Warning, first draft of this one contained one sequence 66 and one sequence 6666 (in post-ID in numeral version). That's why I start a new draft.
Flat Earth? The Bible And Science Say No!
Creation Ministries International | 5.IX.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTdZvs8upI
19:00 +
"Bible, history, science, all wrapped together"
So do I claim for me.
"it's not driven by fear"
Mine neither.
"it's not driven by conspiracy theories"
CMI's attitude to me starts looking as if it were. Mine to "Heliocentrism" / Standard modern cosmology isn't. I'm open to conspiracies being real, more than CMI, but I am no more eager to find a conspiracy than to find one isn't required.
"it's not driven by distrust in authority"
This is a fairly mean psychological summing up of adversarial positions. The CMI certainly do show distrust in authorities from Evolution paradigm, as Habermehl showed when discussing my trust in Svante Pääbos finds about Neanderthal genome. But they would not consider the Evolution paradigm constitutes real authority any more than Flat Earthism does, neither do I, I simply extend this to Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism.
There is a vast difference between distrusting "authority" as a category (something I haven't found around Flat Earthers, Rob Skiba for instance is very happy to take Yeshivoth and book of Jasher as authorities, along with Book of Jubilees and Book of Henoch) and distrusting commonly contemporarily proposed authorities. This difference is lost on people who make psychology their key to the neighbours' consciences, their god of divination.
I am very sorry that a man should ever utter the words "distrust in authority" as if a real phenomenon, a real key to someone else's behaviour. I consider that a kind of worship of Apollo Delphicus. I hold on the authority of Sophocles that Apollo Delphicus ruined the lives of Laios, Iocaste, Oedipus. How did he do that? By self fulfilling prophecies. In the case which Sophocles dealt with, prophecies the victims needed to believe in order for the prophecies to be fulfilled. But there are also other self fulfilling prophecies, which surroundings believe and then fulfill (at least to their own satisfaction) about the victims, and psychology is expert at that evil.
Note, I am not saying Robert Carter is possessed or needs St Paul to drive out a Pythonic spirit, but he is kind of believing doctrines of evil spirits, by using that kind of vocabulary.
However, I claim also to deal with contemporary authorities in a double way. For their directly observed facts, I rely on them. For conclusions, I check whether the logic holds. This is very basic to Young Earth Creationism, which Robert Carter claims to represent by being part of CMI. When you deal with carbon dates, other dates, choice of dates for Mungo man or Mungo woman, you accept (as do I) how much carbon 14 has been measured. Then you take the discrepancy with thermoluminiscence to say both methods are basically equally worthless. I accept the carbon 14 content too, and I dismuss thermoluminiscence as inadequately calibrated by C14, while taking the C14 as indication on how much C14:C12 ratio had risen ... placing Mungo woman in the carbon dates corresponding to Noah's lifespan after Deluge, the descent from Ark to his death 350 years later. Neither of us relies on the authority of Bowler and Thorne, as to how old Mungo man and Mungo woman actually are. Is this "distrust of authority"? Not if the claimed authority of Bowler and Thorne is nil, as to conclusions, since these do not follow from what they did observe. Which Tas Walker (and Robert Carter) would surely admit.
[It is instead driven by] "trust in the Creator, who created a world that we can understand"
Same as I claim for myself as a Geocentric.
If Universe revolves each day around Earth, as we observe up to fix stars, something or someone has to keep it going. If the result is, day and night, seasons, provide better conditions for life than for instance Sun shining from same angle all the time, that something is a someone, who is benevolent.
