Science Envy: The False Epistemology of Armstrongism

For "Knowledge" read "unsupported belief".

At the outset of the 20th Century a slow-turning cultural revolution began to take shape in Western society, one which eventually would collide with the solemn bulwark of tradition in all areas of life–art, music, science and religion–nothing was to be sacrosanct. All assumptions would be uprooted, critiqued…and some discarded. This avant-garde tide would come to be known as Modernism, and not all were happy to find themselves awash in it. Especially chafed were the proponents of traditional Christianity, who saw the concepts of inerrant scripture and a divine Christ cast down before the new liberal exegetes. These Modernist theologians showed themselves willing to alter traditional interpretations of scripture to accommodate the findings of science and higher criticism, viewed a belief in miracles as superstitious and preferred a metaphorical reading to one which would invoke claims of the supernatural.

A Protestant reaction to Modernism quickly gave birth to the counter-movement now known as Fundamentalism. This was an attempt to assert the traditional view of scripture and Christian theology and to defend it from subordination to scientific reasoning. A subset of this movement was yet another inter-sect movement called Adventism, characterized by a belief in an imminent return of Jesus Christ to earth. It was within these anti-Modernist environs, under the tutelage of Adventists, that Herbert W. Armstrong developed his religious ideas, founding the Worldwide Church of God as a Seventh-day Adventist splinter group in 1933.

In this brief historical nutshell we find the philosophical origins of a central tenet of Armstrongism: the theory of the Two Trees. Armstrongism, like the wider Fundamentalism in which it was conceived and incubated, dares to play on the same epistemological turf as modern science. Unlike many of the world’s religions, and much of what today is considered “traditional” Christianity, Fundamentalist sects like Armstrongism cling to a literal interpretation of scripture, supposedly revealed by God, and uphold this interpretation as absolute Truth–revelatory knowledge that can (indeed, must) be “proved,” and which is ostensibly either vindicated by science or impervious to it. Sometimes both of these incompatible claims are made simultaneously. The peculiar ad hoc rationalizations given to defend such ambivalence toward science are indicative of an incongruous epistemological framework. In this article we will explore this monstrosity of faulty reasoning and expose it for the self-defeating nonsense that it is.

Faith and Reason

As surprising as it may sound, Armstrongism (like all of Fundamentalism) can be thought of as a rational faith. That is to say, its belief system is structured upon a syllogistic foundation. In other words, Fundamentalists like Armstrong don’t like their beliefs to be fuzzy or unjustified by reason–so they make an effort to rationalize their supernatural beliefs in an attempt to justify them. Unlike those who reject the superiority of reason over faith, Fundamentalists appear to accept reason as superior to faith, but then proceed to make a mockery of both by attempting to rationalize untenable beliefs and by insisting that their faith can be supported by evidence.

Before we unpack all of these epistemological shenanigans, we must ask, “Just what do you mean, faith?”

Strictly speaking, faith, in the context of religious discussions, is a belief in supernatural revelation. However, it can also be thought of as hope or trust, a kind of pollyannaism, wherein a bias toward positive outcomes is favored. This semantic ambiguity lends itself to a lot of equivocation on the part of those who try to defend the former definition by invoking the latter. For example, one might protest, “Oh, no, my faith is not unreasonable: it’s the same thing you feel when you hope for something.” Of course, there’s a difference between a reasonable hope and an unreasonable one and, at any rate, the thing the faithful hope for is that their “revealed knowledge” is true merely on the basis of their believing it–which is the very thing others find unreasonable. This is the reason the phrase “blind faith” is both an apt redundancy and consternating to those who insist on faith as a virtue.

But Fundamentalists are by definition Biblical Literalists and, as such, should be held to the Biblical definition of faith, which is the “evidence of things not seen”. This means, of course, that faith is that which one uses to support a claim that cannot be shown to be true by conventional means. “Things not seen” presumably include things not heard, things not touched, things not smelt…in other words, things not observed.

Observation is a useful tool. Even the softest-headed bunk-pusher would have to admit that most of their day-to-day decisions are dominated by attention to information gleaned through the act of observation. One typically does not cross the street on faith, but rather looks both ways. Most people, with regard to most things, are doubting Thomases. This is a reasonable way to live. By the same token, it is also reasonable to use observation when deciding what is true in general, rather than shutting one’s eyes and hoping. Everyone with more than a dollop of grey matter up top is aware that it is particularly unreasonable to shut one’s eyes and hope for a proposition to be true–even to be certain of its veracity without the slightest reference to observable facts–as the Bible demands. Whereas Jesus called out the skeptic: “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed,” Herbert Armstrong would ridicule those who covered their ears and said, “La la la, I can’t hear you.” He wrote a whole booklet ostensibly “proving” the existence of God, wherein he strongly implied that it is not prudent to believe without proof. He was a Fundamentalist, and Fundamentalists insist on believing sensible things (literally, things “perceptible by the senses”). Faith in what is “true” about the observable world (i.e., what could be called epistemological faith) is for liberals who don’t have the gumption to prove what the Bible says is true, dagnabbit!

So, how does one square Armstrongism with the Bible’s definition of faith? Are Fundamentalists capable of faith? Sure. They differ from liberal Christians, though, in their application of faith.

Liberals will apply faith liberally, as is their wont. Convince them that Creationism is foolish, that evolution is a scientifically proven fact, and they’ll blithely respond, “Well, yes, of course I can’t deny that humans evolved from apelike ancestors, but I also believe that the God of the Bible was somehow behind it all–even though I can’t explain how that might make some kind of sense, I have faith in it.” In other words, they hope it is true, and blindly at that. It’s wishful thinking, nothing more. But even they are vaguely aware of how unreasonable that position is, and so they have their elite mystics who make their living obfuscating for Jesus and reassuring the weak in faith that their beliefs are just as true as they are false. Obviously, the liberal view is pregnant with opportunity for obscurantist weaseling (and Apologist philosophers pump this ripe cavity for all the hot air it can produce).

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, follow their Inerrantist’s rule of thumb and inquire, with far more gravity than is merited, “What does the Bible actually say?” After much provincial proof-texting and blinkered consulting of contexts, concordances and commentaries (only the right ones, mind you!), one should find that, apparently, the application of faith is only relevant to questions of healing and salvation (which, if you know your Armstrongism, are mutually integral themes). More to the point, faith is the act of believing God. When Yahweh promises something, faith is what one must exercise in believing, contra any disconfirming evidence, that the promise will be (or already has been) fulfilled. That is to say that the Fundamentalist’s faith is a trust in promised outcomes, something believed and hoped for–not something known. As it was often said, “Faith is a down payment,” the thing you hold onto while you are waiting for the promised thing to be put into your possession. Once you have the thing, you no longer need the faith.

So, for the Fundamentalist, faith–a belief and a hope in some future promised state–is not applicable to questions of epistemology. No Fundamentalist worth his or her salt would be reduced to defending such objective truths as Creationism on the basis of faith, hoping, as it were, for it to be true. That would be a misapplication of faith. As the Bible tells him or her, “the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Or, as the ever astute Bill O’Reilly put it, “the tides come in, the tides go out.” The proclamation of the skies and the tides can be observed. In other words, the Fundamentalist doesn’t need the “evidence of things not seen” to know God created the earth and all life therein–it can be proved, as must be anything worthy of the label “knowledge”with SCIENCE!

Two Trees  

Armstrong introduced us to a gripping paradox: Modernism, with its rational, scientific foundation, had produced stupendous material progress–but accompanying these benefits was an explosion of societal ills that, even with all of our admittedly awesome technical wisdom, we could not begin to alleviate. He explained this paradox by positing the existence of two different kinds of knowledge. Material knowledge, he maintained, was that which could be observed by the five senses. But Armstrong insisted that another kind of knowledge, so-called “spiritual knowledge”, was inaccessible to human observation through the physical senses (nor, presumably, could it be ascertained through the application of pure reason). These two apparently non-overlapping “ways of knowing” were represented, in his view, by the “two trees” of Genesis: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil standing for material knowledge and the Tree of Life for “spiritual knowledge”.

According to Armstrong, there was only one way to ascertain “spiritual knowledge”: through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit spoken of in the Bible. This “spirit”, when plugged-in (Armstrong took to utilizing the brain-as-computer metaphor) to the otherwise incomplete human mind, would grant that mind access to the “knowledge” that can only be revealed by God. This “knowledge”, besides imparting doctrinal truth, would, in large and widespread doses, also allow humankind to solve its daunting social problems. In other words, the lack of access to the source of revealed knowledge was the explanation for the aforementioned paradox. Human civilization had accomplished awesome material success, but it was powerless to resolve the spiritual dilemmas plaguing its societies throughout history–all because Adam and Eve chose from the wrong Tree. Ever since that primeval epic fail in the Garden of Eden, humanity has been universally cut off from this special “knowledge”. Except, of course, for certain special individuals–like Armstrong and his followers, perhaps–or the many others who compete to dispense different (and often mutually exclusive) systems of superstitious “knowledge”.

After all, Armstrong isn’t the only one who is claiming there are “other ways of knowing” besides observing and accepting objective facts. There are many among the religious who are envious of the iron grasp on epistemology that has been well-earned by the empiricism and rationalism of Science. In the spirit of accommodation, though, a certain subset of the “scientific community” has somewhat presumptuously capitulated a degree of epistemological authority to the superstitious.

The idea of “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA, for short) was the brainchild of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. It restates in more or less scholarly terms the fundamental claim underpinning Armstrong’s doctrine of the Two Trees, namely, that there are two separate domains (or “magisteria”) of knowledge: material and spiritual–and that they are accessed by vastly divergent methods. Whereas material knowledge (pertaining to the “What” and “How” questions) is ascertained through the scientific method, spiritual knowledge (the “Why’s”) is accessed through some mysterious (and conspicuously undescribed) mechanism presided over by Religion. The explanation for how the religious manage this trick is apparently supposed to fall under the auspices of Religion as well–except that it’s a “How” question, rather than a “Why” one. Strange, that.

But is there anything to this claim?

Well, not according to Gould’s many critics. Among the manifold and unaddressed problems with the NOMA idea is the fact that the claims of Science and Religion often do overlap. This, after all, is the whole reason there is conflict between the two institutions to begin with! What Gould attempted was to pretend this isn’t true by merely proclaiming that it isn’t. Viola! There is no conflict if we assert that there isn’t–the same way we can assert that Armstrong was “right” by pretending that all his “prophetic” blunders never happened. NOMA is nothing more than an argument by slogan and, as such, it doesn’t have to be true–it just has to be useful (and its utility for accommodation was, after all, the reason it was invented).

The most obvious conflict between Fundamentalism and Science is the question of origins. In Armstrong’s Two Trees concept, the theory of evolution is proffered as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’s most toxic fruit. Armstrong insisted (erroneously) that all the vast stores of knowledge produced by the Modernist program were founded on the claims of evolution, and that humanity had been critically deceived thereby. But note that Fundamentalists like Armstrong do not restrain themselves in accordance with Gould’s pretense: Creationism attempts to prove, supposedly by scientific means, that evolution is false and that, instead, a supernatural force called “God” is behind the proliferation of life on Earth.

The Incredible, Shrinking God of the Gaps

The Fundamentalists’ project of staking out a claim for this “God” on the field of rational inquiry has garnered little success. Remember that Fundamentalists have an abiding respect for the authority of Science, but only because they wish to claim that authority for their ideology: thus the determination to find scientific evidence for a special creation that they can pin on Yahweh like a blue ribbon. Unfortunately for this inscrutable Contestant, scientific discoveries have a tendency for making Creators obsolete (to say nothing of identifying their Persons).

Whenever an assumed divinely-directed phenomenon is clearly proven to be the result of stupid, physical processes, the Fundamentalist god is forced to retreat to less well-understood scientific horizons, and the battle-lines must be redrawn. Hunkering down in their new trench, the Fundamentalists then feel secure enough to tout the latest unexplained phenomenon as “evidence” for Creation. What they never can figure out, though, is that “unexplained” means just that (absence of explanation is not evidence for divine meddling)–and it is usually a temporary condition: before long, a scientific explanation is levied that cannot but be accepted, and the Fundamentalists must abandon yet another front line. This has occurred so many times that more shrewd theologians long ago coined a phrase to refer to the unfortunate deity defended so earnestly but ineptly by Fundamentalists: “god of the gaps”.

Armstrong himself was but one amateur in this field of amateurs attempting to reign in the wild beast of scientific inquiry and break it, making it into a docile servant of beliefs rather than a revealer of knowledge. He too was among those flying from the steady march of facts, and he took his ideology with him, jettisoning those pieces of it that would prove to be burdensome in the light of undeniable contrary evidence. But make no mistake: these beleaguered Christian soldiers do not respect their victorious foe, Science. They merely envy the authority it has steadily (and justifiably) procured for itself ever since the onset of Modernism.

The Fundamentalists found themselves in a scientific age where religious myth no longer enjoyed the broad privilege it once had in describing reality. This was mostly due to the great success of the scientific endeavor in proliferating data and explaining disparate data sets objectively through reproducible experiments. The truths of science are testable and can be independently observed, making them eminently persuasive to what was and is an increasingly educated public. Even the purest of Fundamentalists must sometimes consider the effect of their ideology on membership rolls (after all, the purpose of religion is not to discover and disseminate truth, but to control people). To survive, Western religion was obliged somehow to accommodate the findings of science, and the resulting struggle evolved two incompatible approaches. Whereas liberal theologians abandoned the god of the gaps for a more conciliatory deity, Fundamentalists have pursued a far different strategy, namely, the Bible as science.

An Interpretive Dance…But Who Calls the Tune?

