# Intelligent Design and 6,000 years



## Ivan

Do those who promote ID believe that Earth is 6,000 years old or is it somewhat of a mixed bag?

Does anyone here believe that Earth is 6,000 years old?


----------



## Theoretical

I've heard of there being some 6-dayers in the promote-ID camp, but they are definitely in the strong minority within this movement. Most supporting ID are Day-Age Creation or Framework advocates. 

For my part, I honestly don't know what to think on this issue. I've seen strong arguments on both sides, but right now I'm inclined towards the very bad cop-out view that while I'd like to think that the scientific community isn't utterly misinterpreting all of the data to support a particular viewpoint, if I was pushed on the issue, I'd say that even though I don't have any good evidence to line up with scientific observations, I will trust the Word of God to be accurate as it is stated in Genesis. I mention the disharmony with scientific observations because I am extremely cynical and distrusting of the quality of most of the creation science research I see. I'm still not totally unconvinced of the possibilities of a framework or day-age view, but they are harder to reconcile with the text of the Word, so right now, I'm at the "I Don't Know" stage.

For reference, both of my parents are strongly in the theistic evolution camp, and they regard anyone holding alternative views, even day-agers as being ignorant or foolish. I am definitely not coming from a background where I supported 6-day Creationism or even Day-Age Creationism.

[Edited on 8-9-2006 by Theoretical]


----------



## Hungus

Sure, I am a "6,000 year"er  It is not a area of division for me though.


----------



## MW

I am as suspicious of Intelligent Design as I am of scientific creationism. It appears to me to be a sui generis based on neither faith nor science. For what it's worth, I believe in 6000 years; but at the same time I am content to allow for conflicting data between the Bible and science -- acknowledging that the Bible teaches certainty while science at best arrives at probability.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scientific "data" is like a point through which an infinite number of lines can intersect. They insist upon methodological naturalism as the only valid way to attain knowledge but that cannot be verified by their own method nor can any theory of the origin of something be determined by observing present phenomena. Whether it be the uniformity of radioactive decay or the speed of light or any number of pheonomena, it is impossible to determine an original phenomena from a present measurement.

There is such a "man behind the green curtain" aura surrounding things scientific that so many people just accept their conclusions uncritically. I'm always amazed at the fantastic stories that anthropologists will construct from a thigh bone, a jaw bone, and an arrow constructing an entire "cro-mangnum" man with bushy eybrows, dark skin, and completely assuming a muscular structure that they have no artifacts to produce. It would be like me constructing a religious system based on a few sentences of information. Much of Cosmology is no different. Sure they have amassed great amounts of knowledge about current data and may have even collected some for some years but when it comes to Origins they're just engaging in what is technically called a SWAG (Scientific Wild-A%@ Guess). But they have Dr. in front of their name so their guesses carry the weight of authority. Have you read any stuff by evolutionary biologists? Talk about fiction!

Anyhow, I'm not anti-science. I think some of the research is useful for categorizing phenomena and determining how nature functions so we might engineer new technology. But when it comes to figuring out where it all came from or what accounts for its uniformity, the Scientific Method has no answers, just guesses.


----------



## JohnV

I agree with what you say, Rich, except science is science, and theory is theory. Though theory uses science, it is not just science. True science is observation. Science can't observe the past, but only theorize on it. I agree with how you put it, except for your use of the term "science". There is a vast difference between science that puts men in space safely, for example, and so-called "science" that speculates, theorizes, and dogmatizes about the distant past.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I agree with what you say, Rich, except science is science, and theory is theory. Though theory uses science, it is not just science. True science is observation. Science can't observe the past, but only theorize on it. I agree with how you put it, except for your use of the term "science". There is a vast difference between science that puts men in space safely, for example, and so-called "science" that speculates, theorizes, and dogmatizes about the distant past.


I guess I consider Science that puts men into Space to be _Engineering_. I should have been more clear because I agree with what you just said. I think that the categorization of current phenomena is useful but when they try to use data points to, as it were, draw a line backwards into where it all came from it gets all gooned up.


----------



## JohnV

Well, there sure is a lot of engineering that goes into putting men into space. I read somewhere that the missions to the moon were worked out on sliderules, while they are working out the present plans to go to the moon on computerized simulators and work stations. So maybe its more engineering now than it used to be. But now they know that if they land on the moon they won't sink into twenty some feet of powdered dust. That's because they already landed men there on the first set of missions. So there's still a lot of science behind it. 

When I was in High School my science teacher spent a good amount of time explaining the difference between _extrapolation_ and _science_. The data may be all scientific, but the extrapolated lines still go through imaginary points, guesses that are still guesses no matter how educated they may be. As far as I know, neither engineering nor science accepts guessing as scientific. 

Anyways, we're agreed. I'm going back to my sliderule now.


----------



## JohnV

Thinking about this, in line with the opening post of this thread, it seems that one objection to ID would be that speculating about origins based solely upon the Bible would also fall into the same criticism of it being not really theology but rather extrapolation built upon the givens of theology. And that would be where ID differs from strict Six Day creation. 

There's no reason why someone who believes in the strict Six Day view would not also believe that design would be some kind of proof of it. But I think the idea here is in terms of ultimate proof, whether the Bible's straight-forward narration of the creation is a better basis than standing primarily upon the 'proof' of Intelligent Design. From this would come the same charge of "theorizing" as proof as we have talked about science doing in the same area. 

For myself, I believe that the strength of ID is in its undeniability, and that there has ever been only one Being described in all of history that answers to the needed character of the Designer. But I believe it is no stronger than the Ontological Argument, for example. I believe all arguments for the existence of God depend upon the OA. 

To answer, then, the original question, I would think that time elapsed and how time began are two different questions, and that one doesn't not necessarily entail the other. ID'ers don't have to be 6000 yr.-ers too, or the other way around. Its more a matter of consistency, that if you believe that God's fingerprints are all over the creation, because you believe the Bible to be true in its account of creation, then you will also tend to believe the Bible as to the age of the earth for the same reason. 

Being dogmatic about, though, is another thing. We have to admit that the Bible does two things very clearly: it speaks in levels of importance on matters we need to know, being more or less specific in relation to its importance to our knowledge of God and of salvation through Christ; and speaks with economy and wisdom on all subsidiary matters, to the degree that we need to stand in awe and trust of our Maker and His revelations to us. We have been warned throughout the history of the Church not to go beyond Scripture. So we must be careful of the charge laid at our feet in connection to speculations about origins which go beyond Scripture's teachings. Six-Day creation is taught by Scripture, but a 6000 yr. age is not.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I am as suspicious of Intelligent Design as I am of scientific creationism. It appears to me to be a sui generis based on neither faith nor science. For what it's worth, I believe in 6000 years; but at the same time I am content to allow for conflicting data between the Bible and science -- acknowledging that the Bible teaches certainty while science at best arrives at probability.



