Author Topic: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists (Read 17713 times)

cassini · « **Reply #15 on:** August 14, 2021, 02:37:08 PM »

Quote from: cassini on August 14, 2021, 11:12:29 AM

Fr Robinson's paragraph 15 says:

I think I understand what you are saying. But I am not following how that theology follows from a young universe. Didn’t the Fathers all agree that the universe was young?

Yes, they did, but they did not have telescopes and so did not have solid scientific evidence indicating that the universe is ancient. Since their science was primitive, Pope Leo XIII instructs us in Providentissimus Deus that we do not have to follow the Fathers in physical matters, where they sometimes erred. We only have to follow them in matters of faith and morals.
Besides, the Fathers did not have the biblicist mentality that sets Scripture against reason and all other forms of knowledge. Thus, we can expect that they would have been willing to accept evidence for an old universe, if the science of their day was able to find that evidence.

Its a pity Fr Robinson's pride in his intellectual Genesis was blind to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus deus when reading it. Yes, it is long known that anything not held by all the Fathers can be challenged, but the Pope also said something else. In it Pope Leo states;

‘14: His teaching [St Irenaeus] and that of other holy Fathers, is taken up by the Synod of the Vatican I, adopted the teaching of the Fathers, when, as it renewed the decree of Trent on the interpretations of the divine Word, it declared this to be its mind, that “in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scriptures against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” By this very wise law the Church by no means retards or blocks the investigations of Biblical science, but rather keeps it free of error, and aids it very much in true progress…. Now the authority of the Fathers, by whom after the apostles, the growing Church was disseminated, watered, built, protected, and nurtured, is the highest authority, as often as they all in one and the same way interpret a Biblical text, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith and morals, for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of Doctors unofficially, not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine, and in their acquaintance with many things useful in understanding the apostolic books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of his light.’

And what did the 1616 decree say when defining heliocentrism formal heresy?

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

It is a fact that all the Fathers held to as geocentric revelation in Scripture. Now what Scripturer reveals, whether it is an orbiting sun, or the virgin birth of Christ, both are of faith because they are revealed in Scripturer. So, Fr Robinson can stop his false theology or whatever telling all Pope Leo XIII said his big bang evolving solar system was Catholic. Instead he better believe what all the Fathers held or face his judgement guilty of heresy just as Galilero was. NOW THAT IS SERIOUS STUFF.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** August 14, 2021, 02:46:34 PM »

I'm getting sick of Robinson's derogatory term "Biblicist". By his definition, it "sets Scripture against science and all other forms of knowledge."

That is total garbage and a strawman. Everyone know that God is the author and source of all truth. He is the author of Scripture and the Creator of nature, and there can be no real conflict between the two.

When there's an apparent contradiction between what the Bible teaches and what science shows, either the science is wrong or else our interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

Robinson refuses to consider the possibility that SCIENCE IS WRONG. That is the source of all his Modernistic error. Science has been proven wrong and ignorant ... over and over and over and over again. Newton was considered an infallible god for centuries. Until Einstein came along. Then Einstein was the new god. Now Einstein is being challenged. So these stupid theories which are constantly being shown wrong are effectively infallible for Robinson.

But when he holds science to be the infallibly correct branch of knowledge, then it's the Scripture that must give way and take a back seat when there's some conflict. We must reinterpret Scripture and throw out the interpretations of the Fathers ... based on junk science. Did you ever consider reinterpreting or questioning the Science instead of immediately reinterpreting Scripture?

Robinson has no idea about how science has been DELIBERATELY trying to destroy faith on philosophical grounds There's correspondence between Darwin and Lowell about how their theories are weak but necessary to uproot faith. So we can trust this science to be unbiased and objective?

Robinson subscribes to the COVID mantra: "trust the science". Sorry, Robinson, but I'm not as native and gullible as you are I absolutely do NOT trust the science. Modern science is so perverted that if they say something, then the opposite is most likely the truth.

