Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism

My opponent states, "1. The Bible The bible says the earth doesn't move. Chronicles 16:30 -Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. Psalm 96:10 - Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved Psalm 104:5 - He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. The bible has been right SO many times on science. In fact its listed 101 times the bible was right So its a perfectly reasonable assumption to claim that Geo-centrism is correct because the bile documents it 2. Relativity Relativity states that there is no favored frame of reference, so a geocentric frame is as good as a heliocentric one. We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. An object centering around a mass of light(sun) would in turn have no constant time frame. Since how fast you're travailing determines the time. If the earth is going 66,630 mph in space and is changing by a few mph then 1 minute cannot be constantly 1 minute as it was yesterday. The time frame of a heliocentric universe is out of wack and we would see vary ageing. Yet vary aging is not observed 3. Jump If I jump and I'm on top of a moving car. What would happen? The car would move and I would drop. So if we are going 66,630 mph through space and I jump I should fly off. Yet we I don't Because everything revolves around the earth. 4. Sun would eat it all! An object with a big mass (sun) would have a strong gravitational pull. Which would gradually absorb the gravitational fields of the planets near it. Causing the gravitational pull to increase and the planets would progress towards the sun quickly and burn up all planets. This is estimated to take 3000 years from the beginning of the sun. It (supposedly) has been 4.5 billion years with the earth. A geocentric model is the only plausible explanation." My opponent provides inadequate, and self contradictory arguments. 1. The Bible The definition of a bible; capitalized a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism) This contradicts the resolution which states that Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism. In addition science and religion are two distinct ideals that are currently clashing with each other, creationism v. Big bang theory, evolution, plate tectonics, etc. 2. Relativity Contradicts pro's resolution that scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism as relativity refutes Geo-centrism and Helio-centrism as centers of the universe. "The concept of an absolute velocity, including being "at rest" as a particular case, is ruled out by the principle of relativity, also eliminating any obvious "center" of the universe as a natural origin of coordinates. Some forms of Mach's principle consider the frame at rest with respect to the distant masses in the universe to have special properties." 3. Jump Logical fallacy ignoring Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation which introduced gravitation as the force that both kept the Earth and planets moving through the heavens and also kept the air from flying away, allowing scientists to quickly construct a plausible heliocentric model for the solar system. In his Principia, Newton explained his system of how gravity, previously considered to be an occult force, conducted the movements of celestial bodies, and kept our solar system in its working order. 4. Sun would eat it all My opponent does not take into account the Sun's motion about the center of mass of the Solar System is complicated by the perturbations from the planets. Every few hundred years this motion switches between prograde and retrograde. In addition the sun is currently losing its mass as it begins to change into a red giant which will take another 5.4 billion years (approximate) before the sun will engulf the Earth. However by then the sun will lose 1/3 of its mass which may or may not cause the earth to move away from its current orbit. Therefore his argument that the sun consumes all is void. -http://www.merriam-webster.com... -http://en.wikipedia.org... -http://en.wikipedia.org... -http://www.scientificamerican.com... -http://en.wikipedia.org...