I think I agree with you at least on the point to be cautious on how to look at YECists, but to be sure, I will ask a question. Are you a geoocentrist?

CT


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> I think I agree with you at least on the point to be cautious on how to look at YECists, but to be sure, I will ask a question. Are you a geoocentrist?



Hermonta, yes, I do think the Bible teaches geocentrism. If that puts it in conflict with science, so be it. Of course, science is not my strong point, and I have heard geocentrism defended from a scientific point of view; though I am not equipped to know if the defence is legitimate or not.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> I think I agree with you at least on the point to be cautious on how to look at YECists, but to be sure, I will ask a question. Are you a geoocentrist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hermonta, yes, I do think the Bible teaches geocentrism. If that puts it in conflict with science, so be it. Of course, science is not my strong point, and I have heard geocentrism defended from a scientific point of view; though I am not equipped to know if the defence is legitimate or not.
Click to expand...


You pass the test, for I am one too. 

It was just a test to see how hardcore you were. I really think the YEC position in general is hurt because most reject geocentrism, but the same hermeneutics that get one YEC will get one geocentrism.

Personally I think science has no disproof of geocentrism (even if one was to accept science as the ultimate standard)

CT


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> You pass the test, for I am one too.
> 
> It was just a test to see how hardcore you were. I really think the YEC position in general is hurt because most reject geocentrism, but the same hermeneutics that get one YEC will get one geocentrism.
> 
> Personally I think science has no disproof of geocentrism (even if one was to accept science as the ultimate standard)



Now there are two fools on the hill, who see the sun going down, and they eyes in our head, see the world spinning around. 

But seriously, the problem with YEC is that they are seeking for academic approval; and geocentrism is dark ages as far as academia is concerned. That is why I call it a sui generis which is neither faith nor science. It is the same with their quest to find dinosaurs in the Bible. The poetic portions of Scripture are twisted every which way to try and give the Bible some credibility.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Would you like to share where the Bible says that the sun revolves around the Earth in didactic teaching.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Would you like to share where the Bible says that the sun revolves around the Earth in didactic teaching.



All Scripture is didactic, poetic portions included. As long as the figurative language is interpreted accordingly, it yields didactic teaching. What theologian has not turned to Ps. 51 for the most vivid teaching on original sin. Just because it is poetical does not mean it is any less real.

But to avoid controversy over poetic portions -- the biblical cosmogony calls for a geocentric earth as equally as the independence of light from the sun. This assumes, though, that Genesis One should be taken literally.

Then there is the miracle of Joshua 10:12, 13. The miracle is that the sun stands still. Joshua did not say, "earth stand still," but "sun stand still." Joshua's command excludes the idea of phenomenological language.

The miracle of Isa. 38:8 also excludes phenomenological language. God is describing what it is He will do in order to accomplish the miracle.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I disagree. Just because God condescends to speak in terms we can understand does not mean that phenomenological language must be excluded.

When I say something is cold, I know that it really lacks heat but I still speak that way. It is common to mankind to do that.

Where does God say phenomenological language is excluded in those passages? You just assert it. Why must Joshua understand his vantage point in order to command the rotation of the Earth? Why must God give Isaiah an astronomy lesson and explain planetary orbits.

I guess babies are actually knit in their mother's wombs too. Ultrasounds are just lying scientific equipment. If we could really observe it we would see needles knitting the child together. Psalm 139, after all, *excludes* phenomenological language.

I'd love to catalogue all the phenomena for such a textbook where we might arbitrarily exclude phenomenological language.


----------



## MW

Rich, I wish it were as easy as raising the magic wand of "accommodation" to clear away the difficulties which the text raises to our worldview. There is reformed accommodation and liberal accommodation. Supposing that God accommodated his revelation to an erroneous worldview is liberal.

Phenomenological language is found in the context of observation. There is no getting around the fact that Joshua said, "Sun, stand thou still," and "the sun stood still." That is historical narrative. Besides, to posit phenomenological language you have to suppose that the speaker/narrator believed otherwise. Do you honestly believe that Joshua and Isaiah held to heliocentrism?

Figurative language can only be proven where it is shown that the person speaking the language is expressing themselves differently from what they literally hold on a given point. But as stated, the biblical cosmogony in Genesis One is against heliocentricity. The light exists independently of the sun, and the light-bearers are given for seasons, days, and years. In accord with the rest of biblical language, it is the rising and setting of the sun which marks off times.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It doesn't matter whether or not Joshua and Isaiah believed in heliocentrism. I don't think they really thought about it. It wasn't necessary for them to understand how it functioned.

You may use your "magic wand" all you want to label perspectives that, by your own admission, you have scarce knowledge of. I suppose every phenemona not described by the Scriptures is a liberal illusion. You might as well tell your doctor to stop looking through the microscope when he is diagnosing cancer. Those liberals and their modern inventions after all. God didn't give us eyes to see cells so they don't exist either. Demons are causing us to see cells and DNA because they want us to distrust God. 

One thing we can't do is say its phenomonological language. Why? You say so. God doesn't but that's a different matter.

God nowhere promises that the language of what is being described is a precise explanation of all the phenomena and that they could not be understood in any other way. God doesn't describe the earth rotating in Genesis. It doesn't mean it is not occurring. He doesn't describe magnetism, gravity, and a host of other things either. It doesn't mean He isn't setting those at some point.

Pssst, I have a secret to tell you about. People knew that the Earth was revolving around the sun well before Copernicus. There is even extra-biblical astronomical observation that was done by the Jews.

I don't think it is either more faithful or "spiritual" to uphold geocentrism. It is just silly and stubborn and leads to all sorts of strange conclusions about Divine occassionalism confusing man as to what he's actually observing in the Universe. It also lends to a notion that all this modern stuff is somehow the work of the devil and that its not part of common grace and the fulfillment of the command to fill the earth and _subdue_ it.


----------



## MW

You know I so want to believe that you agree with me, that, notwithstanding the fact that your language tells me otherwise, I am going to interpret you figuratively, and really belive that you agree with me. Of course, you might respond that you meant what you said literally. So might Joshua and Isaiah if they were around. But even if they were around, you could say, hey, it doesn't matter what you believe.

The substance of your position is that you want them to be speaking figuratively because it doesn't square with your worldview, and what their worldview was doesn't really matter to you.

And I notice you don't deal with the cosmogony of Genesis One. Please explain how the earth revolved around a sun that did not exist.

In Christian charity I am taking your comment about my own admission of scarce knowledge as a typing rush that you did not stop to really consider. I said science is not my strong point. Hence I am willing to allow the scientists to debate each other on the empirical evidence. My strong point is biblical exegesis; I refuse to let modern scientists (who by their own admission can only arrive at a degree of probability) force the Bible to deny things it quite clearly teaches.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Which sounds very pious. I believe it is not.

