The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Rayze
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,598 times Debate No: 26408
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

Does scientific evidecne support geo-centrism? I am arguing yes because its true! This round is acceptance only/
Rayze

Con

I accept your challenge. May the better debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. The Bible

The bible says the earth doesn't move.
Chronicles 16:30 -Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10 - Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved

Psalm 104:5 - He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

The bible has been right SO many times on science. In fact its listed 101 times the bible was right

So its a perfectly reasonable assumption to claim that geocentrism is correct because the bile documents it

2. Relativity

Relativity states that there is no favored frame of reference, so a geocentric frame is as good as a heliocentric one.

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.

An object centering around a mass of light(sun) would in turn have no constant time frame. Since how fast you're travailing determines the time. If the earth is going 66,630 mph in space and is changing by a few mph then 1 minute cannot be constantly 1 minute as it was yesterday. The time frame of a heliocentric universe is out of wack and we would see vary ageing. Yet vary aging is not observed

3. Jump

If I jump and I'm on top of a moving car. What would happen? The car would move and I would drop. So if we are going 66,630 mph thru space and I jump I should fly off. Yet we I don't Because everything revolves around the earth.

4. Sun would eat it all!

An object with a big mass (sun) would have a strong gravitational pull. WHich would gradually obsorve the gravitational fields of the planets near it. Causing the gravatiational pull to increase and the planets would progress towards the sun quickly and burn up all planets. This is estimated to take 3000 years from the beginning of the sun. It (supposably) has been 4.5 billion years with the earth.


A geocentric model is the only plausable explaiantion.

Rayze

Con

My opponent states, "1. The Bible

The bible says the earth doesn't move.
Chronicles 16:30 -Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10 - Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved

Psalm 104:5 - He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

The bible has been right SO many times on science. In fact its listed 101 times the bible was right

So its a perfectly reasonable assumption to claim that Geo-centrism is correct because the bile documents it

2. Relativity

Relativity states that there is no favored frame of reference, so a geocentric frame is as good as a heliocentric one.

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.
An object centering around a mass of light(sun) would in turn have no constant time frame. Since how fast you're travailing determines the time. If the earth is going 66,630 mph in space and is changing by a few mph then 1 minute cannot be constantly 1 minute as it was yesterday. The time frame of a heliocentric universe is out of wack and we would see vary ageing. Yet vary aging is not observed

3. Jump

If I jump and I'm on top of a moving car. What would happen? The car would move and I would drop. So if we are going 66,630 mph through space and I jump I should fly off. Yet we I don't Because everything revolves around the earth.

4. Sun would eat it all!

An object with a big mass (sun) would have a strong gravitational pull. Which would gradually absorb the gravitational fields of the planets near it. Causing the gravitational pull to increase and the planets would progress towards the sun quickly and burn up all planets. This is estimated to take 3000 years from the beginning of the sun. It (supposedly) has been 4.5 billion years with the earth.

A geocentric model is the only plausible explanation."

My opponent provides inadequate, and self contradictory arguments.

1. The Bible
The definition of a bible; capitalized
a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament
b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism)
This contradicts the resolution which states that Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism. In addition science and religion are two distinct ideals that are currently clashing with each other, creationism v. Big bang theory, evolution, plate tectonics, etc.

2. Relativity
Contradicts pro's resolution that scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism as relativity refutes Geo-centrism and Helio-centrism as centers of the universe. "The concept of an absolute velocity, including being "at rest" as a particular case, is ruled out by the principle of relativity, also eliminating any obvious "center" of the universe as a natural origin of coordinates. Some forms of Mach's principle consider the frame at rest with respect to the distant masses in the universe to have special properties."

3. Jump
Logical fallacy ignoring Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation which introduced gravitation as the force that both kept the Earth and planets moving through the heavens and also kept the air from flying away, allowing scientists to quickly construct a plausible heliocentric model for the solar system. In his Principia, Newton explained his system of how gravity, previously considered to be an occult force, conducted the movements of celestial bodies, and kept our solar system in its working order.

4. Sun would eat it all
My opponent does not take into account the Sun's motion about the center of mass of the Solar System is complicated by the perturbations from the planets. Every few hundred years this motion switches between prograde and retrograde. In addition the sun is currently losing its mass as it begins to change into a red giant which will take another 5.4 billion years (approximate) before the sun will engulf the Earth. However by then the sun will lose 1/3 of its mass which may or may not cause the earth to move away from its current orbit. Therefore his argument that the sun consumes all is void.

-http://www.merriam-webster.com...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...
-http://www.scientificamerican.com...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

1. You just assumed that the bible was wrong on these things. When really they were right. Because those things you listed arn't true! No refutation was given on this one

2. "The concept of an absolute velocity, including being "at rest" as a particular case, is ruled out by the principle of relativity,"

You've just refuted your Heliocentric model. Thanks. An obvious "center" is different from an absolute center. Since an obvious center has the property of movement. as absolute center doesn't.
"distant masses in the universe to have special properties."

Yes you're killing yourself here. 2 Distant masses one getting smaller would decrease constant time. Con didn't reffute this argument either, he just straw manned it.

