The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[mrjesse]

The water won't hit the center and if you spin the MGR fast enough neither will the light.

But the water and light are aiming right at the center! Anyway, you're on. I've run water jets on my mill's rotating bit, and trust me, it hits the center regardless of spin speed. I don't even have to have the water pulsing, do I? I mean, if pulses don't hit the center, then a steady stream won't hit the center either, will it?

Lets say that you have a sundial and for illustration lets say that the sun is a little over 7 AU away so that it takes the light an hour to get here. When the Sun dial indicates that it is noon with regular light, where would the Sun dial indicate the direction of the Sun if light was instantaneous? One o'clock right? So where is the sun in actuality, at the noon position as you claim or at the one o'clock position that I claim?

Ahh, I like it, A gravitational sundial. Perfect.

In answer to your question above, If the sun orbited the earth at the rate of 24 hours per orbit, then yes, I agree, the optical sundial would read one hour behind the gravity sundial. (Oh I love that idea. Gravity sundial. I might built one. would that be possible?) But the fact is that the sun doesn't orbit the earth, but rather the earth rotates at the rate of 1 turn per 24 hours.

But give me a weekend or two to do the water on the merry go around experiment and then maybe we'll know more.

By the way, what is the difference between the earth rotating at the rate of 180Deg/8.5Min and a merry go around doing the exact same thing? How come one would lag the suns optical position 180 degrees from its gravitational position and not the other?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

But the water and light are aiming right at the center! Anyway, you're on. I've run water jets on my mill's rotating bit, and trust me, it hits the center regardless of spin speed. I don't even have to have the water pulsing, do I? I mean, if pulses don't hit the center, then a steady stream won't hit the center either, will it?

Remember, your water source is a barrel on the outside edge of the MGR going round in circles, not you standing off to the side with a hose spraying it on the center of the MGR. Set up your buckets on the MGR so that the stream is hitting the center when it isn't moving. As you start rotating, the spray will go off center. Can you predict which direction the stream will go, before you do your experiment?

In answer to your question above, If the sun orbited the earth at the rate of 24 hours per orbit, then yes, I agree, the optical sundial would read one hour behind the gravity sundial. (Oh I love that idea. Gravity sundial. I might built one. would that be possible?) But the fact is that the sun doesn't orbit the earth, but rather the earth rotates at the rate of 1 turn per 24 hours.

What difference does it make whether the sun rotates around the earth or the earth spins? The sun appears to revolve around the earth from our perspective. The apparent position of the sun is not the actual position of the sun. The sundial experiment holds true regardless of whether the earth is spinning or the Sun orbits the earth.

Can you think of any way that using a sundial you could determine whether the earth was spinning or the sun was orbiting the earth?

Here is another experiment you can try at home, with the proper eye protection of course : ) Go out at dawn and point a transit right at the edge of the Sun at the instant the first light appears at the horizon (it should be the same point). Now wait 8.3 minutes and measure the distance from the edge of the Sun to the horizon. That is the difference between the Suns apparent position and its true position.

[LeGrande]

So since Saturn is moving, due to orbiting the sun, then light from Saturn will have the light-time-correction apparent angular displacement. But we're talking about the SUN here which is NOT orbiting the earth! And we're talking about 2.1 degrees of displacement, which is NOT light-time-correction. (light-time correction is very small and nowheres near 2.1 degrees and is unrelated to the distance from sun to earth.) You're just trying to change the topic here!

LOL The 2.1 degrees is is exactly related to the light-time correction and the distance of the earth from the the sun. If the Sun was closer the angle would be smaller, and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger.

Okay I had to laugh about that one. Have you ever seen either a pendulum or a LRG? Essentially the same thing? Well, yeah, I guess if you take a 747 jet plane and a bicycle to be the same thing. They move you from one place to the other. While you're moving you're not standing on the ground, and when you're standing on the ground, you're not moving. Essentially the same thing. I always knew it.

Whether you are moving or not depends on your reference doesn't it? And yes the same basic principle applies to a pendulum, gyro or LRG : )

A LRG on the other hand, has no moving parts, does not use the mass of anything but rather the speed of light and the interference thereof.

