Talk:Modern geocentrism

See past discussion in the archive:

• Talk:Modern geocentrism/archive1

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)

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)

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,

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)

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. ... Ungtss 15:38, 31 Mar 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)

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)

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 Qu'ran. 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)

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)