I did not state that Joshua or Isaiah have to be interpreted figuratively. If you are driving at 60 miles per hour. How fast is the car that is approaching you at 60 miles per hour coming at you? How fast is the same car travelling away from a truck with a speed of 45 mph that it just passed travelling in the same direction?

When you are standing in front of your congregation and illustrating a point, do you reverse the direction of points realizing that they are facing you and your left is their right and their right is your left?

Joshua need not be standing on the sun to meet your criteria that he think about something in a certain way. Even on that day, a person travelling East away from the sun in a plane would have perceived the sun setting or have you never flown over the globe in a plane to observe that phenomena?

Regarding Genesis 1, I am not willing to draw hard conclusions as to the actual physical phenomena that are occurring. I am willing to grant that God is creating things, as He describes them, in the span of 6 days and all very good. If the Earth was created before the sun and then set in orbit around it after the sun was created then there is nothing in Genesis that militates against it. There is also nothing that prohibits the creation of light before the Sun and the stars. They are not the only light sources in the universe.

You only conclude that something is clearly taught because you refuse to grant perspectival differences as I gave examples above. The Bible does not force the issue that the perspective has to be the observed phenomena from all vantage points. You force that on the text. You can understand the language all you want but your pre-commitment to disallowing differing perspectives is not a requirement of any of the texts.

And by your own admission of strong biblical exegesis you are demonstrating that you can trust your vision and that the words I am typing really are communicating my thoughts and this is not all illusory. You know that when you are travelling at 60 mph that you can not open the door and step outside.

It is one thing to dispute emperical evidence to interpolate origins as to the age of the Earth, etc. It is quite another to deny motion and observation altogether. You've produced no firm exegetical argument other than a bare assertion that because of a person's perspective of the event that all other perspectives are excluded.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Joshua need not be standing on the sun to meet your criteria that he think about something in a certain way. Even on that day, a person travelling East away from the sun in a plane would have perceived the sun setting or have you never flown over the globe in a plane to observe that phenomena?



Meaning is derived from the intent of the author. What does the text say? Joshua told the sun to be still and the sun stood still. Where do you derive this idea of phenomenological language from, if not from authorial intent? You cannot come at it as if Joshua believed nothing, but just decided the sun was as good an entity as anything else to command to be still. He must have believed in the motion of the sun, if, for the purpose of lengthening the day, he commaded the sun to stand still.

And I wouldn't mind knowing which post-modern hermeneutical textbook the biblical writers derived the concept of perspectivalism from.



> Regarding Genesis 1, I am not willing to draw hard conclusions as to the actual physical phenomena that are occurring. I am willing to grant that God is creating things, as He describes them, in the span of 6 days and all very good. If the Earth was created before the sun and then set in orbit around it after the sun was created then there is nothing in Genesis that militates against it. There is also nothing that prohibits the creation of light before the Sun and the stars. They are not the only light sources in the universe.



The picture is one of a standing earth, for which a raquiya or beaten out thing (translated firmament), is made, thereby separating waters above and below; and in this raquiya the light-bearer is set whereby to divide off times. It is just this astounding geocentric picture which leads commentators to read the narrative as literary, because they cannot accept the literal import of it.



> You only conclude that something is clearly taught because you refuse to grant perspectival differences as I gave examples above. The Bible does not force the issue that the perspective has to be the observed phenomena from all vantage points. You force that on the text. You can understand the language all you want but your pre-commitment to disallowing differing perspectives is not a requirement of any of the texts.



I don't have a pre-commitment. That is what distinguishes us. You have already made it clear that geocentrism would be embarassing; hence you dismiss it. Prove heliocentrism from the Bible and I will accept it. But not a hint of it can be found. Hence all this talk about perspectives and vantage points is nonsense. There is no basis for saying the language doesn't mean exactly what it comes across as meaning.



> It is one thing to dispute emperical evidence to interpolate origins as to the age of the Earth, etc. It is quite another to deny motion and observation altogether. You've produced no firm exegetical argument other than a bare assertion that because of a person's perspective of the event that all other perspectives are excluded.



I am taking the biblical world as the Bible presents it. Plain and simple. You are the one reading something else into it, thus leading you to take the language to be something other than noumenal.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Unfortunately for you, however, your conviction is extra-Confessional and the WCF does not require subscription to Geocentricism. Most Presbyterians are not afraid to look through telescopes and allow their assumptions about what is and isn't phenomenological to be challenged.

I think that you bind men's consciences to your misunderstanding is very unfortunate. I do hope you don't refuse them to take advantage of modern medicine due to your personal convictions.

It would be an interesting exercise to see how you apply your standard to all other plain statements in Scripture that most recognize are not precisely as stated.

Are we literally knit in our mother's wombs?
Was it Christ's literal body at the Last Supper as the Lutherans and Roman Catholics argue?
Is Christ literally a door?

I don't think it is any less pious for me to insist how you answer those question than for you to insist that because you plainly read geocentrism that the entire body of observations to the contrary are incorrect.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> It is one thing to dispute emperical evidence to interpolate origins as to the age of the Earth, etc. It is quite another to deny motion and observation altogether. You've produced no firm exegetical argument other than a bare assertion that because of a person's perspective of the event that all other perspectives are excluded.



If this was the case, then you would have to accuse basically everyone before Copernicus, as well as a number of people up until about Turretin, as denying motion and observation altogether. I really do not think you want any parts of that. Now you may believe that bad theorizing is going on but please don't go and be overly dramatic.

Secondly, you give the impress that every perspective is okay except the literal, prima facia one. You have given no biblical reason to understand the passages in question other than, "science tells me so". If that is what you believe, then fine, no one is going to hit you in the head(you are in the majority anyway). But please just step up to the microphone and make it plain.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Unfortunately for you, however, your conviction is extra-Confessional and the WCF does not require subscription to Geocentricism.



Alright, but does that imply that if it is not in the confession one cannot know it to be true?



> Most Presbyterians are not afraid to look through telescopes and allow their assumptions about what is and isn't phenomenological to be challenged.



Geocentrists have telescopes as well as other folks. The difference is not observation, it is a difference in theories of what is going on.



> I think that you bind men's consciences to your misunderstanding is very unfortunate. I do hope you don't refuse them to take advantage of modern medicine due to your personal convictions.



Wow, you are very prone to hyperbole are you not? What does modern medicine have to do with geocentrism's truth or falsity?



> It would be an interesting exercise to see how you apply your standard to all other plain statements in Scripture that most recognize are not precisely as stated.
> 
> Are we literally knit in our mother's wombs?
> Was it Christ's literal body at the Last Supper as the Lutherans and Roman Catholics argue?
> Is Christ literally a door?



Humm, I think I have an even better experiment. How about lets us look at the church fathers, as well as Calvin, Turretin etc. and see how those who held to geocentrism interpreted the passages that you listed above?

If they succeeded in being geocentrist without becoming hyper literal, then what beef do you have? And I'll give you a hint, they succeeded. 



