Extraterrestrial Life and Baptist Theology

I do not wish to steal the spotlight from Bartholomew, but it appears that his arguments will only lead one to conclude that it does not matter which position they take. Such a conclusion is not in keeping with my statement that the non-geocentric view is foundational to the theories of extraterrestrial life. If the two views differ only in relativity, then the probabilities of extraterrestrial life would be equal in both models. However, such is not my position.

I have previously cited the CBR measurements as proof of geocentricity. That statement still stands unrefuted. Based then on the centrality of the earth, what conclusions can we draw regarding extraterrestrials?

I. If the earth is the center of the universe, it maintains a special and specific place in God's creation which cannot be attributed to any other planet within this world.

II. If the earth is the center of the universe, it maintains physical attributes due to its position which cannot be obtained at any other location within this universe.

III. If the earth is the center of the universe, the universe assumes certain physical attributes which demand the existence of a creator. The existence of a creator demands a purpose for the creation; purpose demands accountability; accountability demands perfect revelation; perfect revelation demands inspiration; inspiration demands perfect preservation; perfect preservation demands complete adherence. Therefore, if the earth is the center of the universe, God's Word becomes the sole source for doctrine; and the absence of any doctrine within the Bible of the existence of extraterrestrials demands the absence of such a doctrine among men.

I thus conclude that extraterrestrials, in the sense of physical beings whose native habitat is a planet other than our own, do not exist.

 

'Planet within this world'? I assume you mean universe/galaxy/solar system? Either way, you cannot derive this conclusion based upon the earth being the center of the universe. This is erroneous at best.

Yes, this is true. This happens to be another reason why we KNOW that earth is NOT the center of the universe. Oh well.

Yeah, and because the bible doesn't talk about cars means they don't exist. Because the bible doesn't talk about computers, they are the devil's tools right?

This type of 'reasoning' gives Christians a bad name. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I have fought back too many stereotypes of Christians being 'ignorant' to let this perpetuate itself. And then someone has to go and say something like this. It is hard enough being a Christian in any scientific arena without stuff like this being said.

That's cool...I personally don't believe in them either...but it wouldn't make a difference if they did show up. But if you do base it upon the above reasoning, you have a long way to go.

jason

 

How are you doing, brother? You can steal the spotlight from me whenever you want - I'm spending too long on here anyway! Perhaps I'm not being clear on the subject.

1. Modern science says that anyone (at least in this vacinity of the universe) can claim he is standing still, and everything is rotating around him. There's no physical difference no matter who is right, because physics is only describes how things interact relative to each other. The forces, etc. work out the same no matter whom you assume is stationary.

I agree with this.

2. Consequently it says that if it all turns out the same anyway, then it is all the same anyway. You can't say that something is really moving: it just depends who's looking at it. Since everyone's point of view is just as good as everyone else's, talking about what is really moving is meaningless. Nothing is moving absolutely because there is no 'preferred observer' whose opinion on the subject matters any more than anyone else's.

I disagree with this, because, of course, God's opinion is better than everyone else's. God's view is absolute. So if he tells us which moves - the earth or sun - then that has to be absolutely true. It follows from 1. that this cannot be proved or disproved by scientific observation of the motion of stars, etc.

3. Finally, relativity theory (advanced after the above ideas, but similar) says that light travels in the universe in such a way as no experiment can show what an observer is doing relative to the universe itself. However, it is interesting that this idea was only put forward after such an experiment failed to show that the earth moved through the universe around the sun!

I don't know whether to believe this idea. Of course, some aspects of relativity have been scientifically verified; but that doesn't mean that all of it is correct. If this view is untrue, it would mean that although the forces experienced, and observations of the positions of stars, would be the same no matter what was moving (as per point 1), the actual motion of the earth relative to the universe could be detected by experiments with light.

4. Modern scientists also believe that the universe would look pretty much the same no matter you were in the universe.

I tend to disagree with this, because there are various observations that seem to indicate the position of the earth is special, and which would not be seen great distances from here (e.g. being in about the centre of a great wall of galaxies; and that great wall being in about the centre of other great walls; etc...)