It seems appropriate that the “god of the gaps” should have a word in common with a creation myth called “Gap Theory”, since the latter was initially conjured up to account for geological findings that went against the traditionally orthodox view. We’ve exposed elsewhere how this teaching was not original with Armstrong; instead, he enthusiastically co-opted it in a fit of science envy. One may argue that Gap Theory espouses a correct reading of scripture, but it is undeniable that this “correct” reading was necessitated by scientific discoveries that sent Bible scholars scurrying to find this correct reading.

Note that in every case (such as with Gap Theory) in which theologians’ interpretations of scripture are reformed to comply with the findings of science, it is the scientists rather than the theologians who are doing the work of elucidating truth about the world. It does no good to assert that it was always “meant” to be interpreted that way: no one could have claimed such a thing until scientific research in the field made it inescapable. Up until then, the scientifically inaccurate interpretation was considered solid theology (even though what passes for “solid” in theology is obviously as nebulous as patterns in clouds–interpreters always see what they need to see). As put by Jerry A. Coyne, “Theology is the art of making religious virtues out of scientific necessities.”

This is religion dancing to the tune of science, and it’s no wonder Fundamentalists do so begrudgingly, since they are so obsessed with authority. They want to be the ones calling the tune, not dancing like puppets.

But this hard-on for authority is also why they have little freedom to do otherwise. They can’t simply dismiss the power of scientific evidence to convince the modern person. It won’t go away. Their only recourse is to appropriate the word “science” and apply it gratuitously to their delusions in the hope its authoritative mystique will rub off on them. Having accomplished this trick, they are then supplied with all the false pride required to pretend they understand science better than its practitioners do. But they don’t, and this fact is made evident any time one of them holds forth on the subject.

How then do Fundamentalists procure for themselves the sheen of scientific authority?

Science for Dummies

One way they are able to do this is to set up a straw man stuffed with their own misconceptions and faulty reasoning, and then buffet it with self-defeating arguments. This masturbatory reveling they then promote as an attack on secular science and a victory for Bible-based “true science”.

In the July-August, 1938 issue of the Plain Truth, Armstrong penned what he must have thought was a scathing indictment against “scientific reasoning”. He begins by elucidating the theory, so common among Fundamentalists, that the data discovered by scientific investigation are amenable to different interpretations. While this may be nominally true, it is not in itself any indication of the quality of those different interpretations. As we shall see, Fundamentalists like Armstrong are even less qualified to interpret scientific data than they are to interpret Bronze Age poetry. He writes:

insofar as men of science confine their efforts to observations and measurements, they are as careful and accurate as could be expected of erring mankind. But when they launch into the real realm of REASON–trying to explain what they have observed and measured, then they have proved extravagant and absurd!

This, of course, sometimes happens–but when it does, it takes the form of scientists exposing the extravagances of other scientists, using scientific reasoning to do it. And whereas Armstrong bases his “reasoning” on illogical appeals to the authority of ancient superstitious texts and his own whims, scientific reasoning is constrained by objective facts and the rules of logic.

Armstrong would have you believe (of all things) that reason is the exclusive domain of religious fools like himself, whereas scientific theories are based instead upon the irrational ejaculations of fanatical, lab-dwelling madmen who couldn’t distinguish between a non-sequitur and a valid syllogism without the help of a clergyman.

The truth, of course, is that professional scientists are, virtually by definition, well-trained in logic, and are among the most reasonable people in the world. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have careers in science. On the other hand, the Fundamentalist Armstrong believed in a talking snake, invisible winged men and magic-induced pregnancies on the mere say-so of a book of fairy tales–not exactly a ringing endorsement of his reasoning powers.

He puts the handicap of his atrophied prefrontal cortex on full display further down in the article:

There is a well-known law that heat expands, and cold contracts. This is FACT, which has been seen, measured, and proved. Let us “reason” from this fact, as an example of arriving at a “scientific conclusion.” We reason, then, that as soon as the surface of a lake of water freezes, the ice, being contracted under influence of cold, of necessity becomes heavier. So it would sink to the bottom a layer at a time. This is a perfectly logical conclusion, based on that particular law.

It must be immediately pointed out that this embarrassingly absurd bit of faulty reasoning is not cited to have been derived from any particular scientist, but that doesn’t stop Armstrong from laying the blame for it at the feet of scientific reasoning (instead of his own delusion-fevered brain). He continues:

A “scientist” living in the hot torrid zone who had never seen ice, but had made tests that proved the law that cold contracts an heat expands, might work out this conclusion, and call it a FACT of science!

“Might?” How about “never did?” This anti-science fantasy of Armstrong’s never happened. That’s because scientists are typically educated out of the kind of foolishness that passes as reasoning among the likes of Armstrong. It doesn’t necessarily follow that, because heat often leads to an expansion on the molecular level, this relationship will be true of all molecules in all situations. Familiarity with the peril of the black swan problem is well-known in the philosophy of science, and one of the hallmarks of science is the inclination to empiricism. The scientist living in the “torrid zone” of Armstrong’s imagination, if he were doing real modern science, would have had two obstacles to a scientific acceptance of his sinking ice theory: (1) it would have to pass unscathed through the gauntlet of peer review (and most of those peers would have had direct experience with floating ice), and (2) his total lack of direct empirical observations for his theory! A scientist who didn’t have the ability to test a theory, and yet continued to promote it, would not be doing science. Rather, they would be doing something akin to Armstrong’s baseless evangelism. He continues:

But we happen to know that just before water reaches the freezing point, the LAW SUDDENLY REVERSES. It ceases to contract, and commences to expand. Hence ice is lighter than water, and does not sink, but floats.

“We happen to know.” Interesting turn of phrase. What he is referring to (but won’t state explicitly) is that scientific inquiry into the problem of floating ice has illuminated the answer to why ice floats. It wasn’t Armstrong delving into the Good Book and reasoning poorly from false premises which led “us” to the resolution of this conundrum. It’s little wonder he gets it so wrong. There is no reversal of law occurring here. Instead, what actual scientific reasoning (i.e., reasoning properly from factual premises and empirical observations) reveals is that H2O becomes less dense as it freezes because of vagaries of hydrogen bonding. In other words, the answer is not a metaphysical one, involving reversible “laws”, but is rather a reductive one of molecular chemistry.

This “scientific reasoning” of Armstrong’s is anything but. The only reasoning he has been able to refute is his own, and the alternative he offers only betrays his complete lack of qualifications for interpreting scientific data. Yet many were fooled by his stolen authority.

Another way Fundamentalists steal scientific authority is by an opportunistic reversal. Having once danced to the tune of science, thereby reinterpreting their doctrine, they then point to the new doctrinal form and declare, “Behold, science confirms Bible truth!” Armstrongism contains more than its fair share of these blunders-cum-vindications, both those made by Armstrong himself and those he inherited from others (like Gap Theory). As a rule this is done any time “scientific necessities” force a capitulation in theology.

But a blunder is not required, of course. The chemical peculiarities of water are an example of how Fundamentalists (and others who are envious of scientific authority) will claim scientific discoveries as supportive of their baseless fantasies. All that is required is to latch on to a scientific fact that does not contradict a particular interpretation of scripture. Following on from Armstrong, again:

Hence ice is lighter than water, and does not sink, but floats. This sudden CHANGE in a natural law in operation proves our earth is not controlled by BLIND law–but by a wise and intelligent LAWGIVER!

X. Wrong, again, Herbert. We’ve already refuted the claim that a law was reversed in its “operation”. But it also doesn’t follow from a scientific fact marginally amenable to the existence of a “LAWGIVER” (and I thought God didn’t break his own laws–is “reversing” them somehow different?) that the fact “proves” the existence of such an entity. What poor logic! To promulgate this non-sequitur (a lack of contradiction is not proof of anything) is to ignore not only the logical fallacy involved, but also the prep0nderance of facts that do contradict the conclusion, from the hostility to life extant in most of the universe (and indeed on the surface of Earth itself), to the engineering “mistakes” to be found in the morphology of any given organism.

The Fundamentalists don’t know science, except as a word to be bandied about in an effort to falsely acquire some of the hard-won authority the scientific endeavor has earned in its pursuit of parsimonious explanations that account for observed phenomena. But merely flogging a word around should not be enough to lend the Fundamentalists the credence they covet (thereby breaking one of their cherished “commandments”). When one examines the record closely, it is clear that their entire charade is reduced to one grand equivocation on the word “science”. They may call their epistemological doctrine of Bible-based science “true science”, but it is neither true nor science.

Advertisements

69 thoughts on “Science Envy: The False Epistemology of Armstrongism

  1. A lot of physics is based on things that cannot be seen or touched – and certainly cannot be tested experimentally or in any way ‘observed.’ String theory, quarks… We’re told these things are ‘proven by the maths.’ The maths is completely beyond our own (or virtually all of our)training, education, and intelligence – so we sit back and say, ‘Well, Hawking and Penrose are university-educated guys, the top of the academic tree, so… er… They know what they’re talking about… Don’t they?’

    You say that the suggestion that scientists can reach divergent opinions or conclusions on the same evidence is ‘nominally’ true. In fact the suggestion is not ‘nominally’ true, it’s flat true. Scientists disagree about string theory and parallel universes and the age of pre-human ape fossils. They disagree about how many dimensions there might be (not how many there are, but how many there might be.) This ‘problem’ extends beyond science into what you might call ‘pseudo-sciences’ like archaeology (this temple arch was built by the Sumerians of this period, no it wasn’t it’s from a different period altogether), economics (we should increase interest rates, we should decrease them, we’re heading for a recession, we’re heading for a boom), and history (this war was caused by A, no it wasn’t it was caused by B, this document is genuine and reliable, no it isn’t).

    Many things we believe cannot be even touched by evidence or observation. Some of these ‘things’ are quite fundamental ones, too. What is the ‘evidence’ which tells me whether Picasso or Cezanne was the better painter? How can I ‘observe’ whether ‘The Godfather’ is a worse movie than ‘The French Connection’? Is the New York Times better than the London ‘Times’? Does my wife really love me? Will I be happy if I marry Samantha? Is Microsoft a happy place to work – or not?

    No process of scientific observation or experimentation can explain WHY there is something rather than nothing. ‘Pure’ maths and ‘theoretical’ physics can only even ‘suggest’ HOW this extraordinary ‘something’ might have come about, and that by using a species of ‘scientific metaphysics.’ Remember Marx with his ‘scientific socialism’? Its adherents refused (and still refuse) to admit that all the evidence and observation was wrongly interpreted, and whenever the theories were put into practice, blood ran like water.

    One day scientists will work out HOW things came about, and maybe WHY, you suggest. I doubt it. We doubt scientists at heart, because we know they’re just human – like us. Believe them because they’re (honest, they really are!) ‘reasonable people’ seems a flimsy philosophy to me. It won’t satisfy ‘human nature.’ Hence… religion.

    • Hello, idiot. I was expecting you. Thank you for playing our wicked, little game, wherein we set a trap for unsuspecting droolers, who obligingly and inevitably come along to demonstrate our points for us. Don’t bother struggling, for it is too late; in a moment you will be dissected and pinned down in our menagerie of idiocy for the enlightenment and entertainment of our readers.

      I’m sure you think you’ve brought some very original arguments to the table. Well, you haven’t: I’ve heard and refuted this all before, countless times. All you’ve really done is to use a lot of words to say very little of substance. Typical for your kind. But, more to the point, what you’ve done is to ignore the content of the article and instead proceeded blithely to exhibit the very behaviors that are its subject, namely, poaching at the rightful authority of science on behalf of superstitious delusions. I couldn’t have produced a more representative list of your camp’s most popular rhetorical softballs if I had tried. After all, everything you brought up is, strictly speaking, beyond the scope and constraints of the article, so I couldn’t very well have included a point-by-point treatment of it. I was counting on someone like you to help me with that. And here you are. So, thank you for being Exhibit A. Now let me just unpack it all and tidy it up so it can be addressed in the summary manner it deserves. (I’ve done this so many times, I won’t even have to think about it—should I type with one hand to make it a minor challenge?)

      By the way, don’t bother protesting that you are a fellow anti-Armstrongist. That is, for us, a merely elementary position. You are of the camp of anti-Armstrongists who reject Armstrongism on only the flimsiest of bases, usually theological gruel. That’s not enough to be considered reasonable. Armstrongism is a wholesale delusion, not a faulty translation of scripture. Thus, the title of the site.

      First Idiotic Point:

      Theoretical physics is not based on empirical observations of phenomena, but rather on difficult math that I can’t begin to comprehend, therefore (presumably) my delusions must be true. After all, who would trust the conclusions of experts in a field I don’t understand? I mean, you don’t take your car to a mechanic, do you? You don’t eat food grown by someone else, do you? You don’t go to a dentist when you have a toothache, do you? You don’t decide what to wear by listening to the weather forecast, do you? And those clothes you put on weren’t designed and put together by someone else, were they? And…

      The Answer:

      Math is the only field in which actual proofs can be had. In any other domain of science, the best you can get is a probability more or less approaching one (whereas the best you can get in theology is the say-so of baseless, childish fantasies). In other words, “your” argument against basing propositions on mathematical equations is preposterous. As is this idea that because you don’t understand something, it can’t be true. That’s called an argument from ignorance and it is a logical fallacy, i.e., invalid reasoning, i.e., irrational. Calling into question the conclusions of highly qualified experts merely because you don’t understand the work they are doing is the epitome of foolishness. Yes, we trust their findings, provisionally. But we can also test their findings (that is to say, other experts can—this is the glory of peer review and independent verification converging on a consensus). It’s math, after all. You don’t even need a lab or a grant, just a chalkboard to write equations on. But you don’t validly challenge conclusions by complaining that you don’t get it—you find someone who does and ask them what they think. (Second opinions only count if they come from someone who knows what the fuck they’re talking about—and you don’t, as you’ve already admitted.) Do you know of anyone who understands the math involved who can level such a challenge? Didn’t think so. So shut the fuck up. Oh, also, even if those theories are wrong (and they very well could be, if the math is wrong somehow—but we won’t be learning this from Bible thumpers), it doesn’t follow that “Goddidit”. That would be a major non sequitur.