> I don't think it is any less pious for me to insist how you answer those question than for you to insist that because you plainly read geocentrism that the entire body of observations to the contrary are incorrect.



I think the most vicious argument against your position was given by Turretin. If you drop biblical authority to second tier status anywhere, you drop it everywhere.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Who is guilty of hyperbole Hermonta? Perhaps I am but I know that those who claim that denying geocentrism is placing Scripture at second tier status surely are.

I also believe that Calvin and Turretin and others had good reason to reject geocentrism at the time it was presented. We have no good reason given other evidences. I doubt Calvin knew anything about bacteria or DNA or a whole host of other phenomena not available to him.

The question of modern medicine is very appropriate because you create a false dilmemna by pitting data gleaned through observation to your misunderstanding of the Scriptures. If modern machines can see into the womb of a woman and demonstrate that there are no knitting needles at work then I suppose you could just the same call it impious to argue with Scripture over the way that the human body is formed in the womb.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Unfortunately for you, however, your conviction is extra-Confessional and the WCF does not require subscription to Geocentricism. Most Presbyterians are not afraid to look through telescopes and allow their assumptions about what is and isn't phenomenological to be challenged.
> 
> I think that you bind men's consciences to your misunderstanding is very unfortunate. I do hope you don't refuse them to take advantage of modern medicine due to your personal convictions.



Where have I mentioned the WCF, or required geocentrism as a test of orthodoxy or of a good conscience? I simply answered Hermonta's question, to which you asked for substantiation, which I gladly gave, and then you proceeded to rebut it on the basis of ... science teaches us better, hence it must be accommodating language.

The essence of my answer to you is that on that basis all positive scriptural statement can be explained away naturalistically. If you can maintain your balance on the slippery slope of accommodation, that is your choice, I do not condemn you for it. I pray that grace will be given you to stand firm notwithstanding. 



> It would be an interesting exercise to see how you apply your standard to all other plain statements in Scripture that most recognize are not precisely as stated.
> 
> Are we literally knit in our mother's wombs?
> Was it Christ's literal body at the Last Supper as the Lutherans and Roman Catholics argue?
> Is Christ literally a door?



I think there is something analagous to mans' forming and the process of knitting. Quite clearly Christ was physically present at the Supper, so He could not have been physically in the Supper. The discourse of Christ makes it plain that Christ was speaking metaphorically, hence not to be conceived of literally as a door. All which considerations are raised by the texts themselves, not needing to be explained away.

Blessings for the Lord's day!

[Edited on 8-12-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I would also add Hermonta that you should just admit: "I have no idea how Science arrives at those conclusions but I just think that the universe revolves around the Earth."

My biggest problem with this discussion is the underlying assumption that man retains none the image that God created Him with. You eschew the entire process that gives you every modern benefit of technology. I thank God that he continues to allow man, fallen as he is, to discover truth about the Universe that He created. I lament that man twists the reasons the phenomena are there but their inventions keep me and my family healthy and very well fed. All truth is God's truth even if the Scientist stumbles upon it using faulty presuppositions. I thank God for modern medicine that saved my daughter's life when she was born.

Can you make sense of the Universe assuming Geocentrism? Sure. There are orbital equations that worked before the sea-change in thinking. Most scientists were in the Church. The reason they rejected heliocentrism initially had as much to do with the fact that the orbital equations did not work and the predicted positions of heavenly bodies were inaccurate.

Kepler demonstrated that the problem was with the original assumption that the orbits were circular. They were elliptical and when the math was worked out it greatly simplified the orbital equations that had been much more complicated given geocentric assumptions.

So, can geocentrists still work out orbital equations? Yes. Would engineers that have to get Astronauts safely to and from space use those equations? No. Why? Not because they hate the Bible but because they are unnecessarily complicated and are greatly simplified assuming heliocentricity.

If you string several globes to a rotating pole and a fly lands on one of the globes, as far as he is concerned, he is the stationary object and can describe the pole and all other globes as rotating around him. It becomes less complicated for the fly to calculate the relative position of those globes if he starts with the pole as the center and then works out the patterns for each of the globes. He can write equations for the paths of the other globes assuming he is stationary but it's more complicated and flies have very small brains.

Honestly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that you believe in geocentrism. You have the luxury as you'd never have to actually solve any orbital equations insisting upon that viewpoint. Just don't tell the rocket scientist that's he's dishonoring God unless he goes through a ton of extra mathematical steps to get a probe to Mars.

[Edited on 8-12-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Honestly I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that you believe in geocentrism. You have the luxury as you'd never have to actually solve any orbital equations insisting upon that viewpoint. Just don't tell the rocket scientist that's he's dishonoring God unless he goes through a ton of extra mathematical steps to get a probe to Mars.



I wouldn't say the rocket scientist has to do it any other way. Let him do what is easiest; although if scholars had have left themselves open to geocentrism their collective effort might have come up with something simpler and better than they have now.

My view, as I said to begin with, allows for conflicting data between faith and science. As the rocket scientist is concerned to maintain the integrity of his discipline, I am concerned to maintain the integrity of biblical exegesis. Sure, we could accommodate it to suit naturalistic science, and every one could live happily ever after. But at what cost to biblical interpretation?

I will leave the discussion on that note, wishing you grace and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

To you as well Rev. Winzer. Grace and Peace. I pray nothing else for you or Hermonta. While an interesting discussion it is just a discussion and nothing else. I repent of hyperbolic language that ridiculed either of you.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Who is guilty of hyperbole Hermonta? Perhaps I am but I know that those who claim that denying geocentrism is placing Scripture at second tier status surely are.



Okay so Turretin was given to Hyperbole. Not everyone is perfect.



> I also believe that Calvin and Turretin and others had good reason to reject geocentrism at the time it was presented.



I would assume you meant NO good reason. I still disagree. Especially Turretin, who was born within a decade of Kepler's death. He had a large chunk of what we had, and still rejected the conclusions.



> We have no good reason given other evidences. I doubt Calvin knew anything about bacteria or DNA or a whole host of other phenomena not available to him.



This is true and he also never said that "DNA doesnt exist" which is what the equivalent to his advocacy of geocentrism would be to the DNA case.

The question is not does the Bible tell us everything that we can know but did we have to wait till Copernicus etc to understand it properly.



> The question of modern medicine is very appropriate because you create a false dilmemna by pitting data gleaned through observation to your misunderstanding of the Scriptures. If modern machines can see into the womb of a woman and demonstrate that there are no knitting needles at work then I suppose you could just the same call it impious to argue with Scripture over the way that the human body is formed in the womb.



Did you actually read my entire post. If the people I wrote about above were able to be geocentrists without making Jesus a door, then again what is your beef?

They were also geocentrists without messing up Jesus' relationship to the Lord's Supper.

Since this is the case, why do you keep bring up the modern science canard?