Thus one is left with three options: nothing 'moves' in an absolute sense - the term is meaningless; you can't tell what moves - science works out the same both ways; or you can tell, and the reason scientists think you can't is because they failed to measure the earth's motion. Thus the earth has no motion.

Whichever way you want to go, science hasn't disproved the Biblical statement that the sun goes around the earth!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

So what? The early saints saying there was only one God (and that he was higher than Ceasar) gave Christians a bad name. So much so that the Romans threw them to the lions. It's irrelevant whether something gives Christians a bad name. What matters is the Bible. And nobody has yet answered how we can let scientists tell us that the "rising of the sun" is only apparent, and yet the "rising of the Son" isn't. I think it's because you don't have a valid answer.

 

Is there a reason why this thread is still alive?

 

Last post in this thread, quite frankly, because this is stupid.

1. Scientists don't tell use Jesus didn't rise again. Science can't do that.

2. Science can, and does, tell use that the earth is not the center of the universe based upon complex mathematical models, direct observation (funny little thing called the real world) and a host of other methods.

3. Again, there is this thing called figurative writing. Jesus himself uses it...unless you want to believe that all his parables are nothing more than stories of his youth, having no bearing on us at all. If you don't acknowledge this, we cannot have a reasonable, intelligent discussion.

4. Making earth the center of the universe does nothing to glorify God in anyway...it is totally a nonissue.

5. You still haven't addressed the 4 corners issues from Rev. Frankly, I don't care if you do. I am just pointing out that you can't address this logically if you don't allow figurative writing.

Again, I am done.
jason

 

Helen i hope you don't mind me editing the quote block. I just want to address the points. Please take no offense

The Egyptians of the time had surmised that the surface of the earth was curved, but did not do so until later. Moses may or may not have had knowledge of this (since he was educated in an egyptian household). But that was still a far cry from knowing the earth was spherical. It's no insult to say the Jews might not have had a concept if that, anymore than saying that the early romans or greeks didn't accept a 365 day calendar would be an insult. I think we can understand the Hebrew civilization better by understanding their world from their perspective, instead of trying understand their world from our perspective. Even if the Biblical descriptions are from a disc shaped, geocentric perspective, that doesn't negate the biblical authority of a sperical heliocentric earth.

It seems we're in agreement here, we just seem to be on different bages of the book

 

quick edit -- JohnV, you posted just before I did, so this is NOT to you! There are some interesting things with your post we could discuss, but one thing at a time here...

I think this thread should be closed, too, Don, but as long as it is not, I think for the sake of anyone else reading, that there need to be some actual scientific answers posted in regard to what these two are claiming.

1. Modern science says that anyone (at least in this vacinity of the universe) can claim he is standing still, and everything is rotating around him. There's no physical difference no matter who is right, because physics is only describes how things interact relative to each other. The forces, etc. work out the same no matter whom you assume is stationary.

Modern science knows quite clearly that the above statement is wrong. Our solar system produces its own Doppler shift. That is because it, itself, is moving through space. If it is moving, I guarantee that we are, too.

Yes, of course things are measured relative to each other. That is how we can manage to get a space probe to fly by the moons of Jupiter, for instance. We can calculate Jupiter's motion around the sun relative to our own and know the thrust and direction and speed necessary for a successful journey. Now, if the sun and Jupiter and all else were rotating around the earth, the math and the directions taken would be quite different.

2. Consequently it says that if it all turns out the same anyway, then it is all the same anyway. You can't say that something is really moving: it just depends who's looking at it. Since everyone's point of view is just as good as everyone else's, talking about what is really moving is meaningless. Nothing is moving absolutely because there is no 'preferred observer' whose opinion on the subject matters any more than anyone else's.

An isotropic universe in terms of energy, such as your cosmic background radiation, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter! For instance, many of the constellations are constellations because of their positions relative to earth. However, if you were somewhere in the neighborhood of Orion, which is disrupting at a very rapid speed, it would all look completely different to you. Things are NOT the same no matter where you are in space!