3. Newtons's theory of Universal Law of Gravitation couldn't be demonstrated. or proven by testing on earth. ALl testing with say with a telescope assumes heliocentric

4. The switching of prograde and retrograde would cause an increase in gravity to the planets. Gaining forward momentum by the conservation of angular momentum. Since the sun is losing mass in past time it would of been larger. Meaning that the momentum would of been increasing amazingly in the past. So a heliocentric model would of burned up all planets.
Rayze

Con

First before I refute my opponents rebuttals, I would like to remind my opponent that the resolution that he/she declared was, "Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism". Note that the resolution states Scientific instead of religious or pseudo-science. If my opponent had written the resolution as religious evidence supports Geo-centrism then the first contention would be valid and not contradictory. However my opponent did not do so and has been using kettle logic to try to support his/her arguments. Kettle logic is where one uses inconsistent arguments to bolster their case. In this debate my opponent has used, the Bible (don't know which version but will assume it to either be a catholic, eastern orthodoxy, or one of the many protestant denominations), Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Gravitation (jump), and the Sun consuming the Earth because of its mass. All of which plays against pro in the resolution. 1. The Bible is a religious scripture consisting of the New and Old Testaments, that conveys the teaching of Jesus Christ, not a scientific document such as Albert Einstein's theory of Relativity which used a series of scientific principles and laws such as Mach's Principle to reach the conclusion that refutes the geocentric model as a center of the universe.
2. Einstein's Theory of Relativity refutes the geocentric model as an obvious and absolute center of the Universe.
3. Gravitation is first shown as a scientifically calculable force by Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Which is later improved upon by later physicists, and is supported by the Equivalence principle which has been tested on Earth.4. The sun's mass while larger than Earth is counter balanced by forces exerted on the Solar system. In simplest terms (simple scenarios) this would be like a tug of war with the sun tugging at the planets toward it while an extra-solar force tugs the planets away from the sun.
But, I digress.

Rebuttals
1. Pro assumes that a religious document is equivalent is a scientific document which is false as creationists vehemently deny the existence of evolution, and the Copernican principles of a heliocentric model which disproved that Earth was the center of the universe and also the center of the solar system. This is because the church tried to refute the heliocentric model as heretical, by attempting to silence Galileo Galilei, and vehemently condemning any notion that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Further more the "Copernican revolution" (the transition from a geocentric model to heliocentric model) led to the theory of relativity which also refutes the sun as the center of the universe, but maintains that the sun is the center of the solar system due to observations in astronomy.

2. In the previous rebuttals I have not mentioned the Heliocentric model which is a rival of the Geocentric model, but I refuted both models as centers of the universe because neither the Sun nor the Earth are centers of the universe, which is absurd considering how the center of the solar system is the Sun, and the center of the Milky way is thought to be a super massive black hole. In addition the heliocentric model is a catalyst of scientific progress to Einstein's theory of relativity, which disproves any obvious center of the universe in our solar system. A more logical absolute claim would be the Copernican principle which states that the Earth is not in a central or favored position in relation to the universe.

3. Pro assumes that Newton's law of universal gravitation can not be tested on earth which is a false contention. The Equivalence principle explored by Galileo Galilei, Lorand Eotvos, and Albert Einstein proves that Newton's law can tested on Earth. The Equivalence principle also led to Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and also provides solutions to certain anomalies within Newton's law as well as superseding Newton's law in terms of calculating gravitational force.

4. My opponent states that, "The switching of prograde and retrograde would cause an increase in gravity to the planets. Gaining forward momentum by the conservation of angular momentum. "
This is a logical error because the law of conservation of angular momentum states, "that when no external torque acts on an object or a closed system of objects, no change of angular momentum can occur".
-http://en.wikipedia.org....
The universe itself is a closed system on a large scale, which means no change of angular momentum can occur if the law of conservation of angular momentum is correct. This would then disprove pros contentions that the Earth would be incinerated by the change of the sun's motion. Also Con states that "Since the sun is losing mass in past time it would of been larger. Meaning that the momentum would of been increasing amazingly in the past. So a heliocentric model would of burned up all planets." This is an illogical argument as based on his/her argument, my opponent assumes that the Sun has already lost a significant amount of mass when in reality the loss of mass is 10^-14 solar masses every year, or approximately 0.01% of its total mass over its entire lifespan. This loss of mass is negligible for a mainstream star while severe to a massive star as massive stars lose 10^-7 or 10^-5 solar mass significantly altering its evolution. This difference of loss of mass is because larger stars consume more fuel than smaller stars, thus the "catastrophic" events such as engulfing Earth will not occur until billions of years from now which refutes pro's argument.

Pro also accuses me of straw manning by stating, "distant masses in the universe to have special properties." Yes you're killing yourself here. 2 Distant masses one getting smaller would decrease constant time. Con didn't refute this argument either, he just straw manned it." First my opponent fails to see Mach's principle which was vague enough to allow Albert Einstein to conclude his theory of relativity. Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." Which is a general statement. It is also ironic that my opponent is accusing me for straw manning when my opponent is straw manning herself/himself.

-http://en.wikipedia.org...
-http://abob.libs.uga.edu...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...
-http://plato.stanford.edu...
-http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com... principle
-http://www.astro.ucla.edu...
-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Rayze

Con

Pro has failed to overturn my contentions while I have successfully refuted his/her contentions therefore I urge a con vote.

I have also looked into my opponents previous debates, and have learned that it is better not to accept future debates from Anti-atheist as well.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
I like the crap arguments anti-atheist gives. Are you actually religious????
Posted by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
Someone throw out this debate. Anti-atheist is a troll who pretends to be religious to mock Christians. I encourage people to disregard this idiot's views and not vote either way.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Anti-atheistRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has defenestrated himself, thrown himself in front of a bus, jumped off of a cliff, fallen from a bridge, whatever expression you want. He set himself up for a bitter failure. My vote would have been as-is whether he had forfeited the last round or not. Con calmly refuted every single point Pro tried to bring up, while Pro pulled the old 'straw man' straw man. Pro was rude, while Con was calm (conduct). Pro had poor literacy. Pro listed 0 sources, Con listed 14. Arguments is obvious.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
Anti-atheistRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because Pro forfeited last round.