly have a gift for proof by assertion. your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Ungtss 17:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Joshuaschroeder 17:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read what you wrote again, schroeder. "Modern geocentrism is, by the definition provided on the creationism page, a part of creationism." How? You've simply made a conclusion without backing it with argument. Ungtss 18:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creationism is defined to be a belief that the universe, the Earth, and life were created by a deity. This is the fundamental tenet of modern geocentrism. They believe that this belief necessitates belief that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Joshuaschroeder 18:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not a tenet of all modern geocentrism, nor is it a necessary tenet of modern geocentrism. the fact that many geocentrists are also creationists does not mean that geocentrism is a species of creationism. Ungtss 18:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please cite a modern geocentrist that doesn't hold to this as a fundamental tenet. Joshuaschroeder 18:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

this is an unfair test. most modern geocentrists outside the West are not educated enough to use computers. that does not mean they don't exist. please cite me a scholar that says that there are none.

Are you telling me you cannot find a single reference to anybody who claims that there are modern geocentrists who are not creationists? I don't need to cite a scholar that there are no modern geocentrists who are creationists. I only need to continue to provide evidence that every modern geocentrist ever cited is a creationist. Would you like me to do this? Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever been to the third world, schroeder? Ungtss 19:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Depends. If you mean Third World, then yes, I have. Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then you know that access to computers is limited to a tiny elite in this world, and that there are vast numbers of people who hold beliefs but are unable to post a website on the topic. You are setting up an arbitrary criteria for "existence" -- that is, "the opportunity to express one's ideas in a globally-available medium." They don't have computers, and they don't publish books -- often, they're barely able to feed themselves. But they exist. If you want to argue otherwise, it'll take some scholar bold enough to argue, as you do, that every modern geocentrist is a creationist. Ungtss 19:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't need a website, just a citation. I'm just asking for evidence that modern geocentrists as defined in the article exist that aren't creationists. Joshuaschroeder 19:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are the one making the positive statement that none exist, to impose your view that all geocentrists are creationists. please provide positive evidence of your claim. Ungtss 20:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All modern geocentrists are creationists is born out by the fact that all cited modern geocentrists are creationists. Joshuaschroeder 21:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's an artificial criterion. There's no creationism in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. does that mean creationism doesn't exist? There's no contemporary non-western geocentrism available in published or internet format. does that mean it doesn't exist? If you want to say something doesn't exist, you need affirmative evidence that it does not exist. Ungtss 22:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a real criterion. The claim is made in the positive affirmative. If this claim is correct then there will be no counterexamples. Find a counterexample and disprove the claim. I'm not creating a deductive claim here, it is an observation of modern geocentrists for which we have cited evidence. I'm happy to look at any evidence that you have that shows that this isn't the case. Joshuaschroeder 22:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a false criterion. you are saying that if there are no published works by non-creationist geocenrists, they don't exist. that is non-sequitur. your speciality, i'm afraid. Ungtss 13:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ever say that. That is your conceit. I am saying provide a single citation about a modern geocentrist that is not a creationist. If you would do this simple task, I would agree that the categorization isn't appropriate. I, frankly, don't believe that you have found someone who has detail beliefs in modern geocentrism as outlined on this page that is also not a creationist. Since you are also fond of pointing out that the "majority" of the world is creationist, how are you so certain that all these people who you claim are modern geocentrists are also not creationists? It is you who have created a argument from ignorance. Joshuaschroeder 16:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4) geocentricity uses the assumptions defined in the creationism article and the Young earth creationism model to define itself.

Which assumptions? the authority of the bible? Perhaps then Trinity and Divine grace also belong on the creationism template? Ungtss 15:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The assumption that the authority of a historical interpretation of the creation myth in the Bible with regards to the creation of the universe, the Earth, and life. Not all believers in the Trinity are creationists. Not all believers in Divine grace are creationists. All believers in Modern geocentrism are creationists. Joshuaschroeder 16:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

none of the verses in the article supporting geocentrism come from Genesis, and none of them have to do with creation. Ungtss 17:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They don't have to come from Genesis, that's not part of the definition of creationism. They all have to do with creation in the eye of the modern geocentrist because they are all dealing with how the modern geocentrist views God as creating the position of the Earth. Joshuaschroeder 17:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And perhaps Racism would be part of creationism, because it has to do with racist views of how God created the races? Ungtss 18:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do all racists consider themselves creationists? Joshuaschroeder 18:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do all modern geocentrists? The answer is no. there are many i know personally in africa, china, and mongolia that are geocentrists without being creationists. Ungtss 18:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss is now offering personal research? Amazing! Give us a citation. Joshuaschroeder 18:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My personal research is as good as yours. back up your claim that all modern geocentrists are creationists, please. don't point out SOME that are. give me a cited scholar stating that "all modern geocentrists are creationists." thank you. Ungtss 18:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Personal research isn't allowed, as you like to point out. And your request for a citation that "all modern geocentrists ar creationists" is laughable. The article itself points to all known groups that support modern geocentrism. They all claim to be creationists. The onus is on you to provide a single counterexample. Joshuaschroeder 18:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

have you ever been to the third world, schroeder? Ungtss 19:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listen. original research is material on the page that is unique and new. i am not proposing that. so drop this personal research nonsense. there is no personal research involved. second. you are making the assertion that all geocentrists are creationists in your effort to redefine geocentrism as a form of creationism. but you have not presented any scholars saying so. they won't say it, because it is not true. i am disputing your assertion, based on my personal experience. because you are attempting to define geocentrism on terms that serve your goals, you must provide evidence of the non-existence of any geocentrists in the world today who are not creationists. you cannot do that, because you are wrong. Ungtss 13:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are objecting to the inductive nature of my claim, since all the cited sources of modern geocentrism are creationists it is appropriate to categorize the modern geocentrists as creationists. I am admitting the possibility that there is a modern geocentrist who is not a creationist. I would be pleased to find evidence for one's existence. But until that evidence is found, the categorization is a good one. It is similar to any type of observation made in science. The third of Maxwell's Equations states that there are no magnetic monopoles, for example. This is basically an observational statement. Somebody can come along and find a magnetic monopole and then the equation would be wrong. Likewise, the categorization would be wrong if someone, anyone, came along and found a modern geocentrist who was not a creationist. If you do that, the argument is over and closed. However, you are unable to do that, so like the third Maxwell Equation, the categorization is appropriate. Joshuaschroeder 16:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about a new category below Category:Christian fundamentalism, perhaps named Category:Biblical literalism or Category:Biblical inerrancism, which would serve as supercategory for Category:Creationism and which can be tagged to Modern geocentrism, and a lot of articles now in Category:Christian fundamentalism? --Pjacobi 15:25, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

There are a number of creationists (including Ungtss) who would dispute that creationism is part of Christian fundamentalism or that it is based on Biblical inerrancy. Creationism, according to the lead article, is an umbrella for a large number of beliefs about God being involved in the creation of the universe, the Earth, and life. As it is defined on that page, modern geocentrism is definitely underneath that umbrella. Joshuaschroeder 17:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. "creationism covers a lot of things, so it definitely covers geocentrism." why? we never seem to find out. Ungtss 17:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason it covers geocentricity is because geocentricity is about the creationist idealization that the word of God is a good guide for determining the empirical truth of the creation of the universe. In particular, modern geocentrists believe that the creation of the universe was acheived by placing the Earth at the center. If creationism were narrowly defined as simply a belief that God created the universe according to the first few chapters in Genesis, you might have a case, but that's not how creationism is defined.Joshuaschroeder 17:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creationism is defined on the creationism page as follows: "The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that God created the world and all life within it; creationism usually further entails the belief that this occurred as literally described in the book of Genesis (for Jews and Christians) or as literally described in the Qur'an (for Muslims.) See, for example, the article on creation according to Genesis." Genesis is explicitly mentioned. nothing about geocentrism, tho. now i know you'll just run over there and redefine creationism to suit your purposes, but the fact is that creationism is called "creationism" because it's about "Creation," not anything schroeder wants to put under the umbrella for purposes of guilt by association. Ungtss 18:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that God created the world and all life within it; creationism usually further entails the belief that this occurred as literally described in the book of Genesis (for Jews and Christians) or as literally described in the Qur'an (for Muslims.) See, for example, the article on creation according to Genesis." Genesis is explicitly mentioned. --> All modern geocentrists accept these idealizations as foundational to their beliefs. They add, in addition, that the world was created at the center. Therefore they are creationists. Nothing about geocentrism should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of creationism because that's not the fundamental tenet. It would be like mentioning the belief in the Immaculate conception in the defintion of Christianity. I'm not saying, nor never have said, that creationism is the same as modern geocentrism. I'm saying that modern geocentrists fall under the category of creationism. Modern geocentrism holds that the creation is tied up with its own premise of the Earth at the center. It's not a guilt-by-association argument, it is simply what the modern geocentrists believe. Joshuaschroeder 18:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<Modern geocentrism holds that the creation is tied up with its own premise of the Earth at the center.>> has no relation to the definition of creationism, which is: "The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that God created the world and all life within it; creationism usually further entails the belief that this occurred as literally described in the book of Genesis (for Jews and Christians) or as literally described in the Qur'an (for Muslims.)" Creationism is the belief that god created. to be a modern geocentrist is to hold that the earth is at the center of the universe. to be a creationist geocentrist is to hold that god created the earth at the center of the universe. Ungtss 18:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be a modern geocentrist is to believe that "god created". By virtue of that belief they believe that Earth is the center of the universe. If they didn't believe that "god created" they wouldn't be modern geocentrists. Joshuaschroeder 18:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's demonstrably false. geocentrism is independent of creationism. it was when it was devised (by aristotle and ptolemy), and it is now (in eastern religions, where geocentrism exists independently of creationism). there is no logical link between the two, period. Ungtss 18:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We aren't talking about geocentrism. We are talking about Modern geocentrism. Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's right. And there are many geocentrists outside the west who are not creationists. in asserting as a basis for linking the two that "all modern geocentrists are creationists," you bear of the burden of proving that they are. please feel free to do so. Ungtss 18:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you bear the burden by claiming that some exist. I have cited examples of modern geocentrists that are creationists. I have seen no cited examples to the contrary. Joshuaschroeder 18:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no, you bear the burden, because you wish to act upon your assertion. there are a lot of people in this world who don't have computers, schroeder. some of them are geocentrists. Ungtss 19:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have met my burden as is plainly seen above: all the cited modern geocentrists are creationists. Furthermore, I didn't ask you to make a citation to a computer. You could, for example, cite a text available in the library. Joshuaschroeder 19:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you have not. you have not met your "burden" for anything, period. Ungtss 13:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simply stating something to be so does not make it so. I have demonstrated:

• Modern geocentrism is based on belief in biblical interpretations that God created the world to be the center of the universe.

