Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism

First before I refute my opponents rebuttals, I would like to remind my opponent that the resolution that he/she declared was, "Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism". Note that the resolution states Scientific instead of religious or pseudo-science. If my opponent had written the resolution as religious evidence supports Geo-centrism then the first contention would be valid and not contradictory. However my opponent did not do so and has been using kettle logic to try to support his/her arguments. Kettle logic is where one uses inconsistent arguments to bolster their case. In this debate my opponent has used, the Bible (don't know which version but will assume it to either be a catholic, eastern orthodoxy, or one of the many protestant denominations), Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Gravitation (jump), and the Sun consuming the Earth because of its mass. All of which plays against pro in the resolution. 1. The Bible is a religious scripture consisting of the New and Old Testaments, that conveys the teaching of Jesus Christ, not a scientific document such as Albert Einstein's theory of Relativity which used a series of scientific principles and laws such as Mach's Principle to reach the conclusion that refutes the geocentric model as a center of the universe. 2. Einstein's Theory of Relativity refutes the geocentric model as an obvious and absolute center of the Universe. 3. Gravitation is first shown as a scientifically calculable force by Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Which is later improved upon by later physicists, and is supported by the Equivalence principle which has been tested on Earth.4. The sun's mass while larger than Earth is counter balanced by forces exerted on the Solar system. In simplest terms (simple scenarios) this would be like a tug of war with the sun tugging at the planets toward it while an extra-solar force tugs the planets away from the sun. But, I digress. Rebuttals 1. Pro assumes that a religious document is equivalent is a scientific document which is false as creationists vehemently deny the existence of evolution, and the Copernican principles of a heliocentric model which disproved that Earth was the center of the universe and also the center of the solar system. This is because the church tried to refute the heliocentric model as heretical, by attempting to silence Galileo Galilei, and vehemently condemning any notion that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Further more the "Copernican revolution" (the transition from a geocentric model to heliocentric model) led to the theory of relativity which also refutes the sun as the center of the universe, but maintains that the sun is the center of the solar system due to observations in astronomy. 2. In the previous rebuttals I have not mentioned the Heliocentric model which is a rival of the Geocentric model, but I refuted both models as centers of the universe because neither the Sun nor the Earth are centers of the universe, which is absurd considering how the center of the solar system is the Sun, and the center of the Milky way is thought to be a super massive black hole. In addition the heliocentric model is a catalyst of scientific progress to Einstein's theory of relativity, which disproves any obvious center of the universe in our solar system. A more logical absolute claim would be the Copernican principle which states that the Earth is not in a central or favored position in relation to the universe. 3. Pro assumes that Newton's law of universal gravitation can not be tested on earth which is a false contention. The Equivalence principle explored by Galileo Galilei, Lorand Eotvos, and Albert Einstein proves that Newton's law can tested on Earth. The Equivalence principle also led to Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and also provides solutions to certain anomalies within Newton's law as well as superseding Newton's law in terms of calculating gravitational force. 4. My opponent states that, "The switching of prograde and retrograde would cause an increase in gravity to the planets. Gaining forward momentum by the conservation of angular momentum. " This is a logical error because the law of conservation of angular momentum states, "that when no external torque acts on an object or a closed system of objects, no change of angular momentum can occur". -http://en.wikipedia.org.... The universe itself is a closed system on a large scale, which means no change of angular momentum can occur if the law of conservation of angular momentum is correct. This would then disprove pros contentions that the Earth would be incinerated by the change of the sun's motion. Also Con states that "Since the sun is losing mass in past time it would of been larger. Meaning that the momentum would of been increasing amazingly in the past. So a heliocentric model would of burned up all planets." This is an illogical argument as based on his/her argument, my opponent assumes that the Sun has already lost a significant amount of mass when in reality the loss of mass is 10^-14 solar masses every year, or approximately 0.01% of its total mass over its entire lifespan. This loss of mass is negligible for a mainstream star while severe to a massive star as massive stars lose 10^-7 or 10^-5 solar mass significantly altering its evolution. This difference of loss of mass is because larger stars consume more fuel than smaller stars, thus the "catastrophic" events such as engulfing Earth will not occur until billions of years from now which refutes pro's argument. Pro also accuses me of straw manning by stating, "distant masses in the universe to have special properties." Yes you're killing yourself here. 2 Distant masses one getting smaller would decrease constant time. Con didn't refute this argument either, he just straw manned it." First my opponent fails to see Mach's principle which was vague enough to allow Albert Einstein to conclude his theory of relativity. Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." Which is a general statement. It is also ironic that my opponent is accusing me for straw manning when my opponent is straw manning herself/himself. -http://en.wikipedia.org... -http://abob.libs.uga.edu... -http://en.wikipedia.org... -http://en.wikipedia.org... -http://plato.stanford.edu... -http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com... principle -http://www.astro.ucla.edu... -http://en.wikipedia.org...