St. Thomas used this as prima and quinta via (Summa Theologica, I, Q2, A3) for proving God. Riccioli, considering each heavenly body is moving on its own, moved by an angel, and that angel moving it Westward, could not use this for God. So, he preferred Pascal's or Descartes' arguments for God. To St. Thomas God was doing the Westward move each day, angels were doing smaller and slower moves for idividual celestial bodies Eastward under fix stars, in solid orbits transmitting the movement of primum mobile inward toward earth, towards its monsoons and oceanic currents, also going West. To me, solid orbits are out, but an aether, not all that there is of it, but outside Earth surface and inside God's Heaven (Empyrean Heaven) is primum mobile and also firmament. Again, God moving all of it Westward, angels moving individual celestial bodies either generally Eastward (Moon plus "Solar system objects") in slower periods, or moving even stars - fix stars (and exoplanets) - in smaller orbits, observed as "aberration" and "parallax" and "proper movement".
Whichever model is chosen (and I think solid orbits are solidly ruled out by an observation by Tycho Brahe) the Westward movement of Sun, Moon, Stars eac day and night show forth one First Mover. In Geocentrism, existence of God is easy to understand from behaviour of visible creation.
Psalm 18:[1] Unto the end. A psalm for David. [2] The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands. [3] Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge.
Romans 1:[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them.
Carter starts laying out his principles, here I have three:
1) The universe behaves in a consistent, logic and discoverable way - because of the nature of God.
Granted on my part.
"That thought is what drove the scientific revolution."
In fact, you find it as much in St. Thomas and in Riccioli (Geocentrics) as in Galileo Galilei (Heliocentric). The Scientific Revolution implies there were Scientific Revolutionaries, I claim these plagiarised this thought from the previous Scholastic (roughly Platonic-Aristotelic) establishment, and that it was better integrated in the Scientific Ancien Régime, Scholasticism. It sippered more and more out from the net results of the Scientific Revolution.
"Modern Science was founded by that kind of philosophical ideas"
As in Medieval Science wasn't? As in that was crucial for departure from Scholasticism? I think not.
"Johann Kepler"
You know that his model of "Solar System" (our usage) / Universe (his usage) is now entenable? The five Platonic bodies are not found as solid spheres around the Sun. His view of some orbit - I think Mercury's - was contradicted by observations accounted for by Einstein.
"thinking God's thoughts after Him"
What any Christian thinker hopes to be doing. Kepler claiming it for himself, in astronomy, St. Thomas Aquinas receiving that label in an apparition of Christ telling him "thou hast spoken the truth about my sacrament".
St. Thomas as basing himself on the Gospel and mention in Corinthians was on a more solid ground than a man "reading the book of nature".
"Astronomy : Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder"
I note that not just Ptolemy (a pagan) but also Tycho Brahe and Riccioli are omitted.
I want to have noted that Copernicus' argument could in modern terms be resumed as "epicycles would look like spirograph patterns, and these are ugly things because I don't know how to describe them, and God couldn't make something ugly" - now get hold of a spirograph, draw the spirograph patterns Copernicus had no means to draw, and look carefully if you think they are ugly.
I think they aren't. I think they are very decorative. Very worthy of God's sense of beauty.
I also note, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler were all of them refuted by Geocentrics.
Herschel and presumably Maunder (of whom I here read for the first time) were ignoring Geocentrics. There is no single man enumerated who refuted or is supposed to have refuted Geocentrism.
22:01 "can Satan build something so sophisticated it can actually explain how things work"
Note, the thing was not about "things working" but about maths working.
Satan can definitely use the leeway given him by God. There may be lies Satan would like to spread for some reason, but can't. There are other lies which God has given him some leeway to argue, deceptively.
A simple inversion of the truth (like Dan Brown's expressions via Robert Langdon about Catholicism) is a fairly old tactic.
And "reverse engineering so the mathematics work" - well, is Satan by his nature angelic, above us (except for grace of regeneration in some of us)? Or is Satan a five year old child?
I'd say, Satan clearly has sufficient cleverness to make a lie work. Not ultimately, not from all angles, but from one angle, say maths, and until you look at another angle, like "wait a minute, that Heliocentrism works doesn't mean it's the only thing that works".
