-
Fr. Robinson's first priestly assignment was as a teacher at the Society of St. Pius X's largest school, St. Mary's Academy and College. During his three-year tenure there, he taught eighth and eleventh grade religion, as well as philosophy to seniors and first year students of the college. In 2009, he was transferred to Australia to be a professor at Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, New South Wales. He spent ten years in the Southern Hemisphere, teaching a variety of courses, but particularly dogmatic theology and Thomistic metaphysics. During this time, he also published a book on philosophical realism, entitled The Realist Guide to Religion and Science.
In August of 2019, Fr. Robinson's superiors asked him to engage in the work of Catholic education at Our Lady Help of Christians Academy in Colorado.
Fr Paul Robinson, as we see, wrote a book The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. The publicity this book got can be googled, as well as his interviews and Q&A website. As a young Earth creationist, I read what he has gone public with in regard to any who take Genesis literally. To be honest, this read like something written by someone who didn't know a bee from a bull's foot about the subjects he is supposed to be educated in, subjects he was allowed teach at a seminary to God knows how many seminarians who joined the SSPX in order to be traditional Catholic priests, subjects like theology, philosophy, metaphysics and science.
Now I have read his book that tries to make 'modern science' Catholic, in and out between endless pages of typical philosophical waffle so that after reading some of it the reader does not know what is going on. If any problem arises with his Big Bang 18.5 billion years of evolution, he suggests that only God could have made that happen and therefore no atheist has a leg to stand on.
In his Q&A website, which I will copy on to my next post, he really insulted me and any who share our position on the traditional ex nihilo teachings of the Church. Dogmas like the following.
‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ (Lateran Council IV, 1215.)
‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) (Vatican Council I, 1870)
‘Substance,’ we know from classic philosophy, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. But Fr Robinson, like most churchmen since 1820, has to ignore the dogmas when trying to show how his human reasoning shows him an immediate creation of all finished and 'good' is just poetry as Cardinal Ratzinger put it. Now having made us Young Earth Creations (YEC) look like idiots when it comes to theology, philosophy and human reason, on his website, I am going public on this forum to show who it is who deals in false theology, philosophy and pseudo-science. Next, I will post what is on his website and after that will post my answer to his accusations.
-
Father, it has now been nine months since the publication of your book, and it seems to have stirred up some controversy!
Indeed, it has. And while I did not write the book for that purpose, I did anticipate that it might make some waves.
What has the controversy centered on?
Really, something that is a small part of the entire work, namely, the contents of chapter 7 (there are 11 chapters all up). In that chapter, I voice some strong objections to Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and point out that Catholics are free to embrace the Big Bang Theory, if they wish.
Why do you object to YEC? Isn’t that the safest of positions?
On the contrary, I find it to be quite dangerous. It runs straight into theological, philosophical, and scientific problems.
How so?
Well, it all starts with the assumptions that the adherents of YEC make. The first assumption is that of “biblicism,” namely, the idea that the Bible is authoritative over all other sources of knowledge, including science, reason, and especially the Catholic Church. Based on this assumption, they conclude that Genesis is meant to teach truths about all areas of knowledge, including science.
Then, they proceed to read Genesis as teaching that the universe must be 6,000 years old. Since this, in their minds, is the inspired sense of Scripture, it cannot be wrong, regardless of whatever evidence might counter that idea.
Like what evidence?
Such as, for instance, the entire body of evidence brought to us by our high-powered telescopes. They show that the light coming to us from distant stars and galaxies is millions of years old, not thousands of years old.
But isn’t that based on some assumptions?
Absolutely. For scientists to conclude that the light coming from the stars is really millions of years old, they have to assume a principle called uniformitarianism. This is the idea that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe (sameness in space) and for the entire history of the universe (sameness in time). Scientists have to make this assumption to even be able to do science, since they are looking for laws of the universe, and the universe cannot have laws without this uniformity.
As I point out in The Realist Guide, this assumption only makes sense if there is a consistent God, outside of the universe, who is able to establish laws for it and make it run consistently. Let atheist scientists take note of the implicit theism of their assumptions.
Couldn’t God have changed the speed of light sometime in the past and so made it that the light only looks old, but is not really old?
Of course He could. And this question of yours brings me to the second assumption of YEC adherents. Because the universe appears old and this contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, they refuse the principle of uniformitarianism. They claim that God periodically changes the laws of nature and this is the reason why, for example, the light from distant galaxies looks old, but is not actually old. The laws for light now are not the same as they were in the past.
Why do you find this problematic?
I have three problems with this. The first problem is a theological one. A God who periodically changes the laws of His own universe is one who wants to prevent humans from investigating it using their reason. The modern scientist, for instance, makes measurements of distant light, assumes uniformitarianism is true, performs certain mathematical calculations, and then reasons that the light is a certain age. But, in actual fact, his conclusion is false, if God has periodically reconfigured the universe. If such is the case, there is no way for the scientist to use natural reason to discover the age of the light.
But doesn’t the Bible teach him that?
Well, that is precisely the claim of YEC, that all knowledge comes from the Bible and thus that the Bible is meant to teach us science. For them, our senses and reason tell us that the universe is old, while the Bible tells us that the universe is young. Thus, we are meant to reject reason for revelation. In other words, the YEC position sets up an either-or situation for the believer: you either take reason or revelation, but you cannot accept both.
And you say this creates a theological problem?
Yes, because it makes God out to be something of a tyrant. He creates humans in His own likeness by giving them a rational soul. Then, they use their reason to discover fascinating facts about the universe He created. But God steps in, revealing to them that what their reason found is false, because He made a world that only appears old, but is not actually old.
Can’t such a choice be justified on the part of God?
It can…for all the wrong reasons, especially by someone like Martin Luther. You see, he saw reason as an enemy of faith, because his was a faith without reason, a faith held on the basis of presumption, not on the basis of reasonableness. This was why Luther attacked reason with his typical vehemence. He thought that God shared his own hatred of reason. Thus, he claimed that God purposely reveals things in the Bible that are against reason, so that humans will learn not to trust their reason. Through revelation, believers learn to abandon their reason for the glory of God.
Does this view also line up with sola Scriptura and biblicism?
Yes. If God put all knowledge in the Bible, then He needs to teach humans not to look for knowledge in other areas. He has them think they have learned something from the world around them, then He steps in with a revelation from the Bible to say, “No, that is only a trick of your mind. If I was consistent, your inference would be true. But I have not run the universe consistently, so that you will learn not to trust reason and instead will trust the Bible alone.”