Light, is the moving part in the LRG and it doesn't measure the speed of light, it measures the frequency, the speed of light is constant. A gyro doesn't measure the mass either : )

[mrjesse]

LOL The 2.1 degrees is is exactly related to the light-time correction and the distance of the earth from the the sun. If the Sun was closer the angle would be smaller, and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger.

I meant to say "Stellar Aberration" instead of "Light time correction." Please accept my most sincere apologies. It was just a hasty mistake. My point still stands. You can see that I had it right in this post.

Remember, you told me it was Stellar Aberration, which is unrelated to the distance from sun to earth. Are you changing that to Time-light-correction, now?

May I also remind you that you gave me the snow-flake-falling-while-me-moving thought experiment, which is the classical demonstration of Stellar Aberration. And it is of no use for light time correction.

So it's clear that you really meant Stellar Aberration. But Stellar Aberration is not influenced by the distance to the sun and the sun's apparent deflection due to Stellar Aberration is waaay smaller then 2.1 degrees. So which is it you are saying is the cause of the 2.1 degree lag -- Stellar Aberration, or Light Time Correction, or some other?

If this makes you feel better, here is what I meant to say:

But we're talking about the SUN here which is NOT orbiting the earth! And we're talking about 2.1 degrees of displacement, which is NOT stellar aberration. (Stellar aberration is very small and nowheres near 2.1 degrees and is unrelated to the distance from sun to earth.)

Whether you are moving or not depends on your reference doesn't it? And yes the same basic principle applies to a pendulum, gyro or LRG : )

Not when it comes to rotation. Dood, I've played with a real working live gyro. Gyros track absolute rotation around their sensitive axis if they are good enough. And light takes time to travel. So it does matter whether the sun orbits the earth or the earth spins. If light is the third body in a LRG, then light is a third body from the sun to the earth. If the sun is orbiting, then the light will actually follow a curved path -- and could go through a curved tube -- on its way to the earth. If the sun is not orbiting, on the other hand, then the light is going straight and will only go through a straight tube. Everyone knows that if you look at the end of a curved object it doesn't seem to be coming from the same direction as the other end. If the sun moves 2.1 degrees in the time that it takes 1-second long pulse of light to reach the earth, then the source direction of that light will be 2.1 degrees different then the suns current position. But if the sun didn't move, then it'll be coming from the same place the sun is - no matter how fast the earth turns.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Remember, your water source is a barrel on the outside edge of the MGR going round in circles, not you standing off to the side with a hose spraying it on the center of the MGR.

Funny, I in fact do not remember that! That's not the experiment I described.

Set up your buckets on the MGR so that the stream is hitting the center when it isn't moving. As you start rotating, the spray will go off center. Can you predict which direction the stream will go, before you do your experiment?

It looks like you want me to emulate the sun orbiting the earth rather then the earth spinning. Very telling! If you really believed that it didn't matter, you wouldn't feel the need to modify my experiment to more closely simulate the sun orbiting the earth!

However, you say that the spray will go off center - and you're wrong about that. The spray was aimed at the center, and each droplet is moving towards the center, and it'll hit the center. However, if the water jet is rotating around the center, then the path of the stream will curve and the angle at which the water hits the center will be lagged from the actual position of the stream.

I think I'll kindly do the experiment with the "sun" stationary and the "earth" rotating, thank you!

What difference does it make whether the sun rotates around the earth or the earth spins? The sun appears to revolve around the earth from our perspective. The apparent position of the sun is not the actual position of the sun. The sundial experiment holds true regardless of whether the earth is spinning or the Sun orbits the earth.

The difference it makes is that if the sun is orbiting, then the light will travel in a spiral, and will strike the earth at 2.1 degrees behind the the actual position of the sun. If the sun is not orbiting, then the light will travel in a straight path, and will strike the earth at the same angle as the sun is.

Your transit at the sun doesn't demonstrate anything at all except that the sun's angle changes with time.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

It looks like you want me to emulate the sun orbiting the earth rather then the earth spinning. Very telling! If you really believed that it didn't matter, you wouldn't feel the need to modify my experiment to more closely simulate the sun orbiting the earth!

The problem with your experiment is that for all practical purposes the center of the MGR is a fixed point. Shoot your water to the outside of the MGR and tell me what your results are.