• You have not demonstrated that. Creationist modern geocentrism is such a belief. modern geocentrism is at the center of the universe, whether created or not. you're conflating two disparate topicsl you are using your personal research on the internet to make a bald assertion that there are absolutely no modern geocentrists who are not also creationists. i challenge you to back up this assertion with a cited scholarly statement that there are no such creatsures.

So here's the question: is creationist modern geocentrism the only form of modern geocentrism. I submit that it is. Please, show me why I am wrong. I also submit that the topics are not disparate because there have been, at length, many discussions within the creationist community and by people who write on the creationist community regarding the ideas of modern geocentrism (both pro and con). Some creationists are opposed, some are neutral, some are in favor. This is akin very much to the vapor canopy idea or to any number of other specific creationist ideas that are claimed to be connected to creationism. I understand, Ungtss, that you think the issues are separate. I think that this needs to be expressed in the article (and it is my opinion that this idea is expressed). However, the people who are creationist modern geocentrists see their ideas as following from creationism (witness the Buow quote). To deny this categorization is to prevent someone who is doing research on the wide range of creationist ideas from reaching these ideas. I'm not saying that they are right or wrong, that's not the place for wikipedia to be. However, modern geocentrism is definitely a topic that engages creationism from within (i.e. the modern geocentrists call themselves creationists). Why would modern geocentrists try to publish in TJ otherwise? Are they just delusional when it comes to their own categorizations? How can we tell? Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK they tried to publish only after Dr Faulkner published articles showing how misguided they are.203.213.77.138 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Debatable, but even if this were so, would someone who wasn't a creationist care what someone said in a creationist journal about them? Does Richard Dawkins ever try to publish in TJ? Joshuaschroeder 16:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• As far as we know, there is no person who falls into the description provided by modern geocentrism that doesn't believe the above.

• As far as we know, there are. you haven't provided definitive evidence of the ABSENCE of such people. i know they exist. if you want to base the link on your false assertion that all geocentrists are creationists, you're going to have to back it up. Ungtss 19:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, this seems to be a problem you have with geocentrism vs. modern geocentrism. I think you should be able to show that there exists a modern geocentrist who is not a creationist if this is a true statement. However, if something is defined in the declaration of belief to be part-and-parcel to that belief, then a positive affirmation is redundant. For example, can I ask you for a cite that whenever Abraham Lincoln was in Washington his right foot was also in Washington? Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• These same people are appropriately categorized as creationists.

• They are absoluely, categorically, not. Ungtss 19:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How so not? Here's a link that seems to indicate otherwise [3]. According to the "horse's mouth" they come to modern geocentrism from creationism. Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just because some topic is specifically categorized doesn't mean there aren't other topics that are included under the category that don't contradict said topic.

• This makes no sense. Ungtss 19:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure it does. Let's say I have a category of proper dining room etiquette and I have one article on British rules and another on American rules. The two rules contradict each other, but they fall under the same category. Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• There are plenty of citations available showing that modern geocentrists are creationists and believe that creationism's conceits define their own conclusion about geocentricity.

• Then provide one. Ungtss 19:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• All the cited modern geocentrists in the article are creationists. No evidence has been presented for the existence of a modern geocentrist who isn't a creationist. If such evidence were to be discovered, it would be worthy of inclusion in the article and the categorization would need modification.

• This is your personal research assertion. back it up with a cite. Ungtss 19:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A quote from Mark Isaak: "Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible."http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html". I don't expect Ungtss will consider this a "scholarly quote, however".

The fact that Schroeder does is further proof of his own incompetence. Isaak is neither a scientist, historian nor Bible scholar.203.213.77.138 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here are the cited modern geocentrists and cites that show they are creationists:

• Dr G D Bouw "In short: evolution is dangerous to your health." [4]
• Marshall and Sandra Hall -- authors of the widely distributed paperback, The Truth: God or Evolution?, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1975.
• Malcolm Bowden -- author of The Rise of the Evolution Fraud [5]
• James Hanson -- quote: "Geocentricity vs. Acentricity: that's the argument. Acentricity meaning there is no center whatsoever... To me, this is a hellish nightmare. This is worse than evolution, as far as I'm concerned."
• Paul Ellwanger -- author of the Lousiana and Arkansas creationists laws
• R G Elmendorf -- R. G. Elmendorf has a standing offer of $5000 to anyone who can prove to him that evolution is possible. Since Elmendorf is also a geocentrist, he offers $1000 to anyone who can prove that the earth moves.
• Paula Haigh -- [6] "We witness the immense benefits that flow from this loving submission of reason to Faith in the work of the Creationists today and in the flowering of theology during the Middle Ages. Contrariwise, we also see only too clearly today that the most pernicious and degrading errors dominate men as they refuse to submit their reason to God's Word."
• Robert Sungenis -- "As it stands, wherever Scripture addresses the topic of origins, it never teaches that the universe came about by an evolutionary process (e.g., Genesis 1-2; Job 38-42; Heb 11:1-3; Psalm 104, et al)." [7]

Please tell me how the above does not show that modern geocentrists are creationists. If you have any other modern geocentrists we can research, please let me know. Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ignores the geocentrists from other cultures.203.213.77.138 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We aren't talking about geocentrists from other cultures. We are talking about modern geocentrism which is defined on the page as a mainly Judeo-Christian conceit. Joshuaschroeder 16:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to write an article about such a limited topic, start one entitled Modern geocentrism of mainly Judeo-Christian conceit. This article is about modern geocentrism. any geocentrist alive today comes under that umbrella, including the many who aren't creationists. Ungtss 22:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason this article was originally written was exactly to deal with this "limited topic". If you think it is is misnamed, we could consider renaming it to "geocentricity", for example, but I think "modern geocentrism" is a good name. You seem to be worried about representing the aborigines who believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, but they are just primitive geocentrists who happen to live in modern times. The juxtaposition of "modern" and "geocentrism" signifies people who know the scientific evidence for heliocentrism/geokineticism and nonetheless believe the Earth is the center of the universe. Nobody would, nobody does, do that without a "good" reason, and the only reason I have ever heard of, the only one I can think of, is belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible. Art Carlson 07:25, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

We already have a section on the different technical forms modern geocentrism can take. Perhaps we can resolve this dispute with a section like the following:

Cultural varieties of modern geocentrism

Modern geocentrism can exist in many different cultures and be motivated by many different considerations. The following is a complete list of the various known cultural forms of modern geocentrism:

1. Creationist geocentrism, e.g. Bouw and Sungenis

Art Carlson 07:59, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Support

It should be in the creationist category because all modern geocentrists consider themselves creationists. Joshuaschroeder 05:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Communists and Nazis considered themselves evolutionists. So shall I put their articles in the evolution category?138.130.201.112 14:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Completely different. National socialism and communism were political movements. Evolution is a scientific paradigm. Modern geocentrism and creationism are the same type of endeavor. Joshuaschroeder 15:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again, an obsessive atheist like Schroeder purports to lecture us on what creationists and geocentrists are. Fact is, all leading Nazis and Communists were evolutionists, not to mention all New Agers, all astrologers ... so Schroeder can't reasonably use his alleged "all As are B" (even though he has not even proven that, as Ungtss says) to justify putting A in the B category unless he is prepared to be consistent. Rather, the fact that the overwhelming number of Bs are not A is ample justification for not including A in category B.203.213.77.138 07:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All Nazis were not evolutionists. There was a large contingent of the SS that were pagans and believed in a direction connection of the German race to the gods of Valhalla. All communists are not evolutionists. Arguably the first church in the book of Acts was run by communists and there remain groups today such as the Bruderhof who are communistic in their philosophy but also believe in creationism. All New Agers aren't evolutionists -- there are those who believe that Vishnu, for example, created the universe. However, all modern geocentrists are creationists, despite Ungtss vain attempts to show otherwise. Joshuaschroeder 14:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then list them to prove this! Ungtss has adduced a number who are not. Schroder just picks on the tiny sample size of a few Western ones.

Ungtss has stated that there are modern geocentrists who are not creationists. Mind you, to adequately do this search, one must use the definition provided in modern geocentrism, not geocentrism. So we need to list all the Modern geocentrists. The list I know of is the following: Dr G D Bouw, Marshall Hall, Malcolm Bowden (author of "The Rise of the Evolution Fraud"), James Hanson, Paul Ellwanger, R G Elmendorf, Paula Haigh, and Robert Sungenis. Anyone know of any others? Joshuaschroeder 17:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About Nazism, Paganism is an evolutionary belief system for one thing, and for another, the leading intellectual justification for eugenics and racial extermination came from Darwinian principles.

Completely false. You can characterize evolution to be evil and from Satan if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to come along for the ride. Joshuaschroeder 17:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bwah -- ignore the baneful history all you want.203.213.77.138 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, this whole jaunt is beside the point and a completely different discussion. Not comparable to modern geocentrism at all. You can lump everything you dislike into one category and call it "evolutionism" if you like, but you'll need to be explicit about the way the categorization works. I have demonstrated that the modern geocentrist work referred to in this article has its roots in a creationist conceit. If you can demonstrate that Nazism has its roots in the conceit from the Origin of Species then go over there and make your case. Joshuaschroeder 16:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similarly with Hinduism -- there is a polytheistic version for public consumption, but the basis is evolutionary pantheism.

