Answering Shaun Doyle on Geocentrism

Today's article on CMI deals with Aliens.

I'm basically not in disagreement on that issue. However, it's a feedback, with questioner and Shaun taking up the issue of Geocentrism.

Aliens and the Bible
By Shaun Doyle | Published 29 Sep, 2018 | Updated 01 May, 2026
https://creation.com/en/articles/aliens-and-the-bible

Here is some sloppy history in the questioner:

The ancient Greeks invented the geocentric view of the universe centuries before Christ. Much later, while there was still no better scientific explanation yet available, the Church tried to interpret scripture in light of the geocentric view. ... However, when the heliocentric view became accepted, the marriage of scripture to the geocentric view became a problem. For those who believe and trust in the Lord, it was simply a matter of adjustment to biblical interpretation to account for new knowledge. ...

Here is the part of Shaun's answer that deals with this:

And on these potential conflicts between science and the Bible, each ‘conflict’ must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Geocentrism within the Bible was indeed an interpretive overreach, since the Scriptures underdetermine commitment to a geocentric cosmology. Many people think the conflict between Genesis and deep time is likewise merely apparent. We disagree. Why? Unlike the geocentrism issue, there is no other proper way to read the relevant biblical texts, and much of the Bible’s theology of redemption hangs on the historical chronology and event sequence of Genesis 1–11 (The Galileo excuse). We’re saying that the same applies to the existence of aliens. Indeed, many of the biblical theological themes that rule out pre-Adamic people (a major issue in the origins debate) also rule out the existence of sentient aliens for the same reasons. Salvation is in the last Adam, meaning that salvation only pertains to Adamites. That rules out both pre-Adamites and sentient aliens. Thus, it’s not that we regard aliens as “not worth considering”; it’s that we have considered them, and regard them as conflicting with Scripture.

Now, first, you are aware how crucial sentient and intelligent aliens are to the historical acceptance of Heliocentrism?

No?

Check out Kepler's Somnium (dream, in translation). He gives an astronomy that uses the Moon as inertial frame and takes that for absolute reality, then makes the point this is just an inertial frame, and therefore, so is geocentric astronomy.

The problem is, he forgot to prove Selenites actually exist. H. G. Wells provided that (or if it was for Martians) in The War of the Worlds. To imagination, that is. Not quite as much to solid reason, mind you. Since then, George Lucas reprovided it for, inter alia, Tatooinites. So, one thing I sometimes bring up is, if you can trace the story of Star Wars to a spaceship coming from Tatooine, you basically have a Magellan style proof for modern cosmology, including Heliocentrism in relation to all bodies of the solar system.

This didn't stop Euler from nearly reusing the argument in ... looking up Euler als "Astronom" on my German blog ... in "59:sten Brief, vom 17. Sept. 1760."

The closest fix star, as I have proven, is at least 400 000 times further away than the Sun is, and all of them, are like the sun made to have orbitting around them planets which, not unlike our earth, are no doubt all meant to be inhabited.

That one didn't age too well, did it?

4 light years = 37 842 113 600 000 000 m / AU = 149 597 870 700 m = 252 958.9 times, a bit more than half of 400 000. When I say the distance is only 173 times the AU, I'm referring to my own conclusion that the fix stars are one light day up.

But Euler actually gives another argument too. Physical necessity. Newton gives the two-body problem, Euler adds that the gravitation of the fix stars can be left unaccounted for, since too small, then says that there isn't really any many-body problem, since the Sun makes each planet involved in a two body problem which can leave out all of the other planets. In other words, the real argument is, Geocentrism wouldn't work, physically, as a result of gravitation and inertia.

The point is, I agree.

We observe Geocentrism, it wouldn't work as a result of gravitation and inertia alone, it's artistic and therefore needs an agent who can decide with comprehension, not just blind forces that can cause without deciding to do so.

This brings us to a point about the Biblical proof texts for Geocentrism. Did Shaun Doyle include these two? Here:

The man went his way, and told the Jews, that it was Jesus who had made him whole Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work
[John 5:15-17]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]

What exact work or act of God is indisputably done on a Sabbath? And what exact visible phenomenon can show both that God is Lord of the entire universe, not just locally, and that His power is inexhaustible?

Upholding the universe in existence? Some would argue God put existence into matter so it stays in existence over a Sabbath. And some would not attribute existence as such to God in the first place.

The code of DNA? Not visible to the naked eye since the beginning of creation. And as codes aren't switched every day within an organism, upholding it also doesn't show as done on a Sabbath.

The solar days is c. 5 minutes slower than the stellar day. 24 h precisely for the solar day (because the equinoctial hour is precisely 1/24 of it). 23 h. 56 min. 4. sth sec. ... that's the time between two occasions when Sirius or α Centauri or Vega or whatever are at zenit over a given location. It's not just the Sun and Moon that move, it's th stars way outside them too (plus a few more stars that aren't tied to the sidereal day, but which wander over the zodiac, they are, like Sun and Moon, called planets).

The exegetic solution that might fix Joshua 10:13 would backfire on these two items. And what about Joshua 10:12? Here we are not told what the Sun and Moon did, and would have looked like doing even if it was actually Earth that did the reverse. We are told what Sun and Moon were supposed to do, and we are not told that Earth was supposed to do anything. And as Joshua uttered the words after a prayer, we can presume God inspired him to these exact words.

Many Heliocentric supposed Catholics (some of them with real devotion and belief in all the mainly talked of dogmas, like all of Denzinger, who left out the 1633 decision, but they are not accepting Pope Michael II) will pretend that Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus defined that phenomenal language was the key to all Geocentric proof texts in the Bible. No, he didn't. He mentioned phenomenal language as a possible key in reconciling the Bible and science, but he definitely did not decide on what issues this was the good key.

Again, Benedict XV is reputed to have confirmed this "koshering" of Heliocentrism in Spiritus Paraclitus from 15th Sept. 1920. Again, he refrained from deciding what issues this applied to or what exegesis the Church had on Joshua 10:12 or John 5 or Romans 1. I've read both of the encyclicals and neither made such a decision. Or directly on Geocentrism or Heliocentrism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Simon of Trier
1.VI.2026

Treviris sancti Simeonis Monachi, qui a Benedicto Papa Nono in Sanctorum numerum relatus est.

Flood or Floods, Missoula?

CMI poses, there was one Flood:

The Lake Missoula Flood
By Michael J. Oard | Published 13 Jul, 2015 | Updated 25 May, 2026
https://creation.com/en/articles/lake-missoula-flood

For forty years, secular geologists denied the Lake Missoula flood happened, despite hundreds of pieces of evidence. They thought it was too ‘biblical’ in scale. Although it is now accepted, most secular geologists believe forty or more separate floods have occurred.

I have nothing in principle against a "biblical" scale, but ...

Missoula floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_floods

Duration Between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago

So, 13,000 to 11,000 BC ... is that carbon dates?

2673 BC

27.32 pmC, dated as 13,399 BC

2634 BC

37.009 pmC, dated as 10,851 BC

If those dates are obtained from organic material, I would say, the span of the events range over somewhat less than the 39 years between 2673 and 2634 BC./HGL

Was the Book of Genesis Revealed to Moses from 1:1 to 50:25?

There might be some old commentaries that would lead to believe so.

However, recall the Hebrew name of the book is also the incipit of a passage.

Bereshit.

It means "to biblion tes Geneseos" but it also means "en arché" (Genesis 1:1)

ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.

I hold that God revealed this to Moses on Sinai up to 2:4

Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὅτε ἐγένετο

But, as in Hebrew, this passage (pericope or parasha) has the same name as the entire book, some will, very erroneously, hold that either Moses knew nothing at all from simple oral tradition about Joseph in Egypt, or he didn't trust the traditional knowledge.

From 2:5 to 50:25, Moses accessed tradition from the participants. (The verses before Adam was created would have been revealed to him rather than to Moses, and while 1:28 to 30 ould have been part of this, this was doubled and superseded by God's granting Moses a vision).

Here is how Haydock figures this out:

— Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

(On basically all of Genesis 3, and probably Genesis 2, but added onto other comments on Genesis 3:24)*

As he used Ussher chronology and I use a LXX based, my own view of "minimally overlapping generations" is somewhat different in detail:

I have often cited Father George Leo Haydock's last comment on Genesis 3, which does not make this blunder, and I only disagree on the exact number of minimal overlaps of generations. On the other hand I think, Abraham received chapters 1 to 11 or 2 to 11 (if contrary to Hunter's view the creation days were revealed to Moses rather than Adam, or re-revealed to Moses after the tradition had lost them) and no more than that orally, but from chapter 12 on his scribes could write things that were preserved in the Beduin tribe from his day to the settling in Egypt, with appropriate copies whenever the tribe divided. And even with LXX chronology, Abraham is the sixth, which is even better than Moses being the eighth, in minimal overlaps.

Sylvester Joseph Hunter on Genesis, Henry Morris on 15 Cubits

So, unlike a certain physics teacher I've spoken with** (and who had the attitude of schooling me on each argument, despite winning only one, and that by a sleight of hand), George Leo Haydock and Sylvester Joseph Hunter were actual Catholic priests, were also not illiterate in humanities by being narrowly concentrated on "science" and still sharing its commonest overreaches into philosophy and such a clear humanities issue as reliability of oral tradition.

They were also experts on Catholic theology on this matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pentecost Lord's Day, 24.V.2026

---

* Genesis 4 involves information later than Adam's life, as is certainly the case with Genesis 5 and ensuing, so Genesis 3:24 was the latest practical place to set this comment.

** Our dialogue:

Entretient avec Hans-Georg Lundahl
Gamaliel | 13 mai 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbA12hcq6Q4

my correction of his sleight of hand:

New blog on the kid : Einstein aurait prouvé que ...
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/05/einstein-aurait-prouve-que.html

How Much Tectonic Movement Was There in the Flood?

New blog on the kid: Is there a Fifth Corner? · Creation vs. Evolution: How Much Tectonic Movement Was There in the Flood?

CMI and AiG are reputed to have a heat problem.

All tectonic stages from Pangaea to present configuration and all of this in the Flood.

I hold the original four corners of a presumable rectangle or trapezoid are still visible.

The Atlantic has been opened up, matter has been shoved up (mapreading as N = "up") to the Northern areas of Baffin Bay, i e those parts of Canada and all of Greenland.

The Indian Ocean has opened up when India was shoved up (making the Himalaya) and the Antarctic shoved down and Australia with Tasmania shoved East.

But, I don't hold that all of this was ready just after the Flood. No. The Himalayas were rising* to the degree of instability that the Siwalik hills only became inhabitable after Babel, several centuries after the Flood.** The same would be true for other movements, like South America moving away from Africa. The Pyrenees too have only post-Babel human remains, as they were also rising.

Obviously, the Flood did a lot of the job, but there was somemovement just after and it did for some centuries prevent spread of human habitation to some areas.

I think that is to be taken into account when assessing the tectonic movement of the Flood, and if correct, it solves the Heat Problem.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, Martyrs
12.V.2026

Romae, via Ardeatina, sanctorum Martyrum Nerei et Achillei fratrum, qui primo cum Flavia Domitilla, cujus erant eunuchi, in insula Pontia longum pro Christo duxerunt exsilium; postmodum gravissimis verberibus attrectati sunt; deinde, cum a Minutio Rufo, viro Consulari, equuleo et flammis ad immolandum compellerentur, dicerentque se, a beato Petro Apostolo baptizatos, nulla ratione posse idolis immolare, capite caesi sunt. Horum sacrae reliquiae, simulque Flaviae Domitillae, ex Diaconia sancti Hadriani in antiquum eorum Titulum, ubi asservabantur olim reconditae, denuo restauratum, solemniter translatae sunt pridie hujus diei, jussu Clementis Papae Octavi; qui exinde hodierna celebrandum die indixit etiam festum ipsius beatae Domitillae Virginis, cujus passio Nonis hujus mensis recensetur.

* Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

** Gudrun Corvinus states in an addendum to her article:

The occupation of the Patu people then must have occurred before 7 000 B.P.

Let's say 5000 BC:

2189 BC

70.415 pmC, dated as 5089 BC

2187 BC

Eber died

2166 BC

71.553 pmC, dated as 4933 BC

2189—2166 BC, with Flood in 2958 BC = basically 800 years. Now, that was sloppy, since 7 000 BP is not usually calibrated to 5000 BC exactly. But if this means "cal BP" then that, being between 7050 and 6950 cal BP, is somewhere around 5050 BC. See the pdf on Minze Stuiver and Bernd Becker's High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC and scroll down to Fig. 20 on p. 55.

From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

Vindicated! · Some People Think Administrators Don't Lie, Religious People Do · From Some Earlier Debates, I Know, Some Think Egyptian Documents Confirm Menes or Narmer, as c. 3100 BC in History As Well As in Carbon Dates

Diodorus Siculus, 1st C BC, thought, from Egyptian sources that Menes ruled 5000 years earlier.

The Search for the Earliest Kings of Egypt
World of Antiquity | 7 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4TeOQrbVjk

Manetho and Abydos King List would agree Menes was the first human ruler.

Palermo King List, which is earlier, doesn't.

we do get the names of some king that immediately preceded the first dynasty: 7:54 Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh. These names do not match the names of gods 8:03 or demigods or spirits of the dead mentioned in Manetho or Diodorus.

If carbon dates associated with Narmer or Menes give c. 3100 BC, I have two solutions possible, for how Abraham met him somewhat before carbon dated 3500 BC:

• like Abraham, he lived long after their meeting, and so his grave has a much later carbon date:
  
  

  1936 BC

  82.763 pmC, dated as 3500 BC
  
  

  ...
  
  

  1816 BC

  Esau is 40, Jacob goes to Laban

  1798 BC

  85.566 pmC, dated as 3087 BC

  
  
  Doesn't function very well with my current calibration.
  
  
• Abraham actually didn't meet Narmer or Menes, but an earlier, pre-unification, king. Like one of Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh.

But either way, a historiography which was able to place Menes variously 3100 BC or 5100 BC was obviously not sufficiently documented about at least these early times to actually calibrate carbon.

Unlike the historic date for the War of Troy:

1179 BC

100 pmC, dated as 1179 BC

Citing my own comment under that one:

VIII, The Fall of Troy

In a way this is the least original. History says (Eratosthenes and precursors of the Christmas Day reading) Troy fell 1179 BC. There is at Troy a destruction layer dated to 1180 BC. I take this as the first detected occurrence of 100 pmC in the atmosphere back then.

This refers to:

The fall of Troy		1184 BC
	interval of 80 years
The return of the Heraclidae		1104
	interval of 60 years
The settlement of Ionia		1044
	interval of 159 years
The regency of Lycurgus		885
	interval of 108 years
The year before the 1st Olympiad		777
The First Olympiad		776

THE CHRONOLOGY OF ERATOSTHENES
By Darrell Wolcott
http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id143.html

And the Olympiads actually function kind of as an epoch (like AD does).

Genesis 5 and 11 are a better documentation of time passing than old Egyptian sources, not a worse one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Michael in Mount Gargano
8.V.2026

In monte Gargano Apparitio sancti Michaelis Archangeli, quem Pius Papa Duodecimus Radiologis et Radiumtherapeuticis Patronum et Protectorem constituit.

PS, it seems Dynasty 0 was in the South, so, Seka, Khayu, Tiu, Thesh, Neheb, Wazner, Mekh might have been too far South to meet Abraham./HGL

An Early Sprachbund Needs an Early Contact

Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund? · An Early Sprachbund Needs an Early Contact

A few years ago, I wrote:

I think the trade routes we are dealing with would push bilinguals and polyglots to the forefront in these areas for centuries (the trade routes Dan Davis speak of are not springing into existence in 1550 BC to end in 1450 BC in isolation), and, as said, such people carry on habits from one of their languages into another.

Creation vs. Evolution: Was Indo-European Group a Sprachbund?
Wedn. 18 Jan. 2023 | Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/01/was-indo-european-group-sprachbund.html

Now, I have a reason to maybe push this further back, depending on what the following calibrates to:

The rise of Mycenean culture during the same period was undoubtedly also linked to the formation and establishment of such a new ruling warrior aristocracy. The travelling specialists who accompanied the introduction of this new institution, whether through trade or conquest, were responsible for expanding the horse equipment and its highly elaborate decoration that was associated with this new institution. It explains why similarly decorated antler bits are found from Denmark to Greece during the formative years 1750-1500 BCE, and also explains why chariots are depicted in rock art in Scandinavia and on early Mycenaean grave stelae during the same period.

Middle Bronze Age Decorated Antler Horse Bits Linking Denmark, Hungary and Early Mycenean Greece
by Kristian Kristiansen | [from] Mediterranean Horizons / Archaeological Studies in Honour of Søren Dietz
https://www.academia.edu/166139657/Middle_Bronze_Age_Decorated_Antler_Horse_Bits_Linking_Denmark_Hungary_and_Early_Mycenean_Greece

Let's look up the years* ...

1558 BC

97.75 pmC, dated as 1746 BC

...

1471 BC

99.049 pmC, dated as 1550 BC

Nope, on my calibration from Christmas 2024, the years are the same ... roughly speaking./HGL

* Table VI—VI/VII and node VII in Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy

I'm Not Ron Wyatt

Before 45 minutes and 1 second to after 45 minutes and 42 seconds:

In one sense it doesn't matter at all. But my concern here is, you know, the reason I'm interested in it is that I don't want Christians to be misled into thinking that we have this powerful confirmation of the Bible that actually turns out to be bogus. You know, pointing to things in social media posts about, oh don't, you know, they've found chariot wheels in the Red Sea and they have the pillars of Solomon and there's a shallow sand bridge here when that turns out not to be true because you know, the danger is if a Christian maybe is convinced that this is proof of the Bible and they believe the Bible for this reason, what happens when somebody else comes along and points out, no, the evidence really doesn't align with this idea. It's based on the claims of Ron Wyatt and he's, you know, proven charlatan in many ways, is their faith going to be shipwrecked as a result?

Why This Red Sea Crossing Theory Doesn’t Hold Water
Creation Ministries International | 11 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neoYzTGLt0s

Now, Ron Wyatt claimed to have gone to excavations that other people have either criticised or found not really credible.

I'm not making such a claim.

When I refer to a fact, if I "discovered" it, it was by maths and logic, or by going to the Bible text, it was not by personal and ill documented exploits of an explorer.

Even Graham Hancock has looked on more material himself than I have, I'm far closer to him than to Ron Wyatt, except, I'm a Christian.

So, when I say "in 4500 BC, when Laish was founded, it was ..."

2097 BC

74.949 pmC, dated as 4481 BC

I'm referring to a post of mine:

Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

If you go over there, you find there are two other posts around, one from Joseph in Egypt to the Fall of Troy, and one called Preliminaries.

On Flood to Joseph in Egypt, that section is on table III—IV. On preliminaries, you will find III = end of Babel = Göbekli Tepe, birth of Peleg, 401 years after the Flood (II = beginning of Babel = Göbekli Tepe, death of Noah, 350 years after the Flood), and you may disagree with that. You may think Peleg was born 101 after the Flood or 530 after the Flood. You may disagree on Göbekli Tepe being Nimrod's Babel. If so, go to the post Preliminaries to see what I did.

You will also find IV is Genesis 14, real date 1935 BC, carbon date 3500 BC, from the reed mats when the Chalcolithic people of En-Geddi = Asason Tamar evacuated, corresponding to them being attacked in Genesis 14.

Under the nodes III and IV and all other nodes, you will find a date I think is the Biblical date and a carbon date I think is the archaeological item to the Biblical event. And you will find a decimal fraction, which, if converted to percentage fraction, translates as the pmC level of the atmosphere back then.

Under this enumeration of the nodes, you will find how I did the tables between the nodes.

So, if you agree with two consecutive nodes of mine (I/II and VI/VII have been inserted between a I and a II and between a VI and a VII already so identified in previous versions of my tables), you should, unless you insert a node in between them, agree with my table in principle.

But if you don't agree with a table, it should be because you either disagree on its two limiting nodes (Biblical date if you have another chronology or carbon date if you read another article, or identification, if you disagree with my assessment). You are perfectly free to use my method (I appreciate if you acknowledge I gave this cue) according to your own preferences, in an article of your own.

I'd like to see your results and be able to criticise them.

And I'd very much appreciate not to be compared to people who are just asking you to take their word.

Right now, I'm assessing whether I should revise my Exodus chronology to make it Amenophis II. Or Amenhotep II. The video I just cited would actually tell me, if not its author, that this is not the best choice, but I'm still on the fence. Why not? Because Keaton Halley argues that at this time no one was extending "Egypt" into Canaan, even as far as Sinai. From the promise to Abraham, his seed were 430 years in "Egypt" (Hebrew wording of Moses), or in "Egypt and Canaan" (Greek wording of LXX translators), meaning, when Jacob is in Bethel, this is within the 430 years "in Egypt" ... That is not a 19th Dynasty Situation.

I'm happy to get involved in debates on my other "claims" which are also not claims of discovery in the exploration sense, just claims of putting two and two together. From things already known, already published, already discussed in some cases.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
IIIrd LD after Easter
26.IV.2026

PS, obviously, the going after someone in his writings you acknowledge is a far less intrusive way than some to preserve Christians from falling away after trusting him too much or non-Christians from not converting when meeting Christians who still do. Making a deal to keep someone's writings a "secret" is obviously far likelier to bring financial trouble to the person concerned./HGL