With regards to doctrines of creation, it appears to be the case that most Christian denominations (minus some predominantly OEC belief systems) assert that Creation (of worlds, stars and galaxies) "ended" (See Genesis 2:1). Under various such frameworks, distant starlight is accommodated by saying that it was created in transit, or may have traveled much faster in the past than it does now, or may travel at different speeds depending on its direction, etc. The debunked idea that the ancient Israelites and prophets considered the sky to be a solid dome with stars painted or bolted onto it was based on a mistranslation of the word the KJV authors rendered "firmament". It seems likely that other misconceptions of cosmology abound. Nonetheless, the idea circulating in blogs and literature provided abundant (but untrue) fodder for mockery against Abrahamic religions and against the faithful in the Bible. Is not the theory of starlight created in transit, or whatever might be the most observationally accommodating model positing that celestial bodies are for signs and seasons to this world only, functionally equivalent to a great grandfather clock mounted on a solid dome ceiling over our Earth? If the sole purpose of remote stars and galaxies is for our sightseeing and timekeeping (citing Genesis 1:14, admittedly a very geocentric model of the universe), would not a high resolution digital light projector shining on some cosmic sheet pinned to the living room ceiling work just as well? Given the expense (in atoms, photons, planning, intricacy, variety, time) required to create such a vast array of real stars, galaxies and planets, does God intend to miss out on the economy of such additional creations, by making them "for display only"? Display is doubtless a useful purpose, but a bare minimum of hundreds of billions of trillions of real stars seems like overkill as a display for the benefit of just one planet that has, in its short existence, housed only a few dozen billion persons according to prevalent estimates. What is an overview of young earth creationist responses to this potential criticism, from various Christian denominations that hold a doctrine on the subject? Specifically, that any model that accommodates distant stars and galaxies by treating them as "for display only" reduces to the same functional argument of utility as could be answered by a solid sky dome with gears and cantilevers attached to painted glow-in-the-dark stars, or of a futuristic light show projector and planetarium screen, however detailed and sophisticated they might be?

Giordano Bruno was considered heretic because he said that Earth is not the center of the universe, which was believed to be contrary to what is mentioned in the Bible. That is what some historians say, whereas others say he was executed because he held opinions contrary to the Catholic Church. So, what is the biblical basis of the belief that Earth is the center of the universe?

In response to Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system, Martin Luther and John Calvin are reported to have responded showing their support for geocentrism. I have found the following quotes in several places on the internet, however, I have not been able to find the original source for either quote. Luther: > The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth. Calvin: > [They] pervert the course of nature [by saying] the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns. The closest thing I can find to the primary source are statements to the effect that Calvin's quote comes from a sermon, and Luther's from something called "Table Talk". I found an online document titled [The Table Talk of Martin Luther](http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Table_talk/table_talk.html) which includes a section labeled [On Astronomy and Astrology](http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Table_talk/table_talk_8.html#Heading43) but I was unable to locate this quote within it. Are these genuine quotes? Can someone help me find their respective sources?