For me, this is not a fatherly God, but an overbearing God, one who gives a gift (reason) for the purpose of taking it away. I blame much of the modern world’s theophobia on this Protestant idea of God.
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.
Luther did not have telescopes, either.
This is true. But he did have the theology I have described. Though he did not consider the Bible as contradicting reason on the question of the age of the universe, he did consider it contradicting reason in other areas. My claim is that the YEC movement, which has its origin with Protestant fundamentalism, embraces the same theology as Luther. YECers admit that the universe appears old; they just claim that God either directly created a young universe with an old appearance, or that He changed the laws of nature. Either way, they are lining up with Luther’s theology.
But Catholics have to believe that God created Adam and Eve directly. Wouldn’t this entail the same conflict between faith and reason?
Not at all, for two reasons. The first is that Adam and Eve are just two individual persons, not the whole universe. Even if God created them with the appearance of having passed through childhood, when they had not, this would not spell the end of science. When God creates the universe in a fully formed state, with the appearance of being old, or when God periodically changes the laws of the universe, then we have a problem.
Secondly, we may presume, God did not create Adam and Eve with the appearance of having passed through infancy and childhood. Our first parents would have concrete reasons to believe what God was telling them by revelation, namely, that He had created them as adults. They would not have navels, they would not have memories of childhood or adolescence, they would not have memories of their putative parents, there would be no other humans around, and so on.
So the problem is not really with God creating something fully formed?
Exactly! The problem is God creating something fully formed AND creating it in such a way that it seems to have a long history, when it doesn’t, and then telling us that He created it fully formed. This is the scenario that the Reformers wanted to project on the Christian God, in order to turn Him into a Creator who hates the very gift of reason that He gives man and so finds ways to convince man to distrust reason.
You mentioned two other problems with the YEC position.
Yes, a philosophical problem and a scientific problem, both deriving from Protestant theology. What we must realize is that the idea of a God who is consistent in the running of the universe and one who is not consistent are two very different ideas of God. The inconsistent God is more willful than reasonable. He is what is called a “voluntarist” God, a God who does not have to be reasonable in His activity.
The Reformers’ dislike of reason and the Reformers’ corresponding desire that revelation be the only source of human knowledge made them see God in this way. For them, not only must we expect God to be arbitrary, we must see that He needs to be arbitrary. Only then will the universe be unintelligible to reason.
How does that cause philosophical problems?
It makes one gravitate towards a false philosophical position called “nominalism.” Nominalism denies the existence of natures or essences outside the mind. An essence is a distinct way of existing, like dogness or catness. It indicates a nature that belongs to a certain class of individuals that all exist in the same way. All of the concepts in our minds are essences. This is why there have to be essences really existing outside of our mind for our ideas to tell us anything about reality.
How does this connect with a voluntarist God?
Well, if God were to give essences to things, it would be because He has ideas in His own mind, certain patterns according to which He creates things. And if He has ideas according to which He creates, then His will must conform to His intellect in creating. William of Occam and the Reformers two centuries later did not want there to be any restriction on God’s will. Thus, they held that God does not give essences to things.
The result is that humans must conclude that the concepts they form from reality are not actually true of reality. We have again a terrible blow to reason, but the Reformers were more than content to strike such a blow—it saved them from seeing the irrationality of their rebellion against God and His Church.
What about the scientific problem deriving from YEC?
I explained above how uniformitarianism is a necessary assumption to do science and how YEC attacks that assumption. Allow me to provide an example of how this destroys science.
Consider the work of Newton. The apple (supposedly) plunked down on his head and set him thinking about gravity. His insight was that the law of gravity working on Earth also applies in outer space, for the heavenly bodies. This enabled him to describe the motion of the planets around the sun using the same laws that we observe on Earth. In other words, the entire success of his three laws for planetary motion depended on the assumption that the laws of nature on Earth are the same as the laws of nature in heaven, that they are uniform throughout the whole universe.
You also gave the example of light above.
Yes. That example shows how the historical sciences rely on the laws of nature being consistent throughout time, as well as space. Looking into a telescope is like looking at the history of the universe in the trails of light coming from galaxies. The history is true, however, only if the laws for light have remained the same throughout time.
The light from the Large Magellanic Cloud that I can see here in Australia, for instance, would seem to be 163,000 years old. If God changed the speed of light, however, in 2,000 BC, my calculations would only be valid for the last 4,000 years. The same would hold true for any other calculations I would make about other galaxies. It would be the death of astronomy.
And you are saying that is what the YECers want?
No, I don’t think they want that necessarily, but it is certainly what the Reformers wanted. Regardless, YEC adherents must come to grips with the fact that such is the result of their theology, whether they like it or not. Their position makes religion an enemy of science and reason.
Which eventuality, I take it, you are not fond of?
Indeed, no. My entire book after all (not just chapter 7!) is about maintaining a proper harmony between religion and science, between faith and reason. This has always been the Catholic spirit. St. Augustine famously says that we must show the world that there is nothing in our sacred books that conflicts with reason. Catholics hold that reason is a precious gift from God and that He wants us to use it for His glory, not destroy it for His glory.
So it is a respect for reason that pits you against YEC?
Yes, certainly. But, in the end, my opposition to YEC dates from my seminary formation, where I was taught why Catholic exegetes reject YEC, under the guidance of the Church. God willing, I was also given a Catholic intellectual balance in Scriptural matters which, in turn, I hope I communicate to my own students.
What else is in your book?
An explanation of how the Catholic Middle Ages gave birth to modern science, why the Allah of the Muslims is also a voluntarist God, an in-depth criticism of atheistic science, including Darwinian evolution, and much more! The book also has a website with a blog, therealistguide.com. There, readers can find many resources related to the book.
How can people help get word out about the book?
I would think things would have to start with purchasing a copy from Angelus Press! Then, after having some familiarity with the book, a favorable reader could assist the book’s cause by writing a positive review on Amazon, rating the book on Goodreads, purchasing copies for friends and family, and sending possible reviewers my way. It’s a good cause!
-
Why do you object to YEC? Isn’t that the safest of positions?
On the contrary, I find it to be quite dangerous. It runs straight into theological, philosophical, and scientific problems.
