Extraterrestrial Life and Baptist Theology

I then stated that that assumption is made without conclusive proof. My third statement was that there is conclusive proof of the geocentric model.

Execept that this very moment, we have astronaughts in a space shuttle in orbit observing the earth rotating on its axis.

 

Please state which calculations you are referring to and why they support a heliocentric model instead of the geocentric model. Please also state the supposed "fiddly bits" which you propose should be considered in light of the geocentric model.

I propose that the Bible has much to say about the subject both directly and inderectly.

Please provide Scriptural support for this statement.

Please explain how this statement relates to the discussion.

 

Grays are what the ETs are called by people claiming to have seen them. Not marine mammals.

Never heard of the Area 51 - Controlled by the US Govt & off limits??

Ever read about the Hollow Earth & Admiral Byrd's Diaries? Yes, we've all been told about the core of liquid metal. Maybe it's the lake of fire, who knows? But I'm talking about the Hollow Earth theory. Google & you'll read about it.

How do you know ETs are physical beings? Ever seen one?

Also, demons are spiritual but like to live in physical beings. Remember the maniac of Gadarra? Jesus cast out the demons & they begged for a physical body to go into, so He cast them into swine which ran over the cliff.

There is demon possession going on today in 2002, even though some people don't believe that.

Right now, Satan has the power of walking to and fro upon the earth (remember Job?). He tempted Jesus in the wilderness and promised Him the kingdoms of the earth. Remember? He is also called the prince of the power of the air. He is also the deceiver, called an angel of light. His time isn't up quite yet and he knows it. And he wants to deceive as many as he can into his hell by many ploys.

 

Hi!
Well, I don't balme you lot for thinking the earth goes around the sun. I used to. However, all the arguments you've been armed with are, I'm affraid, wrong. I'll try my best to asnwer the objections:

No. What we actually see is the sun rotating around the earth every day. Nobody can deny this is what we see. Of course the earth's (alleged) rotation can account for this - i.e. that the sun doesn't actually move - but a moving sun is what we actually see.

Sorry brother, you're wrong. The Europeans first began to question the earth-based model because a Catholic cannon (Copernicus) decided he liked an unpopular ancient Greek idea that the sun was the centre of the universe (it never caught on, even in Greece). He had absolutely no observational evidence of his theory. And it required just as many "fiddly bits" (i.e. epicycles) as the popular Greek Ptolemaic model (which did catch on). Perhaps the greatest astronomer ever, Tycho Brahe, produced the first accurate measurements to distinguish between the theories, and concluded that the sun goes around the earth, and all the planets go around the sun. If you think about that, it's geometrically identical to Copernicus' idea, but the only difference is which thing is at rest - the earth or the sun? (Although nobody now agrees with Galileo, Copernicus, etc., because scientists now teach the sun goes around the galaxy, and the galaxy moves away from others, etc.). Galileo consistently refused to argue against Tycho's model, i.e. the scientific model, because he knew he had no evidence against it. Instead he argued about an out-of-date Greek model that Tycho, not Copernicus, had shown to be wrong. It should be noted that that every observation can be explained equally well by (a slightly modified version of) Tycho's model as it can by the popular, (modified version of) Copernicus' model.

Guess what? If I walk around a tree, it looks like the tree is slowly revolving. And if I carry on walking around the tree, it looks like it carries on revolving! The only thing your observation proves is that the earth revolves relative to the universe. However, how do you know that the universe (along with the astronaughts) isn't actually revolving around the earth??? Both would give exactly the same observation.

Hey, guess what? If Christians go around saying some guy actually rose from the dead, I'm sure people are going to have a hard time believing them! I mean, since when did scientists say that's a likely idea??? There are many things that non-believers may have a problem with. But we don't get rid of them. In fact, one of the most difficualt things a non-believer will deal with is why he should believe what the Bible says about Jesus, if Christians don't believe the Bible elsewhere? (e.g. the motion of the sun, evil-ution, etc.)

Sorry, Philip, you misunderstand the geocentic theory. Newton's law of gravitation is true relative to the universe. But the argument is, is the universe, itself, moving? Whether or not the universe rotates has no bearing on the laws that operate within it. In fact, these arguments were out of date before they were even offered. 100 years ago physicists realized that it doesn't matter whether the earth doesn't move, or the sun doesn't move, or anything else doesn't move. The scientific laws would always work the same. of course, it's often simpler to consider the sun to be at rest, but as an engineer you'll understand that the simplest theories aren't always true.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

[ October 12, 2002, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

The business about the false claims of geocentricity were moved to the creation/evolution forum some time ago and are rather thoroughly discussed here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000161

SheEagle, the fact that the earth is NOT hollow has been quite proved by worldwide measurements of sound and earthquake waves as they pass through it. You were well answered regarding Stonehenge (a very accurate and complicated calendar), the Bermuda Triangle, and crop circles (all manmade). I would mention that the statues on Easter Island are intriguing and bespeak things the evolutionists are not really comfortable with and seek to find alternate explanations for.

