Geocentric Universe?

[PaulF2]

But since each of those parts had or has a complete function independent of the overall function of the machine itself, then the supposedly irreducible complexity in fact is reduced- thus the argument crumbles

That’s the boilerplate retort, isn’t it?

The debunkers of design in such cases must become very adept at convincing people that what appears to be plain as day is actually not at all what it looks like.

I am about to give this

millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

a thorough read, and maybe it will change my mind!

As I’ve indicated, I don’t really have a strong philosophical ‘pulling’ towards ID. If it can be shown that such structures DID evolve naturally, in a way that’s even better. As the recently late, very great Fr./Dr. Stanley Jaki observed, such a case merely reveals that God designed a Machine of even more staggering complexity - a life-producing Machine that gave us works that should and do astound us.

Either way, folks, we’ve got design! To look at such molecular machines and assert they are not designed is at least preposterous on the face of it.

This would be like coming up to, say, an Intel CPU - a machine that is still dwarfed in complexity by the simplest life! - and intoning that you believe that, despite all appearances, it wasn’t designed at all - it just came to be.

People can see that that is preposterous in the one case but many have simply been brainwashed into believing it’s perfect reasonable in the other.

Our minds are able to distinguish easily the earmark of Design.

 

[tjm190]

That’s the boilerplate retort, isn’t it?

The debunkers of design in such cases must become very adept at convincing people that what appears to be plain as day is actually not at all what it looks like.

I am about to give this

millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

a thorough read, and maybe it will change my mind!

As I’ve indicated, I don’t really have a strong philosophical ‘pulling’ towards ID. If it can be shown that such structures DID evolve naturally, in a way that’s even better. As the recently late, very great Fr./Dr. Stanley Jaki observed, such a case merely reveals that God designed a Machine of even more staggering complexity - a life-producing Machine that gave us works that should and do astound us.

Either way, folks, we’ve got design! To look at such molecular machines and assert they are not designed is at least preposterous on the face of it.

This would be like coming up to, say, an Intel CPU - a machine that is still dwarfed in complexity by the simplest life! - and intoning that you believe that, despite all appearances, it wasn’t designed at all - it just came to be.

People can see that that is preposterous in the one case but many have simply been brainwashed into believing it’s perfect reasonable in the other.

Our minds are able to distinguish easily the earmark of Design.

…what?

Irreducible complexity states that certain biological entities are too complex to have formed randomly all at once, and that these things would have had no function if they formed piece by piece- so evolution wouldn’t have favored them. However, in every case it has been applied, it has been shown that the individual pieces have or had individual functions. As a result, the idea that certain things could not arise through random mutation falls apart.

 

[PaulF2]

…what?

Irreducible complexity states that certain biological entities are too complex to have formed randomly all at once, and that these things would have had no function if they formed piece by piece- so evolution wouldn’t have favored them. However, in every case it has been applied, it has been shown that the individual pieces have or had individual functions. As a result, the idea that certain things could not arise through random mutation falls apart.

I see you cannot even manage to get the definition of irreducible complexity correct - not even close!

Funny - you repeat the distortion that the mainstream media tends to repeat. You know - tell a lie often enough and it’s truth.

By asserting that Behe asserts that irreducibly complex machines are simply “too complex”, you subtly introduce the notion that this is simply a matter of lack of understanding, of a too small view. Indeed, that is exactly the trick the notion’s detractors (& the clueless mainstream media) are playing by putting things in such terms - not at all the terms those who at least understand the concept use.

Irreducible complexity has nothing to do with any particular level of complexity. Behe’s favorite example, the mousetrap, is obviously not a ‘complex’ device by most any standard. No, the crux of the irreducible complex machine, according to Behe, is simply that it cannot function unless all its parts are present. Remove anything and it breaks. Thus, any irreducibly complex machine is one that had to self-assemble mostly in one step.

Whether or not the pieces of such a machine have functions outside of the particular machine is barely relevant at all.

**

 

[tjm190]

I see you cannot even manage to get the definition of irreducible complexity correct - not even close!

Funny - you repeat the distortion that the mainstream media tends to repeat. You know - tell a lie often enough and it’s truth.

That is the definition I’ve gotten from videos representing that view point/

By asserting that Behe asserts that irreducibly complex machines are simply “too complex”, you subtly introduce the notion that this is simply a matter of lack of understanding, of a too small view. Indeed, that is exactly the trick the notion’s detractors (& the clueless mainstream media) are playing by putting things in such terms - not at all the terms those who at least understand the concept use.

No, his claim at first appears valid. Not too complex to understand, but too complex to happen randomly all at once. The flagellum is made up of 50 base specific base pairs in a specific order- hence it is “complex.” However, since it has multiple levels of function prior to completion, that complexity is not “irreducible”

Irreducible complexity has nothing to do with any particular level of complexity. Behe’s favorite example, the mousetrap, is obviously not a ‘complex’ device by most any standard. No, the crux of the irreducible complex machine, according to Behe, is simply that it cannot function unless all its parts are present. Remove anything and it breaks. Thus, any irreducibly complex machine is one that had to self-assemble mostly in one step.

