Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 23

Author Topic: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists  (Read 29203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 47050
  • Reputation: +27877/-5188
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
« Reply #75 on: August 18, 2021, 03:04:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on August 18, 2021, 02:52:52 PM
    Ladislaus, you're just quote mining like a Protestant.

    And you're posting like a Modernist heretic.

    It is a simple fact that no experiment has ever demonstrated the motion of the earth.  Every attempt has shown the opposite result, and so then they make up theories to explain away the result.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #76 on: August 18, 2021, 03:06:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote from: cassini on August 18, 2021, 02:35:48 PM
    He said the bigger the mass, the greater the attraction. Didn't Galileo supposedly let two balls of two differtent masses together and find that both hit the ground at exactly the same time. Thus the bigger one did not show us Newton's bigger mass attraction.
    Or is it possible your understanding is wrong?

    Because it appears to be wrong.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #77 on: August 18, 2021, 03:19:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on August 18, 2021, 03:04:29 PM
    It is a simple fact that no experiment has ever demonstrated the motion of the earth.  Every attempt has shown the opposite result, and so then they make up theories to explain away the result.
    So says you.

    Do you have sufficient background to make such a statement? Have you studied opposing writers (and not just to quote mine like a Protestant)? Have you taken your concerns to a professional, like a college professor of astronomy, and got their response? Have you even taken a class in astronomy? Have you done anything to have your "facts" challenged intellectually?

    Or do you avoid this hard intellectual work and just emote your "results" ?
    Logged

    Offline Romulus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 515
    • Reputation: +311/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #78 on: August 18, 2021, 03:22:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on August 18, 2021, 03:19:09 PM
    So says you.

    Do you have sufficient background to make such a statement? Have you studied opposing writers (and not just to quote mine like a Protestant)? Have you taken your concerns to a professional, like a college professor of astronomy, and got their response? Have you even taken a class in astronomy? Have you done anything to have your "facts" challenged intellectually?

    Or do you avoid this hard intellectual work and just emote your "results" ?
    :laugh1:  :laugh2: 
    Logged

    Offline Romulus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 515
    • Reputation: +311/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #79 on: August 18, 2021, 03:30:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on August 18, 2021, 03:19:09 PM
    So says you.

    Do you have sufficient background to make such a statement? Have you studied opposing writers (and not just to quote mine like a Protestant)? Have you taken your concerns to a professional, like a college professor of astronomy, and got their response? Have you even taken a class in astronomy? Have you done anything to have your "facts" challenged intellectually?

    Or do you avoid this hard intellectual work and just emote your "results" ?
    This whole forum has people refuting Fr. Robinsons views on the Earth and Creation and have been giving evidence.
    You haven't given evidence to refute Mr Ladislaus. Instead you try to discredit him and use Ad Hominums. The arguments you use are almost identical to the ones the people who want us to take the vaccine use. "Are you a Doctor", "Do you work on vaccines", "Well how do you know", "Trust the sciences"
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #80 on: August 18, 2021, 03:41:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Romulus on August 18, 2021, 03:30:03 PM
    You haven't given evidence to refute Mr Ladislaus.
    You haven't been paying attention, then. I provided evidence in regard to SNRs.

    But then Laddy et al. did a Gish Gallop and rapidly changed topics. Correcting lies is more work than the lies.

    Do see that what Cassini wrote is simply wrong? A greater mass does have greater attraction (it weighs more), but acceleration is force/mass, so they both acceleratte (fall) at the same rate due to gravity. If gravity is the dominant force (air resistance is negligible) then they "hit the ground" at the same time. This is basic physics.

    Wouldn't you expect that someone talking about physics would know at least basic physics?

    Quote
    Instead you try to discredit him and use Ad Hominums.
    But apparently calling someone a heretic is perfectly OK with you?
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #81 on: August 18, 2021, 04:44:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Romulus on August 18, 2021, 03:30:03 PM
    Instead you try to discredit him and use Ad Hominums.
    The term is "ad hominem", short for "argumentum ad hominem".

    Ad hominem is fallacious reasoning, like "Laddy has black hair so he's wrong".

    Calling Laddy unqualified is not ad hominem. It is relevant to the argument from authority he's trying to make.

    Laddy's quotes were cut such that they say something different than the author intended as shown in the larger quote. That's also not ad hominem. I would probably just call it a fact.

    Now, I don't really think Laddy found these quotes himself. But wherever he got them, he is not approaching this topic in a scientific manner.. I think Laddy lacks the background to genuinely discuss much of anything in natural science, including these quotes.

    I know he works in programming, but I'm fairly sure he does not have a degree in CS. Honestly, I would assume Laddy has a humanities education.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47050
    • Reputation: +27877/-5188
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #82 on: August 18, 2021, 05:20:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on August 18, 2021, 03:19:09 PM
    So says you.

    Do you have sufficient background to make such a statement? Have you studied opposing writers (and not just to quote mine like a Protestant)? Have you taken your concerns to a professional, like a college professor of astronomy, and got their response? Have you even taken a class in astronomy? Have you done anything to have your "facts" challenged intellectually?

