You were misrepresenting quotes. Now you introduce yet another new topic.

Of course relativity can be falsified, it makes predictions. So what?

The firmament makes it confusing. And the waters above the firmament. This makes it seem like the sun and moon cannot be millions of miles away but must be closer to the earth inside the firmament. Then above the sun and moon is the firmament, and above the firmament is vast amounts of water and above the water heaven. The stars and planets are inside the firmament and it is an optical illusion that when we look at them with telescopes they seem like they are far away. Otherwise, where and what is the firmament? The Bible speaks of it. Was that a falsehood? I always pictured the firmament as being a sphere around the round earth above the atmosphere. I have heard prots say that the firmament was destroyed during the great flood, and the water that came down as rain was the waters above the firmament falling down, so now there is no longer a firmament. They also say the sun was above the firmament and the firmament used to protect us from the sun's radiation, which is why people used to live to be nine hundred years old and now they usually die before one hundred.

I see it is obvious Stanley that debating with you is a lost cause. You put up numerous quotes that show relativity shows that a geocentric or heliocentric system are both feasible. I answered that they are not when it comes to a heliocentric and geocentric stellar aberration. In otherr words, Einstein's Special theory of Relativity is falsified showing that the M&M test cannot be interpreted heliocentrically and thus we are left with the M&M test showing no orbiting earth therefore no heliocentrism.

I haven't put up numerous quotes (someone else did), nor to the best of my knowledge have I said both systems are "feasible".

Special relativity doesn't apply in all circuмstances. In particular, in gravitational fields that significantly warp space-time, general relativity (GR) must be used. GR also has its limitations. But as far as I know, stellar aberration is not among them; a relativistic analysis of aberration can be found many places on the web.

Also, while they are not much in favor among practicing scientists for various reasons, there are alternatives outside GR and geocentrism. An argument against GR would not be an argument for geocentrism unless it ALSO ruled out all the alternatives. You should not assume tertium non datur.

I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures

Even if one conceded the 1616/1633 docuмents condemned "heliocentrism" back then, and even if one conceded these were infallible, it would be moot.  The sun being motionless was an essential component of "heliocentrism" back then, as is evident from the docuмents from 1633. Nobody today holds "heliocentrism" in that form.

Your thread topic was YEC. I'm inclined to put a wrap on discussing geocentrism here.

Father, it has now been nine months since the publication of your book, and it seems to have stirred up some controversy!
Indeed, it has. And while I did not write the book for that purpose, I did anticipate that it might make some waves.
 
You also gave the example of light above.
Yes. That example shows how the historical sciences rely on the laws of nature being consistent throughout time, as well as space. Looking into a telescope is like looking at the history of the universe in the trails of light coming from galaxies. The history is true, however, only if the laws for light have remained the same throughout time.
The light from the Large Magellanic Cloud that I can see here in Australia, for instance, would seem to be 163,000 years old. If God changed the speed of light, however, in 2,000 BC, my calculations would only be valid for the last 4,000 years. The same would hold true for any other calculations I would make about other galaxies. It would be the death of astronomy.
 
And you are saying that is what the YECers want?
No, I don’t think they want that necessarily, but it is certainly what the Reformers wanted. Regardless, YEC adherents must come to grips with the fact that such is the result of their theology, whether they like it or not. Their position makes religion an enemy of science and reason.
 
Which eventuality, I take it, you are not fond of?
Indeed, no. My entire book after all (not just chapter 7!) is about maintaining a proper harmony between religion and science, between faith and reason. This has always been the Catholic spirit. St. Augustine famously says that we must show the world that there is nothing in our sacred books that conflicts with reason. Catholics hold that reason is a precious gift from God and that He wants us to use it for His glory, not destroy it for His glory.
 

You're right, that's the problem. He is operating from the presumption that the scientific data on the distances of stars correlating with their age is true, and then proceeding to interpret Scripture on that basis. When it should be the other way around. Science should always be subordinate to Theology, just as Philosophy is Theology's handmaid. It should never be done that we start from a scientific presumption and then work backwards up to Theology, otherwise you wind up with heresy and error.

The whole idea that we could figure out the age of stars, much less their distances, is just silly.  It’s a scientific fairy tale.  We can’t even get to the moon (that was faked to get funding for nasa, which used the trillions of dollars of the last decades to send up satellites for GPS and surveillance...the moon fakery funded the big brother system and modern war...all to bring about world govt and antichrist).  
.
These scientific fairly tales are just nonsense.  We can’t fathom the depths, brilliance, and wisdom of Gods creation, so the atheistic scientists lie that “we’ve got it all figured out”.   Remember the huge oil spill in Florida by BP year’s ago?  Scientists were screaming that the oceans and fish would be ruined.  Then what happened?  Some weird algae bacteria started eating all the oil and the crisis was over before it started.  No one saw that coming because few understand God’s brilliance.  He created the earth to work in perfect harmony, even on the natural level.  But modern science wants humanity to believe that we can “save” the planet.  What Pride!  What lies!  What silliness!