Hinduism as a unified concept is a western invention anyway. The "public" Hinduism (as you have it) is the beliefs that they hold to. Claiming that they have underlying beliefs is nonsense and shows real ignorance of the colonial history of India. Joshuaschroeder 17:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As if you'd know. What matters are the teachings of hinduism not "aunt sallys".203.213.77.138 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who made you arbiter of "what matters"? Joshuaschroeder 16:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What absolute nonsense about communism and Acts. Really, misotheists like Schroeder should stick to his fields of expertise (not that he has any) rather than spout forth on the Bible. In Acts, the contributions were completely voluntary and laid at the feet of the Apostles, not the Government.

The church was decided to be the precursor of the government. The Christians of Acts believed that one day the Church would be the government. Here's another link on the subject [8]

Means nothing. Communism is officially atheist and works by compulsion. The Apostles clearly distinguished themselves from the secular government (Romans 13), following Jesus's "render unto Caesar".

There are officials defining communism now? The etymology of the word does not really place it in any one worldview. Just because you dislike what the "Christian communists" have to say doesn't mean that they aren't Christians and communists simultaneously. Argue it with them, but I'll point out that I'm actually showing counterevidence to your claims while you have done only a lot of blustering about mine and haven't really shown anything substantial. Joshuaschroeder 16:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bottom line, if this stays in the Creationism category, although they are logically distinct, then quite a few things are going to be marked up to the Evolution category.138.130.201.112 08:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can try tit-for-tat editting and see how it goes down. My arguments are clear. If you want to make your arguments elsewhere for why National Socialism belongs in the category of biological evolution, go right ahead. Joshuaschroeder 17:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Already done -- Weikart is only the latest to document the connection.[9] In any case, the points under dispute should be resolved before Schroeder keeps on putting back his ignorant POV.203.213.77.138 05:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is not the place to make the argument. Go to biological evolution or National Socialism and do it there. Joshuaschroeder 16:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This argument fails, because the two topics are unrelated -- one has to do with the location of the earth, the other with the origin of the earth as such, it is equivalent to saying that because all atheists ascribe to evolution, that atheism belongs on an evolution template.

The two topics are related in that modern geocentrists consider the origin of the Earth to be central to its location and vice-versa. Those who oppose them see this is a false conflation, but I challenge the objector to find one instance of a modern geocentrist who does not believe that the Earth's origin is an important part of its geocentric location. Atheism is a philosophical statement about the lack of existence of a deity. Evolution is a scientific paradigm. They are totally different things. Creationism and modern geocentrism share the same philosophical assumptions about science and religion and just come to different conclusions. Since creationism can be defined very broadly from theistic evolution all the way to YEC, there is no reason to say it cannot include modern geocentrism under the Big Tent. Joshuaschroeder 15:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again, a glorious non-sequitur.

<<Atheism is a philosophical statement about the lack of existence of a deity. Evolution is a scientific paradigm. They are totally different things. Creationism and modern geocentrism share the same philosophical assumptions about science and religion and just come to different conclusions.>>

atheism and evolution address different issues, but share common philosophical assumptions about science, the same as creationism and geocentrism. atheism is about the existence of god, evolution about the development of life. but both ostensibly apply the assumptions of philosophical naturalism and parsimony in reaching their conclusions. Ungtss 15:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Atheism does not rely on science witnessed by the fact that many atheists are not scientists. Modern geocentrism relies on creationism witnessed by the fact that all modern geocentrists are creationists. If you wanted to include evolution and atheism under the category of philosophical naturalism, I would see nothing wrong with that. Joshuaschroeder 16:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you're dodging the argument again. nobody said "all atheists are scientists." it was said that "both ostensibly apply the assumptions of philosophical naturalism and parsimony in reaching their conclusions." please address what i say instead of straw men of your own devising. Ungtss 17:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that "all modern geocentrists are creationists". You are saying that, by this logic, atheism should be under the category of biological evolution. I'm pointing out why this does not follow. That both apply the assumptions of philosophical naturalism would be grounds for including both under the category of philosophical naturalism. Since modern geocentrism applies the assumptions of creationism, it belongs under the category of creationism. Joshuaschroeder 17:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, what you're saying is not true: many modern geocentrists are not creationists -- particularly those in eastern religions. but to satisfy your ethnocentricity, let's limit ourselves to western culture ... and the fact that "All modern, western atheists are evolutionists," schroeder. Ungtss 18:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not all modern, western atheists are adherents to evolution. There are, for example, panspermia proponents who are atheists. (Hoyle rears his ugly head again.) Read their critique here: [10] Joshuaschroeder 18:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

panspermia encompasses evolution -- it simply holds that life originally came from space and its evolution was "pre-programmed." e.g: "Cosmic Ancestry is a new theory pertaining to evolution and the origin of life on Earth. It holds that life on Earth was seeded from space, and that life's evolution to higher forms depends on genetic programs that come from space. (It accepts the Darwinian account of evolution that does not require new genetic programs.) It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating." They're still evolutionists. try again. Ungtss 18:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If panspermia encopasses evolution then so does baraminology. Try again. Joshuaschroeder 18:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no. according to the panspermists' self-description, "It accepts the Darwinian account of evolution that does not require new genetic programs." Creationists reject the darwinian account in its entirety. try again.

The panspermists believe in microevolution just like those who posit created kinds account for the genetic variation on Earth. The people who believe in created kinds are creationists, but they buy the argument of Darwin that there can be speciation and variation due to mutations passed through microevolution. What they reject is new genetic programs, like the panspermists. They don't believe in macroevolution as such. Likewise, the panspermists are arguing that there can be variation but no "new genetic information", to use a popular creationist phrase. Thus they also reject macroevolution. The two have the same take on the scientific viability of neoDarwinian evolution. Joshuaschroeder 18:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Once again, Schroeder misrepresents creationist teachings. Panspermists believe in real evolution, at least from the first cell; baraminologists believe in some changes which some might call micro-evolution but others refuse to call it any sort of evolution.203.213.77.138 07:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Panspermists do not believe in "real evolution". Read the article I linked. As for whether baraminologists believe in microevolution or not, when it looks like a duck, etc... Joshuaschroeder 14:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

panspermia as defined on that page leaves open the question of the origin of the new genes. should a panspermist believe that the genes were designed by someone in space, then he would become a proponent of intelligent design, thus a species of creationist. should he believe that those seeds came about naturalistically, without design, then he would remain and evolutionist. Ungtss 19:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So it is your contention that if the atheist panspermist believed that alien beings designed genes, he would be a creationist? Joshuaschroeder 19:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For purposes of the creationism template, yes. Ungtss 19:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then we are in disagreement about the definition of creationism because it is my contention that no one who is an atheist can possibly be a creationist. Joshuaschroeder 19:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creationism, by definition, involves belief in "creation." God, aliens, Vishnu, whatever. the creationism template reflects this view. Ungtss 20:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not how it's defined on the creationism page. It's not belief in creation by aliens, but rather belief in creation by a deity. Unless the aliens are a deity, this does not count. Joshuaschroeder 20:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Raelism defines this one. a religious movement asserting that the genesis account is a report of creation by aliens called the Elohim. Ungtss 21:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a belief that the deity is an alien. Is that necessarily true? Joshuaschroeder 21:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deity is a subjective term. The Indians considered us deities. You said, "unless the aliens are a deity, that does not count." In Raelism, the aliens are considered deities. And if I met the panspermist who is seeding the universe with life, i'd probably consider him a deity too. Ungtss 22:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, Deity is well-defined. I understand that Raelism considers aliens deities, but unless it is true that aliens are necessarily deities then it isn't true. Since it is only true under the assumptions of Raelism-type arguments your strawman completely fails. Joshuaschroeder 22:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You, sir, are talking absolute nonsense. deity is not well-defined. deity is a subjective and relative term -- consideration as a deity is a function of the believer. As stated above (and which you utterly ignored), the american indians considered the europeans to be deities. If they had believed that the europeans had created the earth in 19 days, that would have been creationism. you can redefine terms all you like, but the fact is that when definition as a deity varies widely among belief groups, then deity is a subjective term. and to individuals such as yourself, "deity=figment of imagination." Well that's cute. tell that to the indians, who were slaughtered by their deities. Or tell it to the voodoo cultures, who make their deities out of stone and wood. Ungtss 13:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cortez may have been thought to be deities by some Aztecs, but the fact remains that by the straightforward definition provided in the article deity, Cortez was not a deity. I am not the one redefining terms. You are the one who is claiming that the definition provided on the page is inadequate. I challenge you to find one currently living Native American who believes Europeans are deities. Joshuaschroeder 17:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, schroeder, that a being is a deity by virtue of the attitude of worship adopted by the worshipper. should an alien have created life on this earth, and somebody decided to worship it, that alien would be a deity to the person worshipping it. Ungtss 19:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. This goes back to the definition on the page which adequately addresses your comment. Some may consider aliens to be deities, but unless every person that believes that aliens created life are deities, your point about the Raelians fails to address general panspermia. Joshuaschroeder 23:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

.You're setting up another false criterion. you're requiring that every person believes that the aliens were deities has no basis in reality. creationism is about creation. raelians believe aliens created, and revere the aliens as deities. panspermists believe aliens created, but don't revere the aliens as deities. but they both believe the aliens created. your requirement that people worship the creator is artificial. maltheism is another counterexample. i know you like to categorize things to your advantage, but they serve no purpose when they lack any link to reality. Ungtss 17:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While claiming I'm setting up a false criterion you have completely lost sight of the conversation. To recap, you claimed that all Western atheists believed in evolution. I pointed out that there exists a group panspermists who label themselves as atheists and believe that life was created by aliens without the use of biological evolution. You alternatively claimed that this group in reality were believers in biological evolution (a claim they deny) or that they weren't atheists because Raelians consider aliens to be deities (a claim they would also deny). Now you are claiming that it is simply a case of misidentification and that creationism doesn't imply reverence for the creator so these atheists are really thesits. Joshuaschroeder 21:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i simply followed your bad arguments wherever they led -- perhaps not the most tactical approach. your claim that there are no geocentrists who are not creationists is bald personal research unbacked by any cited claim. you will find no such cited claim, because your assertion is false. geocentrism and creationism can and do exist entirely independently of one another. secondly, if, in fact, geocentrism is a type of creationism, then it is absolutely relevent and essential to have cited and sourced creationist views on geocentrism. but you, my fine, intelligent friend, will break any rule necessary to force your ignorance on others. so which is it? is geocentrism a type of creationism (so that mainstream creationist interpretations of the geocentrism verses become not only relevent but essential) or is geocentrism not a type of creationism (in which case the template should be removed)? Or, in mr. schroeder's happyland, do you get to have your cake and eat it too? Ungtss 14:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geocentrism is a type of creationism so that mainstream creationist interpretations of geocentrism is essential. Since this is a possibility according to you, it looks like you are in agreement as to the categorization of this article. Thanks! Joshuaschroeder 15:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good. then the mainstream creationist interpretations of the verses in question and the mainstream take on geocentrism and the bible are appropriate for the article. thanks. 203 or 138, take it away:). Ungtss 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you know, 138/203's edits are being discussed above. We are currently working out the appropriate way to do this and hopefully will have an edit that satisfies everyone in short order. Unfortunately, we are still having trouble with the wording and some of the content that they are claiming are worthy of inclusions. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your current tactic is to remove the focus of the section from the intent and meaning of the text. please stop. Ungtss 15:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

edit warring.

<<(rv -- what part of dispute resolution does 138 not understand?) >>

it is extremely unjust to require that your version stay on the main page, and that his be relegated to the "other." Why not change the "other version" to "your version" to end this dispute? But no. you must have your version on the main page, and continually edit war. Ungtss 15:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You set it up to be that way. I'm only following your lead. Joshuaschroeder 17:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've decided, in light of this, to put up a request for page protection. Joshuaschroeder 17:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply allow your version to be the "other version?" Ungtss 17:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not ask him? Joshuaschroeder 17:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After all, the tag says: "Please do not revert to the other disputed version unless it is decided on the discussion page that this should be done." Joshuaschroeder 17:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I set the twoversions up on your version. he's obviously not content with that. He wants to have the position you claim, and he certainly has as much right to it as you do. it takes two to edit war. perhaps you'd be willing to assume the position you're requiring of him, to end the edit-warring you so abhor? Ungtss 17:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming neutrality in this dispute, Ungtss? I don't see you trying to get him to stop his edits even though it is explicitly against the policy in the tag you added. I think page-protection will do just nicely. Joshuaschroeder 17:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not supporting his editing in spite of the tags. but i'm suggesting that you could resolve this conflict by simply assuming the subordinate position you're requiring of him. Ungtss 17:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Ungtss. It was duly noted. Joshuaschroeder 17:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schroeder is clearly unwilling to have even a compromise that gave equal space to both sides.203.213.77.138 07:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schroeder is clearly unwilling to allow articles that do anything but what he wants them to do. Ungtss 13:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From RFC

Wow. I think the essential nut of the debate has been long obscured. To me, that is this: Geocentrism, whether modern or otherwise, would probably not exist if it weren't for historical creationist beliefs that the earth is fixed in the heavens. To me, that alone argues for placing it in the category of Creationism. This seems a harmless thing to do, for organization's sake. Katefan0 04:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Totally missed the point. Geocentrism came from the pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy, and in modern times was first opposed by the creationists Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton. For this reason alone, it doesn't belong in the creationism category, no matter how much antitheists like Schroeder want to play the guilt-by-association play.138.130.201.112 08:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there is "geocentrism" and then there is "modern geocentrism". Katefan0 is correct in her characterization of modern geocentrism. 138 is corect in his characterization of geocentrism. He is also incorrect in calling Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton creationists. Joshuaschroeder 16:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see your points. But the page we're debating is "modern" geocentrism, right? So then... I don't see why this isn't a pretty cut and dried affair. I claim no knowledge of the theistic beliefs of most of the folks you mentioned, except Galileo, who while not Godless was most decidedly not a creationist insofar as geocentrism was concerned. But now we're getting off the track of the debate again. Katefan0 18:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see why this isn't a cut-and-dried affair. Above I have listed all the modern geocentrists I know about and links showing them to be creationists. Joshuaschroeder 23:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense -- Galileo was most definitely a creationist, and if you think his creationism had nothing to do with the geocentrism debate, the same is just as true of modern geocentrists who happen to be creationists. Schroeder is logically challenged at the best of times, but here he can't even tell the difference between theories and proponents of these theories. Even if he were right (and UNTGSS has shown that he is not) that all modern geocentrists are creationists, he will not have shown that geocentrism is part of creationism.

Why should we accept Schroeder's word over Provine's about Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton being YE creationists? Provine is an atheist with no axe to grind, while Schroeder is a nobody and atheist with an axe to grind to try to link creation with geocentrism.203.213.77.138 04:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creationism as a term wasn't around when Galileo, et al. were doing their work. To categorize them as creationists is about as reasonable as categorizing them as holocaust deniers. Joshuaschroeder 16:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have a definition for creationism that is used by those that believe in modern geocentrism as justification for their beliefs.

You should also quit the personal attacks. They don't really lend your argument that much in the way of legitimacy. Joshuaschroeder 16:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should lead by example. you made the first personal attack here, referring to 203 as a troll. i know it's useful to criticize others for things you do, but it doesn't lend a whit to your credibility. Ungtss 17:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time for me to take sides. Creationism is an important part of the world view of all modern geocentrists, pretty much by definition. There may be geocentrists in the bush who are not creationists, but they would also not describe themselves as "modern" geocentrists. This article is not about them. Looked at from the other side, of all creationists, one sub-type is modern geocentrists. Since modern geocentrism must be classified as a (idiotic, fringe, disgusting) type of creationism, it belongs in the category. The majority of creationists don't have to be happy about that. The article makes clear that they are indeed upset by that. I have spent some effort battling cold fusion. I don't think fusion is actually involved in any way. I think the proponents are unscientific and give the rest of us a bad name. Still, because the believers claim it is fusion and it is impossible to make sense of the cold fusion phenomenon without talking about nuclear fusion, it belongs in the nuclear fusion category. In exactly the same way, geocentrism belongs in the creationism category. Art Carlson 07:58, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

I agree completely. The rest of this dross about Galileo et al (not to mention the personal finger-pointing) is just obfuscating the real debate. Let's all take a deep breath. Katefan0 20:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder's crusade

Reading the history of the modern geocentrism article, one sees that Joshuaschroeder is single-handedly blocking all edits proposed by 203.213.77.138, 138.130.201.112, and a few other users. In most cases, this must be considered bad Wiki practice. In this case, I say bully for him! I do not agree with him on every point and I would try to be more conciliatory on the Talk page, but when push comes to shove, he is defending the article against bad edits and explaining his actions on the talk page with arguments that in any case have much more content and less personal attacks than those of 203 and 138. I would be more active myself if I had more time or if Joshuaschroeder were not taking care of most of it already. I'm just saying this for the sake of anyone causually dropping by. I doubt that Joshuaschroeder's self-confidence is really in need of a boost. Art Carlson 07:58, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

you've managed to avoid the fact that because a group is a subset of another group does not make their belief a type of the larger group (for instance, if all compuers were blue, that wouldn't mean that computer was a type of blue). you also managed to gloss over the fundamental difference between the two -- the issue they address -- namely, the fact that geocentrism is about he position of the earth while creationism is about its origin, and through it all, you've managed to (without explaining it) support the exclusion of cited, summarized creationist views on geocentrism. at wikipedia, we have our cake and eat it too. geocentrists are creationists "by definition," but creationists are not authorized to express cied, sourced views on this (or any other) creationism page. you conclude by saying "time for me to take a side." Ironic. You came here already having taken a side. excellent work, sir. Thanks for bald proof by assertion that the edits in question are bad. And thanks for supporting the crusader. We heretics thank you. carry on. Ungtss 14:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with the substance of the debate, but I'd like to remind all the anon users working on this article (who hopefully are reading the talk page...) that Wikipedia has a semi-policy of creating an account before making substantive changes to existing articles. Makes it much easier to communicate. Katefan0 16:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

fundamentalists.

would the evolutionists please police your fundamentalists? schroeder is blocking edits by anyone who disagrees with him wholesale, removing cited and attributed povs with vagueries like "this version is more natural." how can you people look at yourselves in the mirror? Ungtss 20:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, your pov-pushing is heroic but misses many points. First, the issue of reference frames is being discussed above. I am not budging on this until it is agreed upon above. Secondly, stating something is "plainly metaphorical" is hardly NPOV. Citing the AiG article is nice, but again, it's being discussed above. Just because you cite something doesn't mean it necessarily should be included in the article. Joshuaschroeder 20:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the view of it as "plainly metaphorical" is attributed. your argument that "metaphorical interpretation" is an oxymoron for purposes of this article takes the absurd viewpoint that there are no metaphors in the bible. just because something is cited is not justification for deleting it, either. Ungtss 20:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete "metaphorical". I deleted "plainly", an adjective that is not attributed. The problem isn't with metaphor, it's with "plainly". Joshuaschroeder 20:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you didn't mean what it sounded like you said, because what you said was even more absurd. the sentence says "They hold further the description of the Earth as a footstool in Isaiah to be a plainly metaphorical indication of God's power" They hold it to be a plainly metaphorical indication. it's attributed. How in the world is that an oxymoron? And beyond all that, if your problem is one word, why do you not fix the word, instead of repeatedly deleting entire swaths of text? Ungtss 20:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replaced that sentence with "Many hold the description of the Earth as a footstool in Isaiah to be metaphorical indication of God's power rather than an indication that God literally rests his feet on the Earth." The other sentences are not part of this discussion. Joshuaschroeder 22:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"plainly metaphorical" is the oxymoron in this context because many literalists use the word "plainly" to indicate "literal". In other words, it's like saying "literally metaphorical". Joshuaschroeder 22:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nobody but a sophist would say that "plainly metaphorical" means "literally metaphorical," nor that every single word in the bible should be taken literally with no room for metaphor in any passage, ever. plainly metaphor means plainly metaphor. biblical literalists leave room for metaphor in many passages, and (applying your 'find it published or it doesn't exist' approach to argument, i challenge you to find a single person who says "there is not a single metaphor in the bible." you're talking absolute nonsense again. would an evolutionist with some sense please stand up for reason and step in here to end this nonsense? you lose credibility when you let fundamentalists speak nonsense for you, unchecked. Ungtss 22:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Normally superlatives are discouraged on Wikipedia, but since you're talking about the opinion and interpretation of a group of people, I don't see what harm there is in using the word plainly, personally. Katefan0 22:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of editorial style. Consider the two options "a plainly metaphorical indication" and "a metaphorical indication". One phrase assumes that the metaphorical indication is somehow "plain". The other phrase doesn't make any claim to whether the interpretation is "plain" or not. The term "plain" is used in many different contexts, but in the discussion of biblical interpretation it is most often used to mean "literal". It doesn't have to mean that, but when someone is talking about a "plain reading" of the bible they usually aren't talking about a "metaphorical reading" of the bible. Joshuaschroeder 01:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking a little bit. I read plainly in this context as "clearly." As in, obviously metaphorical. If there is some sort of semantic problem in Biblical interpretation of the word, then why not just use "clearly" or some other synonym instead? Katefan0 01:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Katefan:). perhaps using the word "obviously" would solve this controversy. eh, schroeder? Ungtss 11:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"obviously metaphorical" at least doesn't seem to be an oxymoron, but I'm confused as to why this particular adverb is necessary. It does seem a tad redundant. I'm curious as to exactly why this is an "obvious" metaphor as opposed to some other passage in the bible. Is it because it is "obviously" impossible for God to have feet? Or is it because it is "obviously" impossible for there to be a literal throne in heaven? Joshuaschroeder 06:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reference please