This man has no knowledge of history, and no realization about how weak and flawed science is. I saw this over and over again at my Jesuit university, how a 90% of their scientific theories are based on totally unproven assumptions.

Robinson is one step away from the Modernist position that Scripture can be wrong about science because God didn't mean it to teach about science. That's horse manure. Scripture cannot be wrong about anything. I say he's one step away because he would argue a re-interpretation of Scripture rather than that Scripture was wrong. But these re-interpretations to fit the modern science are so weak and so sketchy that it's impossible to conclude anything other than that Scripture was WRONG.

It's obvious from Scripture, and the Fathers agree, that there was a worldwide deluge. It's obvious from Scripture, and the Church Fathers agree, that God made man FROM THE EARTH ... and not from a monkey. It's obvious from Scripture that human beings have not been on the earth for more than about 6,000 years. Anything else here is in fact to attribute error to Scripture.

Now, the only thing I grant is that the Holy Office under St. Pius X did allow for discussion about the age of the universe, since the term "day" could be understood as something other than a calendar day, so as a metaphor. But these other things I cited are tantamount to attributing error to Sacred Scripture.

So he could take his "Biblicist" slur and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

I'm absolutely sick of this guy, priest or no priest. He's an arrogant twit who holds in derision those who have a simple faith that the Scriptures trump science, and he basically makes of science some kind of infallible idol that trumps at least the Church Fathers and in some cases Scripture itself. Robison is in fact a Modernist.

cassini · « **Reply #17 on:** August 14, 2021, 03:02:08 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on August 14, 2021, 02:37:01 PM

These are some profound questions.
I don't get this argument - how does it explain how light could travel to Earth from stars that are billions of light years in a few thousand years, at most? If we assume God to have created a universe with laws that stay uniform over time, so humans can use reason to observe and draw conclusions?

Its not that hard to believe if you believe in an omnipotent Creator Dankward.
God, believe it or not, created all the stars, no matter their distances from the Earth, visible on the Earth at Creation. He revealed in Genesis that he did that, no matter if humans do not think He can do such things.
But that is how Satan uses modern 'science' to get you to think God cannot do that.

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Wikipedia

Ok Dankward let up put the theory of uniformitarianism to work

Consider this for what its worth: When we were told that men were to be sent to the moon, scientists said that the moon is 4.6 billion years old, so, because of meteors and falling cosmic dust at today’s calculated rate, with no atmosphere to burn them/it, no water or wind to cement or pack them/it, there could be up to 35 feet of dust in places on its surface, making it difficult to land. Two probes, Ranger and Surveyor, constructed with long legs for the deep dust, were sent to investigate. Indeed, Neil Armstrong, said by NASA to be the first man on the moon, stated that his greatest fear was the lunar dust awaiting him. As it turned out they tell us they found only an inch of powder evenly distributed on the moon’s surface, 6,000 years of it if current calculations of meteor dust falling on the moon are accurate and correct. Now for those who do not believe men got to the moon, they did get little machines there that also found 6,000 years of uniformitarian dust there.

Off to say the rosary nowe, see you guys tomorrow.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** August 14, 2021, 03:19:24 PM »

It's totally unproven theory that the stars are "billions of light years away". I don't buy for a second that we can see something that's far away, and the odds of it not being blocked by some object between us and the star are infinitesimally small, given how crowded the universe allegedly is. In fact if we could see all these objects, it's been demonstrated (I think it was Tycho Brahe who made this case) that our sky would be one continuous starfield with very little black in it.

There are entire GALAXIES allegedly all around our own, within millions of light years away, and the light of some isolated star billions of light years away made it through all that clutter?

I believe these scientists about as far as I can throw them.

Let's assume, for the moment, that they are. God could in fact have expanded the universe from around earth at a rate much faster than the speed of light, and the light we're seeing now would be the result of its varying positions in the expansion path.

Incredulous · « **Reply #19 on:** August 14, 2021, 06:19:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 14, 2021, 02:46:34 PM

I'm getting sick of Robinson's derogatory term "Biblicist". By his definition, it "sets Scripture against science and all other forms of knowledge."

That is total garbage and a strawman. Everyone know that God is the author and source of all truth. He is the author of Scripture and the Creator of nature, and there can be no real conflict between the two.

When there's an apparent contradiction between what the Bible teaches and what science shows, either the science is wrong or else our interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

Robinson refuses to consider the possibility that SCIENCE IS WRONG. That is the source of all his Modernistic error. Science has been proven wrong and ignorant ... over and over and over and over again. Newton was considered an infallible god for centuries. Until Einstein came along. Then Einstein was the new god. Now Einstein is being challenged. So these stupid theories which are constantly being shown wrong are effectively infallible for Robinson.

But when he holds science to be the infallibly correct branch of knowledge, then it's the Scripture that must give way and take a back seat when there's some conflict. We must reinterpret Scripture and throw out the interpretations of the Fathers ... based on junk science. Did you ever consider reinterpreting or questioning the Science instead of immediately reinterpreting Scripture?

Robinson has no idea about how science has been DELIBERATELY trying to destroy faith on philosophical grounds There's correspondence between Darwin and Lowell about how their theories are weak but necessary to uproot faith. So we can trust this science to be unbiased and objective?

Robinson subscribes to the COVID mantra: "trust the science". Sorry, Robinson, but I'm not as native and gullible as you are I absolutely do NOT trust the science. Modern science is so perverted that if they say something, then the opposite is most likely the truth.

This man has no knowledge of history, and no realization about how weak and flawed science is. I saw this over and over again at my Jesuit university, how a 90% of their scientific theories are based on totally unproven assumptions.

Robinson is one step away from the Modernist position that Scripture can be wrong about science because God didn't mean it to teach about science. That's horse manure. Scripture cannot be wrong about anything. I say he's one step away because he would argue a re-interpretation of Scripture rather than that Scripture was wrong. But these re-interpretations to fit the modern science are so weak and so sketchy that it's impossible to conclude anything other than that Scripture was WRONG.

It's obvious from Scripture, and the Fathers agree, that there was a worldwide deluge. It's obvious from Scripture, and the Church Fathers agree, that God made man FROM THE EARTH ... and not from a monkey. It's obvious from Scripture that human beings have not been on the earth for more than about 6,000 years. Anything else here is in fact to attribute error to Scripture.

Now, the only thing I grant is that the Holy Office under St. Pius X did allow for discussion about the age of the universe, since the term "day" could be understood as something other than a calendar day, so as a metaphor. But these other things I cited are tantamount to attributing error to Sacred Scripture.

So he could take his "Biblicist" slur and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

I'm absolutely sick of this guy, priest or no priest. He's an arrogant twit who holds in derision those who have a simple faith that the Scriptures trump science, and he basically makes of science some kind of infallible idol that trumps at least the Church Fathers and in some cases Scripture itself. Robison is in fact a Modernist.

Excellent summary.

I'm viewing him from another angle. Fr. Paul should never have been ordained. He wasn't priestly material and his career so far proves it.
He's scandalized a lot of Catholics, especially young people. On this forum, a few years back, we' seen St. Mary's teachers exhort evolution.

His above responses reveal some personal baggage too. He typically comments that he grew up in a repressive trad Catholic environment, and it wasn't until his Mom sent him to an SSPX camp that he was personally liberated. The "Biblicist" label is one example he still carries a chip on his shoulder.

He goes to computer engineering schools, but is not a hard science guy, by any means. Then he decides to go to seminary and after being ordained and teaching at St. Mary's, they label him a "professor". Transferred to the SSPX Australia seminary, where their theology program is a shambles, he becomes their new prof.

