CMI Seems to Have a Will to Hammer Away Geocentrism

New blog on the kid: Heliocentrism aggravates the wound of ignorance? · Creation vs. Evolution: Sigh. There Are People Who Consider Me a Conspiracy Theorist Already · CMI Seems to Have a Will to Hammer Away Geocentrism

No, the Earth Is NOT Flat!
Creation Ministries International | 2016 18 Oct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y28OaM5c0Fg

I'll cite two dialogues, somewhat beyond the 10 % provided by fair use legislation.

3:13 — 5:02

Gary Bates

And then there’s another area, where … called geocentrism which are these ideas that in fact the universe revolves around the earth.

Now you with Surveyor of course you helped land a craft on the moon.

Now the moon orbits the earth. So when that Surveyor spacecraft left the earth, where did you have to aim, in advance.

Dr Henry Richter

Well we know the laws of planetary motion and the laws of physics that determine it. And we can compute with great precision where the moon was 100 years ago or where it’s going to be in 100 years from now.

And so when we launch toward the moon or a planet we know about the arrival time and we have to compute where the planet will be in its motion around the sun at that point.

The moon rotates around the earth. It took several days for Surveyor to get there. We knew the speed and the arrival time.

So we could compute just where the moon was, set the guidance system to aim for that point in space so it meets the moon at the proper place at the proper time.

Gary Bates

In other words it intersects its path.

And of course the moon orbits the earth, so that wouldn’t be a violation of what a geocentrist believes.

But now, what about when we send satellites out into those far reaches of space.

We’re intercepting planets like Saturn or Jupiter or even Pluto as they’ve done recently.

It takes years for those craft to travel there.

So if I said to you something like, in fact, the clockwork motion of the planets, I think, is an attribute of God’s design. Would you agree with something like that?

Dr Henry Richter

Oh, absolutely.

I'd disagree. The motion may be very clockwork like, but it is not a clockwork motion. If it were, God would be a designer who then left the designed object to run its own course. Paley is a kind of Deism.

Planetary motions are not just a tribute to God's design, but also of angelic beings guiding them with great precision.

9:21 — 10:04

Gary Bates

So Rob, when I interviewed Dr Henry Richter we talked about design in the universe. He talked about the laws of planetary motion. And, of course, those planets obey gravity.

Gravity is something you and I can test here on earth and in fact, Isaac Newton is credited with the discovery of gravity, one of the greatest scientists, arguably, who ever lived.

He professed to be a Christian.

Dr. Rob Carter

—And a creationist.—

Gary Bates

The laws of planetary motion devised by Johannes Kepler.

Dr. Rob Carter

—Another Christian, great testimony.—

Gary Bates

Another Christian, etcetera.

I understand that there’s a genuine motive in all of this. People believe that they’re wanting to have a high view of Scripture.

Dr. Rob Carter

Absolutely.

... the dialogue with Rob Carter got involved with gravity, without spelling out the implication, and they started spelling out "Sun and Jupiter are bigger than earth" without spelling out the implication of that, and then before they could get back to it, they were bogged down by Flat Earthers denying "Sun and Jupiter are bigger than earth" and forgetting that they had promised and were not keeping the promise of also arguing against Geocentrics who are not Flat Earthers.

There are two possibilities:

• 1) Gravity is the only motor of motions, along with inertia tending to prolong a movement already initiated, well the implications of this are Heliocentrism holds. But what is it an implication of? Pretty often of Atheism or Deism and especially denying Angelic movers (including denying as not being aware they are even a theory and being so used to not knowing it, you dismiss the theory offhand when you hear it).
• 2) Gravity and inertia are not the only motors of planetary motion, God told angels where to steer them. In this case, "Jupiter must orbit the Sun, Earth must orbit, if not Jupiter, as too far, at least the Sun" is not implied, since the movements can be determined by other factors than only inertial and gravitational orbitting.

Rob Carter also (actually first) basically pretended there are passages in the Scripture which would if taken strictly literally (without considering context) spell out the earth as flat. No, not one single such. I challenged Hannam to provide, and he didn't.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html

There is a passage of Scripture which was not cited as purported proof of Geocentrism to be refuted by context. Romans 1, verses 18 — 20.

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.