<<Another interpretation of the supposed geocentrism implied in the bible is that the Earth is the spiritual centre of the Universe, if not the physical centre.>>

can we back this up with a reference, please? Ungtss 14:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Throw it out. (I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid of getting caught in the crossfire.) The Bible doesn't actually say anywhere that the Earth is the center of the universe, so it makes no sense to interpret the meaning of "center" (or of "centre"). The interpretation of "motion" is an entirely different matter. Art Carlson 14:53, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Thank you for your objectivity, sir:). Will do:). Ungtss 14:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't throw it out. AiG says the Earth is a spiritual center of the universe here: [11]

The AiG quote does not say "the center" -- it says "a center" -- and it certainly makes no reference to "interpretting the supposed geocentrism implied by the bible" -- i corrected it appropriately. please end your crusade to prove that the bible supports geocentrism. also, frame of reference in its most basic form does not require calculations about relativity. read the article. it's about trains travelling in different directions. it is perfectly appropriate here. your tactic in this case is to try and remove any nexxus to principles of reason and science, to relegate this section to purely "religious" terms. The shoe fits. Leave it on. Ungtss 18:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hate to spoil the party when the two of you agree on anything at all, but I don't follow this one. Why is it relevant what an organization that is emphatically not geocentrist thinks about the spiritual center of the universe? Having a reference from AiG does not make the statement belong here any better than before. Art Carlson 18:56, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

It's not relevant. but getting rid of it entirely is beyond our reach right now, because schroeder will insist on it despite its irrelevence. my only hope is to make the sentence reflect what AiG actually says. not optimistic about that either:(. Ungtss 19:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be right, Art Carlson. I don't know that the statement belongs here, but it is an argument that seems to come up frequently in creationist squabbling over modern geocentrism. I won't object to the argument's removal. Joshuaschroeder 19:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

takes two to squabble, schroeder. please consider the total irrelevence of the text the next time you revert my deletion of it. Ungtss 20:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reference frames.

schroeder, what in the article reference frame do you not understand? if you're on a train, then from your reference frame on the train, the earth is moving backward. similarly, if you're on the earth, then from your reference from, the sun is rising and setting. the term is absolutely appropriate there. your only purpose in deleting it is to prevent religious people from sounding like they've gotten past the 8th grade, since projecting the religious as ignorant is a convenient delusion of yours -- please justify yourself. Ungtss 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frame of reference is a concept that is technically derived from the integral transform in either Galilean or general relativity. It is basically a concept used for the convenience of theoretical calculations rather than observations. Technically, it is an over-specification to claim that a qualitative description is a specification of a reference frame. To specify a reference frame implies specifying the mathematical transform required from the physical inertial frame to the reference frame in question (a task that Art Carlson and I have spent many paragraphs discussing). Because the surface of the Earth is a non-inertial, non-differential frame in both the Galilean and the GR sense, such a transformation is fairly difficult to come by. The idealization that the sun rising is a observational perspective from an observer on the Earth more than adequately defines the condition, but this is not a calculation. To avoid the technical jargon confusion, it is better to eschew use of frame of reference altogether. I'm not trying to relegate the argument to purely religious terms, it is an argument that is better captured without appealing to transforms. Joshuaschroeder 19:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are once again committing the logical fallacy of arguing that because a term is used in one area, it is only used in that area. reference frame refers to any number of things, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with relativity or transforms. consider the International Terrestrial Reference System, which "describes procedures for creating reference frames suitable for use with measurements on or near the Earth's surface" and "defines a geocentric system of coordinates using the SI system of measurement." your application of the term in one area does not mean it can solely be applied in that area. reference frame is much broader than relativity. geocentric reference frames are used for convenience all the time. your argument is empty. The term fits precisely.Ungtss 19:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reference frames they are describing are still about relativity. If you want to perform experiments that are dependent on inertial physics (e.g. measuring the conservation of momentum) you need to specify the non-inertial nature of "lab-frame". This is done by specifying a transformation from inertial to a frame that does a better job of approximating the theoretical predictions of the relationships between forces and inertia. For example, they specify fictitious forces that are expected to be found due to Earth's rotation. In short, a reference frame is a physical construct that is intimately interwoven with relativity. Joshuaschroeder 19:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Red herring. the relativity of which you are speaking applies here perfectly, as the sun DOES move relative to a person who is stationary on the earth. but your argument that it must be relevent to transforms to use the term is patently false. reference frames is about more than transforms. Ungtss 19:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that relativity necessarily applies to this condition (as per described in the rest of the article), but as you can see from the description of reference frames on the linked page, they involve transformations (in the case on the page, they only use Galilean transforms -- the article could use an improvement from that angle).

You are correct in stating that the article describes the use of transforms in the context of reference frames. you are incorrect in stating that the phrase "reference frame" may never be used without involving the use of a transform. to again repeat the obvious, look at this link, describing reference frames. notice how it refers to reference frames in the context of the motion of the earth. notice how the word "transform" does not appear on the page. schroeder. you're wrong. get over it. Ungtss 22:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. A reference frame is only defined in physics with respect to a basis. In some sense, you can only define a reference frame without a transformation with some very complicated aparatus. While the "reference" you have provided is a cute introduction, it doesn't address the point I'm making which is that the article after this paragraph deals at some length and in some detail with how the surface of the Earth is or is not a frame of reference. The problem is that in the most strict and technical definition of a reference frame, it isn't clear what you are talking about with respect to this issue. The fact is that if you don't define reference frames with respect to transformations, you have to set up a consistent basis that is practically impossible to do from the sense of an actual observation. Here is a much better resource on the issue: [12]. To be perfectly pedantic, a sentence that would be better would include: "the biblical authors were speaking about observations which could be described by a [[[frame of reference]] appropriately set-up to take into account the non-inertial and non-differentiable effects associated with a suitably appropriate approximation to the macrophysical state of the surface of the Earth." Joshuaschroeder 22:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are using an unnecessarily "strict and technical" definition. your unnecessarily strict and technical definition is only PART of the full definition. the use of the word in the text fits the normal definition used by normal people all the normal time. It's sheer nonsense for you to say that one cannot use a term for normal purposes simply because it is also used for highly technical purposes. nonsense. Ungtss 22:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Ungtss will kindly refer to the remainder of the article as well as the discussion that was archived above about what it means to choose the surface of the Earth as a reference frame, he will see that the reason that I'm using such a definition is because the definition itself is part-and-parcel to the article. Joshuaschroeder 02:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if schroeder will kindly refer to the article itself, he will realize that his highly technical application is only PART, but not the WHOLE, of reference frames, therefore making his repeated deletion of this link absolutely unjustifiable. Ungtss 02:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate to me that the mathematical definition of reference frame is only partially defined by what I outlined above? Joshuaschroeder 02:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point you're still pretending not to hear, schroeder, is that the "mathematical definition" is only part of the FULL definition of reference frame. it is demonstrated by the wikipedia article, which is not all about math, and also by the other link i gave you, which makes no reference to transforms whatsoever. Ungtss 02:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What part of the definition of the following definition of reference frame isn't not covered in the FULL definition of reference frame? A reference frame is a coordinate basis that spans a space, generally given by an orthonormal set of basis vectors. Joshuaschroeder 03:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the above sentence is scrambled, i will assume that you're asking, "What part of the full definition is not included in the following definition?" my answer is, "A frame of reference in physics is a set of axes which enable an observer to measure the aspect, position and motion of all points in a system relative to the reference frame." the first sentence of the wikipedia article. yes, it can be highly sophisticated basis vectors and transforms. it can also be a very simple set of axes. Incidentally, the word "basis" and "orthonormal" do not appear in the wikipedia article on the topic. Ungtss 03:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If your're only fighting over the choice of "perspective" vs. "reference frame", you might consider using "perspective". Art Carlson 07:12, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

I don't like that because the passages do not define a reference frame. However, it may be the best compromise available. Joshuaschroeder 13:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Mr. Carlson. However, having taken a look at perspective, i'm afraid that none of the links are relevent to the idea as used in this article:

I said perspective, not perspective, that is, a wiki-link to the article reference frame, piped to the word "perspective". It is a bit awkward and possibly misleading. Art Carlson 07:02, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Ah:). I fear the reader would make the same error i did:). Ungtss 13:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Perspective (visual) refers to some of the information in the visual scene that allows an observer to perceive the distances and sizes of objects. Specific types of perspective in visual perception are linear perspective, texture gradients, and aerial perspective.
  • This doesn't work, because we're talking about relative motion, not size and horizon.