However, as I stated, the pieces of flagellum have individual functions. So if you remove one part, you still have several other functions being fulfilled.

Whether or not the pieces of such a machine have functions outside of the particular machine is barely relevant at all.

False. That’s what makes the complexity reducible or irreducible.

**
Evolution does not favor the loss of excess parts. That’s why we have vestigial organs.

 

[cassini]

That is the definition I’ve gotten from videos representing that view point/

No, his claim at first appears valid. Not too complex to understand, but too complex to happen randomly all at once. The flagellum is made up of 50 base specific base pairs in a specific order- hence it is “complex.” However, since it has multiple levels of function prior to completion, that complexity is not “irreducible”
However, as I stated, the pieces of flagellum have individual functions. So if you remove one part, you still have several other functions being fulfilled.

False. That’s what makes the complexity reducible or irreducible.

Evolution does not favor the loss of excess parts. That’s why we have vestigial organs.

What in God’s name has all this evolutionary rubbish got to do with a post GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE?

 

[PaulF2]

What in God’s name has all this evolutionary rubbish got to do with a post GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE?

I think the main assertion tjm is making is that if the Earth were at the center of the universe, we’d have a spare spleen. Did I follow you correctly, tjm?

That was a funny. You’re right - the thread’s been hijacked a bit, hasn’t it? Not sure how that happened but it may have been me - unintentional. I’m sorry.

tjm, I probably owe you a reply; maybe I’ll break off a new thread.

 

[buffalo]

But since each of those parts had or has a complete function independent of the overall function of the machine itself, then the supposedly irreducible complexity in fact is reduced- thus the argument crumbles

It should come as no surprise that building blocks that have uses elsewhere can be designed to be used for a specific purpose.

And this thing spins at 100,000 RPM. This is some motor.

 

[tjm190]

I think the main assertion tjm is making is that if the Earth were at the center of the universe, we’d have a spare spleen. Did I follow you correctly, tjm?

That was a funny. You’re right - the thread’s been hijacked a bit, hasn’t it? Not sure how that happened but it may have been me - unintentional. I’m sorry.

tjm, I probably owe you a reply; maybe I’ll break off a new thread.

What? I came back to this thread and I see the flagellum and think “oh, irreducible complexity is afoot!”

 

[colliric]

I think this thread is proof that people too often blurr the lines between science and philosophy.

Heliocentrism is not a scientific ideal, when discussed by “scientists” it is oft not discussed as a “scientific” fact but is in fact treated as a philosophical idea. Thus these “scientists” are not acting in their relm of science but are actually expressing philosophical ideas… they have crossed the boundary of Science and have entered the relm of philosophy(and consiquently also Religion). They have instead temporarily become philosophers that are also scientists by trade.

Now, with that distinction sorted out, we can clearly see that Heliocentrism does not come from scientific study, but has actually come from scientific study that has dramatically branched out into philosophy.

Science has never proven that the earth OR sun are the center of the universe because it cannot do so. Only philosophy can consider such questions. I find that in my belief it depends on the question of “what is the philosophical center of the universe?” and I see one answer to that, Geocentrism.

 

[grannymh]

I think this thread is proof that people too often blurr the lines between science and philosophy.

Science has never proven that the earth OR sun are the center of the universe because it cannot do so. Only philosophy can consider such questions. I find that in my belief it depends on the question of “what is the philosophical center of the universe?” and I see one answer to that, Geocentrism.

Your approach is reasonable. Here is another philosophical view. Since the human being is the pinnacle of all creation, humanity could be the center of the universe.

 

[buffalo]

Your approach is reasonable. Here is another philosophical view. Since the human being is the pinnacle of all creation, humanity could be the center of the universe.

Actually you will be pleased to know that humans are in the center of the smallest distances and the largest.

 

[grannymh]

Actually you will be pleased to know that humans are in the center of the smallest distances and the largest.

I am always pleased with your wisdom.:flowers:

The smallest distance being that between God and us. The largest distance being that between our head and our heart.

 

[cassini]

I think this thread is proof that people too often blurr the lines between science and philosophy.

Heliocentrism is not a scientific ideal, when discussed by “scientists” it is oft not discussed as a “scientific” fact but is in fact treated as a philosophical idea. Thus these “scientists” are not acting in their relm of science but are actually expressing philosophical ideas… they have crossed the boundary of Science and have entered the relm of philosophy(and consiquently also Religion). They have instead temporarily become philosophers that are also scientists by trade.

Now, with that distinction sorted out, we can clearly see that Heliocentrism does not come from scientific study, but has actually come from scientific study that has dramatically branched out into philosophy.

Science has never proven that the earth OR sun are the center of the universe because it cannot do so. Only philosophy can consider such questions. I find that in my belief it depends on the question of “what is the philosophical center of the universe?” and I see one answer to that, Geocentrism.

Thank God for you colliric, to see such truth in print on this forum is indeed a blessing.
Would that the Church authorities realise this and re-write history.

 

[PaulF2]

What? I came back to this thread and I see the flagellum and think “oh, irreducible complexity is afoot!”

So, we have established that tjm has no apparent sense of humor. No more thread hi-jacking by me.

Salient point, buffalo, about our bodies being relatively right in the middle between the very smallest elements in the universe (quarks) and the very largest galaxies. Just another “one of those things”.

 

[Rogerteder]

Isnt the safe bet to just believe in Geocentrism?

 

[tjm190]

Isnt the safe bet to just believe in Geocentrism?

You don’t choose your beliefs, they’re a result of your knowledge. And while I can almost accept that a creationist can have a fully functioning brain, I see it as impossible for someone to be so uninformed or misinformed that they honestly believe that the Earth is the center of the universe.

 

[cassini]

You don’t choose your beliefs, they’re a result of your knowledge. And while I can almost accept that a creationist can have a fully functioning brain, I see it as impossible for someone to be so uninformed or misinformed that they honestly believe that the Earth is the center of the universe.

See colliric how some are so blind they cannot see. If ever one wants to see intellectual pride at work, here is the ultimate post.

What is so uninformed or misinformed to accept that we, living on earth, and who witness the universe rotate around us, accept this is where humanity resides? This is a REALITY.

As to the true physical structure of the universe, well the empirical method cannot establish the exact physical centre and recognisises this by endorcing A-centricism. Now tjm you can argue all you like for your preferred order, but that is all it is, YOUR PREFERRED ORDER. For every ‘proof’ of it you can produce, I can argue they prove geocentricism also. This is in keeping with accepted physics.

Which leaves the second source of knowledge, theology. God knows the physical order and has revealed it EXPLICITLY in the Scriptures and the Church has confirmed this order as geocentric.

But, but, but, the Copernicans/Newtonians/Einsteinians say, even God could not create a physics by which the earth is the physical centre of the universe and the world revolves around it as we see it doing every day, every month, every year. No Newton and Einstein’s heliocentric physics have shown them that God is RESTRICTED to their physics.

Unfortunately they now number 99.999999% of Catholics today. God help us all.

 

[buffalo]

You don’t choose your beliefs, they’re a result of your knowledge. And while I can almost accept that a creationist can have a fully functioning brain, I see it as impossible for someone to be so uninformed or misinformed that they honestly believe that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Heliocentrism has been proven wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe. That leaves acentrism and geocentricity.

 

[rtconstant]

I guess I kind of see this in the same light as evolution. In spiritual terms why does it matter either way? Really we have no idea where the center of the universe lies (scientifically speaking) everyone is just guessing based on personal philosophy. So other than curiosity or just mixing it up for the heck of it, what does it matter? Is there a spiritual import to this that I’m missing?

 

[mchale]

See colliric how some are so blind they cannot see. If ever one wants to see intellectual pride at work, here is the ultimate post.

What is so uninformed or misinformed to accept that we, living on earth, and who witness the universe rotate around us, accept this is where humanity resides? This is a REALITY.

Well amateur astronomy is a hobby of mine… and I will tell you what I see…

1. I see all the other planets orbiting the Sun.
2. I have seen pictures taken from the moon and from orbiting the moon which shows a small blue ball that is exceptional amongst the planets only because of what is on the world.
3. I know of (Though have not performed) how the parallex of stars can be measured to demonstrate their distance from us… and what it implies about our solar system (i.e., that we orbit the sun).
4. I have yet to find a way to reconcile geocentrism with the theory of Relativity.

As to the true physical structure of the universe, well the empirical method cannot establish the exact physical centre and recognisises this by endorcing A-centricism. Now tjm you can argue all you like for your preferred order, but that is all it is, YOUR PREFERRED ORDER. For every ‘proof’ of it you can produce, I can argue they prove geocentricism also. This is in keeping with accepted physics.

Yes, you could, in theory fit most observations into a heliocentric universe, assuming you are willing to accept that the entire Universe is rotating around the Earth at a rate much faster than the speed of light.

Also, I have never really seen a good geocentric explination for geosynchronous satellites.

Which leaves the second source of knowledge, theology. God knows the physical order and has revealed it EXPLICITLY in the Scriptures and the Church has confirmed this order as geocentric.

But, but, but, the Copernicans/Newtonians/Einsteinians say, even God could not create a physics by which the earth is the physical centre of the universe and the world revolves around it as we see it doing every day, every month, every year. No Newton and Einstein’s heliocentric physics have shown them that God is RESTRICTED to their physics.

No, we don’t say that God couldn’t create a universe where the Earth was the Physical center, we say that God didn’t create such a uniververse. There is a difference. God is not restricted to our Physics, nor is he restricted by your personal interpretation of scripture.

Unfortunately they now number 99.999999% of Catholics today. God help us all.

Yes I hope God does help us all… but somehow I doubt that God is particularly concerned about our position regarding the physical structure of the Universe. Its existence and structure is necessary for us and our salvation, us knowing its details, probably not…

–
Bill