When we do find some kind of isotropic (everywhere at once) phenomena, such as the cosmic background radiation seems to be, then we look for a very large CAUSE before we try to determine the final EFFECTS. As a Christian, I think that the background radiation is an effect caused by God stretching out the heavens, as He has said He did (in the completed past tense) twelve times in the Bible. If you put your hands into a large dish of water and, starting with them together in an 'upside down praying position' and then move them rapidly apart, you will get the same sort of vortices you get with the various galaxies! There will also, if the bowl or container is quite big enough, residual movement throughout which lasts quite a while.

If this picture has anything to do with what really happened, then we not only have some kind of explanation of the whirling galaxies, but the possiblity that the cosmic radiation background is evidence of a young creation.

See, there are other possible conclusions...

I disagree with this, because, of course, God's opinion is better than everyone else's. God's view is absolute. So if he tells us which moves - the earth or sun - then that has to be absolutely true. It follows from 1. that this cannot be proved or disproved by scientific observation of the motion of stars, etc.

Ah, but the heavens declare his handiwork! And the more we know about the heavens, the more we know about his handiwork. Paul also mentions that creation testifies to Him. Therefore the study of creation in a true sense will lead us to a little more knowledge of Him. Scientific observation is valuable for these reasons alone.

3. Finally, relativity theory (advanced after the above ideas, but similar) says that light travels in the universe in such a way as no experiment can show what an observer is doing relative to the universe itself. However, it is interesting that this idea was only put forward after such an experiment failed to show that the earth moved through the universe around the sun!

I am not at all sure what you are talking about in all that. However if you are trying to get at the idea that we need an absolutely still point by which to judge everything else and that no other judgment is valid without it, I disagree. If you are trying to get at the point that earth is simply to small to be able to find out as much as we would like to find out about the entire universe in terms of movement, then I agree.

I don't know whether to believe this idea. Of course, some aspects of relativity have been scientifically verified; but that doesn't mean that all of it is correct. If this view is untrue, it would mean that although the forces experienced, and observations of the positions of stars, would be the same no matter what was moving (as per point 1), the actual motion of the earth relative to the universe could be detected by experiments with light.

Been done.

4. Modern scientists also believe that the universe would look pretty much the same no matter you were in the universe.

No, that's totally wrong. I have never read that at all. There ARE things that we think will look the same from any position in the universe, but the way the universe itself looks is certainly not one of them!

[snip]

Thus one is left with three options: nothing 'moves' in an absolute sense - the term is meaningless; you can't tell what moves - science works out the same both ways; or you can tell, and the reason scientists think you can't is because they failed to measure the earth's motion. Thus the earth has no motion.

The earth's motion, and our solar system's have both been measure. The first in comparison to the latter and the latter in terms of both stars called cepheid variables and measurements dealing with light and redshifts.

Whichever way you want to go, science hasn't disproved the Biblical statement that the sun goes around the earth!

The Bible never, ever states that. It uses the same idiom -- sun rise, sun set -- that we use today.

And science has shown extraordinarily clearly that we live in a heliocentric system. That's sort of why we call it the 'solar [sun] system.'

[ October 15, 2002, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

About the discussion on the earth moving: Nothing really moves anyway. All that is real are the relationships between events. There is no such thing as time and space and motion. Those ideas, however, are convenient ways of organizing, in our minds, the relationships between events.

About extraterrestrial life: It is OK to say "I don't know".

About flying saucers and area 51 and the grey species: Nonsense. Poppycock. Harumph.

There. I hope you are all at ease now.

 

LOL -- and relationships, of course, do not have anything to do with time, space, and motion...

nahhhh, I didn't think so....

 

Sorry, Jason, but since I'm the only person on here who believes the universe rotates about the earth every day, I'm having to write a massive amout of stuff to keep up with everyone's posts. But to be as brief as I can:

1. The word "corner" does not neccessarily imlies a right-angle. It also means an extremety (which makes more sense in the context, anyway).
2. Thus, as long as there are four extremeties to the earth, the Bible is literaly true.
3. These four extremeties, as Helen pointed out, could be the north, south, east and west.
4. According to Genesis 1, the "earth" is the dry land, not the globe (which includes the sea).
5. "Earth" is also used to describe only a portion of the earth's surface - hence if a particular portion of the earth's surfcae had four extremeties, the language would be literal.
6. Even if all the dry land is in view, there is nothing to stop the term being literal. Just as I can fold a piece of paper around without getting rid of its four corners, so the earth (dry land) can be 'folded' across the spherical surface of the globe without destroying its four corners.
7. The dry land has four extremeties: The western tip of Alaska, the southern tip of South America, the Eastern tip of Russia, and the south-eastern tip of Australia. Also interesting are the facts that these corners are on almost the complete opposite side to the world as is Israel; and that if one were to go from Israel to these four points (and everywhere in-between), one would have covered virtually every piece of land on the globe.
8. Thus whatever you think the "four corners of the earth" are, there is no reason to think that the terms are anything other than literal.
9. If you think taking this literally implies a flat earth with four corners, why does Johnv think the Bible talks of a circular earth with no corners? The two contradict each other.

But that's an irrelevance. We are all agreed that the sun appears to rise. And the Bible says it does. What we're asking is can science tell us that what the Bible says does happen can be revised to mean it only appears to happen on the basis of science? The earth does not appear to have four corners, so the example is not analogous. However, Jesus did appear to rise from the dead. But if it turns out that the sun's rising was only apparent, will you allow for the possibility that Jesus' rising was only apparent? If not, you're being inconsistent. And besides, science tells us it's impossible for anyone to rise from the dead.

 

This is simply not analogous. How do you know when figarative language is being used? Well, firstly, if it's obviously impossible: for example, the trees of the field can't clap their hands because trees don't have hands. However, it is not impossible (and certianly wasn't considered so in biblical times) for the sun to orbit the earth. In fact, Ecclesiastes 1:5 is quite explicit that this is the case. How can the sun "hasteneth back to the place where he arose" if it doesn't move? You've taken out-of-date philosophy (not science) and used it to over-ride the clear teaching of scripture.

As for parables, well let's have a look:

And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; (Matthew 13:3)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... It says he spoke to them in parables! That's how we know they're parables! It says! Are you telling me that he only appeared to speak in parables? Was he in fact talking in an occultic language of the ancient Marsians? No? It says he spoke in parables. Nobody who believes the Bible would doubt it. So why do you doubt the Bible when it says the sun rose (instead of only appearing to rise)?

 

Moving with respect to what? The distant stars. But this is irrelevant, since we're discussing what the distant stars are doing.

Helen, you're beginning to annoy me, because these statements are just wrong. ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The geocentric theory I believe in is geometrically identical to the modern idea you apparently believe in. The only difference is I think something (the earth) is actually fixed. Now either you've just completely ignored my numerous statements that this is what I believe in, or you don't understand what you're talking about. If the two are geometrically the same, there is no difference in rockets, space probes, or anything else. Either that, or you've disproved a foundational principle of mathematics. Write a thesis and you'll win a Nobel prize.

That's why I never mentioned it in relation to the matter!!!

Of course. But the equations of motion will work out the same if we model the universe as rotating about this place in Orion.

Are you reading what I actually write??? I said that you cannot prove whether the earth or the sun moves by simply observing the stars. That you can see more of his handiwork by doing so, I entirely agree.

OK. Before Einstein, it was generally believed that the universe was filled with a substance called "aether". Since light was known to be a wave, it was thought that it needed a medium in which to oscillate (just as water waved need water in order to exist): this was the aether. However, it followed that motion relative to the aether (which was considered to be absolutely at rest - observations of the directions of starlight demanded that the aether be still relative to the universe as a whole), and hence absolute motion, could be determined using experiments with interfearing light waves. However, the consequent Michaelson-Morely experiment, set up to measure the earth's movement through this aether around the sun, completely failed. Consequently, Einstein said the aether didn't exist, and that such experiments (and all others) could not show that anything moved absolutely. (Notice, however, that it was conceiveable that the aether itself - along with the universe - moved through absolute sapce).

So, what I'm saying is that if Einstein was right, you cannot tell absolute motion (he believed the term to be meaningless, anyway). But if he was wrong, this means the earth is not moving through the aether around the sun, and this is why the above experiment failed. The Michelson-Gale and Sagnac experiments lend weight to the idea that the aether does exist, and orbits the earth (along with the universe) every day.

If you are correct, then relativity theory is wrong. Of course you are free to disagree with it, but the majority of scientists will disagree with you.

It is aptly called the "Copernican Principle". It was aptly taught to me by a university astronomy professor. (You are the one holding up the ideas of scietists against the clear teaching of scripture). It states there is no reason that the earth should be special in any way. Funny, because that's the same philosophical (not scientific) idea that drove Copernicus to his unprovable ideas, and the same one that allows so many to suggest there are ETs out there.

As I keep telling you, the laws of physics that give you these results are true relative to the universe. However, I contend that it is the universe itself that is moving! No scientific data can prove one view above the other.

I showed you loads of verses that said it. You just ignored them (and also told us one of them wasn't even inspired!), and decided that they didn't mean what they plainly said. Please tell me (from the Bible), did the sun, or the earth stop moving during Joshua's long day? What about Psalm 19:4-6? Why is the sun like a strong man ready to run a race, if it's the earth, not the sun, that moves? Yes, here is your figuraive language. Your problem is that it doesn't mean anything if the sun isn't moving. And what is the sun's circuit if it doesn't orbit the earth? Or is it only an apparent circuit? If so, is its heat (verse 6) only apparent, too?

But I'm getting sick of this discussion. I've provided plently of biblical (and scientific) evidence that the universe rotates about the earth every day. Whether the earth is slap-bang in the geometrical centre of the universe, I cannot know; but if the universe is spinning around us (which it is), then there's absolutely no reason why aliens would be anywhere else. However, if you choose to ignore what the Bible says, you can believe in aliens all you like. This is my last post on here. I pray these messages at least made someone think. Finally, to all of you with whom I conversed: I'm sorry if we disagreed, but I hope we can all still be friends.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

B, you have provided only idiomatic phrases from the Bible which are the same as the idiomatic phrases used today. You have provided NO scientific evidence, only your declarations. My husband does primary research in this area. He is a physicist. I edited for him before we were married and still do. And you might be interested to know that relativity is being challenged by some in the scientific world right now, although not by my husband.

And where on earth did you get the idea that the geometric math is the same?

Please, PLEASE take a look at this link -- I think the problems with a geocentric model are outlined quite well, along with the history of solar system models. I know you are going to disagree, but others need to know that you are simply not presenting correct statements.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast221/lectures/lec06.html

 

Ok, I'll make one more post. But this absolutely the last one!!! I have in my hand a collection of several papers, written by secuar scientists, proving this. Here is a list of some of the papers that do this:

Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38, 1.

Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.

Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.

Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1921, Ibid. 22:29.

Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.

Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.

Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.

Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.

Lynden-Bell, D., J. Katz, & J. Bilak, 1995. "Mach's Principle from the Relativistic Constraint Equations," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 272:150-160.

You obviously don't know much about Mach's principle. Why not ask your husband about it? If he can show these papers are untrue, he will have performed one of the most revolutionary feats in modern physics.

The link is utterly irrelevant. It either shows you have not read my posts before answering them, or you haven't read the link. I do not believe in the Ptolomaic model, but a modified version of the Tychonian model, that is geometrically identical to the 'scientific' model. Your repeated statements that the two produce different results simply shows you don't understand the geometry. As the only differences are those of relative motion, there can be no difference. I think another problem you have is that you aren't considering the effects a rotating universe would have on the earth. To quote "Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework" (referanced above):

Thus, his [Mach's] conjecture, expressed in modern terms, was that a completely relational physics (i.e. invariant under [an equation]) of the Universe considered as a whole could lead to an effective local physics invariant under only [another equation]. The present work shows, we believe, that this conjecture was completely correct and that the observed matter distribution in the Universe lends strong support to Mach's ideas.

If you don't know what Mach's ideas were, they were basically that if the universe rotated about the earth, you'd get the same results as what we see.

Isn't it interesting that secular scientists (who know what they're talking about) are quite happy that Geocentricity is science?

Let God be true, and Copernicus a liar.

 

why does Johnv think the Bible talks of a circular earth with no corners? The two contradict each other.

Geez, you guys are making my brain hurt!!! Stop it. The 4 corner thing was my feeble attempt to see the sunrise/sunset thing in the same metaphoric light that the 4 corner desription was written in.

As far as a flat earth, the picture I paint is a matter of archeology when it comes to the practical beliefs (as opposed to biblical beliefs) of the early Israelites. I won't bother to list any of them here, because we've gotten way off topic. The vision they had of the earth is pretty well documented elsewhere.

But here's the kicker:

When you put the literal description of the biblical earth next to the disc shaped earth, the two match up.

Now when you put an analogous desctiption of the biblical earth next to the earth as we know it today, one could still see the description as non-contradictory.

In other words, the purpose of Genesis was not to tell us what the earth looked like or whether one thing goes around something else. It's simply to tell us who and what God is in relation to us, and why he made us.

 

jasonW,

Based on your own statement, "It is hard enough being a Christian in any scientific arena without stuff like this being said," I reject your rebuttal of my position. You have aptly labeled this discusion as scientific and have spoken against what you consider to be "ignorant reasoning," yet you have failed to present any form of reasoning or knowledge which supports your statements. Until you can provide the necessary "scientific" support for your statements, I will consider all such statements to be self-contradictory and unworthy of response.

 

Bartholomew,

You are correct in stating that modern science holds to this position. It is the official position of Stephen Hawking as outlined in his book A Brief History of Time. However, you err in assuming that this position is correct. There are only two theories in modern science which hold to this view. The first is that the universe is infinite, and the second is the hypersphere type of model in which the three dimensions exist on the surface of one or more dimensions which we are incapable of measuring. Both theories can be proven false. Hawking himself states that there is no scientific proof for his position.

In contrast to this position, I hold that the universe is spherical in shape with the earth located at the center of the sphere. This view accurately predicts the nearly consistent CBR which we measure today.

 

Helen,

Why do you think the thread should be closed? I have not strayed from the topic and much of what I have said has still not been addressed.

As for the scientific answers, allow me to take your explanation of the CBR and show how it proves my case.

You accurately stated that "things are NOT the same no matter where you are in space!" You also stated that we should strive to find the cause of phenomena before trying "to determine the final effect." What then is the cause of things not being the same regardless of one's position in space? The only possible answer is that space is finite and bounded.

If space is finite and bounded, then it must have a center.

Our measurements of the CBR are nearly consistent. Because "things are NOT the same no matter where you are in space," this consistency of measurement must be unique to earth. What then is the cause of this consistency of our measurements? I propose that the cause of this consistency is the earths location at the center of the universe. If we were to measure the CBR from a position other than the center, we would find an inconsistency between the CBR traveling to us through the center of the universe and that traveling to us from the near edge of the universe. Thus, to obtain consitent meaurements of the CBR requires one to be located at the center of the universe.

If the cosmic background radiation was caused by God's stretching out the heavens, then a consistency in the measurements of that CBR would be caused by the centrality of the said stretching around the location of the earth. In other words, God stretched the heavens away from the earth equaly in all directions.

Aside from the verses stated by Bartholomew, I have presented three passages dealing with the position of the earth within the universe. You have not addressed those passages. Thus your claim that "the Bible never, ever states that," currently stands unproven.

 

May I assume that when you state both theories can be proven false, you are not speaking of a scientific proof, but a proof you derive from scripture?