I suppose it was a miracle that people got stuff right before modern science.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I would also add Hermonta that you should just admit: "I have no idea how Science arrives at those conclusions but I just think that the universe revolves around the Earth."



The problem is that I do know how they do it. The issue is how if I accept "we do it this way because it is most convenient therfore it is true".



> My biggest problem with this discussion is the underlying assumption that man retains none the image that God created Him with.



So if scientists get a theory wrong, that would mean that they retain none of the image that God create Him with? How does that follow.

Even those who think scientific theorizing is all that, would want no part of that line of thought.



> You eschew the entire process that gives you every modern benefit of technology.



Not at all. The problem is that you have put up such a barrier to geocentrism that you cannot really discuss it, less you have to give up all of modern science and have to be unnecessarily mocked by those who disagree.



> I thank God that he continues to allow man, fallen as he is, to discover truth about the Universe that He created.



One question, when do you know your scientific theory is true, versus very useful?



> I lament that man twists the reasons the phenomena are there but their inventions keep me and my family healthy and very well fed. All truth is God's truth even if the Scientist stumbles upon it using faulty presuppositions.



All truth is God's truth. The issue is what is true and how does one know it to be true. One must also remember that one can misunderstand a phenomenon and still get useful results.



> I thank God for modern medicine that saved my daughter's life when she was born.



Modern medicine is good stuff, and I know of no reason, Calvin or Turretin would have rejected surgery, pills etc.



> Can you make sense of the Universe assuming Geocentrism? Sure. There are orbital equations that worked before the sea-change in thinking. Most scientists were in the Church. The reason they rejected heliocentrism initially had as much to do with the fact that the orbital equations did not work and the predicted positions of heavenly bodies were inaccurate.



That is a good reason for rejection something as being true.



> Kepler demonstrated that the problem was with the original assumption that the orbits were circular. They were elliptical and when the math was worked out it greatly simplified the orbital equations that had been much more complicated given geocentric assumptions.



So a heliocentrist can improve their model but geocentrists can't?



> So, can geocentrists still work out orbital equations? Yes. Would engineers that have to get Astronauts safely to and from space use those equations? No. Why? Not because they hate the Bible but because they are unnecessarily complicated and are greatly simplified assuming heliocentricity.



Let's say I accept that no matter what there will always be an alternative to geocentrism that is simplier to work the math out. What does the imply about reality? It is not like God would have difficulty with the math either way.



> If you string several globes to a rotating pole and a fly lands on one of the globes, as far as he is concerned, he is the stationary object and can describe the pole and all other globes as rotating around him. It becomes less complicated for the fly to calculate the relative position of those globes if he starts with the pole as the center and then works out the patterns for each of the globes. He can write equations for the paths of the other globes assuming he is stationary but it's more complicated and flies have very small brains.



Again the implicit assumption is that convenience implies truth? If the earth is fixed and everything else moves, one would have problems with various geocentric models, but that would imply what?



> Honestly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that you believe in geocentrism. You have the luxury as you'd never have to actually solve any orbital equations insisting upon that viewpoint. Just don't tell the rocket scientist that's he's dishonoring God unless he goes through a ton of extra mathematical steps to get a probe to Mars.
> 
> [Edited on 8-12-2006 by SemperFideles]



No no dishonors God by doing the simpliest math that gets them the answer that they need. The issue is if that would necessarily get them to the actual truth.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> The problem is that I do know how they do it. The issue is how if I accept "we do it this way because it is most convenient therfore it is true".


You do? OK Hermonta, what is the orbital equation that predicts the position of Mars in a heliocentric model? In a geocentric model?

Overall, your parsing of my thoughts is very petty. You completely miss the point for the sake of being argumentative. I don't think a thing I wrote sunk in.

From what I gather, you have never had to work with theories to build or design things. You might appreciate my point if you did.

Your answers sound like Parmenides telling the common man that their experience of change is illusory. While I consider myself a presuppositionalist, I don't think the philosopical position is served by arguing that inductive methodology is a mere "convenience."



> No no dishonors God by doing the simpliest math that gets them the answer that they need. The issue is if that would necessarily get them to the actual truth.


What actual truth is that? That a probe actually landed on the planet you were aiming at? Would it be better that they use Geocentric models for planetary orbits and use the same mathematical techniques? Would it be more "true" that the probe landed on Mars?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Did you actually read my entire post. If the people I wrote about above were able to be geocentrists without making Jesus a door, then again what is your beef?
> 
> They were also geocentrists without messing up Jesus' relationship to the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Since this is the case, why do you keep bring up the modern science canard?
> 
> I suppose it was a miracle that people got stuff right before modern science.
> 
> CT


It's frustrating when people ignore your arguments isn't it?

I will answer, however, according to what you asked and not simply in order to continue to dig in.

I _did_ mean to say that Calvin and Turretin had good reason to reject it at the time. There was much less settled observationally in their time. Do you really think Calvin and Turretin operated with as much information as we do? 

Knowing how intelligent the two men were, and how practical their theology was, I have a hard time believing they would still believe in geocentricity after a time when men had been to the moon and probes had reached the edge of our solar system. I might be wrong.

[Edited on 8-12-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that I do know how they do it. The issue is how if I accept "we do it this way because it is most convenient therfore it is true".
> 
> 
> 
> You do? OK Hermonta, what is the orbital equation that predicts the position of Mars in a heliocentric model? In a geocentric model?
Click to expand...


I have been away from physics for over 4 years, if you really really wish to go into equations, I can oblige but is that really the point here?

I never said any heliocentric models didnt get satellites etc into orbit where we want them.



> Overall, your parsing of my thoughts is very petty. You completely miss the point for the sake of being argumentative. I don't think a thing I wrote sunk in.



Actually it is you who are not feeling the philosophical force of the issues.



> From what I gather, you have never had to work with theories to build or design things. You might appreciate my point if you did.



Why would that tell me which theory was true over against another theory which was observational equivalent.



> Your answers sound like Parmenides telling the common man that their experience of change is illusory. While I consider myself a presuppositionalist, I don't think the philosopical position is served by arguing that inductive methodology is a mere "convenience."



Change is occuring, the problem is determining what exactly is the source of it.

The biggest issue is whether or not certainty in science is hard to come by. If you believe you can get it, then you need to explain when do you know that you have it.



> No no dishonors God by doing the simpliest math that gets them the answer that they need. The issue is if that would necessarily get them to the actual truth.
> 
> 
> 
> What actual truth is that?
Click to expand...


Why do you seem so shocked when truth in the scientific realm is so fleeting.



> That a probe actually landed on the planet you were aiming at? Would it be better that they use Geocentric models for planetary orbits and use the same mathematical techniques? Would it be more "true" that the probe landed on Mars?



My point here is how does one determine which is true if they both have the same observational consequences? 