      Second Idiotic Point:

      There are scientific controversies, therefore (presumably) my delusions must be true.

      The Answer:

      Another non sequitur. Of course there are controversies in science! So what? But you don’t get to make up a controversy that doesn’t exist. For example, there is no scientific controversy about whether evolution occurs. That is settled. It is an established fact. That Fundamentalists have disagreements with scientific facts there is no question. But that doesn’t mean that the scientific controversies you mention (valid theory competing against valid theory) are anything like the metaphysical “controversies” (valid theory not even bothering to compete against baseless superstitions) foisted upon science by idiots like you. The former are scientific and will be resolved according to the principles of science, while the latter will only be resolved when superstitious nonsense is no longer paraded as science by religious pretenders. Oh, also, just because scientists have not yet reached consensus on some question does not mean that this question is answered by whatever dogma you were taught in Sunday school, in other words, that “Goddidit”.

      Third Idiotic Point:

      You can’t directly measure love, therefore (presumably) my delusions must be true.

      The Answer:

      Again, a non sequitur. Who ever said anything about experimentally testing love, or empirically determining who the best artist is? I didn’t. Even if it can’t be done (and I’m not saying it can’t, given certain parameters), what does this say about anything? Nothing, that’s what. It certainly doesn’t support the hypothesis, “Goddidit”. Just because science can’t explain something to your satisfaction doesn’t mean your superstitions can explain it in a way that is parsimonious and amenable to known facts. You still have to argue for your position (whatever the hell it is).

      Fourth Idiotic Point:

      Why is there something rather than nothing? Science can’t say, therefore (presumably) my delusions must be true.

      The Answer:

      Yet again, non sequitur. Why is there something instead of nothing? Because nothing is unstable. Or, if you don’t like that answer, then how about a question instead: Why the hell would there be nothing instead of something? Can you answer that? No, you can’t. Why? Because whether you phrase the question forwards or backwards, it is a meaningless question. It’s like asking, “Why is blue blue instead of yellow?” It’s like asking a blade of grass why it hasn’t stopped beating its wife yet. It’s like a puddle asking why the hole it’s in is shaped like a puddle. If there were nothing instead of something, we wouldn’t be here asking about it, would we? Just because a question can be formulated in grammatically correct language, that doesn’t mean it is a valid question. It simply isn’t a subject for which “Why?” is an appropriate inquiry (except in the sense in which it is answered by physicists, which of course isn’t satisfactory to the wispy-brained philosophers who pose it—they want “something” to be something forever insulated from explication in a shroud of obscurantism—and certainly not to the apologists, who want the answer to be “Goddidit”.). God, I hate this question. It’s so moronically contrived. And it is always asked in such ostentatious tones as though it were profound. It isn’t. It’s as stupid as Zeno’s “paradoxes”, and in the same way. Stop parroting it. Let it die the death it so richly deserves. Oh, and even if science can’t answer it, it doesn’t mean the answer is “Goddidit”. Moron.

      Fifth Idiotic Point:

      The Communists tried a planned economy, coupled with murderous totalitarian regimes in the grip of a dogmatic ideology (which included a misuse and misunderstanding of scientific facts), therefore (presumably), my delusions must be true.

      The Answer:

      Say it with me now: non sequitur. You never miss, do you? The Communists were assholes. So what? They misused science. So what? Nothing, that’s what. It is completely irrelevant to epistemology. Utterly irrelevant. Do you really think that because certain facts are used to excuse terrible behavior, that means the facts being so used somehow become false? No, I’m really curious as to your logic here. Please enlighten me, you fucking idiot. Oh, and even if Marxists got it all wrong and murdered lots of people, it doesn’t mean science is to blame and it doesn’t mean Jesus is the answer—it sure as fuck doesn’t mean “Goddidit”.

      Sixth Idiotic Point:

      Scientists are human, too, and therefore (presumably), my delusions must be true.

      The Answer:

      I’m thinking of a compound Latin phrase that begins with an n and rhymes with “non sequitur”. Oh, scientists are human, you say? They might lie to get ahead? They might not always be rational in their production of scientific knowledge? Can I get a heaping helping of “no shit, Sherlock!”? So fucking what? No one I know of (and far be it from me) is suggesting we should just sit back and believe whatever drops from the mouth of some magic, “scientific” oracle. For fuck’s sake. Do you know how science works? Did you read the article you’re commenting on? No. Obviously not, on both counts. You droolers are so steeped in this urge to believe that you project your handicap onto everyone else. Facts don’t require belief. Do you understand that? Provisional acceptance of facts is nothing like your belief in fairy tales. And science doesn’t work like theology: scientific consensus proceeds fitfully, incorporates a self-correcting mechanism including peer review, the necessity of reproducible results and independent verification and, most importantly, it must fit with the known facts. And at the end of this process, more often than not, you have something that works.

      There is a clear record of the success of this process at ascertaining truth (the lowercase ‘t’ is intentional), especially since most of it has practical application. For example, you are able to spout your nonsense and have it refuted in front of a global audience thanks not to your mumbling petitions to Yahweh, but because science is on the right track. Science is vindicated every day; every time you fire up your computer or put on a raincoat or drive your car or board a plane or watch TV or take aspirin or masturbate with baby oil while watching gay porn (and you really should stop hating yourself for it, by the way)—practically every time you do anything, you are demonstrating your confidence (dare I say, faith?) in—and verifying the results of—the scientific method. Why the hell do you do it? I want a fucking answer to that question! If you can’t answer it, then do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up. You make me sick with your prating, overblown foolishness. Oh, and even if scientists are as intellectually vacuous as you are, it doesn’t mean “Goddidit”.

      I’m not done with you yet, moron. None of what you said has one iota of relevance to the article up there (except as a demonstration of its subject). That’s the other part that pisses me off. Disrespect. (Were you feeling like I wasn’t giving you any respect? Aw. No kidding. You get none because you earned none.) You obviously read a couple of paragraphs and decided you knew enough to start shooting off your wall of text composed of prefabricated, half-ruminated non-arguments you picked up from the Idiot-Apologetics University of Christfuck Websites, in which you’ve enrolled from your parents’ basement, obviously.

      All of this I assume (and reserve the right to assume) about you, on the basis of your statements, which are facsimiles of sophomoric bullshit I’ve heard over and over again from flunkies just like you. You’re all the same. So, here you are disrespectfully spamming my comments with your ignorance and the fallacious arguments you picked up from others. But I welcome you to go back and read the fucking article. Read it, goddamn you! And then see if you can come up with something relevant to say. Or, you know, you could just fuck off. Go back to lurking (because you know we’ve got the goods) and only raise your empty head over at your presumed intellectual locus, ESN. That would make my day more pleasant. Looking forward to never hearing from you again.

  2. Although Casey did a wonderful job of point-by-point evisceration, I’d like to chime in. It isn’t that I’m looking for an easy mark, but as I read your post, Donald, my mind went immediately to the poem Storm by Tim Minchin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U). So, Casey was very thorough, but I wish to be a bit artistic…

    Your “poo-pooing” of “pseudo sciences” reminded me particularly of the verse
    “Shakespeare said it first:
    There are more things in
    Heaven and Earth,
    Than exist in your philosophy
    Science is just how we’re trained, to look at reality,
    It doesn’t explain, Love or spirituality.
    How does Science explain
    Psychics, auras, the afterlife,
    The power of prayer?”

    The answer?
    “I’m becoming aware,
    That I’m staring,
    I’m like a rabbit suddenly trapped,
    In the blinding headlights of vacuous crap.”

    You continue: “Many things we believe cannot be even touched by evidence or observation. Some of these ‘things’ are quite fundamental ones, too. What is the ‘evidence’ which tells me whether Picasso or Cezanne was the better painter?”

    Well, obviously, that isn’t part of science. Or…
    “But the human body is a mystery
    Science just falls in a hole
    When it tries to explain the nature of the soul.”

    However, Donald, to his (dis)credit, despite our derision, keeps firing off cliches with startling precision, like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition. “We doubt scientists at heart, because we know they’re just human – like us. Believe them because they’re (honest, they really are!) ‘reasonable people’ seems a flimsy philosophy to me.”

    So, are you saying
    “You can’t know anything.
    Knowledge is merely opinion.”? If so, then we might respond by asking
    “Whether knowledge is so loose weave,
    Of a morning, when deciding whether to leave,
    [your] apartment by the front door,
    Or the window on the second floor.”

    Or, are you saying
    “You’re so sure of your position,
    But you’re just close-minded,
    I think you’ll find that
    Your FAITH in science and tests,
    Is just as blind as the
    faith of any fundamentalists”?

    If so, then you know…
    “Wow, that’s a good point,
    Let me think for a bit.
    Oh wait, my mistake,
    That’s absolute bullshit.
    Science adjusts its views
    Based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation,
    so that belief can be preserved.”

    So, yeah, that should just about cover it!

    • It does cover it. The indubitably great Minchin’s poem is precisely what this article is about. Thank you for bringing Don King of Idiots’ remark back around to something relevant: epistemology.

      You know, I wouldn’t have been so hard on him if he had shown just a smidgen of respect. That’s the part that pisses us off. If you want to come on here and challenge something we say in one of these articles, hey, great. Knock your socks off. But, first, make sure what you are saying is actually relevant to the article in question, rather than just a regurgitated advertisement for your favorite delusion. Next, phrase it in a way that communicates an honest assessment of your certitude (lack thereof, usually). Don’t come in with guns blazing when it is obvious you haven’t done half the homework your opponents have (and hanging out in Creationist echo chambers isn’t doing homework, it’s intellectual masturbation, so get that straight). Give us something we can sink our teeth into. Refutation is our game, and you aren’t playing by the rules if you have more certitude than facts. You will be shot down as an imbecile every time, and it will be well-deserved.

  3. “I can tell I’m going to have to read this one again to fully benefit from it.”

    Yeah, it covers a lot of ground, a whole book’s worth of ideas probably, and I should be tied to a chair and repeatedly punched in the face for trying to condense all of that into a single article. Needless to say, I only briefly touched the surface of most of the topics involved, which are all deserving of a more comprehensive treatment.

  4. Pingback: Without Form and Void (Part One)–Intro to Gap Creationism « Armstrong Delusion

  5. Nice long article.

    Nothing is “unstable?” How do you know that. Anybody ever seen nothing?

    As to mathematics being some kind of final arbiter?…

    “The most fertile source of insight is hindsight. Creations of the early nineteenth centuryj, strange geometries and strange algebras, forced mathematicians, reluctantly and grudgingly, to realize that mathematics proper and the mathematical laws OF SCIENCE were NOT truths. . . . The key to reality had been lost. This realization was the FIRST of the calamities to befall mathematics.” — p. 3, Mathematics the Loss of Certainty, Morris Kline. (190

    • “Nice long article.”

      Fuck you, douchebag.

      “As to mathematics being some kind of final arbiter?…”

      The only people for whom this statement even makes sense are a few over-reaching mathematicians and morons like you, who, in their wildly naive assessment of their own competence, misappropriate the enigmatic and subtle statements of ivory tower academics as blunt ideological hammers. Sorry, but you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. The fact you don’t know it only makes it more entertaining.

  6. Sirs, Can we agree that for something to be considered science that it must successfully jump the Scientific Method hurdle? Thank you for your response.

    • Not necessarily, though that is debatable. What I mean by that is Economics. Economics is considered a “social science” and there is debate as to whether the social sciences (economics, psychology, history, law, etc). Of course, even these must have measurable, testable, verifiable results, but by their nature are sometimes poo-pooed as “not real science” b/c the fields of knowledge they cover cannot be worked out like Physics or Chemistry–namely Hypothesis, Observe, Experiment, Results, Analysis. If the results of all that are positive, repeatedly, then the Hypothesis is elevated to Theory. But when you’re studying human beings, well, we’re very unpredictable sometimes (but very predictable at others).

      Anyway…sorry for being a bit long-winded about that. What point are you wanting to make by your question (or by our answer to your question)?

      • Thank you for your answer, and it was not too lengthy. As an aside a little work entitled ‘Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars’ makes the case that economics (how and when people by products at what price) may very well be a ‘hard’ science after all stating that it behaves similarly to electricity, and aeronautics — that is, how an airplane wing behaves under stress, or duress. It makes interesting reading regardless of the lens we look through.

        I am a Bible believing Christian but agree with you that my religion is by faith; 1)by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. in Hebrews, 2) we walk by faith not not by sight in II Corinthians, 3) the carnal mind..is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be in Romans, and 4) no man can say Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost in I Corinthians. More could be cited but this should suffice to prove an agreement between us. The only caveat I would put forward is fulfilled prophecy. It seems that unbelievers have their authorities to deny this while Christians have theirs to affirm it.

        To come to the point, I was once an evolutionist and heliocentrist while supposedly professing faith in Christ. I began to reason that if the Bible is true it is all true or it is a lie by virtue of Christ being ‘the’ Truth. He either is or is not. What to do with heliocentricity and evolution? I sought out a helio/evol expert on-line and questioned and commented on these topics (mainly heliocentric) over a period of a half of month. I began to study and found that our knowledge regarding these things are based on metaphysical and unproven assumptions. In fact, the heliocentric position cannot be proven by the scientific method.

