[GourmetDan]

"Stellar parallax, for example, shows that the Earth actually *is* moving around the Sun and not vice versa."

No it doesn't. It could also mean that the stars are centered on the sun and not the earth. If the stars were centered on the earth in a geocentric model, you could not get the gravitational effect needed to offset the annual motion of the sun through space.

Now, how about you explain how Airey's Failure supports a 'moving earth'?

How about explaining how the null result of Michelson-Morely supports a 'moving earth'.

Both experiments were designed to detect the motion of the earth through space and both failed miserably.

[ok_now]

GourmetDan doesn't know what he's talking about. You can see that on this thread where he demonstrates that he doesn't even know what the curvature of a cone is, something you learn on Day 1 or 2 of a basic general relativity class; yet he strangely feels qualified to lecture people on the significance of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which ties directly into relativity. (He gets that wrong, too.) (Hint: try M-M in a rapidly accelerating reference frame, and you won't see the same result)

GourmetDan is an interesting specimen indeed (much to the chagrin of those of us among conservatives who wish to be distanced from such nonsense).