2) answers to Carter's answer to a FB flat earther:
God gave both us and Satan the ability to think.
Dominion mandate or fruit of tree of knowledge are two different theological options about why we like exploring, and also dominion mandate does not extend to Sun, Moon and Stars. Therefore, it is no guarantee for astronomocal conclusions.
God created this world, but did so in the view of already created angels, including Satan.
Satan can deceive people into believing a radically (not completely from all angles) untrue thing against an obvious reality, making people forget the obvious, like Earth looks non-moving, heavens look like moving Westward each day.
The Hindoo teaching Earth is flat is clearly very nearly plausible. The Eratosthenes argument can be accounted for by Earth being an incompletely spheric largely flat form, like a chapati pan. The Eclipse argument, they account for by Raku coming out sometimes to hide Sun, sometimes to hide Moon, but its usually hidden below the rim of the earth.
And the "you find Pillars of Hercules beyond the Ganges" is false, as was found out since Aristotle, while the similar but factually correct argument was discovered by Magellan. And you know how Hindoos feel about Portuguese? If not, take a look at how Goa was annectated to India. Yes, basically like Rob Skiba feels about Vatican and Spaniards.
No Christian scholar with maybe two minor examples (Lactantius would be one of them) taught the earth was flat. By contrast, lots taught a spheric earth was centre of the universe.
Satan cannot deceive millions of people about two plus two making four. But the math involved in Heliocentrism is very much less conclusive. And the geometry involved in Globe Earth is conclusive enough to me, but clearly less simple than two plus two making four. When Rob Skiba argued a skyscraper in Chicago should not have been able to be seen from across Lake Michigan, I had to look up how to do the real formula for how far up an object needs to be from Earth surface to be seen from what distance from an observer so far up. On the presumption - tacitly used by Skiba, though he didn't detect it - that observer was holding eyes and camera where we normally have the feet and the ground level at level of Lake Michigan's surface or very few centimetres higher, his argument holds. The building could not have been seen under those circumstances. And - which is good to remember when dealing with Heliocentric arguments too - he did not state those very extreme circumstances were the ones involved.
3) Idiocentric model as illustrated by Robert Carter is usually overcome very early in childhood and not even entertained often back then.
It is not something which can be shown to be the core of Geocentrism.
Robert Carter can easily refute the idiocentric model proper, by appealing to all who did not feel themselves spin about Robert Carter but who saw him spin around himself.
The Geocentric model was in fact "debunked" by a similar appeal - to absentees. Yes, we on Earth see the Earth as centre, but someone living on Jupiter or Mars would see Jupiter or Mars as centre and someone living on a planet around Sirius or around Vega would see that planet revolving around Sirius or around Vega as centre.
Ooops .... Heliocentric philosophy is really ETs? YES.
Between Kepler and Herschel, Carter omitted the real propagandists for Heliocentrism. Newton's physics would not be adequate unless omitting God and angels as actual movers. It contributed, but wasn't all. When Euler explained "Heliocentrism in our solar system" to one Prussian princess, he argued very little about Newton, though some, but at least as much if not more about ... the people God created on planets like Jupiter, Mars, exo-planets (not yet observed in his time, by the way). The people who were men with bodies like us but did not descend from Adam and Eve.
Anyone knowing German, check my screen shots from online version of his writings to her, as I published them here:
AUF DEUTSCH (AUF ANTIMODERNISM UND SPÄTER) : Euler als "Astronom"
http://aufdeutschaufantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/12/euler-als-astronom.html
Specifically this one:
Each fix star seems to be meant to give light and warmth to a number of bodies similar to our Earth and which also without doubt are inhabited ....
Between Kepler and Herschel, you have proto-UFOlogy.
By the way, I think there was a certain Gary Bates who argued UFOlogy was part of a Satanic end times deception?
I'll end for here now.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Tuesday in Pentecost Novena
4.VI.2019