The SSPX stroked both him and Fr. Theman to where there's no humility left in them.
I feel sad for Fr. Robinson because his hubris is heading him for a personal disaster.

Dankward · « **Reply #20 on:** August 15, 2021, 07:15:57 AM »

Thanks, Cassini. Sorry for this somewhat aggressive post, it may be offensive to some, but I'm honestly having some difficulties with this matter at the moment.

Quote from: cassini on August 14, 2021, 03:02:08 PM

Its not that hard to believe if you believe in an omnipotent Creator Dankward.
God, believe it or not, created all the stars, no matter their distances from the Earth, visible on the Earth at Creation. He revealed in Genesis that he did that, no matter if humans do not think He can do such things.
But that is how Satan uses modern 'science' to get you to think God cannot do that.
Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Wikipedia

- so God created stars and galaxies that are further away than 6,000 light years but the light that we see was created having an age? So it evidently looks old, but isn't in fact old?
- sediments that evidently look like it took millions of years for them to form layers on top of each other (assuming at least some degree of uniformitarianism), but in fact they were just created as if they were millions of years old? (famous example: The Grand Canyon)
- ice cores in Antarctica, Greenland etc. that look like they have an age in the five or six figures (again, assuming some degree of uniformitarianism) using various dating methods, a simple one being visual layer counting. The oldest alleged date of such ice cores is 800,000 years. Again - why are there hundreds of thousands of layers, as if that ice saw hundreds of thousands of season rotations, but in fact didn't?
- God created only peaceful herbivores, but then after the Fall, there suddenly were carnivores, herbivores, parasites and other creatures we see today where reason would suggest it has always been like that.

Of course an omnipotent Creator can do this, I'm not disagreeing on that! But you could say it is deceptive and I find this argument of Fr. Robinson somewhat intriguing, altough phrased aggressively:

Quote

A God who periodically changes the laws of His own universe is one who wants to prevent humans from investigating it using their reason.

Why did He give us reason? And you won't convince a scientist or non-believer by explaining these observations with miracles. The problem is - once Evolution gains a footing, the rest of our faith crumbles completely. If evolution was true, God's creation would be an imperfect one, which would mean he isn't infinitely good; Adam and Eve - the Fall - couldn't happen as humans would've evolved gradually, so there's no original sin, and our suffering would be an injust punishment, etc. So what Pius XII did by allowing theistic evolution was a horrible decision. Evolution is a universal worldview.

Quote from: cassini on August 14, 2021, 03:02:08 PM

Ok Dankward let up put the theory of uniformitarianism to work

Consider this for what its worth: When we were told that men were to be sent to the moon, scientists said that the moon is 4.6 billion years old, so, because of meteors and falling cosmic dust at today’s calculated rate, with no atmosphere to burn them/it, no water or wind to cement or pack them/it, there could be up to 35 feet of dust in places on its surface, making it difficult to land. Two probes, Ranger and Surveyor, constructed with long legs for the deep dust, were sent to investigate. Indeed, Neil Armstrong, said by NASA to be the first man on the moon, stated that his greatest fear was the lunar dust awaiting him. As it turned out they tell us they found only an inch of powder evenly distributed on the moon’s surface, 6,000 years of it if current calculations of meteor dust falling on the moon are accurate and correct. Now for those who do not believe men got to the moon, they did get little machines there that also found 6,000 years of uniformitarian dust there.

Off to say the rosary nowe, see you guys tomorrow.

That is indeed interesting, do you have a source for the moon dust observations? This also presupposes that assumptions about the lunar dust by uniformitatianists are correct. Although frankly, I'm highly sceptical that humans ever set foot on the moon, but I think it's possible we did send unmanned probes there (we shot something in the general direction of the moon at least, according to various observatories). There's another moon landing planned for 2023 and 2024, let's see if they want to really try this time or fake it in high-resolution 4k

Dankward · « **Reply #21 on:** August 15, 2021, 07:57:50 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 14, 2021, 03:19:24 PM

It's totally unproven theory that the stars are "billions of light years away". I don't buy for a second that we can see something that's far away, and the odds of it not being blocked by some object between us and the star are infinitesimally small, given how crowded the universe allegedly is. In fact if we could see all these objects, it's been demonstrated (I think it was Tycho Brahe who made this case) that our sky would be one continuous starfield with very little black in it.
There are entire GALAXIES allegedly all around our own, within millions of light years away, and the light of some isolated star billions of light years away made it through all that clutter?

