PROS of GEOCENTRIC THEORY. CONS of HELIOCENTRIC?

Question

hi im doing a debate and i need pros [[good things to support my theory]] for the geocentric model and cons [[bad thigns to prove my oppenent wrong for my rebuttle]] about the heliocentric theory. PLEASE HELP!
no google links please unless they say specifically =]

thank youuu!

Answer 1

Interesting. Good luck! Here are some historical notes about "traditional" and "modern" Geocentrism that might be useful. Be sure to click on some of the internal links (Aristotle, Ptolemy, etc.) for the reasoning they used. It might be helpful in a debate situation. For my money, the "modern" theory is much more difficult to defend unless you are a committed Biblical literalist, but you could follow some of those internal links as well to see if anything useful pops out. I'd love to watch that debate!

"Belief in the geocentric system was common in ancient Greece. It was embraced by both Aristotle and Ptolemy, and most Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circle the Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China. Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system, but he was clearly in the minority in believing that the Earth was not central.
The geocentric model was usually combined with a spherical Earth by ancient Greek and medieval philosophers. Thus, it is not the same as the older flat Earth model implied in some mythology. The ancient Greeks also believed that the motions of the planets were circular and not elliptical, a view that was not challenged in western culture before the 17th century.
The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age; from the late 16th century onward it was gradually replaced by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler."

"Modern geocentrism is a belief currently held by certain groups that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. The prime motivating factor for the modern belief, as opposed to the geocentrism of Ptolemy, is explicitly religious. Advocates generally argue that literal interpretations of certain Biblical passages demand that the Earth be properly described as being the center of the universe. Alternatively, in the case of Catholic geocentrists, scripture authoritatively interpreted by statements of Church Fathers and various Popes is used to justify their belief, even though this viewpoint is no longer endorsed by the Church itself. The geocentrist views are held in the awareness that essentially all modern scientists agree that there is no evidence that the universe has any center. Philosophically, since the concepts of center and absolute motion are not clearly defined and no evidence distinguishing any motion of the earth from motion of the universe is available, geocentrism in and of itself cannot be falsified and is therefore not a scientific theory. However, there do exist perspectives of certain modern geocentrists which run directly counter to observations and the scientific consensus. These perspectives are considered to be pseudoscientific by skeptics, similar to other religiously motivated rejections of scientific theories and data (for example, the doctrine of creationism)."

Answer 2

It's interesting to see how the creationists have so muddied up the meaning of the term "theory," and just what sort of an effect it can have. When you're talking about science, the term theory means something far more than the colloquial way we often use it. The most succinct definition I've heard is that a theory is the best explanation for a given set of facts. And by best, I mean that it takes into account all known facts and can be used to make predictions. For instance, with a heliocentric solar system, one can predict the motion of the other planets through the sky with relative ease and high accuracy. The geocentric theory, on the other hand, gave rise to the whole notion of heavenly spheres and how the planets spun around inside these spheres while spinning around the earth. If this doesn't make much sense, don't worry - it never really did. And it was not very accurate at all. It is sad to see just how tremendous the effects of these silly creationist arguments are. There was a time, many years ago now, when I used to say that evolution was "just a theory." Well, it is just a theory; I just didn't understand what a theory was.

Answer 3

Ehh... you're arguing geocentric? That's like arguing that the earth is flat. Unless your opponent is a total blithering idiot, you've lost the debate before it even starts.

Next time, pick a topic where it's at least possible to make a reasonable case for both sides!

Anyway, I'm linking to an article on modern geocentrism. Hopefully that'll prove somewhat useful.