How so?
Well, it all starts with the assumptions that the adherents of YEC make. The first assumption is that of “biblicism,” namely, the idea that the Bible is authoritative over all other sources of knowledge, including science, reason, and especially the Catholic Church. Based on this assumption, they conclude that Genesis is meant to teach truths about all areas of knowledge, including science.
Then, they proceed to read Genesis as teaching that the universe must be 6,000 years old. Since this, in their minds, is the inspired sense of Scripture, it cannot be wrong, regardless of whatever evidence might counter that idea.
Like what evidence?
Such as, for instance, the entire body of evidence brought to us by our high-powered telescopes. They show that the light coming to us from distant stars and galaxies is millions of years old, not thousands of years old.
But isn’t that based on some assumptions?
Absolutely. For scientists to conclude that the light coming from the stars is really millions of years old, they have to assume a principle called uniformitarianism. This is the idea that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe (sameness in space) and for the entire history of the universe (sameness in time). Scientists have to make this assumption to even be able to do science, since they are looking for laws of the universe, and the universe cannot have laws without this uniformity.
As I point out in The Realist Guide, this assumption only makes sense if there is a consistent God, outside of the universe, who is able to establish laws for it and make it run consistently. Let atheist scientists take note of the implicit theism of their assumptions.
Couldn’t God have changed the speed of light sometime in the past and so made it that the light only looks old, but is not really old?
Of course He could. And this question of yours brings me to the second assumption of YEC adherents. Because the universe appears old and this contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, they refuse the principle of uniformitarianism. They claim that God periodically changes the laws of nature and this is the reason why, for example, the light from distant galaxies looks old, but is not actually old. The laws for light now are not the same as they were in the past.
Why do you find this problematic?
I have three problems with this. The first problem is a theological one. A God who periodically changes the laws of His own universe is one who wants to prevent humans from investigating it using their reason. The modern scientist, for instance, makes measurements of distant light, assumes uniformitarianism is true, performs certain mathematical calculations, and then reasons that the light is a certain age. But, in actual fact, his conclusion is false, if God has periodically reconfigured the universe. If such is the case, there is no way for the scientist to use natural reason to discover the age of the light.
But doesn’t the Bible teach him that?
Well, that is precisely the claim of YEC, that all knowledge comes from the Bible and thus that the Bible is meant to teach us science. For them, our senses and reason tell us that the universe is old, while the Bible tells us that the universe is young. Thus, we are meant to reject reason for revelation. In other words, the YEC position sets up an either-or situation for the believer: you either take reason or revelation, but you cannot accept both.
And you say this creates a theological problem?
Yes, because it makes God out to be something of a tyrant. He creates humans in His own likeness by giving them a rational soul. Then, they use their reason to discover fascinating facts about the universe He created. But God steps in, revealing to them that what their reason found is false, because He made a world that only appears old, but is not actually old.
So, we creationists make God out to be something of a tyrant.
First let us quote St Thomas, a saint whose theology and philosophy Fr Robinson is so expert at that he can teach it to SSPX seminarians.
‘That the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.’ --- St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theologiae I.46.2 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm))
So, according to St Thomas, and any Catholic who believes the dogma of ex nihilo creation, science cannot explain the creation of all because it was a supernatural act, just as science cannot explain miracles.
Now if we read Fr Robinson's diatribe above, we see he bases his Genesis on the Big Bang theory. With that theory there was an explosion of some kind that sent atoms out into a universe that nobody knows where it came from. Now unlike any other explosion that scatters particles, this one caused them to combine into celestial bodies called planets and stars. By the way, this was one of the heresies Bruno held before he was burned at the stake.
Now back to Fr Robinson and his telescope. He looks out into the universe and spots stars 18.5 billion LIGHT-YEARS away. As a Big Banger, these distances of light-years are interpreted as having taken 18.5 billion years to get there. So, on this THEORY alone, Fr Robinson bases his theology, philosophy and his 'science.'
On the other hand, we YECs read Genesis day 4 literally, and follow God's advice
For if you did believe Moses, you would believe Me also;
for he wrote of Me.(John 5:46)
Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
Here Moses tells us God created the stars to shine on the Earth on the same day He created the birds. Now in the Bible it tells us that the number of stars in the heavens are as numerous as the number of grains of stars on Earth. Now who would like to guess at the number of either? With so many stars created, some even 18.5 billion light years away, visible to man on the 6th day, how in God's name can that be warped into Big Bank star-time of Fr Paul Robinson. According to Genesis, that is, God, there was no time delay in the creation of stars. This makes the universe under the one time, today on Earth shares the same time as the furthest stars in the sky. That is YEC theology, philosophy and science.
Here then we see Fr Robinson use his so-called-human-reason-science to understand Genesis I contrary to the teaching of St Thomas who he teaches to young impressionable seminarians going on to their priesthood.
-
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 (http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Modernism_Oath.html)
-
This passage from Fr. Robinson is very difficult to read. Every other sentence smacks of Modernism. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
-
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 (http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Modernism_Oath.html)
Only paragraphs 8-12.
-
This passage from Fr. Robinson is very difficult to read. Every other sentence smacks of Modernism. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
What are some of your thoughts on Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani generis?
-
Fr. Robinson hasn't been keeping up since his grade-school science classes. In order to salvage the Big Bang theory, modern scientists have actually had to abandon uniformitarianism with regard to the progression after the BB. They now claim that it went through various phases where the laws of physics were different, a hyperexpansion phase, etc. And the alleged age of the universe was "calculated" based on reversing the current expansion rate of the universe, whereas it's obvious that it would have expanded much more rapidly in the beginning.
It's all garbage, and the Kolbe Institute does a terrific job of ripping it to shreds.
-
What are some of your thoughts on Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani generis?
You mean the part on allowing the discussion of theistic evolution at least of the material body? That was a horrible, tragic mistake -- along with many that Pius XII made that helped usher in the era of Vatican II apostasy.
He never taught theistic evolution, just said that it's OK to discuss the subject, provided that all the evidence pro- and con- be considered. Nevertheless, his assertion that it's possible to discuss that the human body evolved (presumably from apes, etc.) is rejected by the universal consensus of the Church Fathers. Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that God made the human body from the "clay of the earth".
Interestingly if you look at the chemical composition of earth and that of the human body, it's nearly identical.
-
You mean the part on allowing the discussion of theistic evolution at least of the material body? That was a horrible, tragic mistake -- along with many that Pius XII made that helped usher in the era of Vatican II apostasy.
He never taught theistic evolution, just said that it's OK to discuss the subject, provided that all the evidence pro- and con- be considered. Nevertheless, his assertion that it's possible to discuss that the human body evolved (presumably from apes, etc.) is rejected by the universal consensus of the Church Fathers. Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that God made the human body from the "clay of the earth".
Interestingly if you look at the chemical composition of earth and that of the human body, it's nearly identical.
Yes. Well said.
-
It isn't a Catholic book, but, "Genesis, Creation and Early Man" by ROCOR Hieromonk Fr. Seraphim Rose is worth reading, as he makes an excellent case for the historical truth of Genesis based upon the teachings of the Church Fathers, and some EO theologians. The criticisms he does have in the book of the Catholic Church are, from what I remember, leveled mainly at what we call Modernists anyway. So its worth reading if you can find a copy.
There's also "The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11" by "Fr." Victor Warkulwiz which analyzes a literal interpretation of Genesis based upon the doctrines of the Church. I believe the Kolbe Center sells that one on their site.
-
It isn't a Catholic book, but, "Genesis, Creation and Early Man" by ROCOR Hieromonk Fr. Seraphim Rose is worth reading, as he makes an excellent case for the historical truth of Genesis based upon the teachings of the Church Fathers, and some EO theologians. The criticisms he does have in the book of the Catholic Church are, from what I remember, leveled mainly at what we call Modernists anyway. So its worth reading if you can find a copy.
It’s no longer in print, but available online:
https://archive.org/details/GenesisCreationAndEarlyManTheOrthodoxChristianVision (https://archive.org/details/GenesisCreationAndEarlyManTheOrthodoxChristianVision)
-
It’s no longer in print, but available online:
https://archive.org/details/GenesisCreationAndEarlyManTheOrthodoxChristianVision (https://archive.org/details/GenesisCreationAndEarlyManTheOrthodoxChristianVision)
That's good to see. I think the last run was a couple years ago when I bought a copy.
-
You mean the part on allowing the discussion of theistic evolution at least of the material body? That was a horrible, tragic mistake -- along with many that Pius XII made that helped usher in the era of Vatican II apostasy.
He never taught theistic evolution, just said that it's OK to discuss the subject, provided that all the evidence pro- and con- be considered. Nevertheless, his assertion that it's possible to discuss that the human body evolved (presumably from apes, etc.) is rejected by the universal consensus of the Church Fathers. Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that God made the human body from the "clay of the earth".
Interestingly if you look at the chemical composition of earth and that of the human body, it's nearly identical.
‘Pope Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. The docuмent makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution … explains the origin of all things.” Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one species might evolve into another—even if that species is man. The Pope declared: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid….” In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of “ensouling” humans was left to God. He also insisted on a role for Adam, whom he believed committed a sin - mysteriously passed along through the “doctrine of original sin”- that has affected all subsequent generations. Pius XII cautioned that he considered the jury still out on the question of evolution’s validity. It should not be accepted, without more evidence, “as though it were a certain proven doctrine.”’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)Doug Linder; Essay The Vatican's View of Evolution, 2004.
Once you depart from ther traditional; immediate or 6-day creation, you lead others into error.
-
These are some profound questions.
Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
Here Moses tells us God created the stars to shine on the Earth on the same day He created the birds. Now in the Bible it tells us that the number of stars in the heavens are as numerous as the number of grains of stars on Earth. Now who would like to guess at the number of either? With so many stars created, some even 18.5 billion light years away, visible to man on the 6th day, how in God's name can that be warped into Big Bank star-time of Fr Paul Robinson. According to Genesis, that is, God, there was no time delay in the creation of stars. This makes the universe under the one time, today on Earth shares the same time as the furthest stars in the sky. That is YEC theology, philosophy and science.
Here then we see Fr Robinson use his so-called-human-reason-science to understand Genesis I contrary to the teaching of St Thomas who he teaches to young impressionable seminarians going on to their priesthood.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
- 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:
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.
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 :laugh1:
-
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.
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:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg)
-
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.
-
This is worth watching -- regarding red shifts and "expanding universe"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxrbjeaOPWs
-
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???
-
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 (http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Modernism_Oath.html)
Excellent.
-
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 :laugh1:
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.
-
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?
-
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/
-
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.
-
MHFM's most popular video is on creation and it's great
https://youtu.be/JiMqzN_YSXU
-
MHFM's most popular video is on creation and it's great
Yes, the universe is majestic and induces awe.
But the "science" arguments in that video for a young earth are quite bad. The Diamonds have no apparent expertise in astronomy or astrophysics. I'm going to address their SNR argument (from the 2 minute to 3 minute mark).
The video claims that supernovas are produced in our galaxy at about 1 per 26 years. Actual estimates range from every 25 years to every 100 years. The best paper I know on the topic comes down at 50 +/- 25 years. So the video is on the more frequent end of estimates but at least within the range.
They claim that there are 250 supernova remnants (SNRs) in the milky way, so the milky way is about 6500 years old (250 x 26). This part of the argument has problems.
The argument seems to implicitly assume all SNRs would be visible forever. That is not the case. SNRs diffuse into the interstellar medium (ISM) and few SNRs older than 50k years are visible, even in theory. Furthermore, most supernovae in the milky way happen either near the center or in the edges, and we would expect many SNRs to be obscured by ISM dust or other material. Estimates of visible SNRs within the milky way range from 300 to 1000 in the scientific literature, which would mean we have actually found 30% to 90% of them. That's not unreasonable.
We do nevertheless know of some old SNRs. SNR87a is one of the most well known recently-observed supernovae. It is in the large magellanic cloud and known by triangulation to be about 167,000 light years away. (The measurement method would be valid even in a geocentric model.) Everything about this observation looks like a supernova happened about 167,000 years ago and took about that long for the light to get to us. (Expansion of space has an effect but this object is close enough and with a short enough time scale that the effect is small.)
If you want to argue that this supernova never really happened and the light was created a few thousand years ago, then you have a belief that undermines any observation, destroys natural science, and seems at best difficult to reconcile with Thomistic epistemology.
Note that it takes much longer to correct a falsehood than it takes to state the falsehood. I've only addressed a 1 minute part of the video, but it has taken me several minutes just to write up a short explanation of the mistake. Yet I suspect some of you will remember the error I'm addressing more than the correction. Politicians know and use this well.