In absolute numbers, there are indeed lots of bodies in the universe. But the density of those is inconceivably low compared to the volume of the universe, so there usually isn't much that'd block our "line of sight" or rather, the path of protons to travel to Earth through space. With our bare eyes, we can only see about 2,000 stars in the night sky, and most of them are very close to us in the Milky Way galaxy. But indeed, it's problematic to see far away galaxies from Earth, and even from space, due to light bleeding from closer stars.

But there are mathematically sound ways of measuring distances to a stars, e.g. stellar parallax and also redshift of light. Stellar parallax is measured using the distance to the sun and the angle to the star at opposing orbits (works both in the heliocentric and geocentric model, thanks Einstein), then we can measure the slight change in position in relation to other objects and use trigonometry to calculate the distance. The greeks (e.g. Hipparchus) used this method to measure the distance to the moon back in 189 B.C.

Quote

I believe these scientists about as far as I can throw them.

Let's assume, for the moment, that they are. God could in fact have expanded the universe from around earth at a rate much faster than the speed of light, and the light we're seeing now would be the result of its varying positions in the expansion path.

Of course, God also could've created light in an instant that evidently would'be been traveling since billions of years (same goes for the age of radioactive decay byproducts in rocks, sediments, ice, etc.).

To round this off, take in this beautiful image that the Hubble Telescope captured (with incredibly long exposure, of course, and also using wavelengths outside of our visible spectrum). Klick to enlarge:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 15, 2021, 10:29:47 AM »

Quote from: Dankward on August 15, 2021, 07:57:50 AM

But there are mathematically sound ways of measuring distances to a stars, e.g. stellar parallax and also redshift of light.

There are serious issues with both those methods. Our alleged distance from the sun and even the moon have been revised a dozen times.

As for the density of space, there are ENTIRE galaxies around ours, allegedly, in almost every direction much close than the billions of light years that these alleged stars are. It has to do with proximity. If something is closer, it looks a lot bigger from our perspective. So a galaxy that's a couple million light years away would eclipse starts that are billions of years away. You'd have to get extremely lucky to spot any one of these.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** August 15, 2021, 10:53:06 AM »

This is worth watching -- regarding red shifts and "expanding universe"

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #24 on:** August 15, 2021, 11:15:11 AM »

Maybe the Priests should make educating All Catholics about the faith and how to live the faith daily. It’s not happening.

Beware: Clergy Response Team traitors now being activated by Feds. Which clergy is pushing science of man over God???

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #25 on:** August 15, 2021, 11:17:38 AM »

Quote from: Merry on August 14, 2021, 12:41:43 PM

Is he in any way going against the Oath Against Modernism (which presumably he has taken)?

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Modernism_Oath.html

Excellent.

cassini · « **Reply #26 on:** August 15, 2021, 11:21:03 AM »

Quote from: Dankward on August 15, 2021, 07:15:57 AM

Thanks, Cassini. Sorry for this somewhat aggressive post, it may be offensive to some, but I'm honestly having some difficulties with this matter at the moment.