The simplier model? That supposes that the competing one can not be made simplier. It also presupposes something along the lines of "God would have done it that way."

Determining which side is true is a philosophical and not a scientific question (when both models give you equivalent results).

CT

[Edited on 8-12-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Did you actually read my entire post. If the people I wrote about above were able to be geocentrists without making Jesus a door, then again what is your beef?
> 
> They were also geocentrists without messing up Jesus' relationship to the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Since this is the case, why do you keep bring up the modern science canard?
> 
> I suppose it was a miracle that people got stuff right before modern science.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> It's frustrating when people ignore your arguments isn't it?
> 
> I will answer, however, according to what you asked and not simply in order to continue to dig in.
Click to expand...


Because I disagree with you on an issue that you feel very strongly about does not imply that I argue just to argue.



> I _did_ mean to say that Calvin and Turretin had good reason to reject it at the time. There was much less settled observationally in their time. Do you really think Calvin and Turretin operated with as much information as we do?



Nope I do not, my point was that they had the relevant information (especially Turretin), and that geocentrism had already reach minority status, but he did not care.



> Knowing how intelligent the two men were, and how practical their theology was, I have a hard time believing they would still believe in geocentricity after a time when men had been to the moon and probes had reached the edge of our solar system. I might be wrong.
> 
> [Edited on 8-12-2006 by SemperFideles]



So going to the moon implies that geocentrism is wrong?

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm through. I think your answers fail to comprehend my point. I have neither the time nor the patience to continue to explain the point to you. Your parsing is irritating and petty. The reasons for using a heliocentric model have been clearly spelled out. 

As already noted, you have the luxury of meaningless banter over how "true" an equation is because you're not engaged in actual work in any field that uses the model. As I stated already, you can assume any point is the center of the universe. Oblige me, and on your own, work out on paper the orbital equations for the sun and the other planets using both models.

Believe in geocentrism if you so insist. It shocks me less than the fact that you believed the government planned out 9/11.

[Edited on 8-12-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I'm through. I think your answers fail to comprehend my point. I have neither the time nor the patience to continue to explain the point to you. Your parsing is irritating and petty. The reasons for using a heliocentric model have been clearly spelled out.



I understand and have agreed with reasons for using heliocentric models, the issue is if you realize the point that truth and "works" are not synonymous.



> As already noted, you have the luxury of meaningless banter over how "true" an equation is because you're not engaged in actual work in any field that uses the model. As I stated already, you can assume any point is the center of the universe. Oblige me, and on your own, work out on paper the orbital equations for the sun and the other planets using both models.



Your point is what? One model is easier to deal with therefore, God made a heliocentric solar system?



> Believe in geocentrism if you so insist. It shocks me less than the fact that you believed the government planned out 9/11.
> 
> [Edited on 8-12-2006 by SemperFideles]



Everything comes back to 9/11 ha.

But it is interesting that your position is the one that leads to conspiracy theories. If some theories' usefulness makes it true or approximately true then once a theory fails it must be someone conspired to hide the evidence that it would fail (as in when pharma. drugs lead to catastrophic results).

Scientists, as I am one, do the best they can with the info that they have and what they accept to be true.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I never argued for philosophical certainty using Science.

You are arguing for geocentrism based on a faulty rejection of phenomenological language. I thought you were a Van Tillian and not a Clarkian and didn't rely purely on Occasionalism to determine reliability of our senses.

If I draw out a model of the solar system showing the orbits of planets based on a heliocentric model I can show elliptical patterns. This also fits with what I know about gravitation and satellites that are in orbit around our own planet. I then draw out those same orbits insisting the Earth is the center and some of the planets are doing figure 8's in the sky. The reason why the planets are in orbit around the Earth? Why are they in figure 8 orbits? Not because they're rotating around the sun! Hermonta said Genesis isn't using phenomonlogical language.

By your reasoning, I have to accept that the planets are doing figure 8's. They are not attracted to the sun and in elliptical orbit. My knowledge of gravitation and objects in orbit is thrown out the window. It's not perfect knowledge but it is reliable. I must reject even my weak conclusions.

Why must I reject it? Because Hermonta says that phenomonological language is excluded. Gravitation and orbits are weak conclusions and cannot overthrow Hermonta's understanding of the Genesis narrative.

I assume (or hope) you don't treat the Word that way. How do you know whether the Textus Receptus is a more reliable manuscript than the manuscripts used for more recent translations? Should we exclude or include portions of John? God must have given you infallible knowledge of that as well and you need not look at textual evidence to form those conclusions using those evil processes of induction that only lead to probable conclusions. The same holds true for an author's use of Greek, historical setting, customs, etc. All weak but useful to ascertain real truth about the interpretation of passages.

Regarding conspiracy theories, it's too bad your theory is not borne out in practice. It's a bit ironic that the one holding to a fairy tale is lecturing the person with firsthand knowledge of many of the events that he needs to be careful of slippery slopes.

[Edited on 8-12-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I never argued for philosophical certainty using Science.



That is what it has looked like from here. If you were not, then your wording has been bad.



> You are arguing for geocentrism based on a faulty rejection of phenomenological language.



You have not justified the claim faulty. You have just pointed out that most scientists would laugh because the "geocentric" equations are harder to deal with. If that is what you mean by faulty then I believe you distort the term.



> I thought you were a Van Tillian and not a Clarkian and didn't rely purely on Occasionalism to determine reliability of our senses.



Who said or implied anything concerning occasionalism? I certainly did not, nor do I hold to it.



> If I draw out a model of the solar system showing the orbits of planets based on a heliocentric model I can show elliptical patterns. This also fits with what I know about gravitation and satellites that are in orbit around our own planet. I then draw out those same orbits insisting the Earth is the center and some of the planets are doing figure 8's in the sky. The reason why the planets are in orbit around the Earth? Why are they in figure 8 orbits? Not because they're rotating around the sun! Hermonta said Genesis isn't using phenomonlogical language.



Actually what you would "see" depends on what geocentric model you choose to work with. (With or without ether, everything rotates around the earth or the the planets rotate around the sun, which in turn rotates around the earth etc.)



> By your reasoning, I have to accept that the planets are doing figure 8's. They are not attracted to the sun and in elliptical orbit. My knowledge of gravitation and objects in orbit is thrown out the window. It's not perfect knowledge but it is reliable. I must reject even my weak conclusions.



I did not ask you to reject anything for the purposes of getting satellites into orbit etc. The only question is when you want to go from what works easiest to what is true.



> Why must I reject it? Because Hermonta says that phenomonological language is excluded. Gravitation and orbits are weak conclusions and cannot overthrow Hermonta's understanding of the Genesis narrative.



Actually "my" Genesis view is the same as the one held by basically every non heretic (and even most of them would accept it to be true) for the first 1800 years of the church.

You do not have to accept my position due to this fact but at least know what you are rejecting.



> I assume (or hope) you don't treat the Word that way. How do you know whether the Textus Receptus is a more reliable manuscript than the manuscripts used for more recent translations? Should we exclude or include portions of John? God must have given you infallible knowledge of that as well and you need not look at textual evidence to form those conclusions using those evil processes of induction that only lead to probable conclusions. The same holds true for an author's use of Greek, historical setting, customs, etc. All weak but useful to ascertain real truth about the interpretation of passages.



Huh? Here is just seems that you wish to throw whatever you can to see what will stick.

This all basically comes down to a change in what the sufficiency of scripture means. That is another way of viewing Turretin's point. If you think it is a good change, so be it. Again at least understand what you accept or reject.



> Regarding conspiracy theories, it's too bad your theory is not borne out in practice. It's a bit ironic that the one holding to a fairy tale is lecturing the person with firsthand knowledge of many of the events that he needs to be careful of slippery slopes.
> 
> [Edited on 8-12-2006 by SemperFideles]



If you wish to think its a conspiracy theory, then call up Merck and ask them what their recent legal bills have been and why.

Concerning first hand knowledge, I would assume you speak of 9/11. I know you understand that both sides have firsthand knowledge. So at some point, someone just has to say, the other sides' view is wrong (at some point).

CT

[Edited on 8-13-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## Cheshire Cat

I find it humorous that some in this thread describe the heliocentric model as if it is some speculative scientific theory like Evolution. Its really quite simple, get out your telescope and there you go. I will give the scientific (in this case common sense) reasons for rejecting the geocentic model later today if I have time after my astronomy class. (Can't do it right now because i'm studying for a test in -you guessed it- astronomy!


----------



## ChristianTrader

caleb_woodrow said:


> I find it humorous that some in this thread describe the heliocentric model as if it is some speculative scientific theory like Evolution. Its really quite simple, get out your telescope and there you go. I will give the scientific (in this case common sense) reasons for rejecting the geocentic model later today if I have time after my astronomy class. (Can't do it right now because i'm studying for a test in -you guessed it- astronomy!



Many people find various things humorous.

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/GWW_Samples_Chapter_3.pdf

Now this is what I call humorous. Written in the 1930's by one of the great astronomers of the last century.

CT


----------



## RamistThomist

6000 year-er here. I am not geocentrist yet but Hermonta has forced me to rethink my paradigms.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

ChristianTrader said:


> You pass the test, for I am one too.
> 
> It was just a test to see how hardcore you were. I really think the YEC position in general is hurt because most reject geocentrism, but the same hermeneutics that get one YEC will get one geocentrism.
> 
> Personally I think science has no disproof of geocentrism (even if one was to accept science as the ultimate standard)
> 
> CT



geocentric is to YEC
as
YEC is to OEC

i see the exchange here as demonstrating that the relationship of geocentric to YEC is the same hermeneutical relationship as YEC to OEC. The logical position of the hermeneutic is geocentric if not flat earth. It is the same hermeneutics that Dabney uses to defend slavery in Defense of Virginia and to fight what he calls the French equalitarianism that will destroy the Christian American South. I believe that Mark Noll does an excellent job of explaining these things in:


> OTO front, nuanced biblical attacks on **** faced rough going precisely because they were nuanced. This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text; it could not be lifted directly from the page. Rather, it needed patien reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures; it required expert knowledge of the historical circumstances of ancient Near Eastern and Roman *** as well as of the actually existing conditions in the ***; and it demanded that sophisticated interpretative practice replace a commonsensically literal approach to the sacred text. In short, this was an argument of elites requiring that the populace defer to its intellectual betters. As such, it contradicted democratic and republican intellectual instincts. In the culture of the United States, as that culture had been constructed by *** of evangelical bible believers, the nuanced biblical argument was doomed.


from: pg 49 The Civil War as a theological Crisis by Mark Noll

the *** represent the words slavery, but they could just as well be OEC from a YEC POV or YEC from a geocentric POV. The issue is the hermeneutics of the POV of the Scriptural writers.

i recently read a excellent book on the subject in:
Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretation 
by Stephen J. Godfrey, Christopher R. Smith


which is about this very subject, what is the POV of the writer of Gen 1.
naive observational human or God's omniscience?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

ChristianTrader said:


> Many people find various things humorous.
> 
> http://www.galileowaswrong.com/GWW_Samples_Chapter_3.pdf
> 
> Now this is what I call humorous. Written in the 1930's by one of the great astronomers of the last century.
> CT



That link merely asserts that doppler shift somehow indicates the centrality of Earth, but it gives no explanation as to why. 

Besides, we can now measure stellar parallax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

In fact, for many years this was an argument posed against the heliocentric model. Thousands (and even hundreds) of years ago the instruments that could measure such small changes in parallax were not in existence. It definitely cannot be done by mere human eye. Its all about precision. Thus, since stellar parallax hadn't been viewed yet, people who held to the geocentric view used this as an argument against the heliocentric model. Yet, today we *do* measure stellar parallax. 

-A geocentric model cannot explain apparent retrograde motion of the planets without adding phantom epicycle upon epicycle. 

-With respect to all things revolving around Earth, we know this not to be the case for the simplistic reason that other planets such as jupiter have their own moons orbiting them. 

-The phases of Venus can only be explained by a heliocentric model: http://www.lupas.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rwnewastro/img/planets/venus01.jpg

This was Galileo's nail in the coffin for the geocentric model.

The geocentric model makes nonsense out of our experience (namely observation) and thus is a flaud theological interpretation. Its kind of like an interpretation that says that a tree in front of me cannot exist because some model won't explain it, then I show that yes there is a tree in front of me. Therefore, the model and interpretation that says the tree should not be there is wrong. For the theological reasons expressed earlier in this thread and for the scientific and common sense reasons I have given, the geocentric model should be rejected as outdated and absurd.


----------



## ChristianTrader

rmwilliamsjr said:


> geocentric is to YEC
> as
> YEC is to OEC
> 
> i see the exchange here as demonstrating that the relationship of geocentric to YEC is the same hermeneutical relationship as YEC to OEC. The logical position of the hermeneutic is geocentric if not flat earth. It is the same hermeneutics that Dabney uses to defend slavery in Defense of Virginia and to fight what he calls the French equalitarianism that will destroy the Christian American South.



I am not following the GEO to YEC as YEC to OEC? Are you saying that each is a progression from the previous?

I see if you are going to be hardcore YEC then it is very hard to reject GEO but if you accept both, and OEC cannot say much too you besides point, laugh etc.

I do not see flat earth entering the story anywhere besides some sort of skeptical threat.

As far as Dabney goes, for the most part he was right on about the abolitional forces at work.



> I believe that Mark Noll does an excellent job of explaining these things in:
> 
> from: pg 49 The Civil War as a theological Crisis by Mark Noll



Hopefully Prof. Noll realizes that nuance is not a new invention, post Dabney. Because Dabney rejected the contrary position, does nothing to imply that he was just too simple to get it. Is it just easier to just call him wrong and move on?