Your transit at the sun doesn't demonstrate anything at all except that the sun's angle changes with time.

Which angle is the correct angle? At the instant you see the sun on the horizon or 8.3 minutes later?

[LeGrande]

If the sun is orbiting, then the light will actually follow a curved path -- and could go through a curved tube -- on its way to the earth. If the sun is not orbiting, on the other hand, then the light is going straight and will only go through a straight tube.

Ahh I think I see your misconception. light always travels in a straight line (shortest path through space-time in a vacuum, but lets not quibble). It is only your perception that it curves, and the perception is the same on both ends but the perception is wrong.

[mrjesse]

Ahh I think I see your misconception. light always travels in a straight line (shortest path through space-time in a vacuum, but lets not quibble). It is only your perception that it curves, and the perception is the same on both ends but the perception is wrong.

Well, I'm pretty certain that if I stand out in the yard, spraying the garden hose in a solid jet, swaying right to left that the water at any instant forms an arc shape at peak angular rate. Each drop is traveling in a straight line, but the overall swath of water isn't straight. But you're right in that the drops themselves travel in a straight line. (and that light travels in a straight line.) I would like to retract my claim that light could go through a bent tube.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

The problem with your experiment is that for all practical purposes the center of the MGR is a fixed point. Shoot your water to the outside of the MGR and tell me what your results are.

I'm telling you that even if I shoot the water onto the outside of the merry go around, it'll hit a point on the merry go around that is exactly inline between the water jet and the center of the merry go around. In other words, the angle of impact will (other then stellar aberration) be exactly from the direction of the water jet.

Which angle is the correct angle? At the instant you see the sun on the horizon or 8.3 minutes later?

I had to stop and think about that one. I hold that the sun is not rising above the horizon but rather the horizon is falling from beneath the path of the sun's light. The receding edge of the far mountain range will appear to lag, but when suns light does reach you, it will be coming from the exact direction of the suns current position. Imagine,if you will, that the sun was always just above the horizon for you, all day long and there was no night and the earth didn't spin: If someone built a tall tower and put up a large shutter to block the sun from you, then removed the shutter, there would be a delay when the light started reaching you again, but the light would still be coming from the same direction as always.

By the way, I still want to know if you're attributing the 2.1 degrees of apparent position lag of the sun to Time Light Correction or Stellar Aberration.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I just want to be clear, when you look up into the night sky and aim a telescope at Saturn, do you really believe that Saturn is exactly where you are pointing the telescope?

According to you, the actual position of Saturn is 10AU * 2.1 degrees/AU = 21 degrees from its observed position in the sky. People who are on some serious drugs might believe that. Do you believe it?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Now that the LeGrandeic 2.1 degree System is dead and buried, let's have an explanation for this (yet another) gross blunder of yours, LeGrande:

[mrjesse] Are you saying that when I look up at the night sky half the stars I see are actually on the other side of the world?

[LeGrande] They might be. They have had billions of years to move around.

So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world?

[LeGrande]

magine,if you will, that the sun was always just above the horizon for you, all day long and there was no night and the earth didn't spin: If someone built a tall tower and put up a large shutter to block the sun from you, then removed the shutter, there would be a delay when the light started reaching you again, but the light would still be coming from the same direction as always.

Ahh but the earth is spinning and the spin changes the angle of the apparent position.

By the way, I still want to know if you're attributing the 2.1 degrees of apparent position lag of the sun to Time Light Correction or Stellar Aberration.

Primarily the time light correction and spin. The Stellar Aberration only plays a small part at these distances and has factored out the earths spin.

[LeGrande]

So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world?

Think of light as a bullet that has been shot from a star. Now when we look into very distant space we are seeing the 'bullets' that they fired a long time ago. Many of the stars that fired the bullets are now gone even though we still see them shining brightly in the sky. All of them have dramatically altered their position from where we seem to see them. Earth and the distant stars have had billions of years to move around, especially in an accelerating universe.

Oh, and the light from the Sun still takes 8.3 minutes to get to us : )

[LeGrande]

According to you, the actual position of Saturn is 10AU * 2.1 degrees/AU = 21 degrees from its observed position in the sky. People who are on some serious drugs might believe that. Do you believe it?