What exact part of natural theology is St. Paul talking of? I can agree with Jonathan Sarfati that the flagellum of the bacterium and the failure of the Miller Urey repeat would add to natural theology. But this can't be what St. Paul was talking of. Because, they are recent discoveries. Imagine someone had in the NT used Babel to appeal to the historic memories of the Jews. He would have been added to by the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, but he would not have been referring to that discovery, he would have been referring to traditions as those in Josephus and especially the inerrant and inspired part of them put by Moses into the book of Genesis, in a place now referred to as chapter 11, verses 1 to 9.

But St. Paul was here not stating anything about Plato or Aristotle having access to Jewish tradition. He was stating their idolatry was inexcusable, because natural theology. Here is an analysis of Aristotle:

Based on what Aristotle proves in Metaph. Λ6-8 and Phys. Θ5, I reconstruct Aristotle’s cosmological proof as follows. Having accepted the astronomical findings of his time, Aristotle believes that there are fifty-five heavenly bodies in the universe.10 Aristotle also establishes an important principle, namely, that what is moved must be moved by something (ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ κινούμενον ἀνάγκη ὑπό τινος κινεῖσθαι, Metaph. Λ8, 1073a26).11 On this basis, Aristotle states that among these heavenly bodies, A is moved by B, B is moved by C, and C is moved by D. However, this would lead to an infinite regress, which Aristotle does not recognize. Because of the limited number of heavenly bodies, the chain of moving and being moved among them cannot enter infinite regression. In addition, Aristotle’s universe does not allow for infinity because, in his view, the universe is finite, bounded, and cannot expand infinitely, in contrast to the Big Bang theory of recent scientific cosmologists, according to which the universe has no boundaries and is still expanding. In the case of an Aristotelian finite universe and a finite number of heavenly bodies, one can either recognize the last two heavenly bodies interacting or establish a heterogeneous first mover to end this infinite regression. Aristotle does not recognize the interaction between the heavenly bodies12 but believes that there must be a first mover that moves the heavenly bodies without being moved by anything else.13 Given the prohibition of infinite regression, Aristotle thus deduces God as the First Mover from the moved heavenly bodies.

On Proofs for the Existence of God: Aristotle, Avicenna, and Thomas Aquinas
by Xin Liu, Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
Religions 2024, 15(2), 235*
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/2/235

I would disagree on the possibility of expansion into infinity as disproving the supposition of Aristotle that infinite regress is impossible, since an infinite regress would depend on a regress of already existing and therefore actual infinity, while the expansion, as supposed by Big Bang, is an expansion into potential infinity. The universe is at each point still finite.

But I would totally agree that this was the proof of God that Aristotle had in mind. And God turning the universe around earth each day would be a very perfect illustration of God's eternal power. One that's not just observable now, not just observable in St. Paul's time, not just observable in the time of Aristotle, but which had been observable since back in the time of Adam, and even two to five days** before he was created. In other words, this is a perfect match to what St. Paul is talking about.

So is Plato's tracking of the human mind back to God, it's not just the visible things that are made, but also the invisible things that are made, that show the invisible things of God. This is the proof of God repeated by C. S. Lewis in Miracles. Both Aristotle and Plato offer proof that's not often repeated by CMI, because they are scientists, not philosophers, not trained to deal with that kind of stuff. But St. Paul was speaking of the philosophical proofs from everyday experience, not of specifical science facts discoverable only by microscopes. The latter are valuable, they add to that, but they are not what St. Paul is mainly talking of.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Vigil of Assumption
14.VIII.2024

Vigilia Assumptionis beatae Mariae Virginis.

PS. "the flagellum of the bacterium and the failure of the Miller Urey repeat" While, as said, not the prime example of what St. Paul was talking about, CMI do have very good resources on them, and when Geocentrism is culturally out, these are a valuable standin. Enantiomeric amplification of L amino acids: part 1—irrelevant and discredited examples, The Miller–Urey experiment revisited, The Amazing Cell Evidence for creation and against evolution!

Let me quote the middle one of these links:

Studying Table 2 in this paper ... they failed to detect the proteinaceous amino acids phenylalanine, proline, histidine, tyrosine, lysine, asparagine, arginine, or glutamine.

Abiogenesis from "Primordial Soup" is, pun intended, dead in the water./HGL

* https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15020235
** Before God turned the mass of planets (including Sun and Moon) and of stars around earth each day, since day IV, He had been turning the division of light and darkness around earth since day I (see St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Literam Libri XII, Book I, which has a longer discussion of what the days were before there was a Sun).