- so God created stars and galaxies that are further away than 6,000 light years but the light that we see was created having an age? So it evidently looks old, but isn't in fact old?
- sediments that evidently look like it took millions of years for them to form layers on top of each other (assuming at least some degree of uniformitarianism), but in fact they were just created as if they were millions of years old? (famous example: The Grand Canyon)
- ice cores in Antarctica, Greenland etc. that look like they have an age in the five or six figures (again, assuming some degree of uniformitarianism) using various dating methods, a simple one being visual layer counting. The oldest alleged date of such ice cores is 800,000 years. Again - why are there hundreds of thousands of layers, as if that ice saw hundreds of thousands of season rotations, but in fact didn't?
- God created only peaceful herbivores, but then after the Fall, there suddenly were carnivores, herbivores, parasites and other creatures we see today where reason would suggest it has always been like that.

Of course an omnipotent Creator can do this, I'm not disagreeing on that! But you could say it is deceptive and I find this argument of Fr. Robinson somewhat intriguing, altough phrased aggressively:

Why did He give us reason? And you won't convince a scientist or non-believer by explaining these observations with miracles. The problem is - once Evolution gains a footing, the rest of our faith crumbles completely. If evolution was true, God's creation would be an imperfect one, which would mean he isn't infinitely good; Adam and Eve - the Fall - couldn't happen as humans would've evolved gradually, so there's no original sin, and our suffering would be an injust punishment, etc. So what Pius XII did by allowing theistic evolution was a horrible decision. Evolution is a universal worldview.
That is indeed interesting, do you have a source for the moon dust observations? This also presupposes that assumptions about the lunar dust by uniformitatianists are correct. Although frankly, I'm highly sceptical that humans ever set foot on the moon, but I think it's possible we did send unmanned probes there (we shot something in the general direction of the moon at least, according to various observatories). There's another moon landing planned for 2023 and 2024, let's see if they want to really try this time or fake it in high-resolution 4k

Interesting post Dankward, you are at least trying to understand certain aspects of the question of origins, At times you seem to be the convinced creationist but then have some problems with it due to the influence of Fr Robinson who is a Big Bang theistic evolutionist.

First let me deal with Fr Robinson's idea that a star that was created by God 13.8 billion light years away has to be, according to reason given to humans by God, has to be 13.8 billion years old. That is utter nonsence unless you are a Big Banger 'creationist' like Pope Pius XII, Stephen Hawking, Fr Jaki, Fr Robinson, Communist Russia and China.

My reason, with others on this forum, go along with the following:

‘As to the Roman Church, about 1580 there was published by authority of Pope Gregory XIII the Roman Martyrology, and this, both as originally published and as revised in 1640 under Pope Urban VIII, declared that the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ.’ ---- A. White: A History, p.253.

Ever hear of Roman martyrology Dankward? It comes from the dating given to us in the Bible. Blessed Katarina Emmerick (1774-1823) for example, the Augustinian nun, wrote:

I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time as I beheld Jesus Christ teaching on the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He said the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was thirty-one years old.’

Katarina’s age for Jesus Christ is the exactly the same as found in the Scriptures: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941BC), Abraham 1950 after Creation (AC), Exodus 2540AC, birth of Jesus 3997AC, death of Jesus 4030AC at 33 years, fall of Jerusalem 4070AC, world on 2000AC was 5997 years old, 2021 years after Christ was the year 6,017AC and so on.

As noted by the incorrupt Benedictine expert on the Roman Liturgy, Dom Prosper Gueranger, the 5199 years from Creation to the birth of Christ included in the reading from the Roman Martyrology at Midnight Mass for Christmas is the only liturgical recognition of this chronology derived from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in the entire traditional Roman Liturgy. After the Council of Trent, the greatest commentators on the Bible, like St. Lawrence of Brindisi and St. Alphonsus Liguori, joined St. Jerome and Venerable Bede in acknowledging that that the chronology derived from the genealogies in the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament were more reliable than the chronology derived from the Septuagint. Hence, prior to Vatican Council II, Douay-Rheims Bibles throughout the English-speaking world contained an appendix with a chronology recording four thousand years from Creation to the birth of Christ.’ --- Hugh Owen: Kolbe Center