    Or do you avoid this hard intellectual work and just emote your "results" ?

    I've read through the arguments from both sides, and a lot of the arguments for movement have been debunked, from Foucault's pendulum to the Coriolis effect, etc.  I've seen no convincing argument in favor of earth movement.

    For that matter, I have seen no convincing evidence that the earth is a globe either, rather than flat.  NASA has been caught in lie after lie.  I find the evidence convincing that the moon landing was a complete hoax.

    I'm open to arguments from all side, globe earth, flat earth, stationary earth, moving earth.  I read them objectively, and have read them, and evaluate each one on its own merits.  You on the other hand clearly have an ax to grind. 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47050
    • Reputation: +27877/-5188
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #83 on: August 18, 2021, 05:25:30 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Romulus on August 18, 2021, 03:30:03 PM
    This whole forum has people refuting Fr. Robinsons views on the Earth and Creation and have been giving evidence.
    You haven't given evidence to refute Mr Ladislaus. Instead you try to discredit him and use Ad Hominums. The arguments you use are almost identical to the ones the people who want us to take the vaccine use. "Are you a Doctor", "Do you work on vaccines", "Well how do you know", "Trust the sciences"

    My biggest problem with Stanley is his attitude that science must be right, the same attitude that Fr. Robinson has ... with very little respect for the Church Fathers, effectively deriding them as ignorant, slurring people who are "Biblicist", etc.  Stanley is clearly enamored of modern science, and ignorant of the fact that there's an atheistic agenda behind most of the scientific theories promoted since about the time of the late Renaissance.  Science is not to be simply taken at their word.  That's a huge mistake, taking science at its word, but not Sacred Scripture and certainly not the Church Fathers.
    Logged

    Offline Romulus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 515
    • Reputation: +311/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #84 on: August 18, 2021, 06:26:05 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on August 18, 2021, 04:44:42 PM
    The term is "ad hominem", short for "argumentum ad hominem".

    Ad hominem is fallacious reasoning, like "Laddy has black hair so he's wrong".

    Calling Laddy unqualified is not ad hominem. It is relevant to the argument from authority he's trying to make.

    Laddy's quotes were cut such that they say something different than the author intended as shown in the larger quote. That's also not ad hominem. I would probably just call it a fact.

    Now, I don't really think Laddy found these quotes himself. But wherever he got them, he is not approaching this topic in a scientific manner.. I think Laddy lacks the background to genuinely discuss much of anything in natural science, including these quotes.

    I know he works in programming, but I'm fairly sure he does not have a degree in CS. Honestly, I would assume Laddy has a humanities education.
    Ad Hominem refers to attacking a person rather than the position they are making. Instead of providing evidence to support your side you call Ladislaus "Unqualified", "Lacks the background to discuss scientific matters" in order to shut him down so to speak
    Logged

    Offline Romulus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 515
    • Reputation: +311/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #85 on: August 18, 2021, 06:27:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on August 18, 2021, 03:41:46 PM
    But apparently calling someone a heretic is perfectly OK with you?
    You called him a Protestant


    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #86 on: August 18, 2021, 06:58:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged

    Offline Romulus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 515
    • Reputation: +311/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #87 on: August 18, 2021, 07:20:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4132
    • Reputation: +2431/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #88 on: August 18, 2021, 08:47:09 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on August 18, 2021, 05:20:08 PM
    For that matter, I have seen no convincing evidence that the earth is a globe either, rather than flat.
    .
    Aristotle (400 BC) said the earth is round because a lunar eclipse is caused by the earth casting a shadow on the moon. Now, the earth casts a shadow at all kinds of different angles on the moon, from different relative positions of the earth, sun and moon, and yet the shadow that the earth casts is always round. There is only one shape that can do that, i.e., that always casts a round shadow no matter what direction the light source is coming from, and that shape is a sphere. Therefore the earth is a sphere.
    .
    If flat earth theory were true, the shadow that the earth casts on the moon in a lunar eclipse would look like this :laugh1::
    .
    Logged

    Offline Hermes

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 971
    • Reputation: +401/-63
    • Gender: Male
    • Ollo vae
      • Patristics
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #89 on: August 18, 2021, 08:49:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on August 18, 2021, 08:47:09 PM
    .
    Aristotle (400 BC) said the earth is round because a lunar eclipse is caused by the earth casting a shadow on the moon. Now, the earth casts a shadow at all kinds of different angles on the moon, from different relative positions of the earth, sun and moon, and yet the shadow that the earth casts is always round. There is only one shape that can do that, i.e., that always casts a round shadow no matter what direction the light source is coming from, and that shape is a sphere. Therefore the earth is a sphere.
    .
    If flat earth theory were true, the shadow that the earth casts on the moon in a lunar eclipse would look like this :laugh1::
    .

    Is the earth on the back of a crab or a turtle in that picture?
    Logged
    O Fortuna
    Velut luna
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 23
    « previous next »