-
The argument seems to implicitly assume all SNRs would be visible forever.
No it doesn't ... just that they should be visible for more than 6,000 years. You may know "science" but logic fails you. You have it backwards.
SNRs should last ...
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/85-the-universe/supernovae/general-questions/410-how-long-do-supernova-remnants-last-intermediate
SNR do fade away and eventually become invisible. The time for this to happen is on the order of tens of thousands to a hundred thousand years.
Let's say they appear every 50 years and last an average of 50,000 years. There should be a thousand of them. But the fact that there are only 250, suggests a time closer to 6,000 years.
There's a similar problem with projections of how much dust there should have been on the moon give science's claims about how old it is.
Go ahead and argue that there are more because they're hidden by dust (while we can see stars unobscured from billions of light years away :laugh1:) ... but your assertion that this implies SNRs are visible forever is flat-out wrong.
If I recall, I think you're one of those who actually believes that the moon landings actually happened.
-
Let's say they appear every 50 years and last an average of 50,000 years. There should be a thousand of them. But the fact that there are only 250, suggests a time closer to 6,000 years.
Or we've only found 250 of them.
More like 270 currently. We do find more over time.
-
... but your assertion that this implies SNRs are visible forever is flat-out wrong.
The video claims:
Such a small number of supernova remnants points to an extremely young galaxy. Definitely not billions or millions of years old.
Yes, they ARE assuming that SNRs are visible for extremely long periods of time.
The count of visible supernova remnants puts a LOWER bound on the age of the galaxy. It DOES NOT rule out billions of years. If supernova remnants disappear within 50k years then a billion-year old galaxy would only have 50k years worth of visible supernovae.
-
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.
By now, scientists are pretty sure about those distances, the margin of error is in fact extremely small by now. See the table here about the historic measurements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit#History
The thing about galaxies is that they aren't black blobs, but are in fact brightly visible because they're huge clusters and clumps of billions of individual stars whose light accuмulates. So either way, anything that's farther away than ~6,000 light years either needed to exist for N years for light to travel to us, or it requires a miracle by God for that light to be created with an age.
We can't just refute all evidence and measurements done by thousands of bright minds just to say that all visible stars, galaxies and nebulae can be closer to Earth than ~6,000 light years, that's impossible by orders of magnitude. And it's also just one of several of those facts that point towards an old age of the universe. Be it actual age on a linear time scale or everything created with an age by God.
-
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.
Well it certainly isn't only Fr. Robinson, and this is not the first time I'm confronted with his statements. Overall, the pressure by modern science is immense, as we all know.
Thanks for your valuable sources of what the Church says about that, with actual numbers. However, the recent Church wasn't able or didn't care to refute the claims or rather attacks from modern atheistic science that happen with increasing frequency.
You could say that the Bible, or rather, the Churches exegesis of it and thus Creationism, is aging because it isn't kept up to date with latest scientific findings, there aren't enough Christian scientists and theologians to do the work, it seems. That's what troubles me.
Another thing that I stumpled upon is trees that are supposedly older than Noah's flood, and even older than 6,000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees). The argument goes in a similar vein to the ice that's supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old.
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.
It's very interesting what the blessed Katarina Emmerick has to say about that (one could argue that it's only a private revelation, but surprisingly the dates match exactly with the Bible's chronology ::)).
-
In debates such as this topic, it is important to keeping in mind the frame of reference that each side holds.:
“Scoffers Will Arise in the Last Days”: A Reply to Fr. Paul Robinson, FSSPX - Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (https://www.kolbecenter.org/scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days-a-reply-to-fr-paul-robinson-fsspx-2/)
Indeed, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church held that the natural order in which we live and which the Fathers and Doctors sometimes refer to as the order of Providence only began to operate with relative autonomy after the work of creation was finished on the sixth day of creation. Hence, summing up the teaching of all of the Church Fathers, St. John Chrysostom writes:
When the Scripture here says: “God rested from all his works,” it thereby instructs us that on the Seventh Day He ceased to create and to bring out of nonexistence into existence; but when Christ says: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” it thereby indicates to us His uninterrupted Providence, and it calls “work” the preservation of what exists, the giving to it of continuance (of existence) and the governance of it at all times.[8] (https://www.kolbecenter.org/scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days-a-reply-to-fr-paul-robinson-fsspx-2/#_edn8)
With their distinction between the supernatural work of creation and the natural order of providence, the Fathers and Doctors expose the principal error of the progressive creationists—their mixing of the order of the supernatural work of creation and the natural order of providence which are always kept separate in the writings of the Fathers and Doctors. Indeed, the progressive creationist makes a second error in tandem with the first when, by the introduction of long ages, he inserts supernatural creative acts of God into the natural order of providence but also into a fallen world, thus denying the unanimous testimony of the Fathers to the fact that God created a perfectly complete and harmonious universe for our first parents in the beginning of creation.
Both of these errors flow from the uniformitarian error that St. Peter warned us would enter the Church in the last days—the false assumption that things have always been the same from the beginning of the universe and that therefore we can legitimately extrapolate from the material processes that are going on now all the way back to the beginning of time to determine the age of the universe.
-
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.
So stellar parallax becomes too inaccurate beyond 400 light years, thus brightness and redshift of the light is used, but that can be wrong as well due to misinterpretation of brightness and size. I see. Either way, I definitely agree that science can be incredibly presumptuous, yet claiming to know everything. In the end it comes down to presumptions all again, so it's a religion, a belief system as well.
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?
Yes indeed, Dr. Sungenis and you showed earlier how the universe follows the Sun orbiting the Earth in unison, thus creating stellar parallax. I know the parallax is often used to argue against Geocentrism when it's an invalid argument due to general realtivity if we assume the universe to be orbiting Earth at a radius of ~93 million miles (with some elliptical of course).
-
So stellar parallax becomes too inaccurate beyond 400 light years, thus brightness and redshift of the light is used, but that can be wrong as well due to misinterpretation of brightness and size.
That video I posted discusses how redshift theory has been seriously questioned by top astronomers due to finding various anomalies, such as quasars, which have totally skewed redshift numbers ... indicating that something other than movement away from us can be and is responsible for redshift.
That video also discusses how the entire theory of an "expanding" universe comes from the tenuous redshift, and that in turn the Big Bang comes from the notion of reversing the current "expansion". So it's a house of cards all built on redshift. Astronomers who questioned redshift were silenced (lots of specific examples cited) because they threatened to overturn Big Bang theory. Now, there have been other problems with Big Bang. They've had to revise it a few times, saying that there were phases of it. Recently, to keep it alive on life support, they had to posit the existence of "dark matter".
-
There are a number of things taught by Sacred Scripture that are simply incompatible with modern science's view. No amount of "interpreting" it can absolve it of error.
God created the earth before the sun and the stars. Either this is true, or it's an error. In order to explain this away, you have to resort to, "the Bible doesn't intend to teach about science." Regardless, the Bible, having been authored by Holy Spirit, cannot contain error. And this would be error.
God created Adam from the earth, and the woman from the man. This rules out even a theistic version of evolution. There's no way that "earth" could possible be "interpreted" as ... a primate.
Sacred Scripture lays down a very clear chronology for human beings that cannot be reconciled with anything more than about 6,000 or so years. You can't even pull the stunt about, "perhaps there's a different meaning of years," because making a year anything more than a year would result in individual human beings like Adam or Seth having lived for 10s of thousands of years.
If there's error in the Bible, then the Holy Spirit was not the primary author of Sacred Scripture, or else you have to reinterpret what this authorship means, watering it down to, "the Holy Spirit inspired the general message behind each book."
-
God created Adam from the earth, and the woman from the man. This rules out even a theistic version of evolution. There's no way that "earth" could possible be "interpreted" as ... a primate.
I've actually seen others try to argue that "earth" means the non-rational creatures from unicellular to multicellular lifeforms over a long period of time, typically coupled with the "slime of the earth" translation of Scripture. It's nonsense.
-
I've actually seen others try to argue that "earth" means the non-rational creatures from unicellular to multicellular lifeforms over a long period of time, typically coupled with the "slime of the earth" translation of Scripture. It's nonsense.
The most interesting argument I’ve come across goes like this:
God did indeed create Adam from the earth, but he created archaic organisms before him some of which died and were incorporated into the earth from which Adam was created hence his genetic similarities with other living organisms. This also allows for an old earth view.
-
Fr. Robinson really seems to have fallen for the siren song of Science -- but not true science. The religion of science. He puts too much emphasis on it. Perhaps because he studied it a lot, and he's somewhat adept at it?
By lifting up science, he's lifting himself up? That has to be it.
-
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?
.
Is this a quote from the Sungenis movie? I remember being very convinced by all his arguments until it got to this part, where I almost choked on my beer. In one simple computer animation in which Sungenis showed this, I was stunned to see the entire geocentric model fall completely apart like a house of cards, and I had been a lifelong geocentrist up to that point. What he showed was basically an animation of the sun and all the stars moving in a circular or elliptical manner around the earth, which remained fixed in the center, and said that the stars were rotating around the sun, but the sun and the stars were rotating around the earth, and therefore the earth was fixed.
.
There are a couple of problems here. First of all, the computer bizarrely showed this movement from a viewpoint that was outside the universe. Now, since by definition there is nowhere that is outside the universe, the animation cannot be used as a proof of anything. This may sound like a nitpick, but it makes no sense to say, "Here's a rendition of what type of motion I'm talking about," and then demonstrate that with a video that is logically impossible. A video that is logically impossible is worthless as an argument.
.
My second and much more serious objection to this idea is to ask, What does it mean for the earth to be the center? Doesn't it mean that the stars and galaxies rotate around the earth? Basically, doesn't it mean that the stars rotate around the earth the way a wheel rotates around its hub? Isn't the hub the center of a wheel? And yet Sungenis is claiming that the sun functions as the hub of the wheel, and the stars all remain equidistant from the sun, not the earth, and yet somehow it is the earth and not the sun that is the center of the universe. If you posit such a thing, then by what definition or criterion is the earth the center of the universe? What makes it the center? He's basically saying to look at a bicycle wheel and see it rotate, but then he tells you that the reflector halfway up one of the spokes is actually the center of the wheel, and the hub and spokes are rotating around that reflector. By definition, the center of a rotating system is the part that remains equidistant from every other part of the system, and Sungenis said in his system that's the sun, not the earth.
.
Thirdly, the video posited that the universe as a whole moves with a local motion. This is irrational, illogical and impossible. While it is obvious that the universe as a whole rotates in place like a ball, since we see the heavenly bodies rotate around the earth, if you say that the entire universe moves in an elliptical orbit, you are implicitly saying there is some space in which the universe as a whole moves in that orbit, i.e. you are positing that the entire universe, as a system, is contained within some other space, through which it moves in an elliptical manner. This is a contradiction inasmuch as the universe by definition is all there is, there is nothing outside the universe in which it can move.
-
By lifting up science, he's lifting himself up? That has to be it.
I recall in the entry for St. Alphonsus in Butler's Lives of the Saints a short excerpt about this very problem. St. Alphonsus told his missionaries to preach with simplicity and kindness, not high theological matters because otherwise they were preaching themselves and not the Gospel.
It appears Fr. Robinson has this same issue.
-
By now, scientists are pretty sure
Scientists don’t know &!@$. It’s all a house of cards. Theories built on conjectures, attached together by guesses.
.
Science was hijacked by Freemasons going back to the Middle Ages, BEFORE GALILEO. Heck, if you believe the book of Enoch (and much I do), then science/astronomy came to man directly from the devil’s/fallen angels/nephalim. Science has been the religion if the devil/evil joos/satanist from the get go. To the Tower of Babel, Philistines, Canaanite, Greeks, Romans, etc. .
You could argue that science is a religion, in many ways. Modern science (post 1400s) is surely a cult. Modern Astronomy is simply part of witchcraft.
.
Everything we *think* we know about the universe, planets, sun, stars, etc...where did this knowledge come from? High-ranking Freemasons such as Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, DaVinci, etc, etc.
.
We all need to take a giant step back from modern science and realize much is a lie, intended to 1) erase God from the creation, 2) inflate man’s ego, and distract him from daily duties by concentrating on “billions of light years” (...how ridiculous) away 3) reduce the importance of earth, which limits the importance of Christ, His Church and our earthy battle for salvation, 4) raise the importance of science over faith/bible/church, 5) create a new industry for $.
-
Heck, if you believe the book of Enoch (and much I do), then science/astronomy came to man directly from the devil’s/fallen angels/nephalim.
.
:confused:
See, I'm sympathetic to some of the points you made in that post, but here I think you went a little outside the lines ...
-
Scientists don’t know &!@$. It’s all a house of cards. Theories built on conjectures, attached together by guesses.
.
We all need to take a giant step back from modern science and realize much is a lie, intended to 1) erase God from the creation, 2) inflate man’s ego, and distract him from daily duties by concentrating on “billions of light years” (...how ridiculous) away 3) reduce the importance of earth, which limits the importance of Christ, His Church and our earthy battle for salvation, 4) raise the importance of science over faith/bible/church, 5) create a new industry for $.
.
Have you sold your cell phone and computer yet ?
Canceled your internet connection yet ?
Better not buy any evil telescopes.
-
here I think you went a little outside the lines ...
Well, what do you disagree with? God created Adam and Eve in a garden. Agriculture, working with wood, and the raising of animals has always been the most Christianized form of industry, because it puts man in a humble state, depending upon God for rain, good weather and protection from insects.
.
The nephalim/giants were on the earth before and after the Flood. After the Flood, these people (whom Enoch describes as children of fallen angels and whom Anne Catherine Emmerich says were children from satanic rituals) came back into the line of Chaanan, who was cursed by Noah. Chaanan's descendent was Nimrod, who built the tower of Babel, which was an openly satanic structure, with anti-God purpose.
.
All throughout the post-Flood Scripture, the race of Shem (i.e. the Shem-ites, or Israelites), who followed God's laws, fought the evil races of the Chaananites and all other manner of pagan races. These evil races were very advanced in weaponry, science, herbs, etc. The people of God (i.e. David) only defeated such races as the Phillistines (i.e. Goliath) by God's power, because they were, literally, giants/nephalim and had satanic knowledge of the earth/nature/science.
.
If such advanced, satanic knowledge of science existed in the nephalim AFTER the flood, then it stands to reason that the same knowledge existed BEFORE the flood, since the nephalim also existed before the flood. Add to this, that mankind was MORE healthy and more intellectually knowledgeable BEFORE the flood, because God shortened man's life post-flood, as a punishment for sin.
.
Thus, what Enoch describes in his book, wherein the nephalim learned all natural knowledge from fallen demons, is proven correct, by both logic, scripture and prophecy. Let's also not forget that the book of Enoch was considered part of the old testament by the Jews, even during Christ's time, since even Christ quoted the book in the Gospels. It was only left out of the canon by the Church because in the time period between the destruction of Jerusalem in the 70s til the 300s (when the bible was organized), this book was lost and the "found" copy was thought corrupt by the Church, so it couldn't be fully trusted. But it is still considered "close" to canon and can be read by catholics (with caution).
-
Have you sold your cell phone and computer yet ?
Canceled your internet connection yet ?
Better not buy any evil telescopes.
You missed my point. I'm only talking about the science of planets/astronomy, which was hijacked by Galileo and fellow freemasons. The PHILOSOPHY of what science means - what we should learn from it, and how it impacts our life - was corrupted; there's nothing wrong with studying the stars.
-
That video I posted discusses how redshift theory has been seriously questioned by top astronomers due to finding various anomalies, such as quasars, which have totally skewed redshift numbers ... indicating that something other than movement away from us can be and is responsible for redshift.
That video also discusses how the entire theory of an "expanding" universe comes from the tenuous redshift, and that in turn the Big Bang comes from the notion of reversing the current "expansion". So it's a house of cards all built on redshift. Astronomers who questioned redshift were silenced (lots of specific examples cited) because they threatened to overturn Big Bang theory. Now, there have been other problems with Big Bang. They've had to revise it a few times, saying that there were phases of it. Recently, to keep it alive on life support, they had to posit the existence of "dark matter".
Nonsense.
There were various different hypotheses about quasars' redshifts in the 1950s and 1960s. The video just repeats the arguments. These hypotheses (including Halton Arp's) were taken seriously and investigated. After more observations and analysis, in the 1970s the consensus resolved to quasars as distant objects. Some like Arp may not have accepted that, but the consensus was and still is based on evidence.
The consensus is based on multiple lines of evidence in agreement, not a "house of cards". That you can even say that makes it clear that you know nothing about this field. And because you have no knowledge in this field, you lack the background to recognize the problems in the video you posted.
And again, speaking falsehoods (like the video) is easy in comparison to correcting those falsehoods.
-
That video I posted discusses how redshift theory has been seriously questioned by top astronomers due to finding various anomalies, such as quasars, which have totally skewed redshift numbers ... indicating that something other than movement away from us can be and is responsible for redshift.
That video also discusses how the entire theory of an "expanding" universe comes from the tenuous redshift, and that in turn the Big Bang comes from the notion of reversing the current "expansion". So it's a house of cards all built on redshift. Astronomers who questioned redshift were silenced (lots of specific examples cited) because they threatened to overturn Big Bang theory. Now, there have been other problems with Big Bang. They've had to revise it a few times, saying that there were phases of it. Recently, to keep it alive on life support, they had to posit the existence of "dark matter".
Absolutely correct Ladislaus. Here is the history of the Big Bang invention and the need for invisible 'dark matter.'
In 1922, the Russian Alexander Friedmann (1888-1925) ‘made the simplifying assumption that the universe had to be uniformly filled with a thin soup of matter.’ He ‘found a mistake in Albert Einstein’s 1917 paper on cosmology and established that general relativity predicted the universe is unstable and the slightest perturbation would cause it to expand or contract.’ Immediately others wanted in on the new theoretical cosmology, including the Jesuit Monsignor Abbé Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) who ‘was the first to use Friedmann-type solutions to formulate a ‘scientific’ model for the beginning of the universe that he called the Primordial Atom or Cosmic Egg.’ All that was needed now was for someone to come up with some evidence for Fr Lemaître’s idea of a ‘miraculous’ exploding cosmic-atom. Such a ‘proof’ would ensure immortality of name and achievement similar to all the Earthmovers that preceded them.