• Perspective (graphical) refers to the graphic representation of objects on a planar surface to give an illusion of the objects in three-dimensional space.
  • This doesn't work, because we're not talking about graphical illusion.

• Perspective (cognitive) refers to a theory of cognition in which the choice of a context or a reference (or the result of this choice) influences how we sense, categorize, measure, or codify experience, typically for comparing with another. One may further recognize a number of subtly distinctive meanings, close to those of Point of view, Weltanschauung, and paradigm.
  • This doesn't work, because we're not talking about cognitive perspective, but instead we are talking rather explicitly about frame of reference. frame of reference is the most appropriate term here. it explicitly refers to relative motion, which is exactly what we are talking about here. i cannot fathom why mr. schroeder wishes to have it excluded. his argument that because the term has technical uses means it cannot be used in its normal, everyday sense boggles the imagination. Ungtss 21:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have come up with a workable compromise. As such, I have changed the wording yet again. I have included a reference to Horizontal coordinate system which is what I think is really the issue here. It is definitely true that one can adopt such a coordinate system and then the passages described do not hold geocentric signficance. Joshuaschroeder 22:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

excellent:). thank you:). Ungtss 01:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reference frames II

would someone with some reason please explain to mr. schroeder what a reference frame is, along with the fact that reference frames can be used and described without the use of any transform? thanks. Ungtss 22:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most bible scholars and creationists

I thought we had a consensus, but then Ungtss made a strange change from a statement that simply said that the use of terms can be seen as a choice of coordinate systems to a statement that implied that the bible scholars and creationists in question were actually making the argument about the choice of coordinate systems. Since I'm not sure "most" bible scholars and creationists get that nuanced in their descriptions of this, I reverted the edit to the previous version. I do think that most bible scholars would agree with the argument, but the argument isn't one that is based on bible scholarship. This is not to ridicule religious people or bible study or even creationism, but it is simply to say that the argument is not made necessarily by them. And please, Ungtss, don't start listing all the cites where AiG or ICR goes off in their detail critiques. I understand that's what they are doing. I just don't think their arguments are necessarily from the perspective of bible scholarship, that's all. Joshuaschroeder 20:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, schroeder. how many cites from theologians and apologists not from AiG or ICR do you want? Let's start with three, none of which are from AiG, and ALL of which summarize the view i articulated on this page, and which you are repeatedly censoring without the slightest hint of justification.

1) "When Scripture uses observational language, such as describing the sun as "rising" (James 1.11) it or the earth as "fixed" (Ps 96.10) it does not intend to teach us the actual physical relations between the sun and the earth, rather it intends to teach us about God's faithfulness and sovereignty. In fact, geocentrism rested upon deductions from Scripture which were not "good and necessary"" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6).[13]

Fine and good, but this actually seems to support my argument that most dealing with bible verses don't explicitly mention coordinate systems. This is actually an argument that makes no claims to such an effect. Joshuaschroeder

2) "Of course, the earth IS the center of interest to us, and is the only known place where spirits inhabit bodies. It can be "central" in that sense without being "central" in a physical sense. Furthermore, it can be assigned the role of center for our coordinate systems, though at a price: we end up having to change the laws of physics to compensate in a way that is obviously contrived and unnatural. This is all in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, particularly as it relates to rotating coordinate systems." [14]

Whew, the folks over at EWTN are obviously not trying to be rigorous in their apologetics because they confuse a lot of issues here. First of all, saying that we are using the Earth as the center of our coordinate system is ambiguous. The horizontal coordinate system I linked to uses the observer as the center and not the Earth. The statement that the compensation is "obviously contrived and unnatural" is also pretty odd. In some sense, all mathematical physics is "contrived" and I'm not sure how any consistent physical model can be said to be "unnatural". Finally, the use of Einstein's General Relativity to talk about rotating coordinate systems is extreme overkill. One can describe fictitious forces using only Newtonian formulations. The major point here is that these people are effectively not making the arguments in the physically proper way. They may be referring to proper arguments, but they certainly aren't making them. Joshuaschroeder 05:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

your opinion of the quality of the argument is irrelevent. the argument is made. Ungtss 14:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the argument isn't made because they are talking about a coordinate system which is different from the horizontal coordinate system. Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

YOU are the one forcing us to talk only about the horizontal coordinate system. they are talking about coordinate systems generally. red herring. Ungtss 16:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how I am the one forcing since you agreed to the compromise. We could remove the sentence altogether if you'd like. The problem is that the coordinate system EWTN is talking about is ill-posed. I'm not saying that this should be mentioned in the article, but if this is your only evidence that bible scholars use the argument that appears in the article, I'm afraid that it isn't good enough. Joshuaschroeder 16:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i don't have a problem with the compromise. it is ludicrous to say that articles are only relevent insofar as they fit the compromise precisely. Ungtss 20:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3) "In the pages of the Remnant, since this topic has come up, I have seen at least half a dozen times where some writer has claimed that "Scripture supports the geocentric scenario," or words to that effect, however not one Scriptural verse or passage as ever been cited in support of such an extraordinary claim, nor can one be. (Doubt me? Go back and look!) Everyone just seems to have been taking it as proven that "Scripture supports geocentrism," "Scripture supports geocentrism," "Scripture supports geocentrism," as if one were reciting a mantra, but no one anywhere has ever actually shown it." [15]

Again, this doesn't explicitly mention coordinate systems either but rather claims that geocentrism doesn't provide any actual evidence for their claims. It's an alternative argument, to be sure, but it is not the one made in the aricle. Joshuaschroeder 05:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred to you, schroeder, that your unilateral hijacking of creationism pages is analogous to henry morris hijacking evolution?

I suppose if someone is dogmatically convinced that there is actually evidence for Morris' position then they might think that this is true. On the other hand, I don't see many scientists trying to make claims about spiritual warfare, for example. If part of an article claims to be about science, it should be about science. If part of an article claims to be about religion, it should be about religion. Joshuaschroeder 05:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

your false segregation of religion and science both causes you to force religion into a corner with no connection to science, and causes you to fail to see your own religion. Ungtss 20:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your pov warfare is quite simply obnoxious, and a discredit to those holding your beliefs. if you had reason on your side, you wouldn't behave this way.

Interesting claim. Let's take your argument at face value. Does this mean that someone who is behaving obnoxiously necessarily isn't following reason? You think you could set up that syllogism for me to show how this isn't fallacious (or at the very least, proof by assertion)?

No. it means that those who have reason on their side don't need to resort to censorship. they simply best bad arguments with better ones. you don't do that. you censor arguments. that's fear. Ungtss 14:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I might remind Ungtss that we aren't here to debate, we're here to write an encyclopedia. What he calls censorship I call editorial good-taste. Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And you are the sole authority on what is good taste. thanks, schroeder. i'm glad you're willing to force us all to accept your distorted views on good taste. Ungtss 16:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you think my views of good taste are distorted, you can always RfC. Joshuaschroeder 16:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why, so we can get more driveby systemic bias in which people cast their votes without reason or policy, but don't care, because they've been raised to hate creationism? Nah. that's your tactic. i prefer reason. Ungtss 20:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you'd let creationist arguments stand, and you'd best them.

I suppose that by "let the creationist arguments stand" you mean that I should never edit anything that is put into this encyclopedia by someone who is a creationist. We aren't, however, here to debate topics (however much I enjoy these little exchanges with you). We're here to present information. When a creationist puts up information is false, the solution isn't just to write, "The preceding sentence is false because blah, blah, blah". That's not the ideal way to write an encyclopedia.

We are here to describe creationism and geocentrism. you are refusing to allow that to take place, because you will not allow cited and sourced creationist views on the page. you prefer to fill pages with your own nonsense, on the view that it's more encyclopedic because you think it's right. Ungtss 14:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, just because something is cited doesn't mean it is worthy of inclusion. It needs to be relevent to the topic and it needs to be editorially useful to the article. I'm happy to look at things you dismiss as nonsense, but it is clear that you are interested only in reviving the unencyclopedic "views compared" page on these subjects.

i don't want "views compared." i want "views described." you, on the other hand, insist on "views suppressed." Ungtss 16:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

instead, you consistently engage in pov obstructionism which drives you to the limits of absurdity. please stop. you don't know or CARE what the majority of biblical scholars say on the topic. you are not qualified to impose your ignorance on these pages. Ungtss 21:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Despite what you think, I both know and care what the majority of biblical scholards say on a given topic. Your quotes above have only further shown my suspicions to be correct in this regard, for example, and I thank you for providing them. Joshuaschroeder 05:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cute. Ungtss 14:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, on your earlier nonsense about geocentrism being a type of creationism. consider this, from evowiki, certainly not a creationist biased place.[16]:

Eventually, both Catholics and Protestants have accepted heliocentrism, except for a few holdovers to this day. Those are the modern-day geocentrists. They are young-earth creationists, but with the additional belief of geocentrism. Most YECs are heliocentrists, but they show more or less tolerance to geocentric views. Creationist heliocentrists sometimes criticise the geocentrists for being dogmatic about geocentrism, but they always qualify their statements by saying that the Bible and science permit both geocentrism and heliocentrism.

They are young earth creationists, with the ADDITIONAL BELIEF in geocentrism. i know this won't make any difference to you (reason never does). just thought it was an interesting fact you might want to ignore. Ungtss 21:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should draw a Venn diagram with Young Earth creationists and modern geocentrists on it and see which parts are empty sets. I actually think evo-wiki got it wrong in their last sentence because there are a lot of YECs that aren't so tolerant as evident by the AiG articles. Joshuaschroeder 05:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that's a good idea. let's look at it this way. can i be a YEC and a geocentrist? yes. Can I be an OEC and a geocentrist? yes. Can i be an intelligent design creationist and a geocentrist? yes. Can i be a pagan and a geocentrist? yes. geocentrism doesn't answer any of the questions those modes of creationism ask -- it's totally independent. you have to answer TWO questions: "what kind of creationist am i?" and "where do i think the earth is in the universe?" Two questions. two issues. not related. can i be a both a YEC and an OEC? no. same category. just like the evowiki article correctly stated. but you're ignoring so you can lump geocentrism (and now flat earthism!) in with creationism. Ungtss 14:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring my point completely. In a Venn Diagram of views people actually hold we have Modern geocentrists and Young Earth Creationists. You seem to think that there exists modern geocentrists who are not YECs, despite the interminably long discussion showing that, yes indeed, all modern geocentrists we could find are YECs. I even pointed to their own statements to show that this was the case. Joshuaschroeder 16:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no point to ignore. geocentrism is of a totally different category than creationism in such a profoundly obvious way that it's apparently too obvious to see. you can be ANY TYPE of creationist, and STILL be a geocentrist or a non-geocentrist. they are totally unrelated. your empirical argument that all geocentrists are creationists (unbacked with any facts except your own repeated demonstrations of your own ignorance) are irrelevant and show your profound inability to exercise basic logic. even if all computers are blue, that doesn't mean that computer is a type of blue. period. non-sequitur nonsense. Ungtss 16:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you find this so apparent. However, as shown above, except for the two anon users, everyone else seems to think it obvious that modern geocentrim be categorized under creationism. You are incorrect in saying they are totally unrelated. The rest of your diatribe holds no relevence to the issue at hand. Joshuaschroeder 16:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my comments on this topic earlier on the page; it should be categorized with Creationism. Katefan0 17:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Before withdrawing again from the endless nonsense, I will summarize the facts and arguments which you have repeatedly evaded for weeks on end in your crusade to falsely categorize geocentrism with creationism.

1) If geocentrism is a form of creationism, then heliocentrism is too, because heliocentrists believe that God created the Earth to revolve around the sun. Perhaps heliocentrism belongs on the template?

All the modern geocentrists we know about believe in creationism and see an intimate connection between the two beliefs. Not only are there many heliocentrists who are not creationists, but even those who are do not see the two beliefs as part and parcel. Art Carlson 21:02, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

There are many, MANY geocentrists who are not creationists, and do not publish books or websites. Ungtss 23:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2) you are making a bald personal research assertion, unbacked by any cite, that all geocentrists are creationists. that assertion is contested by me. you haven't backed it up.

He has backed it up by showing that all modern geocentrists mentioned in the article or the discussion, i.e., all the ones we know about, are creationists. That is prima facie evidence, meaning if you are not able to provide evidence that throws doubt on the assertion, it stands. Art Carlson 21:02, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

that's personal research, based on our own scans of google and the library. without a cite making his questionable empirical claim, it does not stand. Ungtss 23:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3) even assuming that all geocentrists are creationists, that doesn't make it a type of creationism any more than the fact that all computers are blue makes computer a type of blue.

If all computers are blue, then computers are a type of blue thing. Art Carlson 21:02, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

but not a type of blue. similarly, if all creationists are theists, that doesn't make creationism a type of theism. his assertion is that geocentrism is a type of creationism. the asserted fact that it is an empirical subset does not make it a type of creationism. Ungtss 23:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i know the fine wikipedia community wants to use this as another opportunity for guilt by association against those heathen creationists, so i will submit to the nonsense. i'm just laying this out here, for the record, so those who choose to ignore reason are at least forced to read about it first. thank you. that is all. Ungtss 19:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean the discussion on the matter is closed? Joshuaschroeder 08:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Until someone else with their head on straight comes around and points out how wrong you are, yes. Ungtss 12:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More Ungtss editorializing

Ungtss continues to push his problematic wording and added sentence regarding AiG's disagreement with bible skeptics despite being unable to adequately justify himself. As such, I have reverted for the second time back to Art Carlson's version, with the small change of making the "Bible scholars" "biblical scholars". Joshuaschroeder 15:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schroeder, why are you authorized to revert without explanation, and then demand explanation from me? Here is my explanation: it is directly related to the topic at hand. it is about geocentrism in the bible, and how geocentrism is used in many contexts including astronomy, so the bible is not less valuable or meaningful for having done so for limited purposes. now please, for the first time in months, provide a rational argument to defend your censorship. Ungtss 15:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not related to the topic at hand. The topic at hand is biblical references to modern geocentrism which are passages refered to by modern geocentrists from the bible that they claim prove modern geocentrism. Nowhere is there any comment about bible skeptics, so dig is made without justification or cause according to the intent of the article. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"However, the majority of biblical scholars and creationists believe ..." Is that supposed to imply that creationists are not biblical scholars? If the majority of creationists have the same view as the majority of Presbyterians and Coptics, why are they singled out here? Art Carlson 19:36, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

um ... i suppose because biblical scholars may not be creationists and creationists may not be biblical scholars? Ungtss 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The opinion of those creationists who are in no sense biblical scholars is not relevant here. I vote for striking the phrase "and creationists". Art Carlson 06:24, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Why is the opinion of biblical scholars the only one that is relevent? Ungtss 12:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because the topic is "Biblical references". I suppose you could motivate a connection if you say something like "However, the majority of biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues such as creation, believe ...". Art Carlson 12:53, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Sounds good to me:). Ungtss 13:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also object to Ungtss's wording "the Bible does not endorse". What the Bible does or does not endorse is a matter of opinion that is the subject of this article. Joshuaschroeder's "need not be taken as a biblical endorsement" is properly neutral. Art Carlson 06:24, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Not when it describes a point of view. Ungtss 12:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When what describes a point of view? Joshuaschroeder's wording makes it clear that this passage describes a POV, not an uncontestable fact. Art Carlson 12:53, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Schroeder's version doesn't attribute it. it says, "could be seen" instead of "the majority of scholars see." that's what i'm after. the attributed, positive version is more precise and encyclopedic than schroeder's "well it might be this" version which borders on personal research. Ungtss 13:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then how about "Such descriptions are considered to reflect the most convenient choice of a local coordinate system and not to endorse geocentrism." ? The precedent of the passive verb is "the majority of biblical scholars" (or similar formulation) from the previous sentence. Art Carlson 14:55, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Sounds great. would you be willing to make the edit? schroeder tends to revert edits by me before reading them. Ungtss 15:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coordinate systems

The astronomy doesn't use a geocentric coordinate system. But either a heliocentric one or one based on the center of our home galaxy. --Pjacobi 22:33, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

i'm afraid that's simply untrue.[17] Ungtss 22:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, Ungtss, did you actually look at the cite you made? The coordinates talked about are for telescope positions on planet Earth and have nothing to do with celestial coordinates. Joshuaschroeder 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Telescope positions, schroeder, are used in astronomy. perhaps this link would also be useful. [18] Ungtss 23:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The coordinate system mentioned, Ungtss, is similar to the longitude-laditude coordinate system. As such, it is a coordinate system that is confined to the 2-sphere of the Earth's surface. Everything not on the surface of the Earth is not in this coordinate system. All I'm saying is you picked a very poor example to bolster your claim. Pjacobi is talking about coordinate systems relating to the positions of celestial objects. You are talking about coordinate systems for describing positions on the Earth. Joshuaschroeder 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dana Romero's contribution to wolfram's page on geocentric coordinates is pretty good. His definition of geocentric coordinates are that they are any set of coordinates which assumes the observer is not moving. I suppose that's a fine definition, but, again, it's not quite what Pjacobi is talking about. He's talking about a universal coordinate system that assumes the entire Earth is not moving which actually places weird constraints on the rest of the universe. In actuality, an observational coordinate system only contains half the universe at any given time because the other half is below the horizon. Joshuaschroeder 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. perhaps i could have selected a more telling link, as i did in my second post. but the fact remains the geocentric coordinate systems are used in science, and there is therefore nothing inherently "unscientific" about them. that's the only point i'm after. Ungtss 23:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Equatorial Coordiantes defined at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/EquatorialCoordinates.html are heliocentric coordinates as you can see from the fixed conversion formula to galactocentric coordinates. Neither the realtive position Earth-Sun nor the Earth's orientation enter here. You only use geocentric coordinates for things on earth or near earth. --Pjacobi 23:18, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

you still use them. and it's not unscientific to use them. that's the only point of this sentence. Ungtss 00:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi makes an excellent point here. Though the cdt system is tied to the Earth's celestial sphere, it is in actuality not tied to Earth's reference frame. It assumes a spinning Earth! Joshuaschroeder 23:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and NOW schroeder brings in the reference frames. having spent days telling us that wasn't permitted, and we could only talk about coordinate systems, suddenly they're used to his advantage. anyways. as you wish, gentlemen. until we meet again. Ungtss 23:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a request

i've noticed, schroeder, that you have a habit of saying, "it's been settled on the talkpage" when in fact you've said nothing of substance whatsoever. in this case you said "As per discussed in the talkpage, a "geocentric coordinate system" is ill-posed with respect to the article. The observational vs. absolute cdt systems are unneccessary anyway)" this "ill-posed" argument does not appear on the talkpage. in fact, you don't give the slightest explanation of what you mean. similarly, your argument that things are "unneccessary anyway" is not here. please actually discuss things before claiming to have settled them. failing to do so gives the impression that "because schroeder has spoken, it is so." while in your reference frame that is certainly the case, fortunately for the rest of us, we live in a world of relativity. thank you. Ungtss 00:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was discussed. When you mentioned the EWTN text, I explained why talking about a reference frame with the Earth at the center is ill-posed. Joshuaschroeder 00:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you didn't talk about reference frames there, schroeder. in fact you said we weren't permitted to talk about reference frames at all, because it is "too technical." so you decided to talk about horizontal reference frames, and then decided that didn't apply either. none of those arguments explain why anything is "ill-posed." they don't even explain what ill-posed means. reality please. thank you. Ungtss 13:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, I don't think it worthwhile to waste my time trying to educate you on the finer points of coordinate systems, frames of reference, and transformations involving these. When you're ready to listen, let me know. Joshuaschroeder 18:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