        I found that a Mr. R G Elmendorf, a Mechanical Engineer from the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area has had a $5,000.00 challenge out since the mid 1970’s for anyone to prove via the scientific method macro evolution. He told me via email he has not received one response that utilizes the scientific method. Additionally His pamphlet on The Second Law of Thermodynamics startled me and helped me determine that Macro – Evolution is not only untrue but scientifically impossible. Think of the relationship between a perpetual motion machine which is impossible in the real world with Macro Evolution.

        If you would like to read, let me know and I will send via US mail. If not, we can continue the conversation. If not, thank you for your time. I will leave with you with this. Which way does the moon really revolve around the earth? In the helio model it is west to east once every twenty – eight or twenty – nine days. In the geo model it is east to west approximately once per day. It can only be one way or the other. It cannot be both, relativity — special or general notwithstanding. I ask this because NASA has done calculations from a “fixed earth” or geo model on some things such as satellites. Lastly, Malcolm Bowden has some good you tube videos. The Michelson – Morley Experiment, Airey’s Failure, Sagnac’s Experiment, and Michelson – Gale are worth watching. I look forward to your reply. Manny

    • No. Whether some strict formulation of the “scientific method” is followed is not the salient distinction between science and everything else. I recommend you do a search on the phrases “demarcation problem” and “pseudoscience” to get your line of questioning back on track.

  7. Hmmm…yes, somehow I had forgotten that heliocentrism and evolution were connected. Having read Origin of Species I didn’t see anything in it that relied on the heliocentric model.

    But, of course, this gets down to Faith, doesn’t it? I’m guessing that since faith in the bible means that such passages as Joshua commanding the SUN to stop, not the EARTH means that that is exactly what happened. And, well, if the bible is entirely true, and if All Scripture is inspired by God (II Tim. 3:16), then there you go! It doesn’t matter if NASA possibly occasionally uses a “fixed earth” calculation with regard to satellites. It doesn’t matter the least bit what NASA does, right? Either they’re lying in telling us they’re putting anything in orbit at all, or else they’re lying about the math they use to put it up there. If the solar system is geocentric, then they could not use heliocentric calculations to reach the moon, or mars, or send probes to Venus or Jupiter. Right?

    I do remember someone saying something, however, about “science adjusts its views based on what’s observed; faith is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved”.

    So, I’m curious–was Copernicus an evolutionist? Was the Catholic Church right in charging Galileo with heresy? It is strange that heliocentrism can’t be proven by the scientific method, b/c everything I have read says that evidence via the scientific method is the only reason it *is* accepted at all. Observations of reality contradicted the faith-based geocentric view.

    Hypothesis: Geocentrism is true.
    Prediction: Based on the hypothesis, we should observe Mars to be *here* at such a time and *there* two weeks later.
    Observation: The observations do not match the hypothesis.
    Analysis: Hmmm….eventually, through considerable observation from Brahe, Kepler was able to use mathematics to prove heliocentrism. B/c…

    Hypothesis: Heliocentrism
    Prediction: Based on the hypothesis, we should observe Mars to be *here* at such a time and *there* two weeks later.
    Observation: The observations were closer, but not exact. Hmmm…
    Analysis: Further refining also tossed out the old idea that everything in the universe must revolve in a perfect circle, b/c a circle is a perfect shape, God made everything Perfect, QED. The only thing that matched the *observations of reality* was heliocentrism and elliptical orbits based on the Laws of Motion that Kepler discovered (Kepler’s Laws of Motion). http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsHistory/

    I suppose I see why evolution and heliocentrism are put in the same batch–either EVERY word of scripture is true, or it isn’t. One can’t say “evolution isn’t true b/c the bible says so” while saying that “scriptures about the sun standing still was just poetic metaphor”. Even the Gap Theory of creationism that Armstrong taught (where the Earth is old, and Dinosaurs are as old as paleontologists say, but that the earth was re-created in its present form with people and modern animals 6K years ago) is an accommodation–either the earth is as old as the Old Testament says it is, or it isn’t (well, it doesn’t *say* anything about the age of the earth, but people add up the years and generations and such). So, if we can start questioning the bible on geocentrism, then what keeps us keeping our faith when it comes to observations about the animal kingdom? If Absolute Faith hadn’t been weakened by heliocentrism, then could Darwin have ever let his observations influence him to come up with something as heretical as evolution?

    And, well, arguments about Thermodynamics are meaningless if your ideas of geocentrism is based on faith in the inerrant word of the Bible. As Martin Luther said “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.” From that Absolutist point-of-view, I too question how one can be a Christian and believe in evolution…

    • Dear Sir, Thank you for your reply. Please call me Manny.

      Yes, the Word of God is the final authority but in some instances it lends itself to the notice of men. For instance the scripture declares in psalms that the heavens declare the glory of God. In Genesis we read the sun and moon were created to be for seasons. We see the sun and moon, daily as they travel east to west. We see the stars rotate around Polaris approximately every 24 hrs. We do not SEE the earth move. We do not FEEL the earth as it moves. The scientific method can be employed here as we see the same thing day after day. As for the stars think of this. Look at time lapsed photo of stars on internet. It makes no difference where the location on earth in the northern hemisphere the pictures are taken from, neither the time of year. The result is always the same. Now do an heliocentric experiment on your wall with a lazer. Have an ‘earth’ tilted at 23.5 degrees orbiting the sun. You will trace out not a point but an elipse which actually is 180 million miles+/- in diameter. It is not possible to hit Polaris exactly in the heliocentric model as it is done each and every time in the real world.

      Yes, the catholic church was correct in charging Galileo as he did not prove the earth revolved around the sun. Though there are polar bears near the North Pole it does not follow they are near the South as well. Please read again what he discovered and you will find this is so.

      As to your comment on the retrograde motion of Mars please see Malcolm Bowden’s Video on YouTube: Geocentricity explains Retrograde Motion of Mars. By the way, I am not talking about the Ptolemaic Model nor the early Tycos model, but the Model known as GEOCENTRICITY. They utilize elliptical orbits, not circles. They even predict just as well as the heliocentric model the phases of Venus. .

      As to Kepler’s Laws I found it strange that he set these laws down for planets (wanderers) and proceeded to say that they orbit in ellipses. He never proved that the earth is a wanderer, however, but merely included the earth in his laws. In his 2nd Law he stated that the body must sweep through equal area in the same amount of time in it’s orbital motion. With an apogee, and perigee this would have the body moving faster, then slower, then, same speed etc changing frequently depending on where they were in their orbit. We would feel this change in speed, acceleration, velocity, whatever you would like to call it. There is no getting around this.

      As to the age of the earth, dinosaurs, fossils, etc, have you kept up with Dr Mary Schweitzer and her T Rex found in Montana? Her supervisor told her to prove it was not blood cells that they were looking at under the microscope. You can read about it in an article entitled, Blood from Stone, from the December 2010 magazine, The Scientific American. What about Mark Armitage from Cal State University Northridge who in 2013 found soft tissue from a Triceratops and was fired after publishing his findings? Blood and soft tissue do not last 65 million years.

      As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it proves in the real world of daily observations and experiments run in accordance with the scientific method that macro-evolution from molecules to man can never happen in the world in which we live — with or without the Bible. There is a $5,000.00 challenge to back it up.

      If there is something I did not address from your post and you would like me to, please advise. I look forward to your reply when time allows. Thank you, Manny.

      • Manny, this is precisely the kind of pseudoscientific garbage this article was concerned with. There is so much of it in your rants, along with the would-be supporting misinformation, that one is hard pressed to decide where to begin. But we will start with the beginning, where your journey into bullshit started. Here is the origin of your intellectual blindness…

        “To come to the point, I was once an evolutionist and heliocentrist while supposedly professing faith in Christ. I began to reason that if the Bible is true it is all true or it is a lie by virtue of Christ being ‘the’ Truth. He either is or is not. What to do with heliocentricity and evolution?”

        Faith. You started out believing. You harbored a cognitive bias that drove you to practice motivated reasoning. You cannot possibly consider the evidence fairly so long as you are motivated to deny it. You never set aside your imaginary friend; you held him to your bosom and went looking for a way to defend him scientifically. Again, this is what the article is about: science envy. You like the epistemological authority of science, but you lack the courage and rigor of a scientist. You believe first, and then go out and try to prove what you already believe. No use denying it. I know it is true from your own words. The trick in seeking the truth for real is to let go of your sacred cow. You can’t have faith in something and seek truth at the same time.

        Now…

        When one does what you have done, it is very easy to find the “evidence” you’re looking for. There is no shortage of crackpots, cranks, and frauds out there in any given field who are very busy filling up receptive heads with all sorts of nonsense. You possess one of those receptive heads. The problem with a receptive head is that it is selectively receptive: it accepts only those things it likes. You don’t like the counter-arguments to the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that is supposed to defend your sacred cow, so you don’t bother looking for them, or you pretend they don’t exist. But I assure you they do. Furthermore, you can’t be bothered thinking critically about the claims you like. (Or, more likely from what I’ve gathered reading your comments, you aren’t capable of it.)

        I will not address every single one of your more absurd statements because there are too many of them and I don’t have time to make a project of actually discussing seriously the geocentric view and creationism. But I will take on a few select remarks and leave you with some reading assignments that should cover the rest (excepting the ones that just don’t make a lick of sense–like your comment about polar bears being at both poles–wtf?). Be sure to click the links and educate yourself–not that it will make a bit of difference to a motivated reasoner.

        “In fact, the heliocentric position cannot be proven by the scientific method.”

        If by this you mean that it cannot be demonstrated scientifically that it is the earth that revolves around the sun and not vice versa, then you are laughably mistaken. This is not a controversy in science. It is only controversial among loons like you. Even smart Catholics know better.

        “As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it proves in the real world of daily observations and experiments run in accordance with the scientific method that macro-evolution from molecules to man can never happen in the world in which we live — with or without the Bible. There is a $5,000.00 challenge to back it up.”

        Bullshit. You and your ilk never demonstrate even the most basic understanding of this law that you malign in marshaling it in defense of your pet delusion. I’m not going to get into the ridiculous faux-distinction between micro- and macro-evolution (you can read about that here). Just because someone puts up the price of a used car doesn’t mean their position is creditable. A wager in no sense “backs up” a claim. I can think of several reasons not to indulge such a person right off the top of my head, and they have nothing to do with a lack of confidence in evolution. If you want to know whether “molecules to man” happened, all you must do is look at the science. No circus side shows required.

        “With an apogee, and perigee this would have the body moving faster, then slower, then, same speed etc changing frequently depending on where they were in their orbit. We would feel this change in speed, acceleration, velocity, whatever you would like to call it.”

        It’s easy to assert things, isn’t it? It is much harder, however, to be right. You are not. If you would like to challenge me on this, then I invite you to provide evidence for your claim that we would feel such a surely minute change in speed with respect to the inertial forces involved. Be sure to include all the maths required.

        “have you kept up with Dr Mary Schweitzer and her T Rex found in Montana?”

        Yes. You can read all about it in her own words here. It doesn’t demonstrate anything you would prefer, though. We have discovered things about the preservation of soft tissues that we didn’t know before. That is exciting because it gives us reason to think there might be more such tissues preserved to discover and study. It certainly isn’t evidence for creationism.

        “Her supervisor told her to prove it was not blood cells that they were looking at under the microscope.”

        That’s an awfully serious charge. Can you prove it?

        “What about Mark Armitage from Cal State University Northridge who in 2013 found soft tissue from a Triceratops and was fired after publishing his findings?”

        Ah, yes, that joker. He’s a notable creationist and much less notable microscope jockey. Not exactly on the top ten list of the world’s greatest scientists. Or even a scientist, really (he got his degrees from Liberty University and the Institute for Creation Research–both Creationist institutions, the latter unaccredited) Get the whole story here. Your framing is, of course, misleading to say the least.

        “Blood and soft tissue do not last 65 million years.”

        Actually, they do. In certain special circumstances, obviously. This is all covered by the delightfully smart scientist who discovered the process, which you would know if you cared to actually read the resource you yourself cited (but if you don’t wish to pay for it, see the link to the interview I so generously provided above).

        Now, I’ve wasted enough of my time on you. And you have reading to do anyway. Make sure you have done your due diligence in trying to comprehend all of the material before you come back here to insult our intelligence further.

  8. “Her supervisor told her to prove it was not blood cells that they were looking at under the microscope.”

    That’s an awfully serious charge. Can you prove it?

    Quote from Blood From Stone
    Peering through the microscope at the thin slice of fossilized bone, I stared in disbelief at the small red spheres a colleague had just pointed out to me. The tiny structures lay in a blood vessel channel that wound . After I sought opinions on the identity of the red spheres from faculty members and other graduate students, word of the puzzle reached Jack Horner, curator of paleontology at the museum and one of the world’s foremost dinosaur authorities. He took a look for himself. Brows furrowed, he gazed through the microscope for what seemed like hours without saying a word. Then, looking up at me with a frown, he asked, “What do you think they are?” I replied that I did not know, but they were the right size, shape and color to be blood cells, and they were in the right place, too. He grunted. “So prove to me they aren’t. ” It was an irresistible challenge, and one that has helped frame how I ask my research questions, even now.

    So who doesn’t go where the evidence leads? This is just like the Michelson Morley Experiment, Airy’s Failure, Michelson – Gale, and Sagnac. As for Mr. Armitage, he may not be the smartest man alive, but this is no excuse to ridicule him. Just deal with the facts.

    Thank you for your links. I looked at them, but do not agree. Sir, the sun, moon and stars really do move just as your eyes tell you, and you don’t need God to know that. Thank you for your time. Manny.

