I'll mention Mal to make sure your question will be seen.
No worries. It's good that I made the time for the argument a week. I sometimes want to make it short, but I realize people often need a lot of time.
##Stellar Parallax
It does not prove anything. In a heliocentric model, on January 1, two stars are aligned. After six months of Earth's orbit, they appear misaligned due to the Earth's movement. A geocentric model, where Earth is fixed in the center, can explain the same observed phenomenon by suggesting the stars revolve around the Earth, with the sun at the center.
##Retrograde Motion
The Ptolemaic and Tychonic models both incorporate systems of epicycles and deferents that can equally explain retrograde motion, providing similar visual results to the heliocentric interpretation. All three models, Copernican, Ptolemaic, and Tychonic share the same geometrical relationships regarding the positions of planets relative to the sun and Earth, allowing them to account for retrograde motion in identical proportions.
In a notable exhibition in December 1972, Charles Eames showcased a machine that demonstrated the equivalence of the Copernican and Tychonic models in explaining retrograde motion. The Eames machine continually displayed the motions of planets, where the observed line of sight to Mars remained parallel in both models. The combined movements resulted in Mars appearing to swing clockwise during retrograde periods in the geocentric model while maintaining perfect alignment with the heliocentric perspective during close approaches.
##Venus
Ptolemy's model could have adjusted the radii of the epicycles. With larger epicycles, the model could accommodate the observed phases of Venus. Solutions exist for incorporating observations into a geocentric framework, such as allowing elliptical orbits or adjusting the configuration of the sun and epicycles. By varying the sizes of epicycles and incorporating new scaling, the Ptolemaic model could maintain compatibility with observations, including the phases of Venus. Tycho proposed a geocentric model with the sun orbiting Earth while planets revolved around the sun, effectively able to explain the phases of Venus.
##Newton
Newton chose to only focus on the Sun and the Earth. He assumed the rest of the universe wouldn't impact his equations.
##Time Dilation
Time dilation was only invented to keep the Earth moving in the Michelson-Morley experiment. The easier solution was to say the Earth was motionless. By saying the arm shrunk, they were forced to dilate the time. Time dilation makes no sense anyway.
##NASA
When sending probes near the sun, the heliocentric model is often preferred. This approach simplifies calculations by treating the sun as a fixed point while planets move around it. The heliocentric model offers clearer trajectories for missions aimed at solar or planetary targets. In contrast, the geocentric or "fixed-Earth" model is employed when managing satellites orbiting Earth. It makes navigation and tracking simpler by assuming a stationary Earth. Inquiries to agencies, such as NOAA, reveal that satellite navigation operates on a fixed Earth basis. This perspective aligns with practical operations for Earth-bound satellites.
You can't prove the Earth moves just by sending cameras to space to see if we see motion of the Earth. If the universe is moving, your camera with move with it, and it may appear that the Earth is moving. All motion is relative. Just because it looks like it's in motion doesn't mean it is.
It looks like pro is simply using ad hominem attacks. It’s not a debate about life in general but instead trying to point out inconsistencies in con’s arguments when pro is doing it more.
A nonsense debate
it's been too long, at least it's not like debate art
no one wants this
hahahahahahahahahha
Funny thing is mal was so ready to accept a debate that wasn't even his
over
This debate might be over, idk
You ignore the gift of the Holy Ghost in the passage.
You also disobey Jesus in Matthew 28:19.
You’re so low you now have your own page on the leaderboard. 😜🤭
Looks like we agree on this one
You made severial points, which I will answer.
Him chosing her doesn’t mean it’s not important. God chose the Cross. Is this Cross not important? No, it is a symbol of Christianity.
The book of Judith is deuterocanonical. Even if you don’t believe it’s scripture, it still shows how the phrase is used.
Yeah, anyone can claim that. This is how gnosticism starts.
Saying you have the spirit is just begging the question.
I did check with the Church.
“We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.”
Anyone?
I looked back and saw the translations vary between whether it is future or present. The “movement” of the Earth in this case is just from earthquakes and God’s judgment, not a rotation or revolution around the sun.
This verse is talking about end times and God’s judgment on the world. It says what will happen not what does happen. You need to read the verse.
Prove it then.
Are you a Christian who rejects the Virgin Birth?
Science got many things wrong that it corrected later.
Vatican II doesn't really give any new doctrines or dogmas, it just takes different approaches.
I don't believe the Earth is flat, I believe it is in the center of the universe, motionless.
The Church never taught the Earth was flat.
Can you cite the verse you're talking about? The Bible only says the Earth moves at the end of the world.
All scientists agree geocentrism is possible, they just don't prefer it.
I can see you don’t believe in reality.
Hmmm
Mal must be getting tired of me.
In one of my debates, Mal says you can’t add “ity” to the end of Christian. It is against sola scriptura.