> the *** represent the words slavery, but they could just as well be OEC from a YEC POV or YEC from a geocentric POV. The issue is the hermeneutics of the POV of the Scriptural writers.



That is a hermeneutics question is a very good one.



> i recently read a excellent book on the subject in:
> Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretation
> by Stephen J. Godfrey, Christopher R. Smith
> 
> 
> which is about this very subject, what is the POV of the writer of Gen 1.
> naive observational human or God's omniscience?



Is it an either/or issue?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

I am only going to discuss a few things from this post and then give a link (I am short on time, not trying to run from anything)



caleb_woodrow said:


> That link merely asserts that doppler shift somehow indicates the centrality of Earth, but it gives no explanation as to why.



The purpose of the link was just to demonstrate, that a world class astronomer in the past century openly admitted that he had nothing but prejudice against geocentrism and could not even consider it because of the (theological?) implication not due to any evidence.

It also allows one to just slow down and think that if they wish to say that geocentrism has been defeated then it would seem that it has only been defeated within the last 70 or so years. 



> -With respect to all things revolving around Earth, we know this not to be the case for the simplistic reason that other planets such as jupiter have their own moons orbiting them.



Why if all thing revolved around the Earth would that prevent anything from revolving around other objects while they revolve around the earth?



> -The phases of Venus can only be explained by a heliocentric model: http://www.lupas.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rwnewastro/img/planets/venus01.jpg
> 
> This was Galileo's nail in the coffin for the geocentric model.



Actually it depends on which geocentric model you wish to play with. Also Galileo had no nail for any coffin. Newton had the nails, while Galileo had the mouth. Fortunately Einstein had some handy dandy nail remover.



> The geocentric model makes nonsense out of our experience (namely observation) and thus is a flaud theological interpretation.



Making nonsense out of experience is a claim that seems to be made a great deal too often. It would be much easier to say, Given certain premises, a certain conclusion does not make sense.

If your claim was true, then there should have never been any geocentrists ever.



> Its kind of like an interpretation that says that a tree in front of me cannot exist because some model won't explain it, then I show that yes there is a tree in front of me. Therefore, the model and interpretation that says the tree should not be there is wrong.



That is just absurd. A better analogy is that everyone acknowledges a tree in front of us, the argument is how the tree got there.



> For the theological reasons expressed earlier in this thread and for the scientific and common sense reasons I have given, the geocentric model should be rejected as outdated and absurd.



I really think that you need to look into the history of scientific theories and what has been considered common sense over the years.

CT


----------



## Cheshire Cat

ChristianTrader said:


> Why if all things revolved around the Earth would that prevent anything from revolving around other objects while they revolve around the earth?



It just shows that an object can orbit another planet, thus it is also possible that our planet could orbit another object, namely the sun. As Well, many scientists of old believed in perfect circles, and that the planets and objects of space were perfectly spherical in shape. Galileo showed this not to be the case as well. Just giving a little history here, I know people who hold to geocentricism now don’t believe in that. 



ChristianTrader said:


> Actually it depends on which geocentric model you wish to play with. Also Galileo had no nail for any coffin. Newton had the nails, while Galileo had the mouth. Fortunately Einstein had some handy dandy nail remover.


Okay, then reveal which model you subscribe to and we’ll see how well it can describe the phases of Venus and the other objections I have raised. Galileo’s telescope was the real nail in the coffin for the geocentric universe. Your comment about Einstein really doesn’t affect any of the objections I have raised, because stellar parallax, apparent retrograde motion, and the phases of Venus are all viewed by *observation*. 



ChristianTrader said:


> Making nonsense out of experience is a claim that seems to be made a great deal too often. It would be much easier to say, Given certain premises, a certain conclusion does not make sense.
> 
> If your claim was true, then there should have never been any geocentrists ever.



Better put, it makes nonsense out of our observational experience with the technology we have today. E.g. we can now perceive stellar parallax and (after the telescope was invented) could see the phases of Venus. 



ChristianTrader said:


> That is just absurd. A better analogy is that everyone acknowledges a tree in front of us, the argument is how the tree got there.


I was referring to the phases of Venus. I am not familiar with any geocentric models that can explain it without resorting to some mathematical error or loss of prediction. If you can submit one, I am all ears. 



ChristianTrader said:


> I really think that you need to look into the history of scientific theories and what has been considered common sense over the years.
> 
> CT


Believe me, I know how speculative scientific theories can be. I just wrote a large portion of my astronomy test on the nebular theory for the formation of our solar system. A LOT of speculation, and we still teach it even though we see Jovian like planets around other stars that are within one AU (Distance from Earth to sun), which according the nebular theory should *not* be there. I do not view the heliocentric model as being speculative in the least. I think you forgot the link you were going to give, and I would love to see it. I am not being sarcastic either, I am completely serious. I want to hear the ideas from all sides. Thanks, ~Caleb


----------



## ChristianTrader

Here is the link: http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/belief.fin.doc

I shall be back with more when I get a bit more time.

CT


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Is Dr. John Byl a Geocentrist? I just read a book by him called The Divine Challenge, and I liked it alot. I'm going to get his book 'God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe' as soon as I get the chance.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Interesting. I would still like to see explaining away of the Venus phases, stellar parallax, and how apparent retrograde motion could occur without countless epicycles.


----------



## kvanlaan

Sorry to be so simplistic here but does the Genesis-Exodus agreement (the six-day creation noted in the Ten Commandments) not speak to a 6,000 year old earth more than just a little?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

I should also note that the Nebular theory for the formation of our solar system depends on other ad hoc hypotheses such as the 'Impact' hypothesis for our moon and other such ad hoc modifications. So I'm just saying I am very skeptical of Cosmological and Scientific theories in general, so I am all ears for hearing another way of looking at things. I enjoyed the link.


----------



## ChristianTrader

caleb_woodrow said:


> Is Dr. John Byl a Geocentrist? I just read a book by him called The Divine Challenge, and I liked it alot. I'm going to get his book 'God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe' as soon as I get the chance.



I do not think I have ever seen him say that he is one, but he definitely believes that science has no evidence against the position.

God and Cosmos is quite good as is The Divine Challenge.


----------



## ChristianTrader

caleb_woodrow said:


> I should also note that the Nebular theory for the formation of our solar system depends on other ad hoc hypotheses such as the 'Impact' hypothesis for our moon and other such ad hoc modifications. So I'm just saying I am very skeptical of Cosmological and Scientific theories in general, so I am all ears for hearing another way of looking at things. I enjoyed the link.



Here is an interesting link to an extended discussion between Acentrists (no center of universe) and Geocentrists

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Aspects.pdf


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Thanks for the link; I think it will prove quite helpful. It is going to take me awhile to read it though, with all of my textbooks and other reading material.


----------