Do you really believe that if someone on Saturn had a special light that was instantaneous that they would appear in the same exact position that you would see them with our normal light? LOL

Let me clue you in on a little secret. The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second and once the photons are sent on their way they are independent of the body that sent them. At night when you point your stick at Saturn or a distant star you are merely pointing your stick in the direction that the light at the time is hitting your eyeballs. It has nothing to do with where those objects actually are.

[LeGrande]

So how is it, in your conception of physics, that stars can end up behind us in the time it takes for their light to get to us? How is it that some stars you presently see are actually on the other side of the world?

If you would kindly answer my sniper question you would understand. Does the laser pulse hit the person between the eyes or the back of the head?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[mrjesse to LeGrande] I don't know how you can call a LRG with no moving parts a third body when its buried 10 feet deep. I think what you really wanted to say is "Without any instrument or means by which one can measure the rate of rotation, they are unable to measure the rate of rotation." But just because you deprive us from using any instruments which can measure rotation doesn't mean it isn't there!

We will soon discover that clocks, measuring rods, protractors, sextants, telescopes, and even Newton's laws are "third bodies", and thus, not allowed. We will also discover that the bodies are not really "bodies" but some magical substance that atheists like to think about that isn't made of molecules and isn't prone to rotational oblateness. Maybe the same stuff leprechauns are made of. And that the force holding these "bodies" together isn't gravity, but some magic power that can do anything LeGrande wants and can't be detected. In the end we will learn the following significant nugget of atheist wisdom: if there is no way for you to determine something, there is no way for you to determine something. And, from this, it immediately follows that the Sun revolves around the Earth, the moon is 2.1 degrees from the Sun during an eclipse, and everything is made of nothing.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

What difference does it make whether the sun rotates around the earth or the earth spins?

For one, if the Sun was revolving around the Earth every 24 hours, it would have to do so at 11,000 km/s in a circular orbit. Among the differences -- not the least of which is that this is dynamically impossible -- the speed of the Sun would be 11/300ths of the speed of light, and the corresponding relativistic contraction of the Sun would be 1.8 minutes of arc, which would be easily seen.

And the Earth can't just be sitting there spinning. It has to be orbiting the Sun. Regardless, you can deduce obvious differences with respect to the motion of the Sun against the constellations. But I bet the rest of the universe is not allowed in this pointless atheist exercise.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

What does a solar eclipse have to do with the apparent vs the actual position of the sun?

Bury your head deeply in the sand and maybe eclipses will go away. Remember, you can always fall back on invicible ignorance. Even now, its comforting shores are beckoning. But was it Philip K. Dick who said that reality is the thing that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it? Wake up! Look at the pictures. Apparent position of the Sun, actual position of the Sun, apparent position of the moon, and actual position of the moon, all in the same place. And a straight line through the real Sun, the real moon, and the observer on Earth. Dramatic, no? Much like a stake driven through an undead vampire, it rids the world of this 2.1 degree solar lag theory of yours.

[LeGrande]

the speed of the Sun would be 11/300ths of the speed of light, and the corresponding relativistic contraction of the Sun would be 1.8 minutes of arc, which would be easily seen.

LOL Whose arc? Are you still claiming that we see the sun where it actually is? Are my questions that hard to answer?

Regardless, you can deduce obvious differences with respect to the motion of the Sun against the constellations. But I bet the rest of the universe is not allowed in this pointless atheist exercise.

The point of a two body model is to simplify everything as much as possible, and reduce the number of variables.

Can you explain to me, how the sun, planets and the moon are exactly where you see them, when you know that everything is in motion and it takes time for light to reach our eyes? Does everything stop and wait in your universe until the light hits your eyes?

[LeGrande]

Wake up! Look at the pictures. Apparent position of the Sun, actual position of the Sun, apparent position of the moon, and actual position of the moon, all in the same place. And a straight line through the real Sun, the real moon, and the observer on Earth. Dramatic, no?

Tell you what, I will let you go on believing that when you look into the sky that everything is exactly where you see it. There is no need for you to understand that light actually takes time to get from the celestial objects to your eyes and that everything is in constant motion.