Phillip, your dog DOES have a soul -- nephesh -- the breath of life. What he does not have is spirit. That is reserved to man. It is, however, spirit that makes us volitional beings, not soul. Soul is expressed through the complex central nervous system and is that which makes an animal or human a uniquely responding organism. You will find that it was only this group of organisms which were commanded/created to be vegetarians in Genesis 1:30, and this same group of critters that was to be taken on the Ark in Genesis 7:15. (Man is, however, the only creature I am aware of with nephesh which is not governed primarily by instinct). The concept of the kind of intelligence we see in these animals which makes each individual unique and capable of responding in that uniqueness to human beings especially being present in an ET being would mean, by definition I think, that the ET would have a soul. Just not necessarily a spirit...

JohnV, although 'planets' have been discovered, they all are -- if planets, much too large and gaseous (think Jupiter) to sustain life, regardless of their positions within their respective systems. It should also be noted that the 'discovery' of planets is generally not related to the actual sightings of bodies orbiting a star, but is the explanation given small perturbations in a star's movement and light pattern as it reaches earth. It is true that so far the only place where life anywhere near as we know it is sustainable in anything but possible single-celled form is here on earth.

BB Bill -- good point about the impossibility of travel to here from outside our solar system. It also occurs to me that it would be quite something if some intelligent life DID brave intergalactic travel to the extent of being able to visit from another star system and yet just do a few 'fly by's'. How would they explain THAT waste of whatever their money is to the folks back home???

To all: please notice that the drawings of extra-terrestrials by those who claim to have seen or been in contact with them resemble quite strikingly the drawings of demons done in the Middle Ages...

 

Sorry, bro., I have to disagree. There is a great amount of scientific evidence against the flat earth idea, and there is also scriptural evidence against it. However, there is no scientific evidence against the earth being at the centre of the universe, and there is a gold mine of scriptural evidence in its favour. In fact, the idea that the earth goes around the sun is more akin to the flat earth idea, since it is held without a shred of evidence, biblical or scientific, in its favour.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

There are a couple of very simple evidences against a geocentric universe:

1. The spacecraft are programmed according to the heliocentric model. They work. They go where they are told to and return (when manned) where and how they are programmed to.

2. If the earth were the center, then the outer reaches of the universe would have long since disintegrated into a uniform smear of subatomic particles from the faster-than-light speed at which they would have to be travelling. Instead we see distinct galaxies out there...

 

Aw, Helen, (& Phillip), I was just pickin' with johnv.

What I REALLY believe is it is demon activity.

Helen, your post about the description of grays & demons was interesting. Do you have any links?

God Bless Ya'll, Was Just Teasing.

 

I have been searching on Google for about half an hour now! Lots of verbal descriptions, but I wanted to find something you can see for yourself. Believe it or not, the best I could find was in an ad for garden decorations! Look at this page and note the very large and almond-shaped eyes -- same as a lot of the ET's today:

http://www.finegardenproducts.com/fgp/index.cfm?fuseaction=customer.category&boutique=&category_code=Gargoyles

There are hundreds of sites with essays on the subject -- most are mind-bogglingly weird and not worth the webspace they take up. I have been through witchcraft pages, Medieval pages, ET pages, art pages, and I'm a little numb. All I wanted was illustrations of medieval gargoyles and such -- plenty of books about them with illustrations for sale, but nothing I could find on the web. No, there was one page, but it was not for human consumption...

 

Uhhh, some inaccuracies on this board about Tycho Brahe were stated:

Tycho Brahe first observed that there was a problem with the idea that the earth was the center with everything moving around it. He tracked the irregulatities in the movements of the planets. They'd move forward, then back, then forward again.

Brahe stated that the planets did not revolve around the earth.

He surmised that the all the planets except for earth revolved around the sun, and that the sun, with planets moving around it, revolved around the earth.

This sent shockwaved throughour Eurupe, and the church was not happy with it, because according to them, the Bible said everything revolved around the earth. Over time, the furor died down, and the church left him alone. His theory explained the reversing of the orbits, but not other irregularities that were seen in the orbits, as well as the movement of stars. Eventually, the idea came into being that the orbits of the sun and planets was not round, but elliptical. Again, it answered some questions, but raised new ones that a geocentric elliptical orbit could not explain. One of the questions was why some seemingly stationery objects shifted right for half a year, then shifted left.

Galileo and Copernicus surmised that Brahe was right about the orbit of the planets of the sun, but expounded that the earth, also being a planet, would orbit the earth as well. If the earth orbited the sun, it would explain the shifting of the objects seen in the night sky. Needless to say, the Church threw a fit. Not because the evidence was valid, but because it contradicted their beliefs.

Yet still, over time, there were still some minor interruptions in the orbits. Later observers were able to deduce that the irregularities could only be explained by the existence of additiol planets in the solar system, whose gravitational pull had an effect on the existing roations of the six known planets. Eventually, the search for the source of those missing gravitational bodies uncovered the planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

 

About Galileo taking on the "earth is the center" bare assertion:

The bare assertion fallacy is, to put it simply, a fallacy of reasoning in which the user gives no reasons at all for his position other than the fact that he says so. It is the treasured fallacy of every parent who has ever told his child, "You want to know why you're not going? I'll tell you why: Because I said so."
This reasoning is spotted by almost everyone as illogical but it remains powerful because it relies on a power difference between the two arguers. Imagine a child using the same strategy on his parent: "Now you listen to me: you'll buy me that go-kart right now...BECAUSE I'M THE KID AND YOU'LL DO AS I SAY." Bold, to be sure, but laughable.
So status is the key. Now here's a question: who has the greatest status in the universe? No, not Michael Jordan. Nor is it Larry King. The answer I'm seeking is GOD. Surely a God who calls Himself "I am that I am" is one who has ultimate status. (Modern response: You da God.")
So when God says, "That's the way it is simply because I said so," there isn't a whole lot a God-fearing world can do except say, "Okay."
And that was the basic scene back in 1600 when a scientist named Galileo was advancing his theories that the earth revolved around the sun. He was not the originator of these theories: Copernicus had been advancing them for several years and some thinkers a millineum prior had speculated as much. But Galileo was the man who put his theories into an argument against the church of his day. And the Catholic church, still stinging from Luther's revolt, was in no mind to have further erosion come from the fledgling scientific community.
The church's position was as follows:
The Bible was the inerrant word of God.
It contained verses which showed that the earth was anchored while the sun moved.
It was also the general consensus that the earth was the center of God's plan.
Therefore, the sun couldn't revolve around the earth.
And the natural response is: Why not?
To which the answer would have to be: Because God said so.
To which a serious arguer would've followed up with: show me the money (verses).
To which a papal commission would've said: "Try these on for size."
Ecclesiastes 1:4 and 5: One generation goeth, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth.
Psalms 92: "He has made the world firm, not to be moved."
Psalms 103: "You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever."
And how about in Joshua 10:12: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon."
To which any God-fearing person would've likely responded, "Touche."
But not Galileo. He had a new telescope he had invented and he had seen proof, lots of proof. And he was bound and determined to overthrow this logical fallacy. Some historians say he went out of his way to pick a fight with the church over this issue.
Well, it came to a head first in 1616. Pope Paul V had a group of experts consider the basic tenets of this "Copernican doctrine" and determined it was "foolish and absurd philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages."
In other words, God said so. Forget science. Forget evidence. It went against what God said directly in the scriptures. End of argument.
Galileo was publicly chastised by the church and warned "to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it."
Well, Galileo was not one for bare assertions. Actually, there are two layers of bare assertions here: one from God, the other from the church. The one from God Galileo had no trouble dealing with. He too believed in the inerrancy of the scriptures. The problem, he asserted, was with the way the church interpreted the Bible. Their idea of inerrancy was absolute literalness. He was quick to point out many figurative passages in the Bible which even they accepted as figurative. He also reminded them that the Bible needed to be understood in its historical context.
No, Galileo wasn't refuting God's fallacy for he saw none there; he was refuting the fallacy of the church being able to state categorically something as true based on their interpretation, something which was obviously (to him, anyway) not true.
So Galileo pressed on, arguing his case. In 1633 with a new pope (Urban) at the helm, Galileo's taunts could be tolerated no longer. The church inquisitioned him again and this time censured him. He was finally condemned by the Holy Office as "vehemently suspected of heresy" and forced to live out his life (which was diminishing rapidly) in a kind of house arrest. It wasn't really all that bad; he continued writing and lived in modest comfort. But the church had the last word, the party of superior status got its way.
Many people mark this as the beginning of the strife between science and religion, between reason and faith. But that isn't altogether fair. Before we all jump on the bandwagon (another kind of fallacy) and start cursing the church too loudly, we should keep in mind that many others of Galileo's day, including Luther and much of academia, also disagreed with his views.
But there is a difference. These others didn't have the power to put an end to the argument and thus they weren't able to make use of one of the grandest of logical fallacies, the Bare Assertion.

 

OK - sorry - I only have a few minutes. Will try to deal with the scriptural arguments when I get the chance. It is my belief that the modern (scientific) view of the universe is geometrically correct. In other words, if I could stand on the sun, it would look like the earth spins on its axis and goes around the sun every year (along with the planets). However, if I stand on the earth, it looks like all the planets orbit the sun in the course of their years, and the universe as a whole carries the sun and plants around with it in its daily orbit about the earth. The axis of the universe's rotation itself spins (precesses) around the earth in the course of a year, such that after a year the stars appear in the same position again, and the sun rises in the same place. These are geometrically identical, but the only difference is which thing - the earth or the sun (or neither) - is actually stationary. Modern science says the question is unanswerable. But I beleieve it is answerable by the Bible. Science can tell us about relative motion, not about whether something is absolutely at rest.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There was no observed motion of the stars in Tycho's day, and his theory can easily be modified to take this into account (by centering the stars on the sun). Also, you forget that Copernicus' theory is geometrically identical to Tycho's, which means that every observation that is explicable by Copernicus, is also explicable by Tycho. Tycho's model still stands (with a little modification; but then Copernicus' model has been much modified as science has progressed). There is no scientific evidence against a geocentric universe.

Finally, regarding Galileo: none of his observations showed Tycho's model to be wrong. In his "Dialogue of Two World Systems" he argued about the out-of-date Ptolemaic model, not the Tychonian model. He couldn't argue against Tycho's model. Only God, not science, can tell you whether the earth is at rest or not.

Scripture will be coming soon!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

[ October 13, 2002, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

OK, I promised some scriptures, and here we go:

This is a very important verse. The Holy Ghost, who wrote the Bible, could have written, "The earth also turns, and carries on turning, until the sun appears to be in the same place as it was at the start;" but he didn't. The text is extremely plain. The sun does the moving. And every day it moves right around the earth. "But that's not meant to be taken literally!" you may say. But I ask, "How do you know?" There is nothing in the verse, nor the context, nor the entire Bible, to indicate this is anything other than literal truth. The only reason we have to doubt it is man's ideas. And as shown above, it is impossible to prove that the earth, not the universe, rotates. The only way is for someone outside the universe to tell us. And God has told us.

Here we learn that God gave the Israelites extra daylight so that they could kill their enemies. How was this achieved? By the sun standing still. God could have said, "And the earth stopped turning..." but he didn't. He said the sun stood still. Now, who are we to say what God really meant? There is absolutely nothing in the entire Bible to indicate to anyone living before Copernicus that the sun didn't really stop moving.

But then we get the old chestnut: "Well, that's just what it looked like to people of that time. God accomodated his language to suit them." But this is one of the most poisonous arguments that can ever be put forward. Firstly, God wrote the Bible, and God always speaks the truth. Every time the Bible talks about the motions of the heavens, it always ascribes them to the motion of the sun; never the turning of the earth. Even the phrase "sun rise" implies motion on the part of the sun, not the earth. Of course, you could argue, "Well, I use that phrase, and I don't mean the sun is really rising." But then, you're not God. You can say a phrase you don't really believe, but God can't. OK, he uses metaphor, but that's always clear in the context of the Bible.

But here we have the real crunch. If science can tell us that God didn't really mean that the sun rose; then can science tell us that God didn't really mean that Jesus rose? After all, the Bible talks about the sun moving more often than it does about Jesus rising. And if every single one of those passages about the sun rising really means that's just what it looked like to the people of the day, why not conclude that every passage about Jesus rising is equally just what it looked like to the people of the day? If the Bible doesn't mean what it says about the rising of the sun, how can you say that it's right about the rising of the Son???

There is more scripture, but the scores of passages that ascribe motion to the part of the sun should be enough to convince anyone with an open mind.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes should NEVER be taken as 'proof' verses for anything -- unless you want to claim that all is meaningless as well! It is Solomon's exposition of the fruitlessness of his labors to satisfy himself and his final conclusion regarding this matter. The entire book is centered on how man sees things.

And we also speak of the sun rising...

As far as the Joshua verse goes, that again only indicates what Joshua SAW, not what the actual occurrance was. There is NO biblical indication that the universe is earth-centered!