    • You moron. Her supervisor was encouraging her to do good science, which requires that you attempt to falsify your hypothesis before accepting it. This is even obvious from the context of the quote. It wasnt an effort to suppress evidence. Jesus christ you’re stupid. That or you are willfully dishonest.

      • Dear sir. There is much in ‘science’ dealing with the suppression, wrangling, or withholding of evidence. After the Michelson – Morley Experiment two of the brightest minds at the time (Lorenz and Fitzgerald) came to the following conclusions. One decided that one arm of the MM apparatus shrank during all of the multiple tests while the other scientist contended that the other arm did not shorten but lengthened — REAGARDLESS OF DIRECTION THEY WERE POINTED IN — hence the now infamous Lorenz Contraction — a foundation stone of modern cosmology. Did they utilize the Scientific Method and measure both arms before during and after the tests? No, they did not. They just said it was so, because they could not believe the earth was at rest. They could not believe it. They did not go where the evidence led them.

        Let’s hear from Einstein’s biographer, Mr. Clark about the Michelson – Morley Experiment. “The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still…”

        Now from Mr. Jaffe. “The data were almost unbelievable….There was only one other possible conclusion to draw – that the Earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous.”

        Now from Mr. Otis. “In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment…the thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by revolving around it.”

        Lastly from Mr. Baker. “Always the speed of light was precisely the same….Thus, failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?”

        Allow me to bring Edwin Hubble into the conversation to give another example of not only a bent toward a certain position but a underlying hostility against the opposing idea. The following is a quote with my emphasis from his book entitled, The Observational Approach to Cosmology 1937, Pages 40, 42, 46.

        PG 40

        “The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance. A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied.

        Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted for by the energy corrections alone – without the additional postulate of an expanding universe.

        In this case all the empirical information we have concerning the observable region as a whole is internally consistent. The region appears to be thoroughly homogeneous – an insignificant sample of a universe which extends indefinitely. The conclusion would probably be accepted without hesitation if it were not for the fact that, at the moment, we do not know of any permissible interpretation of red-shifts other than actual motion, actual recession of the nebulae.”

        PG 42

        “Relativistic cosmology is a natural offshoot of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. However, the cosmology is a superstructure, including other principles, and, if the present formulation were found to be inadequate, the failure would not necessarily affect the underlying theory. Relativity contributes the basic proposition that the geometry of space is determined by the contents of space. To this principle has been added another proposition, formulated in various ways and called by various names, but equivalent, in a sense, to the statement that all observers, regardless of their location, will see the same general picture of the universe. The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions.”

        PG 46

        “Spatial Curvature

        The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases utwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

        Does this appear to be science earnestly seeking the truth? I leave you with Einstein. The end result of the MME established that the earth was not moving through the ether utilizing the light. Rather than admit the obvious that the earth was in a state of absolute rest, Einstein got rid of the ether in STR. But after the crisis in physics that the MME gave rise to was over he took it back again in GTR. Here is his quote from the Kyoto speech of 1922.

        “Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.”

        What is this? Is it science? No, is it a fact? No. It is a opinion of a smart man, a belief, or a religion.

      • All of this lunacy is covered in the links I provided. You are ignoring them, and I’m not going to indulge your ignorance. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Your pretense at geniality is a slipshod disguise for your utter disrespect for fact and honest discourse.

    • “Sir, the sun, moon and stars really do move just as your eyes tell you, and you don’t need God to know that.”

      Only an idiot thinks reality is as simple as what meets the eye. You can’t see ultraviolet rays, so they don’t exist in your world I guess. I guess there’s no such thing as red shift or gravitational lensing. No relativity or frames of reference for you. No optical illusions. Shadows are black marks on the ground. Clouds really are dragons and there really is a man in the moon–and he glows with his own light, of course (reflection from the sun–pah!). Leaves are not blown by the wind, they are fantastic creatures with magical powers of flight! What a wonderfully wacky world you live in.

      • Dear sir, I readily and fully admit my shortcomings in many areas of knowledge. I realize and agree that many things exist that are not perceived by the naked eye and can only be seen through a microscope or telescope. I also know that I must be ready to learn from all men, especially they who differ from me. Now, please consider the following:

        I think you would agree that the moon moves. Is it because you were told that it moves that you believe it does? We see the stars, sun, AND moon all apparently moving with our naked eye. What would you say to someone if he were to tell you that the moon is not moving at all? How would you answer him? Would you pull out a science book? Please sir, I do not wish to give offence. Please think about this. What would you call a body that moves in the opposite direction than you perceive with your own eyes day after day? Would you be convinced that this is merely an optical illusion?

        You mention relativity and clouds. What if your child were to tell you when looking at the weather channel radar with you that your city is moving toward the coming storm. Would you give a look of bewilderment, look askance, lovingly pat him on the head and sigh, or would you congratulate him for understanding the Theory of Equivalence (the heart of relativity, by the way) at such an early age? Or would you muss his hair give him a high five, laugh and say ‘good joke’? What if he was sincere? What argument would you use to convince his improper understanding? What if he shook his head from side to side if you were to point to the screen and say, ‘See, it is the clouds that are moving toward us’? What would you say now? For in the world of relativity you cannot know what is moving and what is not while in this universe.

        After Einstein came out with relativity a cartoon was run with a man hanging out the moving train who asked a railroad employee, Does Manchester stop by this train? Now sir, I ask you without malice or ridicule, contempt or arrogance, but brotherly and tender concern, Which world is the wacky one?

      • I would explain to him the concept of frames of reference. And the child would likely grok it before you would. And the only thing wacky here is that you think this somehow supports your position. It doesn’t surprise me.

      • Dear sir, If possible tell me where I can obtain a copy of Dr. Krauss’ lecture “a Universe from Nothing” from January 2012. Also, I had read Phil Plait’s article previously. Please highlight the area in which he disproves geocentricity. Thank you in advance. Manny

  9. I had never really questioned heliocentrism, as I never saw it as a topic up for question–it was understood that people used to think geocentrism was right, but then telescopes and math came in and proved it was wrong. End of story. Now, thanks to Manny, I’m forced to actually look at it in depth.

    I thought about this all day yesterday–it even distracted me while I was reading “Better Angels of Our Nature–Why Violence Has Declined”. I thought up two things. One was Stellar Parallax. The other was Speed/Distance.

    Looking online, wikipedia says that stellar parallax is good up to about 326 light years (and another site says 500)–after that the numbers get too small. Beyond that is spectroscopic parallax.

    I was thinking that if all the stars in the universe rotate around the central point of the earth every 24 hours, then one couldn’t have stellar parallax w/ geocentrism. But then I read this on Galileo Was Wrong: “Stellar parallax was thought to provide evidence of heliocentrism since it was believed that the only way parallax could be observed from earth is if the earth were revolving around the sun, and thus make it possible to view two stars at six month intervals and see an angle of separation. We now know from modern science, however, that stellar parallax can also be observed from a geocentric system if the revolution of the stars is centered on the sun rather than the earth, and therefore stellar parallax does not prove heliocentrism.”

    Needless to say, I find that confusing. Of course, my inability to understand doesn’t prove the above statement false, but if it is GEOcentrism, and everything in the universe is expertly positioned and proportioned so as to make the earth the gravitational null-point of the “Spaceball”, then it makes no sense to posit a secondary universal rotation around the sun…with the sun (now at the center of the entire universe except the earth) rotating around the earth.

    Now…distance and speed:
    The circumference of a circle (C) is 2*pi*r. If r = 93million miles, then the circumference the sun must circumscribe in 24hrs is 584,336,223 miles. In 24 hours that is 24,347,343 mph.

    The speed of light is 670,616,629 mph. For simplicity, I used 670Million for my calculation (also, as 670Mil is .999 the speed of light, and since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then that’s as fast as we can calculate anyway).

    So, since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, how far away can the stars be from the earth and still make their daily journey? To figure this, we take 16Billion miles (16,080,000,000…which is 670Million mph x 24hrs) as the circumference of the circle and solve for r (r being, remember, the distance from the earth).

    r = C/2pi

    That gives us approx. 2.56 x 10^9 miles as r. So, the furthest anything could be from the earth and still make its daily journey is 2.5 Billion miles (2,560,000,000). Thus the entire universe would have to fit inside the distance between the Earth and Neptune, which, at their closest, are 2.7 Billion miles apart.

    Admittedly, I had to use Google to help me through some of the equations, and I came up with this “Problem of Distance and Speed” as I’m just now randomly calling it on my own as I was thinking about this issue yesterday, so I realize I could easily be wrong somewhere. This is why I wrote down every step and calculation I used–Casey, Manny–check it! B/c from what I’m seeing, the entire idea of a Geocentric Universe is Right Out…just like counting to 5 before lobbing the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

    • It is right out, for many reasons that point to a heliocentric solar system. Taken together, you have a preponderance of evidence. But that doesn’t stop a true believer. Someone who is motivated to rationalize away the obvious truth will do so, no matter how much work it takes. To hell with parsimony! Occam’s razor? Who needs it! We’re propping up a belief system here, lads! Sadly, though, even their haphazard pile (not stack) of rationalizations is populated with non sequiturs and erroneous claims. No matter how many cow pies they throw on the pile, it’s still just bullshit.

      • Dear sir, please supply one proof that the world orbits the sun annually and rotates every 24 hrs that would meet the rigor of the scientific method. You have not put forth any as of this time. Also, I emailed Mr. Elmendorf. He is now 88 and he says nobody has tried to claim the $5,000.00 in some time. Please put forth a proof for molecules to man evolution that meets the scientific method criterion. I give my word to send it to him. Sir, I have always heard that money talks and bull**** or (cow pies) as you called them above walks. I await your proof(s). Sincerely, Manny. .

      • It’s been supplied to you cranks and crank enablers for literally centuries, but you don’t want to accept it, so you craft and parrot ridiculously absurd interpretations of certain isolated experiments, interpretations which, if they were valid, would be contradicted by multiple lines of evidence. I’ve already addressed your fondness for dog and pony shows over real scientific research, so I’d suggest you not perseverate with this avenue of “argument”, since it will get you nowhere.

    • Dear sir, I have been thinking on this subject for the last 3 years. Thank you for your curiosity. You mention the speed of light issue. That too was a stumbling block for me initially. Can the speed of light be exceeded? Here is a part of an article on that.

      The work of Dr. Lijun Wang at the NEC research institute in Princeton seems to have given us a glimpse of multi-dimensional reality. When Wang recently transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially treated cesium gas, and recorded its travel through the chamber at an accelerated speed of up to 300 times the speed of light, he proved the possibility of time travel. Before the pulse fully entered the chamber, Wang reported that it appeared at the same instant at a point 60 feet across the laboratory. In effect, it existed in two places at the same time. Thus Wang not only proved that objects can move at speeds exceeding the earlier prescribed limit of 186,000 miles per second, but he proved Einstein’s theory that time slows when objects travel at a speed approaching (and exceeding) the speed of light. The implications of this are mind-boggling. Wang’s work hints that time travel is quite possible.

      You also mentioned stellar parallax. Now can we prove it is the stars that go around Polaris and not the earth rotating once per day that gives us those wonderful circular time lapsed star rotations? Yes we can. James Bradley was trying to prove stellar parallax in the 18th century but happened instead upon stellar aberration. This was supposedly the FIRST direct proof of the Copernican theory. Mr Airy came along and did a retest adding a viewing with a telescope filled with water. It is called Airy’s Failure. This changed everything. Look at this eye opening 6 minute video by Malcom Bowden. We can trust our own eyes! . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tPaDiH4V1dc

      But what about The Coriolis Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum, etc. Does geocentricity have an answer for these? These are all answered by Mach’s Principle. Here it is explained by Malcolm Bowden in a 13 minute video

      Trust your eyes. They are not lying to you. Take care, sir. Manny

      • Jesus, this guy is all over the map. He’ll marshal anything in defense of his delusion, even if it has nothing to do with it. Just rambling off a bunch of names and concepts as though they are arguments. Slippery little fucker. All apologists are, though. Like I said, there are plenty of crackpots out there with their pet theories that aren’t backed up by good science, and they all get funneled into Creationism, regardless of their relevance to it. This is nothing more than a Gish gallop from someone too dumb to argue his position–so he parrots pseudoscientific claims from others instead. Seen it all before, haven’t we, Eric?

      • Manny, can you cite anything from an actual scientist that supports geocentrism directly? A peer-reviewed paper, perhaps, one describing findings that have been replicated? By real scientists? You have to do better than quoting Creationist laymen and invoking scientific terms as though they support your view.

    • Dear sir, I just viewed Prof Krauss lecture, Something From Nothing which I had asked your associate about. Please view for yourself. I had known previously that Einstein reversed himself regarding the speed of light when he came up with the General Theory, but did not have a source I thought would be taken seriously by you and your friends. Professor Krauss provided it in his talk. See url below at point in video.

      Einstein needed to have the speed of light constant in order to overcome the Michelson – Morley experiment results. This is why SR was devised. Remember the brightest scientific minds were saying that the apparatus arms either were getting longer or shorter, and all without proof. Additionally, M & M were looking for speeds in their experiments in concert with the supposed orbital speed of the earth around the sun. They did measure speeds but never that amount. So they and their other scientists called the result “null” . Why then did Einstein abolish the aether with a wave of his wand when speeds were detected? I will leave that to you. By the way, after the dust settled on MM Einstein cast the speed of light thing in SR aside. It would pose a problem in his new theory, GR. C can be exceeded after all. . .

      Lastly, Foucault’s pendulum is put forward as a proof of heliocentrism. This of course deals with the Coriolis Effect. As I mentioned previously, Mach’s Principle answers this for geocentricity. Now one more thing to think about. In a relativistic universe there cannot be any absolute inertia. How then can the bob – weight in a FP be suspended from a “fixed point in space”? Isn’t that “fixed point” attached to the rafters which is attached to the walls which is attached to the footers which is attached to the foundation which is attached to the earth which is supposedly rotating? Ponder that.