Of course none of these popes, saints, fathers and doctors knew about the Big Bang. So, you can believe in Fr Robinson's biblical ideas or stick with the Church's tradition.

cassini · « **Reply #27 on:** August 15, 2021, 12:35:11 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on August 15, 2021, 07:57:50 AM

But there are mathematically sound ways of measuring distances to a stars, e.g. stellar parallax and also redshift of light. Stellar parallax is measured using the distance to the sun and the angle to the star at opposing orbits (works both in the heliocentric and geocentric model, thanks Einstein), then we can measure the slight change in position in relation to other objects and use trigonometry to calculate the distance. The greeks (e.g. Hipparchus) used this method to measure the distance to the moon back in 189 B.C.
Of course, God also could've created light in an instant that evidently would'be been traveling since billions of years (same goes for the age of radioactive decay byproducts in rocks, sediments, ice, etc.).

Now a little bit about measuring the distance of stars from Earth I have written up..

As for the distance of further stars, well, listen to the experts:

‘There is no direct method currently available to measure the distance to stars farther than [their parallax] 400 light years from Earth, so astronomers instead use brightness measurements. It turns out that a star's color spectrum is a good indication of its actual brightness. The relationship between color and brightness was proven using the several thousand stars close enough to earth to have their distances measured directly. Astronomers can therefore look at a distant star and determine its color spectrum. From the color, they can determine the star’s actual brightness. By knowing the actual brightness and comparing it to the apparent brightness seen from Earth they can determine the distance to the star.’ --- (Howstuffworks website)

Star distances then remain unproven, a fact that makes Einstein’s space-time as a scientific fact redundant before he was born. Here again we have a case of trying to confirm something from a consequent when there are different movements that can cause such a consequent. That is, as we said before, like saying because an eclipse of the sun causes dark streets, then dark streets prove there is an eclipse of the sun. But try telling that to the Earthmovers and their science books.

The search for stellar parallax first also assumes astronomers can tell whether a star is a near star or a far star. Now search as much as you like and you will not find anything specific. It seems modern cosmologists decide such nearness and farness by using yet another assumption; that near stars are brighter than far stars, which I suppose will be correct in most cases. The possibility that their brighter near-stars are actually far-stars that are intrinsically bigger and more brilliantly lit, and that their fainter far-stars are actually nearer stars that are intrinsically smaller or less illuminated seems not to have bothered them. What, just for argument’s sake, if many visible stars reside at around the same distance from Earth, bright ones and faint ones together, just like different wattage bulbs attached to the roof of a large dark theatre? There are many possibilities that could explain why some bright stars and faint stars are not near stars or far stars. We throw this in just to show how presumptuous this science can be.

Now let us examine Stellar Parallax, once put forward to prove heliocentrism.So, is stellar parallax proof that the earth orbits the sun? No, it is not, for the very same parallax will be found with the geocentric model. If the stars rotate in union with the sun around the Earth annually, we will see the very same movement from the Earth. Proof of this has been long conceded by physicists who for the last 100 years have conceded that relativity prevails in the science of the universe, which of course means stellar parallax does not prove anything, so its use for measuring stars is but another illusion for the geocentric stellar parallax system gives no geometry to measure the distance of stars.. Get it?

justG · « **Reply #28 on:** August 15, 2021, 01:09:13 PM »

Ann Banhardt has a great post on this subject....

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2020/09/16/while-trad-inc-peddles-hopelessness-and-despair-let-me-show-you-something-that-will-fill-you-with-hope-and-confidence/

Matthew · « **Reply #29 on:** August 15, 2021, 02:10:28 PM »

There is SO little evidence for evolution and/or "old earth", compared to the 1950's. So it's even less justified than it once was.

Author Topic: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists (Read 17713 times)

cassini

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Ladislaus

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

cassini

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Ladislaus

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Incredulous

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Dankward

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Dankward

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Ladislaus

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Ladislaus

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

cassini

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

cassini

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

justG

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists

Matthew

Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists