Intelligent Design and 6,000 years

[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?

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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.

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*.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.