There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=dan+4:10-11

​

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mat+4:8

​

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1+chr+16:30

​

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=psa+93:1

​

Those passages clearly demonstrate that the writers thereof firmly believed that the earth was flat and stationary.

---

Apparently, this discussion has greatly deviated from the original question. However, I would like to readdress that question and hopefully provide an acceptable answer.First, it has been correctly stated that the passage in Daniel 4:10-11 is the recounting of a vision. Allow me to take that explanation one step further. Not only was the tree in question merely a symbol in a dream, the dream itself is presented to us from the lips of a pagan king. True, the vision was given to him by God; but God did not intend for the tree to be taken litteraly. Instead He gave the interpretation of the dream to Daniel who stated in verses 20-22 of the same chapter,"The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth."In Matthew 4:8 we find the account of the devil taking Christ up into an exceeding high mountain and shoing Him all the kingdoms of the world. Please notice that the Bible does not claim that Christ here saw the entire earth, rather it states that He saw all the kingdoms of the world. At that time this feat did not require one to view the entire globe. One must also keep in mind the fact that the devil is a spirit, and that Jesus is no mere mortal. Thus we cannot fully fathom their individual capabilities.As for the verses which seem to point toward a stationary earth, LudvanB is correct in his interpretation of them. The Bible does support a geocentric view of the universe. What many of you apparantly do not know is that science also agrees with this view.In 1965, Arno Pezias and Robert Wilson discovered that the microwave radiation we recieve from the universe is basically the same no matter in which direction we look. This discovery can lead to only three possible conclusions. First, the universe is infinite. Second, the universe looks the same regardless of which planet, solar system, or galaxy it was viewed from. And third, the earth is at the center of the universe.The first two possibilities are easily disproven. The former is voided by the physical expansion of the universe and is seldom now considered a viable theory. The latter is nullified mathematically, since it requires the existence of a three-dimensional plane.However, even if these two possibilities were valid they both lead to the conclusion that every point within the universe is the center, thus allowing for a geocentric perception.The third conclusion currently stands unrefuted by science and is in complete agreement with the claims of Scripture

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
a)Yes CBR (cosmic background radiation) Black body radiation at a temperature of around 2.7 Kelvin...

​

b)Not the universe, the CBR there is a difference and not even a subtle one at that...

​

c)How does this follow from homogenous CBR? the Earth could be at the center of a universe with non homogenous CBR...

​

d)Oh goody, lead on McDuff....
i)Good I never liked the whole infinite universe thing anyway, made me agrophobic....

​

ii)Ok run that one past me again? how does a homogenous CBR (It isn`t perfectly homogenous by the way just pretty close) require a 3D plane?

​

e)OR that everything started at the centre in a Big Bang....

​

f)I beg to differ....

---

a)Thank you for your confirmation.b)Correct, yet that CBR, in traveling to us across the universe is affected by the universe so evenly that our measurements of it never vary by more than one part in ten thousand. Thus some have assumed that the universe looks basically the same regardless of the direction or even the locality from which it is viewed. Please notice that I do not agree with this assumption.c)Homogeneous CBR in itself does not demand a geocentric universe, however consistent measurements of CBR is in agreement with a geocentric model.d)If I'm not mistaken, that should be, "Lay on MacDuff..." but I do not have my copy of MacBeth with me to double check.i)That's good, because I would rather not waste time arguing against it.ii)Homogeneous CBR in itself does not require a three-dimensional plane, but when one attempts to reconcile consistent CBR and cosmological expansion with a non-geocentric model, he will most likely conclude that our universe exists as a spherical plane which is increasing in extent as it expands away from the time of its origin. According to the definition given in Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, no three-dimensional object can be considered planar. Our universe is a three-dimensional object. Therefore, our universe can not be planar and this model fails. (By the way the stated planar model would require a perfectly homogeneous CBR)e)It would appear that you are endorsing the argument to which I was just referring. If so, please refer to the above refutation. If not, please provide the current location of this center in relation to earth and how that location is consistent with our measurements of the CBR and of the expansion of our universe.f)Please do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl:
You seem to be ingnoring the overall anisotropy of the CBR. Conklin in 1969 described the dipole variation in the CBR due to the proper motion of the solar system at a velocity of 370km/sec.

​

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmoall.htm#LSS

---

Please notice the paranthetical statement under subpoint "ii" of letter "d." Please also notice the intentional differentiation between the terms, "homogeneous CBR" and "consistent CBR."I have not gone into a great amount of detail regarding the anisotropy of the CBR because it has yet to be presented as an individual argument. It has so far only been mentioned as a side note or a paranthetical statement to other arguments. I have therefore focused on the stated arguments and replied to the parantheticals with a paranthetical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
a)But I think you will agree that anything that is measured as moving relative to the universe cannot be at the center of that universe....

​

Bye bye geocentricity and even Heliocentricity/milkywaycentricity of the universe....

​

b)Feel free to show mathmaticaly how you feel nearly homogenous CBR suggests a spherical plane...

​

c)Oh by the way are you the same fella as Littlejimberry and Thmsberry? or related in any way?

---

a)No, I would not agree; for in any system containing two or more objects with at least one of those objects in motion, the motion of any object within that system can be measured relative to any other object within that system. The classic illustration of this principle is that of a ball being thrown from the front of a moving vehicle to the back. The motion of the ball can be meassured relative to either the vehicle or the planet on which the vehicle is moving or any other object within the universe. If measured relative to the vehicle, the ball can be said to be in motion. If measured relative to the planet, there exists the possibility that the ball can be said to be static. When every object in the universe is considered, one will find a great probability for the existence of one object from which measurements of the ball will show that ball to be static. Applying this principle to your claim, if the earth were the center of the universe and thus static while the entire universe is in motion, one can eualy produce measurements in which the earth is viewed as static and in which the earth is viewed as being in motion depending on the perspective from which those measurements are taken. Therefore, I would dissagree with your claim that relativistic measurements disprove geocentricity.b)You will please notice that I have not claimed that nearly homogenous CBR suggests a spherical plane. I have in fact stated that the existence of our universe as such is an impossibility. Why then should I attempt to provide mathematical proof of the existence of something which I have claimed cannot exist?c)Not that it matters any in a scientific debate, but no, I am not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
a)But in this case the car in the analogy is the universe...
Do you think that a ball trown from one end to another of a car is the centre of the car?
The anisotropy measurement yeilds our speed relative to the universe itself rather than any single constituent part...

---

The example given was not presented as an analogy. It is simply an illustration of the relativity of measurements.

quote:

---

b)So you were saying that CBR is homogenous and thus the universe is geocentric, you also later referred to 3D plane as spherical plane. Basing your claim for geocentricity on the lack of viability of a model that the observed evidence (NON-homogenous CBR) doesn`t suggest is a questionable tactic at best outright dishonest or ignorant at worst...

​

Your dodging and weaving and moving goalposts left right and centre bud....

---

There seem to be many things in my postings that you have misunderstood. (The illustration above, for example, and the distinction between a spherical plane and a three-dimensional plane, as well as several others.) Please allow me to attempt to simplify my explanation of my position.To my knowledge, there are only three models which agree with the CBR measurements. First that the universe is infinite; second that the universe looks the same regardless of which planet, solar system, or galaxy it is viewed from yet is not infinite; third that the earth is the center of the universe.I would like to focus on two points of observation. First that while scientific arguments can be brought against the first two models, there are, as yet, no scientific arguments against the geocentric model. Second that regardless of which model is correct all three allow for a geocentric interpretation.Thank you for your replies. I apologize for any misunderstanding that I may have caused and will attempt to present all future argumentation with better clarity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I am aware of arguments against the first but what are the arguments against the second?

---

According to the second model, the Earth only appears to be the center of the universe because every point in the universe appears to be the center. The only geometric shape that allows for all points to appear as the center is that of the spherical plane. The classic example of this is the surface of a balloon. However, the spherical plane can only have two dimensions. Our universe can be measured in three dimensions. Therefore our universe can not exist as a spherical plane. The near evenness of the CBR over all three dimensions suggests a spherical universe more like a solid ball. In which case the center is not on the surface as this model predicts but in the interior.

quote:

---

Meaning that the Earth is stationary and the entire universe revolves around it?

---

Meaning that the Earth is at the center of the universe

quote:

---

So? All three allow for a non-geocentric interpretation as well-- oh, except for the one that is geocentric by definition. 'By definition' is a terrible argument. The geocentric model resolves to the second model.