clearly you don't, despite the validity of my arguments. it's been that way for months. so when you're ready to listen to something besides your own voice, let me know. Ungtss 18:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<<despite the validity of my arguments.>> --> Your arguments are based on misconceptions, misinterpretations, and at times deliberate denial of fact. Take for example the bit above about the Cosmological Principle being unfalsifiable. Even after both Art Carlson and I clearly stated why you were wrong, you persisted as though you had some understanding of the Cosmological Principle that was eluding us, despite the fact that you know far less cosmology as demonstrated by the few attempts you have made to argue in the subject. Now you are at it with reference frames and coordinate systems, which it seems you still have a hard time wrapping your mind around because you balked at the suggestion that someone could use a reference frame to describe a coordinate system (or at least, claimed that I said we weren't "permitted" to talk about reference frames). If you want to remain in a state of argumentative ignorance, be my guest, but don't go accusing me thenb of being closeminded. Joshuaschroeder 18:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you considered a "clear demonstration," i considered, "nonsense." you did not demonstrate the falsifiability of the idea. you tried to redefine falsifiability to suit your ends. similarly, having said that a discussion of reference frames was inappropriate, you are now using them to argue against the geocentric nature of coordinate systems. it's cute how you think when you say things and people disagree, they're ignorant. Ungtss 18:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"having said that a discussion of reference frames was inappropriate" --> to be clear, I said that a discussion of reference frames in the part of the article dealing with Biblical references was inappropriate. The article talks a lot about reference frames and I welcome discussion of reference frames here on the talkpage. "you did not demonstrate the falsifiability of the idea. you tried to redefine falsifiability to suit your ends." --> If you'd like, we could organize a poll and see whether the falsifiablity of the Cosmological Principle is demonstrable or not. Joshuaschroeder 19:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

on your first point, i want that section to talk about reference frames (as it should), but you won't allow it -- you're requiring something less relevent, like coordinate systems, and then critiquing the inferior coordinate system explanation on the basis of the superior reference frame explanation. on your second point, i'm not in the business of consensus science. i believe that most people are wrong most of the time, so i have no interest in basing my opinions on the opinions of others. i'll leave that means of attaining ignorance to you. Ungtss 19:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why my edit is better

Here are the problems and why my edit is better:

"a literal interpretation on other issues such as creation," --> the phrase "such as creation" is misleading since many modern geocentrists claim their literal interpretations are about creation. We can simply say that they take a literal interpretation on other issues.

um, this doesn't mean anything. have you read the sentence in question? "However, the majority of biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues such as creation." try again? what does your "explanation" have to do with anything? Ungtss 21:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand JS's argument. Are you sure you're not engaging in the knee-jerk reversionism that you accuse him of, Ungtss? My original question was why we need to mention creationism at all at this point, and I haven't heard any reason for it yet. Do you have one? Art Carlson 08:55, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

my "knee-jerk reversion" was to protect your formulation against schroeder's persistent requirement that we confine ourselves to his views on everything. my apologies for protecting your version. reason? very clearly: to make it clear that the vast majority of creationists reject geocentric arguments from the bible as lunacy. since geocentrism has been redefined by schroeder as a type of creationism, the views of creationists become relevent to this page. the view of the vast majority of creationists is that the bible does not support geocentrism in any fashion. what more reason do you need? but more importantly, what is harmful about noting that fact? Ungtss 16:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jehosaphat, you guys are difficult! How about "who tend to a literal interpretation on other aspects of creation" or "who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues such as the duration of creation"? Art Carlson 19:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Well, that makes more sense than what was there before, I'd say, but why not just leave it simple "a literal interpretation on other issues such as creation"? Joshuaschroeder 17:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who objected to that formulation?! Art Carlson 20:15, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I copied more than I intended. What I would prefer is simply "a literal interpretation on other issues". the phrase "such as creation" should be eschewed. Joshuaschroeder 22:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're still lacking a "why." your interchangeable use of "i would prefer" and "should" should be eschewed. Ungtss 02:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"...believe that the above passages do not support a universe centered on an immobile Earth, but are instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author, much like the use of the present-day use of the words sunrise or sunset...." --> this is a runon sentence. I broke it up.

That's not a runon sentence. you put in "..." where there's actually a "." it is a complete sentence that makes a complete point and comparison, and is less effective when broken apart. Ungtss 21:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is too long for good style and easy comprehension, but JS doesn't go far enough. I propose not just a redistribution but actually making a new sentence, like this:

However, the majority of biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues, believe that the above passages do not support an immobile Earth. They see them as natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author, much like the common use of the words sunrise or sunset. In their view, the language used reflects the convenient choice of a local coordinate system rather than an endorsement of geocentrism.

Art Carlson 08:55, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I would prefer the following: "However, the majority of biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues, believe that the above passages do not support modern geocentrism. They see them as natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author, much like the common use of the words sunrise or sunset. The language used can be seen just as a reflection the convenient choice of a local coordinate system rather than an endorsement of geocentrism." I think the "imobile Earth" is an awkward synonym and modern geocentrism is closer to the criticism. Also, I think that we should consider the "can be seen" as I explain below. Joshuaschroeder 16:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schroeder's formulation is fine with me, with the exception of "can be seen." Ungtss 16:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At least that takes care of the run-on sentence. "Immobile Earth" is a bit awkward, if accurate. I wanted to express the fact the the verses don't actually deal with the location of the Earth at all, but at most with whether or not it is moving. "modern geocentrism" is more a sociological phenomenon than a belief, and the question is whether these passages support any kind of geocentrism. I would at least leave out the "modern". Art Carlson 19:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Fine by me.

"Such descriptions are considered to reflect the most convenient choice of a local coordinate system and not to endorse geocentrism." --> they can be considered, but is by no means required that one consider them that way.

they are considered to be such by the majority of biblical scholars, as indicated by the context. the view is attributed, and should therefore be stated in a positive way, rather than the watered down, unattributed, personal research-style weasel-wording you prefer. Ungtss 21:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can live with either formulation, but what is wrong, JS, with saying they are considered so (by the majority of biblical scholars)? Nobody is suggesting (at least right now) that we should say they have to be considered so. Art Carlson 08:55, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

The problem is with the conflation of the majority of biblical scholars and a very physical argument. As Ungtss pointed out up above, many biblical scholars who talk about this subject get their physics wrong. This isn't to crticize them, only to point out that they aren't necessarily conversant with the way physical arguments are made. As such, stating that "the descriptions can be considered" is better because it allows for the variation of the sophistication of physical arguments made by biblical scholars (as demonstrated above). Joshuaschroeder 16:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you have stripped the argument of any "physical sophistication" whatsoever. if you're concerned that "less sophisticated views" are not sufficiently represented, perhaps you'd like to provide some? Ungtss 16:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments are usually more convincing, Josh. Care to concede this one just to show your magnaminity? Art Carlson 19:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what point I am supposed to concede. Biblical scholars that I have seen cited talking about the bible passages in question do not make sophisticated physical arguments. This was beautifully demonstrated when Ungtss tried to list the arguments that were made in regards to this discussion. While it is true that one can use sophisticated physical arguments to back up assertions that the descriptions in the bible are not supposed to be taken as explicitly and absolutely geocentric, this is not necessarily the way the arguments in actuality are made. The biblical scholars I've seen who talk about such subjects generally make arguments that are either nonphysical or lacking in sophistication. Stating that "the descriptions can be considered" is a true statement and it doesn't require any revisionism as to what is actually stated by the biblical scholars. Joshuaschroeder 17:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. I finally understand what you are getting at. But I think both of you are picking nits. Art Carlson 20:15, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

I would very much like to cite those arguments coming from creationists and bible scholars. i'm particularly interested in citing and sourcing AiG and ICR, who have spoken directly to the topic in great detail, explaining the reference frame explanation. why does mr. schroeder insist on excluding them again? Ungtss 02:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is all, Joshuaschroeder 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

by the way, this is not a discussion. this is you "informing" the rest of us of your decision to override everyone's opinion but your own. "discussion" involves allowing input other than your own delusion. in the future, please discuss, rather than "informing us of the will of schroeder." thank you. Ungtss 21:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another Ungtss addition

" Further, creationists from Answers in Genesis argue that it is poor practice to draw cosmological implications from verses which are only remotely related to such issues, if at all."

This statement is very peculiar. What exactly is "poor practice" in regard to? In regard to bible interpretation? In regard to science? In regard to the nexxus of the two? What is it?

Also, the section doesn't mention "cosmological implications" of the verses except for this additional statement. I would argue that the verses have little to do with cosmology, unless you are talking about it in the medieval sense in which case I don't understand thte quote at all.

All in all, I don't think this is a very good addition. Please, Ungtss, if you would defend it here so we can see what you are getting at. Joshuaschroeder 19:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i would greatly appreciate it, schroeder, if you would end your practice of deleting things entirely because you have a critique. if the sentence is not clear, fix it. only delete it if it is incorrect or irrelevent. i have changed the sentence in line with your suggestions. if you have more suggestions, improve, rather than deleting everything anyone but you adds to the page. thank you. Ungtss

Your improvement is enigmatic: "They also argue that it is bad practice in biblical interpretation to draw cosmological implications from verses that are not about cosmology." --> what do you mean by cosmological implications? As I pointed out, the section doesn't mention "cosmological implications". Are you trying to imply that it is bad practice to draw scientific implications? If that's the case, I think that this is an interesting albeit peculiar critique coming from a creationist. Joshuaschroeder 21:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your personal opinion here of the quality of the argument is irrelevent here, as it is everywhere else. the view is attributed to its source, and makes sense to anyone capable of rational thought. your nonsense argument this time is that verses used to argue that the earth is at the center of the universe do not draw "cosmological implications." if the nonsense inherent in your own argument is not apparent to you, no elucidation from me will help. also, please refrain from personal sarcastic remarks in edit summaries, and refrain from the total deletion of relevent and attributed points of view. thank you. Ungtss 03:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shroeder. your "objections relate to the quality of the argument. your opinion of the quality of the argument is irrelevent. only policy and article quality matter. you have not identified a reason for the deletion of the text on grounds of policy or article quality. i cannot discuss your "arguments" unless you make some. Ungtss 04:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

read what, schroeder? there's nothing up there. and why are you deleting quotes from scientists like einstein on the same topic? Ungtss 04:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)