      Eric, I will not post any more comments unless I am asked. I appreciate the opportunity and your openness and kindness to me. Thank you, sir. Manny Clay.
      .

      • Probably everything that can be said has been said, but I have a couple further observations/questions.

        It isn’t an issue of whether light can travel faster than the speed of itself. That is important, but not nearly as important (I don’t think) as this: The nearest star to earth (obviously, other than Sol) is the Alpha Centauri system–it has A and B as a binary pair, and Proxima Centauri. Proxima is the closest one and it is 4.24 Lightyears away.

        So, again, Circumference. C = 2*pi*r. I’ll use 4 lightyears to make things easier than 4.24. The radius of 4 gives us a circumference of 25. If geocentrism is true, that Star System would have to travel a little over 1 *lightyear* per hour. I’m not even going to try and calculate for the Andromeda galaxy. That means that the Spaceball would have to travel at “ludicrous speed”, which puts the idea of geocentrism at a 5 on the Holy Hand-grenade scale.

        The second thing is: airplanes. Have you ever flown in a passenger jet? Do you realize that they fly at about 550mph? How are we able to walk down the aisle to the bathroom? How is it that they can fill your cup nearly full of Coke? This relates to you plumb-bob (or plumb weight) question, as I’m sure you surmised. Yes, when there is turbulence we feel it, or if there is any kind of swift change in direction we feel it. But when things are going smoothly you hardly notice you’re moving at all…

      • Ponder this. You don’t get to pretend at understanding when you disregard the available explanations. You’re doing nothing but favoring your delusion by protecting it from disconfirming evidence. You investigate a question, talk, or work solely to find isolated nuggets of presumed support in a hill of falsification. Then you hold up the former and say “gotcha!” while ignoring the latter. It’s stupid and childish, and it’s hardly the behavior of one who is genuinely interested in the truth. Instead it is exactly the kind of strategy one uses when attempting to shore up a delusion.

  10. Now I just feel sad. I worked hard on those calculations (haven’t used Geometry since high school)…and it was just ignored! *sniff* lol…

    I’m not even worried if the speed of light can be exceeded (though that would be an amazing discovery–if the results could ever be repeatably experimentally verified). But my Problem of Distance and Speed calculations appear to show that even a not-so-distant object as Neptune–the planet Neptune–would HAVE to travel *faster than the speed of light* in order to go around the earth once per 24hrs.

    If Neptune has to go FTL, what about Alpha Centauri? What about the Andromeda Galaxy (the closest galaxy to the Milky Way)?

    • Dear sir, I do not wish to give offence. I did not mean to give impression I was ignoring your comment, I did understand what you were saying. But permit me to offer that the exceeding of the speed of light is the underlying issue since Einstein told us in Special Relativity that it can NEVER be exceeded. The speed of light is constant regardless of the reference frame. But you seem to be over that hurdle.

      Now think about something else we were told. We have been assured by science that the earth and everyone on it is rotating at 1040 mph at the equator in one direction, orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph in another, and rotating at 400,000 – 500,000 mph around in our own galaxy in another. Yet we feel none of this. Also, the orbital speed is not constant at all times as Kepler assured us of in his 2nd Law. We then have an increase and decrease in acceleration. But not ‘feeling’ acceleration or deceleration is applicable in a straight line, not in an ellipse or circle. Please look at Airy’s Failure. It proves it is the stars that are moving despite all that we have believed.

      Also, please do your own experiment with Polaris and the earth. Just take the 4 coordinate points of Vernal and Autumnal Equinox along with the Summer and Winter Solstice and project them with a lazar. They will not “point” at the same place, but Polaris is in the bulls-eye in each and every time lapsed star trail regardless of where it was photographed in the northern hemisphere and regardless of the time of year it was snapped. Trust your eyes. Look closely at the stars in those star trails. They are telling you which are the closer and which are the furthest from us. They are not lying to you.

      My very best to you, sir. Manny

      • This is another list of non sequiturs, as anyone would know if they were to read the relevant literature (and, no, by “relevant” I do not mean the pseudo-scientific crank pieces you are fond of). Proper explanations of these phenomena and arguments can be had at the links I provided, should one feel that geocentrism is something they ought to take seriously enough to check into it. I don’t.

  11. I have a question for Manny. Not science this time, but theology. The bible is your starting-point for Geocentrism b/c “either it is all true or it isn’t”. So… (and yes, this is a genuine interest–I’m not being snarky, but am genuinely requesting your thoughts)

    1. Should we keep the Sabbath and/or the Old Testament Holy Days?

    2. Should we keep to the clean/unclean meats guidelines?

    3. Did God establish King David’s throne forever? If so, where and how?

    4. And, just b/c it is an old classic–what are your thoughts concerning the Prophecy of Tyre? Was it fulfilled exactly as the Bible said it would be?

    • Dear Eric, Thank you for your sincere questions. I will answer these the best I can and the light/airplane scenarios from your last post sometime this weekend. I have had my daughter to emergency room and doctor. My best to you and Casey. Manny

    • Dear Eric, It is true much has been said on the cosmological side but not quite everything. Allow me to address your star distance concern first. The calculations of Bessel on down to the present day relative to Stellar Parallax are all based on a sun orbiting earth — the heliocentric model. What does that mean? The trigonometric measurement of the triangle base to a star in the heliocentric model utilizes a diameter distance of 186,000,000 miles — the diameter of the supposed orbit of the earth around the sun. In the geocentricity model the base trigonometric measurement of the triangle to the star is only 8000 miles — the diameter of the earth. Distances therefore to the closest stars are approximately 24KX more in (H), than in (G). Even if geocentricity demands speeds faster than (c) I am still going to believe what my eyes tell me. Airy’s Failure, a retake of James Bradley’s experiment on stellar aberration (Mr Bradley was actually looking for stellar parallax) is directly observable and repeatable. It conforms to the scientific method. It gives irrefutable proof that it is the stars that are in rotation, and not the earth. I must admit that I am like Thomas who would not believe unless he saw and felt for himself. I needed science, my own eyes, and the scriptures to believe. The King of the Heliocentrists has no clothes despite what his tailors and subjects say.

      Regarding your airplane example I admit we feel nothing when cruising in a straight line while going 550 mph. But in the heliocentric model the earth is not going in a straight line around the sun at 66k mph, nor yet in a straight line in our own supposedly rotating galaxy at 500k mph, but rather in an elliptical one. Add a slight amount of turbulence in your flight and you do feel it, just as you feel it when the pilot makes a slight bank, speeds up or slows down. Thus it merely takes one turbulence, banking, and/or slowing/speeding up circumstance and from that time forward you know you are moving. Kepler’s 2nd Law states there is always a speed up at perigee and a slow down at apogee in the orbit of planet or moon. In addition to the earth not having a precise constant speed in its supposed orbit around the sun, neither does it have a precise constant rotational speed either. Think what this would do to our satellite communications and our TV’s dishes that are locked on one satellite 23K miles away.

      Lastly, I am sorry that I do not understand the coke and plumb weight analogy. Please explain. My point was that in a relativistic universe there can be no such thing as a ‘fixed point” — that is absolute inertia. Additionally the foundation of relativity (Theory or Principle of Equivalence) states in no uncertain terms that one CANNOT know what is absolutely moving as all motion is relative. You would have to go outside the universe in order to see this. Now allow me to put forth a small thought in keeping with our airplane theme.

      In relativity it is just as plausible that a plane landed on the runway at the airport as it is that the runway moved forward to receive the airplane. In fact not only is it plausible but it must be maintained as an alternate explanation, in a word, a fact. But what happened to the other plane that was on that same runway ready to take off? Has anyone ever seen this occur? Yet relativity insists we must believe it. I ask you, Eric, Is this true science, religion, or craziness? The Principle of Relativity is not simply an appendage or add on that can be cut off and discarded or placed on the shelf and put out of memory, rather it is the leaven that permeates the whole relativity loaf. Relativity is all true or not true. You cannot pick and choose.

      Let’s look at Einstein’s Clocks and Twins Paradox both dealing with time and distance. If it is true that you CANNOT know what is moving and not moving while in this universe relatively speaking how then can we know which clock and which twin were in motion? You CANNOT know it, according to the one who contrived these paradoxical thought experiments. So both clocks sped up and slowed down and both twins aged and remained the same. Eric, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true. These are not paradoxes but stark contradictions.

      Now let me turn to the Bible for a moment. The Bible is either all true or untrue — a lie. I agree that there cannot be any contradictions, nor unresolved paradoxes in that book if it is in fact God’s book. If the Bible (though not mainly a science book) is incorrect in telling us how the heavens go, then it cannot be trusted when telling us how to go to heaven. If it is wrong when telling us about natural things, neither should we countenance it when speaking of spiritual things. A few years ago I reviewed the major “contradictions” put forward by atheists and did not find one that cannot be harmonized with other scripture, history or archaeology. Your website borrows the scripture phrase, “The truth will set you free’. I concur. I will now try to answer your four theological questions. With respect, Manny Clay

    • Eric, If you mean by “keeping” in #1, and #2 above that you must do this in order to attain eternal life or preserve yourself from losing it my answer would be no. The command that leads unto life is “believe.” The other that proves we have believed is love. it is through love that we keep the commands of God. See I John 3: 19 – 24):Abraham believed God and this belief was credited to his account as a positive righteousness. (Romans 4:1 – 5) Paul told his jailor when asked what he must do to be saved. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16: 30, 31)

      Let’s look at the food concept. We are told the Kingdom of God is not in meat and drink, but in righteousness, peace and joy. (Romans 14:17) There is nothing unclean (meaning meat) of itself. (Romans 14:14) This chapter has much to say not only with respect to meat but also days as well. Please read it through. All food is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer and should not be refused. (I Timothy 4: 3 – 6) Paul said it was lawful for him to eat whatever he wanted though it may not be edifying. (I Corinthians 10: 23 – 33).

      Let’s look at the Sabbath. Jesus “kept” the Sabbath perfectly and yet the Jewish authorities in Capernaum had a problem with him (Mark 2:23 – 26) Keep in mind that the Sabbath was made for man, and that Christ is Lord also of that day. (Mark 2:27, 28) Soon thereafter, (and I believe still early in His 3 1/2 yr ministry) Jesus healed a withered man’s hand in the synagogue on the Sabbath. (Mark 3:1 – 5) It is LAWFUL to do good and save life. (Mark 3:4) The religious leaders to whom the law was given obviously had the wrong concept of the day; so much so that from that day they took counsel on destroying Him — The Lord of the Sabbath. The same occurred on the way to Jerusalem, (Luke 14:1 – 6) and in the city. (John 9: 1 – 16)

      We are no longer under the law. That was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The Judaizers were harassing the gentile believers in Galatia stating that not only must they be circumcised (the greater) but also keep the days. (the lesser) . Paul addressed that. (Galatians 4:8 – 10) He is speaking not of their former pagan life but the Old Law life that was being thrust upon them placing them not in liberty but bondage. (Galatians 4: 21) Paul begins the next chapter telling the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made us free. Read Galatians Chapter 5. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone that believeth. (Romans 10: 1 – 13)

      Paul also addressed the Colossians about departing from Christ into Gnosticism . He deals with meat and drink and also holy days.along with Sabbaths. These were a mere shadow,the type. (Colossians 2:16 -23) Christ the great antitype is our Sabbath rest. Please carefully read Hebrews chapter 4. We cease from all our works to merit salvation and REST in Him for everything.

      The OT Holy Days as they were given to the Hebrew people were signposts pointing to Christ. As you know, there are 3 main feasts in the OT economy; Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. They must be celebrated in the place where God placed His name. We know that to be Jerusalem at the time. This is why the males were required to be there. Now, Jesus told the Jewish leaders after casting out those who bought and sold in the temple upon His final entry that “My house shall be called the house of prayer…” in Matthew 21:12,13. In Matthew 23:38 after His final rejection He tells them, “Behold, your house is left to you desolate. But why, It was no longer My (God’s) house but rather their own house. God’s name had departed the temple, never to return. See Matthew 24:1. My question to you then is how can the days be kept lawfully any more? The Temple where God’s name was is no more. Even in Jesus’ conversation with the Woman of Samaria He told her that it was not a question any longer of where or when, but how, or in what manner we worshipped– that is in Spirit and in truth. (John 4:20:24)

      Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. (I Corinthians 5:7, 8) Some feel we should continue keeping the feast days due to verse 8. However, later in this same letter of I Corinthians Paul explains the keeping of the Passover. It is the New Covenant in the blood of Christ. Paul tells the Corinthians as ‘often’ as you do it, you show the Lord’s death. Paul did not lay down a hard rule regarding where and when to partake. If we cannot celebrate the days where God said they are not in force.

      Pentecost was the giving of the law to be a peculiar people unto God. It was written on tables of stone and consummated with blood. The New Testament Pentecost was also given for the peculiar people of God. Christ had brought His blood into the Heavenly Holy of Holies. But the new law or covenant that Jeremiah 31 talks about is not written on stone as the first was but in the minds and hearts of His people. Lastly, Pentecost proved that Christ had conquered sin, death, and the devil. He led captivity captive and gave gifts to men. (Ephesians 4:8) More on that when I address King David’s eternal throne.

