Creationist Wisdom #808: Geocentric Genius

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Marshall Independent of Marshall, Minnesota. It’s titled Does the Earth revolve around the sun?, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Phil. This isn’t his first appearance in our collection. The last time was #792: The No-Brainer. A lot of what he says today is the same stuff he said in his earlier letter, for example:

One of the publications I subscribe to is the prestigious “Science” magazine published weekly by the American Association for Advancement of Science. A lot of smart people publish their works in it.

But Phil’s new letter also has some original material. Excerpts will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

The magazine seems hell-bent on pushing macro-evolution in almost every issue, no matter how stupid it looks. The same can be said for young age versus old age of the Earth. There is actually more evidence for a young Earth than for a billions of years old Earth, yet that evidence is never presented.

Phil said that before too, but it was worth repeating. Then he says:

Ditto for heliocentricity versus geocentricity; does the earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the earth? There still is no solid proof that the Earth goes around the sun; but it is still taught in schools as dogmatic fact. Why?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Phil continues:

Same kind of sophistry/cover-up applies to man-made global warming; nothing solid, just a lot of endless speculative propaganda.

Why does Phil subscribe to Science if its contents are so wretched? Anyway, then he ends his letter almost the same way he ended the last one:

The education establishment today is supposedly teaching kids about critical thinking. And they probably do, just as long as they don’t get too bold and start thinking outside the confines of the “politically correct science box,” and thereby discover the many faceted world of “fake science.”

You gotta admire Phil. He’s not only a creationist and a climate change denier, but he’s also a solar system denier. And he has the courage to expose Science magazine as a heliocentric propaganda rag. Great letter!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

22 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #808: Geocentric Genius

  1. Does Phil think the earth orbits the moon? And I wonder why Phil subscribes to Science when he knows so much more than the scientists whose research papers are published there?

  2. Holding The Line In Florida

    Dunning-Kruger at its finest!

  3. I found an old letter from the same guy in which he gives his evidence: More proof Earth is at the center of the Universe. Read and learn.

  4. I can see the entire universe move all around me and since I’m standing still, it is me, not merely the earth that is the center of the universe. QED

  5. Committed believer in YEC and geocentricity, but comes up short of the trifecta by denying that the Earth is flat. Back to Bible school for Phil.

  6. Michael Fugate

    When was the plural of axis, “axii”, and not axes?

  7. This guy is proof that Zombies are real!! Honest!! Obviously he is dead from the neck up and he is still walking around, therefore: Zombie!

  8. I’m glad that there are so fewer geocentrists than creationists.
    First of all, geocentrists have a positive, substantial alternative theory of the universe. And the creationists are so habituated into contradicting themselves. (I am not as familiar with geocentrists, but they don’t seem so prone to contradictions.)
    The Bible does clearly describe the Earth as motionless, with the Sun making a daily trip around the Earth. (The annual motion of the Sun is not mentioned.) And this interpretation has been backed by everybody up until the beginnings of modern science. While the Bible shows no interest about the relationships of forms of life.
    The fact of many forms of life being related is intuitively clear. There is only one known explanation for hierarchical “tree of life”: common descent with variation. The motions of the Earth – especially the annual revolution about the Sun – is complicated to explain, and not at all obvious. (It takes at least years of college-level physics and astronomy to understand.)
    It is unfortunate that many heliocentrists try to “prove” heliocentrism with arguments which geocentrists can easily rebut. It would be better, IMHO, that a heliocentrist without access to the science, would just stick to something like, “nothing in astronomy makes sense except in the light of heliocentrism”.

  9. “There is actually more evidence for a young Earth than for a billions of years old Earth, yet that evidence is never presented.” … so I will adhere to that convention and not present any either.
    Though, to be fair, it’s not his main interest, so he doesn’t really have to. But in that case, why bring it up at all?

  10. The one sort of evidence for deep time which seems to disturb YECs is the distances to stars, much more than 10,000 light years. If one denies astronomical distances, then that there is no problem. If one denies the annual motion of the Earth, then the basis of stellar parallaxes for distance can be ignored.
    Geocentrist YECs have a little easier time of it.

  11. Mike Elzinga

    Ah; but Jason Lisle has Phil beat. In Jason’s universe, light travels at infinite speed toward EVERY point in space, and at c/2 away from EVERY point in space. It is the ultimate ME-centered universe no matter where you are. Jason would be one of the most likely persons to come up with such a ME-centered view of reality. It is a “logical” extension of their sectarian dogma. Who cares if it is inconsistent with every major experimental fact that can be tested by even middle school and high school students? How can anything be more important that ME?

  12. Phil is so out of touch I’m shocked the Trump administration hasn’t reached out to him to head up NASA!

  13. Hans Weichselbaum

    Let’s go back to teaching Biblical Science. But, of course, we’ll keep all the stuff which secular science has given us.

  14. According to ‘Phil”:

    If Earth is the center of mass of the big hollow ball that rotates around the Earth, then the net gravitational effect is zero at the center of the Earth.

    But, Edgar Rice Burroughs to the contrary notwithstanding, gravity is at zero at the center of mass of the earth (or would be if the planet were alone in the universe) anyway, because the entire mass of the planet is “above” it, pulling away from it in all different directions so that the pull cancels out.

  15. Michael Fugate

    What about the turtles?

  16. “What about the turtles?”

    Good question! They would be weightless at the center of the Earth. (B^)

  17. Michael Fugate

    They would also be very melted, no?

  18. A bit overcooked, I’d say.

  19. TomS: “The Bible does clearly describe the Earth as motionless… And this interpretation has been backed by everybody up until the beginnings of modern science.” As a member of the al Biruni fan club, I object. Al Biruni was aware of the heliocentric possibility, which dates back at least to Aristarchus of Samos, and correctly stated that he had no way at the time of choosing between it and geocentrism. Actually, the absence pre-telescope of measurable parallax for the fixed stars was a pretty convincing argument against heliocentrism, unless like Aristarchus one was prepared to contemplate distances many multiples of that between Earth and our Sun.

  20. I agree with what you wrote. There were a also couple of Europeans who considered alternatives to the Aristole-Ptolemy model, too. There were internal problems with that model. I was being lazy in not mentioning that, but I I think that there was no one who suggested that the Bible should be read as other than geocentric, which is was I wrote. I think that Galileo would have mentioned any Christian who backed him up.

  21. Complaining about Science for having science? Isn’t that like complaining about Playboy for having naked ladies?

  22. Isn’t that like complaining about Playboy for having naked ladies?
    Actually for a while Playboy didn’t have naked ladies. Yep, that did nothing to improve subscriptions.