---

If all three allow for a geocentric perception, then there is no reason to assume that the Bible is incorrect in utilizing that perspective regardless of the allowance of a non-geocentric perspective. However, my main point still stands in that there is no scientific evidence against a geocentric universe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
You are right that the universe isn't two dimensional. It isn't three dimensional either, and perhaps has seven, eight or more dimensions. It does have at least four though, and a four dimensional shape that meets your criteria is called a hypersphere.

---

While the hypersphere is certainly a mathematical possibility, it is not necessarily a physical reality. Allow me present a few questions regarding the existence of this shape.First of all, what evidence can you present for the physical existence of a fourth spatial dimension?Second, my position is based solely on observational data, while yours adds theoretical data to that of observation. Why then should the hypersphere model be accepted over the geocentric model?Third, The hypersphere and the geocentric sphere are both mathematical possibilities. Why should one be preferred above the other?Fifth, how did this hypersphere develop?Sixth, is there any scientific or mathematical reason why the geocentric view of our universe should not be accepted as accurate?Finally, I would like to point out once again that even if the physical existence of the hypersphere were to be proven, it would still allow for a geocentric perception. If it permits a geocentric perception, then there is no reason to assume that the Bible is incorrect in utilizing that perspective regardless of the allowance of a non-geocentric perspective.

quote:

---

Time. In three dimensions you have up/down, right/left, forward/backward, but you can't move. Movement implies that what was once at point A is now at point B. We automatically have time. Relativity shows that time behaves similar to the other three dimensions, hence, perhaps for lack of a better word, we call it another dimension.

---

Time is not a spatial dimension. The fourth spatial dimension required by the hypersphere model must exist perpendicular to the other three. Thus though time is sometimes referred to as the fourth dimension it is not the same as the fourth spatial dimension of a hypersphere. The first of the two links you provided does a good job of establishing this point. Therefore I repeat my question, what evidence can you present for the physical existence of a fourth spatial dimension?

quote:

---

we obviously inhabit at least three deminsions of space. Relativity describes the warping of space due to the presence of mass. Relativity can also predicts observable phenomena, hence for now it is the best we've got. Now, it seems to me that the warping of spacetime requires our being on the surface of something like a hypersphere.

---

Just on a side note, relativity also denies the possibility of the big bang.

quote:

---

Well, assuming that everything started at a singularity, or very close, calling anything the center is hard to justify. We aren't talking about an explosion within a space. We are talking about the expansion of space itself.

​

Secondly, the Earth moves around the Sun, the Sun moves around the Galaxy, the Galaxy around the universe. To support a Geocentric view you have to imagine that within all this motion the Earth is dead still. It violates everything we know about celestial mechanics-- gravity, orbits, mass, inertia, etc.

---

How so? According to Stephen Hawking there is no scientific evidence against a geocentric universe. According to Sir Fred Hoyle, "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has NO physical significance." How then does a geocentric model violate everything we know about celestial mechanics?

I have stated that even though the hypersphere may be a mathematical possibility (meaning that the algebraic formula for such an object is somewhat viable), it is not necessarily a physical reality. I then asked four questions designed to test the physical possibilities of that objects existence.First, I requested evidence for the existence of a fourth spatial dimension. This request was later qualified by the explanation that the stated fourth dimension must exist perpendicular to the other three. As you have expressed inability to provide the necessary evidence, allow me to answer my own question.There is no evidence for the physical existence of a fourth dimension. There have been many theories proposed and tested regarding the existence of other dimensions, but there as yet remains no actual observation of any spatial dimension beyond the three commonly referred to.Furthermore, not only is there no evidence for the existence of a fourth spatial dimension, the specific fourth dimension required by the hypersphere model is not physically probable. As already stated, that dimension must be perpendicular to the other three, meaning that all four dimensions must be perfectly perpendicular to each other at the same time. The supposition of four equally perpendicular lines intersecting at a single point of observation is a mathematical contradiction.This leads to my second question of why a model based on the theoretical existence of a fourth spatial dimension is to be preferred over the geocentric model which is founded solely on observational data. As you have stated, there is no reason for accepting the hypersphere model over the geocentric model.I would therefore postulate that if the geocentric model does not contain any errors which invalidate its acceptance while the hypersphere model is founded upon a mathematical contradiction, the geocentric model should be preferred to that of the hypersphere.