This is my first post. Can anyone point me to any emperical evidence for this principle, a basic Big Bang assumption. Hawking says there is none, although I understand there is some effort to verify it through the ZV effect (per Wikipedia), has it been successful?
A young earth creationist I have been debating claims there is CMB evidence (see AIG) the universe is rotating, and we were at the center!!! Any thoughts on that hypothesis?
Thanks in advance

Hi Lou, welcome.

The Copernican Principle is not one that I have studied, but I understand it to simply mean we, as a planet/solar system/galaxy are not all that special. I'd bet that Copernicus would disagree with this view, however. His model was superior to Ptolemy's as it gave the universe a true center which was one motive for him. [Actually, Copernicus placed his center near the sun and not at the center of the sun. Ptolemy's model had a different orbital center for each planet offset from the Earth which he called the equant.]

Further Copernicus realized the elegance he found in his heliocentric model because his showed that as you move to the orbits of the next planet away from the sun then the orbital period increases; he had discovered a nicer order. It further resolved some other issues, but, unfortunately, the math for his model was about as difficult, perhaps a little worse, than the Ptolemy model.

I don't think I'm helping you much, but I thought I'd stir the pot a little.

Nevertheless, it is a reasonable principle when compared with any view that holds our planet and life are unique. Obviosly, if our planet were at the absolute center of the universe, there would be a lot more spin on how we view the universe and our uniqueness. [sorry 'bout the pun being it's your first post. ] Yet, our knowledge of the variables within the Drake Equation is hardly able to demonstrate that mankind is not somewhat unique or entirely unique. So, I suppose the Copernican Principle would have to be taken in the context it is meant. [Others will quite possibly disagree with me, so give 'em a chance.]

Please link to the ZV Effect (I failed to Google it down). Do you mean the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect?

There is an old thread regarding AIG's claim that may help you.

If their (AIG) argument is for Geocentricity then you might like to see a more recent and more robust debate about it in Galileo Was Wrong.

The argument I like best against a rotating universe is how unlikely its rotation would be behave in such a jerky manner. Using quasars and interferometry for accuracy, scientists measure the changes in the rotation rate of the earth. Accuracy, IIRC, is good to about 20 mas (milliarcseconds) as determined by those at IERS. The shifting air masses will cause significant mas (milliarcsec., not mass) variations daily. So, why would this air mass shifting be causal to the rotation of the entire universe. It is more plausible by far that it would be causal to the shifting of our planet instead.

Ultimately, you can not use science to crush a subjective belief, but you can influence it to some degree based on the strength science can bear, as well as, the amount of exposure the belief has to that science.

TalkOrigins does a nice job refuting many Creationists views.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Apparently, Copernicus placed his center at the center of the Earth's orbit. I think that's kinda ironic

I had forgotten that fact, thanks. But it does make sense that he would in order to find a true center. I suspect he considered it the c.g. point, right?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Thanks for info. I hate to perperuate this, but see latest AIG "info" on center of universe. Any comments?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

Ignore other post...I see current AIG "info" now incorporates detail included in your AIG link and was covered by old thread. Thanks

I don't remember if this article has been dissected and refuted, but it certainly could rather easily.

It is the horse pushing the cart. When you cut deep ruts in the road to restrain the cart, then the horse can push a cart. It is bad science, and bad religion, when religion tries to squeeze a scientific direction by using vague religious sources in order to force the cart to go only in their ruts of interpretation.

Since you are interested in the Copernican Principle application, let’s just look at his #10 item. He quotes Gott: [I'll use blue for Humphreys.]

“In astronomy the Copernican principle works because, of all the places for intelligent observers to be, there are by definition only a few special places and many nonspecial places, so you are likely to be in a nonspecial place’ [emphasis mine].50”

My approach to this would be to argue that we (our planet, really) are in one of the special places since only a tiny fraction of all the space in the universe would likely allow for existence of intelligent observers. The Drake Equation addresses this.

Obviously Humphrey takes a different approach with Gott’s statement:

“The word ‘likely’ above reveals a lot. Richard Gott evidently believes we
are where we are by accident!”

I disagree that Gott is saying this because his statement doesn’t require an accidental view. One can easily hold to the teleological idea that the ultimate reason for the emergence of intelligent observers is due to divine engineering; thus it would not be accidental. Even though there is only a tiny fraction of habitable regions in the universe for intelligent life, it is a very big universe. There are plenty of other places our planet could find itself and, still, we would be fine. God is not restricted, nor is science, to place us in the center of the universe, and the alternative is not limited to an accidental view. Of course, I admit that a Geocentric universe would offer much stronger argument for humanities likely uniqueness, but it also hints at a self-centeredness that is contrary to the main tenets of the faith they are trying to support.

“It apparently doesn’t enter his head that an intelligent Designer, God, might have placed us in a special position in the cosmos on purpose. Thus the ultimate motive behind the Copernican principle is atheistic naturalism.”

This statement of his may be classified as argument by assumption, right? [I am not a logician.] The problem is his assumption of what is not in Gott’s head is only assumption and one that I have already argued to the contrary.

“Since that is the driving philosophy behind naturalistic evolutionism, Gott’s reference to Darwin is appropriate. The big bang and Darwinism are two halves, physical and biological, of an atheistic origins myth. “

This is more of the same. Gott could just as easily be a Christian simply stating what evidenciary science has discovered. Humphrey does a poor job of arguing for a Geocentric universe. If what he says is so scientific, where are the other scientists that will agree. The problem isn’t in the basic theology, but in his cosmology and the issue of trying to use theology to dictate terms to science.

“Thus, Christians who support the big bang theory should realize that they are unwittingly denying their God and compromising with a godless worldview.”

Ironically, seeking the truth seems secondary here. If God used the Big Bang method to accomplish His will, then he needs to argue that with Him, or demonstrate substance to support his arguments against Big Bang.

My concern with all this is how his view makes Christianity look silly. It is unfair to claim that a very, very small portion of scripture must be interpreted in his way of seeing it, especially when it is becoming more and more unlikely. Why do these people not seem to take what science learns and add that as context to their interpretation? IMO, they just might be surprised at their compatibility

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Kinda sorta.

In removing the Earth from the center of everything, Copernicus implied - actually assumed, that the stars are at such great distances that there is no observable parallax. Also implied in this assumption is that the Stars are very large - like the sun, and since the earth's rotation explains the primary motion of the stars, that the stars do not rotate about the sun.

So Copernicus left the 'center of everything' ambiguous, pending parallax or other determinations of star size and distances.

There is measurable evidence of a 'cosmic flow' in the CMB, which, Ironically, some of us point to as evidence that the CMB is not truly cosmic...because that would violate the Copernicus principle. So this evidence of 'cosmic flow' can be interpreted in just about any way, making it rather ambiguous.

__________________
jwj

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

If it helps Lou, not all christians are as fanatical as are made out to be. Some truly believe and have studied and tend this way. Others are taken in by an emotional response to something they see as attractive and never go beyond the glowing feeling.

Some will cling fanatically to anything that supports their idea; but many understand that poorly worded arguments, papers containing mis-construed (not mis-interpreted, the connotation I'm looking for is mis-qouted or mis-used) facts, and fallacies such as "I'm going to put words in not only God's but scientists minds (read "he must be atheist, doesn't he realize...") do not make for good science. Those papers can excite some people, but fall apart in my mind long before I get to analyzing the facts.

Work out with your friend/enemy/whoever a system to determine what can be used as evidence in your debates. Let this be your common ground. Once you agree on the system, then you can start feeding stuff into it and analyzing the results. Without SOME common ground you'll be combating "but I heard..." or "but couldn't..." a LOT. While this is good for debate, it needs to be supported or you both end up sour at each other for thinking the other is too fundamentalist.

As a semi-former yec myself (I'm in the throes of leaving) this was something I had to do for myself. Once I allowed myself to look at what people on both sides were saying, I could start truly analyzing the evidence. While I've always considered myself open minded, in growing up I would read a creationist paper/book and say "great!" meanwhile glossing over wrong facts and fallacious arguments. Then I would read an evolutionary one, and even if they made a good point, usually chuck it. More on that in a moment, keep reading.

Now, this has been probably 6 years in the making. Coming to grips with letting go of something you were raised with is not easy, and to be honest I may never fully move on. Intellectually, I tell myself I need to. Logically, I read that nature reveals God, and if that's the case, it should scream not only design but young. Sure, there are whispers, but the scream is old--how old I'm not ready to conjecture, but I'm considering. Design? I can still see that, but young I have a terrible time with. It's a struggle to let go, even with as little emotion as I tend to demonstrate. (Sympathy is another thing, don't let that confuse you with what I base choices on).

Enough about me though; first you should realize you aren't going to change their mind over night, nor will you change it based on one evidence or principle. Christianity, especially fundamentallist views, tend to be an all or nothing stand. Even if a detractor shows good evidence in one point, they can be dismissed because "well, they have been shown wrong over there, so maybe they aren't correct here as well.". That is your first hurdle.

To cross this you have to go beyond introducing critical thinking. Good chance your friend has at least the foundations of that. Take time to point out fallacies first in the way the arguments are presented in various papers--feel free to include some "old earth" papers too, to show you aren't just bashing yecers. Ask if you need help figuring those out. Agree on a system you guys can use to pull the claims and facts supporting them out of the junk that is so much "science". Regardless of conclusions at this point, agree together what the meat of the argument is and get rid of the rest. Take a pen and draw lines through text if you have to. Now you can analyze the facts for what they are, as well as whatever the facts imply.



This is what got me started to where I am now. I almost feel like a traitor writing this all out, but that is part of moving on I think. Your friend may feel similarly, don't rush them! Rome wasn't built in a day.

There are three possible outcomes I see:

Either:
A) Your friend will understand there is more than one plausible scenario if the axiom of God's existence is included (He's God, who's to say what he can/can't do?). There is also the absent or non-existent God model, but that probably won't fly.

B) They will understand that their view, while emotionally appealing, is flawed. I wouldn't try to convert them to atheism right now. This one is an extension of A, and may be reached in time, but don't expect it right away.

C) The third possibility is that nothing will happen, they will continue to hold fasciously to their understanding without so much as acknowledging other possibilities. This happens sometime. This is life.


Whichever happens, they are likely to feel some guilt: that isn't your fault, nor is there anything you can do about it. It's just life. Continue to be friends and move on to other modes of social life you can both agree on and enjoy.
--

__________________
None to speak of

I shouldn't say there is nothing you can do; be their friend, talk them through it like you would any other dramatic life event, affirm their struggle and their decision should they choose to make one.

Don't expect to have to be a psychologist or counselor though, you aren't the cause (though you are a vehicle, and may be viewed as a cause for a while, try to avoid that mess) nor are you the out. There may also be some hesitancy based on "how do I tell my family/friends/church/etc without losing A)their respect for me, and B) that of my parents or anyone my choice my affect negatively in my church community?" There is not a whole lot you can do about that either, aside from expecting it first, and listening when it happens.

Anyway, hope this helps. Let me know if it's confusing, or if something needs more detail. I tried to put it all down so I don't have to make four posts about the same thing, I can spend that time on other ideas instead. But still...anyway. I'm out for now.

MOTM

*edit, Heh, just realized this string dates from March...good chance you're quite a way down the road with your friend by now. The title was on the second page in the forum, so I assumed it was recent. Sorry if it's too late! I almost deleted it, but reconsidered due to maybe it will help someone else having trouble with yec debates in general...hmm.

__________________
None to speak of

Did he actually say "Cosmic Background Radiation"?

__________________
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"The only way to explore the universe is to go and look." - Brian Cox
Well, the best way to find out is to go there and, find out. - Raven's Cry
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

According to creationists, they do. In order to protect their strange cosmologies, they have decided to take a swipe at the Copernician Principle. Creationwiki has statedhttp://http://creationwiki.org/Cosmo...ig_bang_models
that this principle eliminates the Big Bang. Are they right (about anything)?

The Copernican principle http://creationwiki.org/Big_Bang
says nothing about the validity of the Big Bang since it can apply to any vast expanse of space. A sailor on the ocean, for example, sees himself to be at the exact center of a perfectly circular ocean. The sailor may convince himself that, since he is at the exact center of the universe, he must be the most important person in a world made just for him. Being at the apparent center of the universe has that effect on people in general and it is a highly persistent delusion.

Hello pbethala,

A small fallacy you seem to be committing is hasty generalization. To counter your point I'd offer the Pope's evolutionary perspective of creation. I don't think the Vatican has changed that position with the installation of a new Pope.

__________________
www.bessler007.blogspot.com

pbethala, here is a post the BA wrote about that website. As you can see, he wasn't impressed:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...-wiki-of-lies/

Now, I don't like to sound suspicious, but I note that you've made exactly two posts, one back in November, and they both have links to the same website. I hope these aren't stealth advertisements. If you want to bring up one or two specific points for discussion, great - but I hope we'll see some of what you think about them yourself.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Is this thread a response to a blog entry? Or is it discussed under the context of a blog entry? The discussion in the OP seems to be reacting to a previous comment somewhere.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Good thoughts on this thread. I strongly recommend to all Voltaire's Candide, because this is after all, the best of all possible worlds.

__________________
jwj

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz