And how do the rest of the evolutionists respond to all this?
“While this might suggest that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, the Copernican principle REQUIRES us to interpret it as evidence for the evolution of the Universe with time”
“The Copernican principle represents the irreducible PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION needed to justify this, when combined with the observations”
Oh, so evolutionists are REQUIRED to see the universe in a certain way. And they call those who see it AS IT IS as “crazy”, “nuts”, “uneducated” etcetera, because heliocentrism was proven centuries ago, wasn’t it? Wait… it wasn’t. It still isn’t. It’s only a philosophical assumption…
Well, that’s not SCIENCE. It’s only interpreting evidence according to one’s FAITH in naturalism (especially methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism).
This text (taken from famed physicist Lawrence Krauss) was on the same wikipedia page until very recently, when the atheistic wikipedia editors decided that telling the truth was too much for them:
“But when you look at [the CMBR, aka the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”
Indeed we are.
Now, Krauss is the ONLY physicist who has received awards from all three major U.S. physics societies. Krauss, along with Ellis and others, is one of those VERY FEW physicists and cosmologists who occasionally tell the truth. Unlike the whole rest of them, who keep claiming that reality is how they say it is. For example, Stephen Hawking, who wrote:
“Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!”
http://sqentropy.dyn...g/ebook/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/b.html
So, this is when “modesty” takes a grasp on fellows like Hawking: exactly when the entire Universe speaks about a special location for Earth. How about that…
Also, note that Hawking himself admits that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE. Therefore any cosmology built on such a principle, including the formal cosmology (big bang), is NOT SCIENCE. It’s only imagination.
Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize in physics):
“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
“Alfven believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena.”
Paul Dirac (“On methods in theoretical physics”, 1968):
"One field of work in which there has been too much speculation is cosmology. There are very few hard facts to go on, but theoretical workers have been busy constructing various models for the universe, based on any assumptions that they fancy. These models are probably all wrong."
Indeed they are, starting with the very formal universe. Instead, when you keep following observations, you unavoidably reach a geocentric universe.
Or as, yet again, George Ellis put it:
“Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation.”
In other words: inability to prove the copernican principle should automatically throw the big bang cosmology in the trash (no further evidence required).
Even such famed individuals (Ellis wrote with Hawking the famous book “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time“) must bow to evidence.
Moreover, even fervent atheists like Bertrand Russell admitted that:
“whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation."
quoted by Dennis W. Sciama, who was “one of the fathers of modern cosmology" (wikipedia), in "The Unity of the Universe" (1961)
What Russell said about Newtonian mechanics (although including Galileo’s relativity) is even more true within Einstein’s relativity - which by definition can’t tell the difference.
Now we know that modern science not only did not, but cannot provide any evidence against geocentrism. What about the old science, did it show heliocentrism to be true, from Galileo on - or rather Copernicus?
Well let’s see what people (honest people) thought half-way through the history to us:
“I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus ... but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it.”
Alexander von Humboldt, the founder of biogeography