      The OT feast of Tabernacles is the future ingathering of those that are already “in Christ”, or “in Jesus”. Look up this very important phrase. You will see it used over and over again in the NT. The harvest is the end of the world and the reapers are the angels. (Matthew 13:24 – 43) Those on the right hand will rejoice and be glad. All those on the left will go away into everlasting punishment. Read the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

      I will get back to you soon on David’s throne as I think this one of the most important questions in the Bible. Lastly, regarding the Prince of Tyre please give me a little more to go on so my long winded answers are as short as possible. LOL. I look forward to hearing from you. I hope this is helpful. Your friend, Manny.

      • OK, so I got the whole “we are no longer under the law” bit. No Sabbath. No Holy Days. No Kosher. That isn’t exactly how I was raised (are you currently, or have you ever been, a member of one of the Armstrongite Churches of God? Not important, just want to know what your background is). When the bible says “you shall keep these days in all your generations forever”, the church tended to take that seriously.

        How far does this go? Shall we now suffer witches to live (Ex. 18:22)? Should the legalization of gay marriage be supported or opposed? Neither of those topics are really covered in the NT, except that “abusers of themselves with mankind” shall not inherit the Kingdom.

        As for Tyre, I was not speaking of the Prince of Tyre–I was speaking of the City of Tyre. Eze. 26, about Tyre shall be destroyed–King Nebuchadnezzar, “thou shalt be built no more”, “though you be sought for yet shall you never be found”, etc. When was the prophecy written and when was it fulfilled?

        I look forward to what you have to say about David’s throne.

    • Eric, Regarding question #3. Yes, through his son, Jesus Christ. Let us first go back to a prophecy given by Jacob/Israel to his sons prior to his death. It is found in Genesis 49:8 – 12. Concerning his son Judah, the ancestor of David, Jacob says, “The scepter (kingship) shall not depart from Judah…(tribe of David) until Shiloh come and to him shall the gathering of the people be. Shiloh is a reference to Christ who came in the fullness of time.

      The angel Gabriel when sent to Mary told her she would conceive a son, Jesus who would be called the Son of the Highest to Whom the Lord God would give the throne of His father, David. (Luke 1:26 – 37) Is Christ the son of David? Matthew 22:41 – 46 so states. This is preached by Peter in Jerusalem at the first New Testament Pentecost in Acts 2:22 – 36 at the poring out of the Holy Spirit. This proved Jesus had been glorified. (John 7:37 – 42.)

      Christ was resurrected by the Father and is seated on that very throne. It is not an earthly throne but a heavenly. It is not temporal but eternal. (Hebrews 1: 5 -12) Jesus told Pilate He was a king and that His kingdom was not of this world. (John 18:33 – 38) The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands. (Acts 7:48) God the Son will not rule from a newly erected man made temple from a city he had rejected. (Acts 2:34, 35) He rules now in the heavenlies of which the tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple were but shadows. (Hebrews 8:1, 2, 9:23 – 28. I hope this is what you were asking me about. If not, let me know. Your friend, Manny.

      • Yes, yes…Shiloh and Gabriel and Peter. That is what the bible says. And we know the Resurrection happened b/c the bible tells us there were eye-witnesses.

        The bible also says, in Matthew (1:1-17), that the generations of Christ follow a 14, 14, 14 pattern–14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Captivity, and 14 from the Captivity to Christ. However, the listed genealogy doesn’t match the genealogy in I Chron. 1-3. Several generations are omitted in Matthew’s account…creative accounting?

        And, of course, the explanation for the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s lists have to do with “well, one is tracing Joseph, the other is tracing Mary” or “one is tracing Joseph’s *biological* heritage while Luke is tracing the *legal* heritage to account for a levirate marriage”. Unless there is a better one?

    • This response is in reply to your response beginning with “OK, so I got the whole “we are no longer under the law” bit post.

      Par #1. I am not currently, nor have I ever been associated in any way with HWA, or any offshoot. I came across your website doing research for my study on Mystery Babylon the Great. I found a chart showing the many splinter churches HWA groups have formed. I was born and baptized into a Roman Catholic family but was born again at the age of 20 renouncing popery and the RCC. If I had to wear a label it might say Bapti – Presby- Costal. I do take the words “you shall keep these days…” very seriously. But as mentioned, God Himself designated the place where He directed these OT days to be observed. he had it destroyed. These things are to be kept but in a much different way, place and time; that is, in Spirit and Truth — in Christ.

      Par #2. Yes, we should suffer witches to live. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Jesus Christ came into the world to SAVE sinners, not destroy them. Jesus told those men with the rocks in their hands to go ahead and throw them at the woman taken in adultery if they had no sin themselves. If she was taken in the very act, where was the other party? The woman caught in adultery was saved by the mercy of Christ. What was Jesus’ parting command to her? Go, and sin no more. See John 7.

      The gov’t is free to give its benefits to whosoever it chooses whether by decree or ballot. I oppose the redefining of terms in use from time immemorial. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. This concept is also the biblical one in the beginning of Genesis with Adam and Eve and Christ with His bride in Ephesians 5, and in Revelation near the end. One woman in UK has “married” or trying to marry her dog, and a Montana man has done/is doing the same. When will multiples (more than 2 persons are perhaps more than two and their pets) petition to be married. Once you change the definition of the term it is like opening Pandora’s box. If you grant one, on what grounds can you disallow another?

      When you say that neither of the topics, witchcraft and homosexuality are covered in the NT I would disagree. Actually Galatians 5:19 – 22 specifically lists witchcraft, and I Corinthians 6: 8 – 10 is what you referenced regarding homosexuality. Both lists are very long and Romans and Timothy I believe go into more detail with regard to homosexual conduct. If we have partaken of any of these sins in these two passages (and it doesn’t matter which) we will be forever excluded from the Kingdom of God unless Christ has become our Savior by faith. The key to this is the next verse I Corinthians 6:11. It says “And such WERE some of you: but ye ARE washed, but ye ARE sanctified, but ye ARE justified in the NAME of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Don’t miss that word, Name. That is the PLACE in the NT where all the feast days find their fulfillment — in Christ. .

      Par #3. Ezekiel’s prophecy against Tyre is covered in chapters 26, and 27. The prophecy against the Prince of Tyre follows in chapter 28 and completes a whole. The first fulfillment occurred at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. I do not know the exact date of the prophecy. As with prophetic things in general you have the initial parties at hand; that is, the first fulfillment. Chapter 26 ends with the phrase, “Thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.” Chapter 27 ends with the phrase “thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt be any more.” Chapter 28 regarding the Prince of Tyre ends with a similar phrase, “thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” The prophets words here are to be balanced against what gave rise to the destruction. That is, her sin. As this mounted up to the heavens she will not mount up on those heights again. She will no longer be the envy of nations. It will be as if she were no more.

      When reading through the prophecies you see the images of the Dragon, and Mystery Babylon stamped on it in addition to Ethbaal, or Ithobalus, that is flesh and blood Prince of Tyre and the city of Tyre, proper. This is a subsequent and final fulfillment of which prophecy is pregnant with.

      • I didn’t remember Gal. 5:19-22…thanks for bringing it up. So, much of the OT no longer applies. I see. No more stoning of, well, anybody, Bacon!, work on Sabbath, etc.

        Yes, we don’t want to be changing the definition of marriage…though the fact that it is no longer allowable to marry your half-sister (like Abraham), or have 300 wives (like Solomon), or have concubines (like David…a man after God’s own heart), or be able to sell your daughter into marriage (or as a maidservant that her master can decide to betrothe) (Ex. 21:7-11), and since a woman is no longer required to marry her rapist (who has to pay her father damages…Deut. 22:28-29), then I’d say that marriage has already been redefined.

        But yes, I agree–the bible is completely against homosexual marriage and I don’t understand christians picking-and-choosing in order to say it is ok. Of course, there could be the argument that “what they do is between them and God” and so there is no Constitutional reason to prevent it…but that is a different topic.

        Tyre, yes…did you know that Tyre still exists? It is the 4th largest city in Lebanon. Nebuchadnezzar didn’t destroy it, either (if you’ll remember reading about how he spend 13 years w/o gain, therefore will I (God) give him Egypt as a recompense). His horses didn’t run down the streets. He didn’t break down their walls or towers. This Failed Prophecy hit me hard years ago when I first read it…

    • This post is in reply to Eric’s post beginning with Yes, yes…Shiloh and Gabriel and Peter.

      Par #1. Because the Bible tells me so is my answer. You may call it circular reasoning if you wish. The Bible makes it clear that without faith it is impossible to please God. (in our acts) Yet in some tangible things I have used science, the Bible and my own eyes to understand certain tangible things. What is it called when you believe something that might have occurred in the past and might even be written in a book but you have no way to know for sure by repeated observation and testing? I call it faith.

      Par #2. I am aware of the genealogy issue. I have thought about it myself. And if you want to add one more thing there are only 41 generations listed here, not 42. Why? It seems to me this goes back to the generation that is in Christ. Hear Isaiah 53:8, “He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his GENERATION? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.” Isaiah 53:10, “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see HIS SEED, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hands.” Peter tells his readers in I Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen GENERATION…”

      Yes, I agree that Matthew omits 4 names when compared with I Chronicles. But he had access to I Chronicles and he could read so why did he omit it? Frankly, I am not sure. What I do find odder still is the High Priests/Scribes, Herodians/Lawyers, & Pharisees/Sadducees failure to parade this out and have him summarily dismissed. Read about Ezra and Nehemiah after the return of the captivity. (Nehemiah 7:61 – 64) Instead they point to His rising from Galilee, doing miracles on the Sabbath, claiming to be God, and casting out devils by being in league with the Prince of the Devils. Think about it for a moment. Jesus’ genealogy had to be taken as credible with the authorities and pass a very close scrutiny or he would not have been permitted to touch the scriptures or pass through the temple gates. My thought is that it did pass muster with those who were out to find any excuse to destroy Him. Consider also that His genealogy would have been found in the temple records until 70 AD. Which Roman found that record to be inauthentic?

      So, in addition to the Biblical record itself, I find the fact that the monotheistic enemies of His own people failed to dispute it or make it a matter of contention when he was still alive, and His pagan pantheistic enemies failed to do the same after His death when His religion was growing and the temple still stood is a strong reason to believe that Matthew’s record is authentic, even with 4 names absent.

      • The whole “it passed muster w/ the Scribes and Pharicees” is new…other places I read that “well, that sort of thing maybe wasn’t as important to them as it is to us”. Still, four Generations left out is a bit suspicious…almost as if he left them out in order to make the 14-14-14 thing work. But that still leaves Luke’s list unexplained.

        And, yes, forgive me, but “b/c the bible tells me so” is circular reasoning. “I know that Frodo was stabbed by the Morgul Blade b/c The Lord of the Rings tells us there were numerous witnesses of Good Character”. As for the Romans not doing anything about it–they didn’t see Christianity as a threat for a lot more than 70 years, and when they did see it as a threat they just threw Christians to the lions in the Coliseum, so the fact that “his enemies didn’t dispute it” doesn’t seem to hold muster to me (as the Romans were fighting the Jews, not Christians, until much later). But, this is something that has been being argued over since St. Augustine, so I don’t suppose we’ll figure it out here.

        Yes, Faith…have you read any other Holy Book than the Bible? The Muslims have Faith that Gabriel brought the Blessed Prophet the Last Revelation from Allah…faith cannot be proven nor disproven. It is, as scientists say, Unfalsifiable. I once had faith…then I read too much.

  12. What does the KX mean when you were saying that under the geocentric model the stars are 24KX closer?

    And, just for clarification, the plane is not going in a straight line, but following the curve of the earth, so there’s that. And so if the earth is following a curved path around the sun at a distance of 93million miles then it wouldn’t feel any different from a straight line–just like an airplane.

    What I was meaning about the coke and the plumb bob was possibly a misunderstanding on my part. I’m not talking about relativity. I was thinking you were asking “well, if the earth is rotating on its axis, AND going around the sun at however fast, how can a plumb bob ever work, since it is attached to the rafter, which is attached to the wall, which is attached to the foundation, which is attached to a moving earth” to which I respond that an airplane is going X fast and yet since the coke, and the cup, and everything on it is going the same speed, you can pour a cup of coke full w/o worrying about the forward movement of the plane causing the liquid to incline in the cup toward the rear…so a plumb bob would work on a moving earth for the same reason.

    Hopefully that was clear…if not let me know.

    • Stars are 23,250 times closer when using a stationary earth rather than a orbiting earth. 186,000,000/8000. Thank you for correcting me on the plane flying in a curved path. I also agree we would feel nothing if our orbital speed were a precise constant at all times. Kepler’s 2nd law says otherwise for a body orbiting another. I follow your logic on the plane and coke. I agree that Foucult’s Pendulum works but not from a fixed point as a relativistic universe forbids it.

  13. Ohhh, so the stars are 23,250x closer. So, any distance I see online for how far away a star is, I’ll multiply that number by 0.00004301075269 to get the True number.

    If stellar parallax is only according to 8,000mi instead of 186Million miles, then something we measure to be a light year away is only 252,838,701miles (250Billion miles instead of 5.8Trillion miles) away. Thus, something 4 light years away, such as Alpha Centauri, is only 1Billion miles away (1,011,354,806).

    Which would mean that Neptune is not 2.7 Billion miles away, but 116,129 miles away. But the moon is apparently 238,900 miles away…so, uh, hmmm. And the distance to the moon isn’t measured by parallax, but by the speed of light as reflected off mirrors, so I’m pretty sure that is going to be an accurate number.

    But even if everything is 23,250x closer, that isn’t close enough. It would still mean that the Andromeda galaxy, instead of being 2.5Million light years away, is only 107 light years away. So, C = 2*pi*r. That means the Andromeda galaxy has to travel 675 lightyears in a 24hr period, or 28 lightyears per hour.

    My HHG meter is still reading 5.

    • Eric, I agree in principle with what you wrote in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. But please, stellar parallax is based on a revolving and rotating earth at its heart… and there is no proof for this. The planets and moon can be measured linearly so I do not contest the distances given to us for them in the past. What speed would Andromeda need to be moving to get your meter to move? Space is not a vacuum as Dr. Krauss admitted in his lecture “A Universe from Nothing.” But geocentric adherents have postulated this all along. I sent an article earlier in this post that Dr. Wang at NEC had accelerated light to a speed of 300c in cesium gas. And no, I do not believe in time travel.

      • Not a vacuum? Hmmm…I’ll have to look at that more closely. However, it isn’t an issue how fast *light* can travel. If the light from a galaxy 300LY (light years) away arrives in a mere year, or if it takes the whole 300 years to arrive doesn’t matter. Let’s say that the light from Andromeda (which is only 107LY away according to the revised calculations) was able to move 300c, so it has been here from the start. Fine…but that means we can see, in “real time” as it were, the movement of that galaxy. So, if the galaxy is 107LY away, and it Rises and Sets each night in our sky, then that means it must be making a circular path every Earth Day. I’m saying that for something 107LY away to move around the earth each 24hrs (C = 2*pi*r…and r, radius, is 107), the entire Galaxy (all 50Billion (or however many) stars) have to be moving at 28LY/h. THAT is what pegs out my Holy Hand-Grenade meter. Sure, maybe light can travel faster than itself (which is still debatable since Wang’s experiments have not been able to be confirmed), but not entire galaxies…and Andromeda is the closest, so what about the further ones?

  14. Dear Eric, you said

    Tyre, yes…did you know that Tyre still exists? It is the 4th largest city in Lebanon. Nebuchadnezzar didn’t destroy it, either (if you’ll remember reading about how he spend 13 years w/o gain, therefore will I (God) give him Egypt as a recompense). His horses didn’t run down the streets. He didn’t break down their walls or towers. This Failed Prophecy hit me hard years ago when I first read it…

    Here is something for you to read on Ezekiel’s prophecy.

    Your friend, Manny.

    http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/12/07/ezekiel-261-14-a-proof-text-for-inerrancy-or-fallibility-of-the-old-testament.aspx#

    • Ok, right. This is getting old. “The Andromeda Galaxy must revolve about the earth at 28 LY/h b/c the bible is Exactly accurate and the Universe is Geocentric” but when the bible says that Nebby will destroy Tyre and then he doesn’t…well, let’s get creative! We know that eventually Alexander the Great went against the city, so *that* must be the correct meaning! True, Tyre was not scraped bare, it never failed to be inhabited (v 19-20), and it was not destroyed so utterly that it could not be found (v 21)…but who said anything about “scriptural inerrancy”? And what, “waves of nations” would eventually destroy it? That counts for Every City on Earth! “New York City will be destroyed!” Well, yeah, but that doesn’t make me a Prophet. Now, if *Ezekiel* had mentioned the name of Alexander the Great, well, that would be impressive.

      And your explanation about the Sabbath doesn’t make sense to me. So, Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath and did things on the Sabbath that the Pharisees thought were wrong. So? The Jews, even in the 1800s AD, set up way-posts in cities where their numbers were large (like Amsterdam) to mark out the *exact* length of a “Sabbath Day’s Journey” (so when you go for a walk, you can’t walk past this post w/o “officially” breaking the Sabbath). There is no biblical detail about how long “a Sabbath day’s journey” is, but the Jews made one. Just b/c Jesus healed on the sabbath, and just b/c you are allowed to “pull an ox from the ditch” (Luke 14:5) or other such thing doesn’t mean JC was saying “the Sabbath is done away now”. Of course, it is convenient that the only one of the 10 Commandments that falls under “the law” that we are no longer “under” is the pesky sabbath.

      And what day do you keep? I’m guessing it is Sunday. Why do you keep Sunday? Not only is the Sabbath not abolished, but Sunday is certainly not Established (even if there is a good argument for the Sabbath no longer being an actual necessity). Sunday, Christmas, and Easter are all christianized adaptations of pagan belief systems…it helped the pagans integrate into the newly Christian Roman Empire post-Constantine.

      If you are going to come at it saying “either the bible is all true or all false”, well…for one, that is a False Dichotomy, but understandable considering we’re talking about the supposed Word of God. But weren’t the Bereans praised for studying to prove “whether those things were so”, not “that” they were so? And which version of the bible are you using? Does it include the Septuagint or the Apocrypha? Why or Why Not? Who put the bible together? Who translated it?

      There has already been ample evidence concerning heliocentrism (and, of course, our puny sun being on one arm of many on our galaxy…one of many billions), but there is also ample evidence for Evolution if you’ll actually look at it. The following video summation of the book Why Evolution Is True is very handy–much of the most accessible, most interesting facts supporting evolution all in one nice lecture w/ slides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc

      I came at all this as a True Believer. My church was Right and the bible was Right and (obviously) God (the Judeo-Christian Jahweh) existed. But then step-by-step it all melted away…b/c of actually following the Evidence where it led.

      There is Faith or there is Evidence. You cannot have both…not with any intellectual honesty, anyway.

      • Eric, I have been going over the Ezekiel’s prophecy on Tyre from the Bible and from atheistic and skeptic websites. I admit, I am perplexed. I do believe that it is all or nothing with the Bible. If it is not true, none of it is. Yes, the Bereans were praised for receiving the preached New Testament Word of God with all readiness of mind and for also proving all things they heard by searching the Old Testament scriptures to see if the things they were hearing were in fact true. As for Bible translations — the Masoretic Text and Byzantine text, not the Alexandrian, Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus. The King James was translated by 48 – 54 men at three or four locations. Each book was translated by one man and then the 5 – 6 men in the group had to agree. They hammered out any disagreements they could and any remaining were sent on to the higher committee.

        As for the Sabbath I am somewhat puzzled by your more than passing interest. Do you recall that the Sabbath was initiated after God finished his creation? ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all things that are therein’. (Exodus 20:11) I will try to restate my position for clarity. The Old Testament — everything in it pointed to Christ. The law and the prophets prophesied UNTIL John. The OT is simply a shadow not the substance. Please look again at the scriptures I gave from Colossians, Hebrews, Romans, etc., regarding the Sabbath. The true worship of God is no longer confined to a certain space/time. It is not where and when but HOW we worship. Keeping the commandments apart from being born again will never save us. The OT states, ‘Cursed is the man that does not continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them. Galatians 3:10 -14. This was a summary statement of Deuteronomy 27, 28. Christ has been made the curse for all who believe. We have all broken the law whether by commission, omission or in motive. Once broken, the law can only condemn, not save, even if we scrupulously keep the Sabbath. Read Galatians 5:1 – 6. This is why the Jews killed Jesus. Jesus told them they had to be born again. (John 3) But they went about to establish THEIR OWN righteousness and did not submit to the righteousness of God. (Romans 10:1 – 13) Read Acts 13, particularly verses 38 – 41.

        So what day do I keep. Every day, every hour, every season in Christ. I believe it is established beyond all doubt that the first day of the week was the day Jesus arose. The New creation week began anew. This is why all the references to the apostles/church doing things on the first day of the week. Pentecost if I recall is on this day. I agree that Sunday is a pagan holiday and that the true church of Christ was leavened with the lump of Judaism, Gnosticism and heathen rites from the very beginning. I do not believe Jesus was born three days after the Winter Solstice, and I do not believe an egg encased Astarte fell from heaven into the Euphrates River which the fish rolled up onto the shore. As a consequence I do not celebrate the pagan holidays of Christmas and Easter. This however takes nothing away from the true birth, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ which I remember always, particularly when partaking of the Lord’s Supper .

        Moving to the cosmos Heliocentrism is actually a veiled worship of the sun god. You keep telling me that this model is proven but I have looked at all the evidence and it is not there. Please give me just one that can be proven according to the scientific method. You may be surprised.

        I viewed the evolution lecture in its entirety. Thank you for posting it. There are two things I agree with the lecturer on. First, evolution will be totally embraced when we get rid of religion, particularly Christianity, and maybe Islam. I believe Revelation 14;6, 7 confirms his analysis of the data. The second is a finch is a finch is a finch. After turning over his comments in my head the last couple of days I began to wonder what he and Dr. Gould would think of great men who did believe in the Christian’s God. And then I thought what would they think of Jefferson and Franklin who were deists. Were they less evolved than today’s populations of Denmark, Norway, or Iceland? I also found it odd that the two examples the lecturer put forward for bad design could also be used by evolutionists to promote their theory. The examples used to promote their theory such as yolks, appendages on whales, could also be used to support bad design.

        Eric, the Theory of Evolution contradicts the Law of Entropy. Evolution is scientifically and statistically impossible despite what they say regarding the chances of winning the lottery, the odds of a specific crowd at a ballgame, or the odds of all cards in a pack of 52 being in order. Please sir, there is at least one fossil with a human AND dinosaur print in it. There will be no blood or soft tissue in something supposed to be 70 million years old. This is before we get to the origin of things. How did matter and energy come to be? Even if you have an answer, you cannot prove it. What is it? It is religion.

        As I see it, I believe what my eyes, science and the scriptures tell me. I, along with billions of people now and perhaps billions in the past 10 – 15,000 years have all seen the stars, sun, and moon travel from east to west across the sky. This is not a chimera, a magic trick, a sleight of hand, a shell game, a mirage, or an optical illusion. Neither has anyone felt us moving at any time (other than an earthquake) I will believe my own eyes regardless of how far the scientists say the furthest star is from us and no matter what speed they say they have to be going to get around us in one day. One may call this ‘perverse’ or worse still. It does not matter. Now what is it when one believes in Einsteinian Relativity. Its heart is the Principle of Equivalence. Now, nobody has ever seen the shore rush out to meet the incoming waves, the goalpost move toward the futball, runways going forward to receive airplanes, or cities moving toward the clouds. You believe in something you have never seen. What is that? It is religion. You have no evidence. Now, if you say ER is not true you have just thrust yourself onto the horns of a very problematic dilemma. Even Einstein believed in a god of sorts. Is he perverse as well?

  15. Casey, I admit that I have never been the sharpest knife in the drawer. The bible makes it clear that not many mighty, and not many noble are called – that is permitted to believe. But it is abundantly apparent that you berate me of (one at least) the very thing(s) of which you yourself are guilty. You cannot observe or measure the Principle of Equivalence, aka, SCIENCE via the Scientific Method and yet you MUST believe it if you will hold to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. This is where the discussion thread began. We are not talking about economics or sociology here – but hard core science. You have no evidence for your claim. You must take it on faith alone — that is blind faith. This too is an all or nothing proposition. You cannot do as Einstein with Mach’s Principle — keeping the equation while discarding the basis on which that equation was derived. That was the smoothest sleight of hand recorded. Maybe that’s why only two others besides Einstein claimed to understand GR. Now, if you discard GR you are in for a much, much bigger problem — you are back to stating that apparatus arms can shrink and lengthen without observation or measurement. At the present you are left with a so called science void of any and all observation, replication, evidence or proof. What is this but religion? So what drives you to believe without evidence and proof? You tell me the things I believe without proof (God, and His bible) is my religion. But that is exactly what Einstein’s PE is — a religion, and a bad one at that, and one a complete moron could never believe in three lifetimes. Finally, on a personal note: It has always pained me to my heart that you have written “APOSTATE” on your fingers. I am not ashamed to tell you that I have shed many tears while crying out to God for your (and Eric’s) immortal souls. You were in a cult. This I true. You know it. But God told us that as we neared the end of time deceivers would grow more numerous and more cunning. But this does not take away the fact that Christ has a true church in this world. My prayer to God has been and will continue to be that you may be saved by His goodness before the sun sets on your life for the last time because at the end of our road we will all meet God whether we want to believe it or not. May you both be able to look Him in the face with joy on that great gettin’ up morning. Fare ye well, Manny Clay

      • “The truths of science are testable and can be independently observed, making them eminently persuasive to what was and is an increasingly educated public.”

        “Familiarity with the peril of the black swan problem is well-known in the philosophy of science, and one of the hallmarks of science is the inclination to empiricism. The scientist living in the “torrid zone” of Armstrong’s imagination, if he were doing real modern science, would have had two obstacles to a scientific acceptance of his sinking ice theory: (1) it would have to pass unscathed through the gauntlet of peer review (and most of those peers would have had direct experience with floating ice), and (2) his total lack of direct empirical observations for his theory! A scientist who didn’t have the ability to test a theory, and yet continued to promote it, would not be doing science. Rather, they would be doing something akin to Armstrong’s baseless evangelism.”

        I agree with what you said above in your post. The question is, do you? After all they are your words. By your last three word response I can only gather that you were oblivious to the ramifications of Einstein’s PE. Many more are than aren’t. Let’s look at your items #1, & #2 above regarding obstacles to scientific acceptance. Ask 10 of your football player friends or Rams’ fans (peer review) if they have ever seen the goalpost move toward a football on a PAT or field-goal, or 10 of transportation co-workers (peer review) if the dock moves forward to meet the trailer, or railcar. It is the contention of this idiot and moron that you are an unwitting preacher of Einstein’s baseless evangelism. The false epistemology shoe is on your own foot. You are not doing science. Manny Clay

      • You are an idiot and you don’t understand the ramifications of the controversies you are absconding with. Your “arguments” are a perfect demonstration of the topic of the article. It’s easy to claim that actual scientists don’t understand the science they’re doing. It’s easy to pretend you know better. It’s much harder to back up your pretense with actual work. You’re no quantum physicist, and all you’re doing is marshaling quantum mysticism (pseudoscience) to your cause of propping up a dead metaphysics. It’s nothing new; it really isn’t.

Say anything you want. We do.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s