The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
First, let me remind you that I haven't completely finished the model, so you're only getting a piece for now. Second, I'm not obligated to answer anyone but the Big Three, although I will grant a dispensation for Number Nine and Fractatious, if they wish to take advantage. I acted like a jerk on the other thread and didn't answer their questions....so they get a pass. Cogzoid, I hope you have a happy vacation and will look forward to your return. Let me now do a little cut n' paste. Here are Eric's objections to geocentrism:
| Quote | In any event, to save you the trouble of wading back through almost 20 pages of previous messages, I'll repost my questions to you here:
The Hertzsprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship. According to your model, all stars (with minor exceptions) are at the same distance from earth: 4.5 ly. This means that all stars' apparent magnitude is equal to their absolute magnitude, and therefore their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity. This means that the Hertzprung-Russel mass-luminosity relationship is broken, and there is therefore no relationship between a star's mass and its luminosity, or between its temperature and its luminosity. Therefore some other explanation is necessary for the different temperatures of stars. What is that explanation?
Galaxies. Since galaxies are all the same distance from the earth as the stars are (4.5 ly), either they're not made of stars at all (and hence are "nebulae"?), or they're made of extremely non-luminous stars. But stars have been resolved in some nearby galaxies, e.g., the Magellanic clouds. Presumably these are really tiny stars? Since their apparent luminosity is the same as their intrinsic luminosity…
Cosmic elemental abundances. (Is evopeach out there somewhere?). Presumably Bill's geocentric universe precludes a big bang, and therefore precludes primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore, one needs some other explanation for the eerie concordance between the observed cosmic microwave background radiation and the predicted abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium, which are exquisitely sensitive to the temperature of that radiation. Of course, we also need an explanation for the existence of the CMB in the first place, since the Big Bang evidently didn't happen in Bill's world.
Existence of metals. (Of course, I mean metals in the sense that astrophysicists use the term). I assume that supernovae don't happen in Bill's world, since a supernova occurring 4.5 ly away would preclude the existence of the earth. So, Bill—how did metals get here? I'm assuming since there was no big bang, they've always been here, but I'm hoping your answer is a little more entertaining than "I don't need to explain how metals got here, because they've always been here."
Cosmic redshift. Obviously, neither stars nor galaxies have a recession velocity, since they're all at the same distance from the earth (4.5 ly), and presumably always have been. So what accounts for the observed redshift? Tired light? Intervening dust? God playing tricks on us?
Distance to the celestial sphere. Bill, you say you know the distance to the A Centauri system. But how did you derive that distance? By its parallax? Even if, as WKV points out, parallax could be due to a wobbly cosmic sphere, you wouldn't be able to determine the sphere's distance that way. The reason we know the distance to A Centauri is because we know the diameter of the earth's orbit around the— oh, wait. The earth doesn't revolve around the sun. So what's the base of the triangle that allows us to compute the distance to the celestial sphere? |
The first objection also relates to Cepheid variable stars, which act as a "standard candle" that helps evolutionists calculate their phony distances across the universe.
Here are Fractatious's objections:
| Quote | A monotypic group (like the mesopatamians or mesoamericans, and pre neolithic asians and africans) had knowledge, without reading scripture that did not depend on the Bible being true.. did not depend on it period. Then what?
| Quote | | Students are not required to do every single experiement and observe every single piece of evidence by themselves. They are given the results via textbooks and journals, to be accepted on faith. |
But if students wished to replicate those experiments (which many have, and will continue to do), this does not require faith. Unlike Intelligent Design and Creationism, it presents the research methodology in order to be replicated, in order to derive similar results, in order to be critiqued, and expanded upon. How do you think Intelligent Designers and Creationists get their negative information concerning science? Scientists conduct research, conduct experiments and register their findings. Those findings are made available. This is done so the flaws can be ironed out - for the Intelligent Designers and Creationists however, they do not view it as such - "why has science made this available?" a student of science will probably say "to show the method and to better both the research and experiment", the Intelligent Designer and Creationist will probably answer, "to prove science wrong, and God right".
| Quote | | What are journal results? They are testimony. No different from the testimony of those who observed Christ's empty tomb. |
Journal results are recordings, they are recordings of a specific piece of research. How many times was Christ's tomb opened? How many accounts were given for this? Though I understand a need to (for the theistic person) correlate scientific methodology with religious faith, I fail to see how they can be compared with any great substance. One main point: Science does not require belief or faith, science requires scientific method. If it did, I would of prayed my way through my degree and probably got it.
| Quote | | This testimony is God's revelation beginning in the Garden of Eden. This is the only way to ground human knowledge. |
Interesting - religion subverted science to the point that it was considered magic. Gallileo was put on trial for his support of the Copernicusian Model. Bruno was burnt alive for it. From a historical perspective it is valid to state that the adherents to testimonial of God's revelation would rather isolate human knowledge, instead of watching it grow. |
Here are Number Nine's:
| Quote | Ghost of Paley: Congratulations. What you wrote is undoubtedly the kind of epistemic mental masturbation that got you awestruck swoons in your Intro to Philosophy class.
You are relying on hyper-relativism. Like -- oh, a manic Heraclitus or Protagoras -- you claim that all is in flux, hence no universals can be true. Then you claim that only particulars can be true. But, Paley, once you begin racing down the epistemological road to solipsism, you cannot stop partway and claim some superior stance..let's see how true your particulars are:
If Paley knows that he has a True Bible, then Paley knows that he is not a brain in a vat. Paley does not know that he is not a brain in a vat. Therefore, Paley does not know that he has a True Bible.
You cannot claim the bible as "metajustification" at all, can you? If you say you can, refute what I just said. |
If they want to add more arguments, they can.
Everyone else....try to be restrained and relevant. 
More later.
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