That occurred when the American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) in 1929, using a newly built 100-inch telescope, viewed faraway galaxies for the first time. Examining the spectral-light emitted by these stars he found a lengthening of the red end with ‘nearly all of them,’ the further away the more they expand. On this basis, Hubble held that the stars and galaxies were flying outwards in every direction at enormous speed as seen from Earth, which, if extrapolated - put into reverse - suggested an initial beginning from a central point. But this presented a problem for them. If all the stars as seen from Earth had red shifts interpreted as moving away from Earth, then the Earth had to be at the centre of the universe. But this was a conclusion they didn’t want, so another ad hoc had to be invented. If, as Einstein proposed, all cosmic bodies existed on the surface of an expanding balloon type universe, then Hubble’s theory need not point to the Earth at its centre.
Now many studies undertaken since have produced conflicting versions of Hubble’s interpretation of red-shifts.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)Missed by all of course was the fact that a geocentric universe would also produce the very same expanding universe equally well, if it is expanding that is. In 1543 hadn’t Copernicus first pointed out in his De revolutionibus that an effect of a geocentric world would be a starry Carousel-swing type of expansion of stars outwards?
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)See for example Robert V. Gentry’s Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004.
‘But why didn’t Ptolemy feel anxiety about the world instead; whose movements must necessarily be of greater velocity, the greater the heavens are than the Earth? Or have the heavens become so immense, because an unspeakably vehement motion has pulled them away from the centre, and because the heavens would fall if they came to rest anywhere else.’ --- Copernicus's On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.
Why then didn’t Fr Lemaître and science consider that red-shifts in stars could also show evidence for geocentrism? That was the conclusion the champion of their cosmology Copernicus came to. Isn’t true-science supposed to consider all options when investigating any such observation? Yes it is, but such a consideration would be ‘perverse’ as Dawkins put it, wouldn’t it?
-
Scientists don’t know &!@$. It’s all a house of cards. Theories built on conjectures, attached together by guesses.
.
Science was hijacked by Freemasons going back to the Middle Ages, BEFORE GALILEO. Heck, if you believe the book of Enoch (and much I do), then science/astronomy came to man directly from the devil’s/fallen angels/nephalim. Science has been the religion if the devil/evil joos/satanist from the get go. To the Tower of Babel, Philistines, Canaanite, Greeks, Romans, etc. .
You could argue that science is a religion, in many ways. Modern science (post 1400s) is surely a cult. Modern Astronomy is simply part of witchcraft.
.
Everything we *think* we know about the universe, planets, sun, stars, etc...where did this knowledge come from? High-ranking Freemasons such as Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, DaVinci, etc, etc.
.
We all need to take a giant step back from modern science and realize much is a lie, intended to 1) erase God from the creation, 2) inflate man’s ego, and distract him from daily duties by concentrating on “billions of light years” (...how ridiculous) away 3) reduce the importance of earth, which limits the importance of Christ, His Church and our earthy battle for salvation, 4) raise the importance of science over faith/bible/church, 5) create a new industry for $.
THIS^^^
-
There are a number of things taught by Sacred Scripture that are simply incompatible with modern science's view. No amount of "interpreting" it can absolve it of error.
God created the earth before the sun and the stars. Either this is true, or it's an error. In order to explain this away, you have to resort to, "the Bible doesn't intend to teach about science." Regardless, the Bible, having been authored by Holy Spirit, cannot contain error. And this would be error.
God created Adam from the earth, and the woman from the man. This rules out even a theistic version of evolution. There's no way that "earth" could possible be "interpreted" as ... a primate.
Sacred Scripture lays down a very clear chronology for human beings that cannot be reconciled with anything more than about 6,000 or so years. You can't even pull the stunt about, "perhaps there's a different meaning of years," because making a year anything more than a year would result in individual human beings like Adam or Seth having lived for 10s of thousands of years.
If there's error in the Bible, then the Holy Spirit was not the primary author of Sacred Scripture, or else you have to reinterpret what this authorship means, watering it down to, "the Holy Spirit inspired the general message behind each book."
Again Ladislaus, spot on. Now let us read a portion of the book written by the heliocentrist Fr Roberts:
‘How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past [geocentrism] be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an interpretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict that theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact. Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it unlawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words that he - by those laws under the circuмstances - is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican [rather Galilean] interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth [Roberts thinks it is heliocentric], and that, therefore, God could not have been their author? And thus it appears that Rome’s ill-judged attempt [in 1820-35] to save the authority of Holy Scripture was an implicit denial, of her own dogma on inspiration, and a virtual surrender of the whole position into the enemy’s hand. I say an implicit denial of her own dogma on inspiration, for the Vatican Council I has defined it to be a matter of faith that God is the author of the whole of Scripture, and of every part of it—meaning by Scripture all the books enumerated by the Council of Trent as sacred and canonical. Cardinal Franzelin has shown that this doctrine obliges us to hold that God not only caused the human writers of the books named to conceive, with a view to writing them down, those truths, and those truths only, that he meant them to communicate; but further, that God so controlled them in their use of language, that they chose, and chose infallibly, terms fit to express the divinely intended meaning. In Galileo’s time, when Copernicanism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we [think we] have that the earth moves is evidence that God was not the author of those passages. Thus, giving the judgment the very meaning apologists insist is the right one, it implicitly denies the intrinsic reasonableness of the only exposition that can bring certain assertions of Scripture into harmony with science, and in so doing, it implicitly denies that Scripture in all its parts is the written Word of God. The doctrine, therefore, of the decision is not only false, but opposed to what the Roman Church holds to be a dogma of the faith.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)Rev. William W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of them, Parker and Company, London, 1870, revised 1885, p.40.
-
Fr. Robinson really seems to have fallen for the siren song of Science -- but not true science. The religion of science. He puts too much emphasis on it. Perhaps because he studied it a lot, and he's somewhat adept at it?
By lifting up science, he's lifting himself up? That has to be it.
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1044874/5402626-a-lounge-room-chat-with-father-paul-robinson
Now skip to 25 minutes and listen to what this 'intellectual' priest was teaching SSPX seminarians. Before that he quotes Pope Leo XIII's encyclical and the Biblical commission on the word yom in Genesis. Now read Providentissimus deus and you will find an encyclical written to STOP the reinterpretation of Scripture after churchmen allowed the changing of the literal geocentric words of Scripture be read as teaching the very opposite. Pope Leo XIII, while rightfully saying that not every opinion of EACH of the Fathers is to be adhered to, did say what ALL OF THE FATHERS agreed on must be held without question. And, as we all know, or should know, one of those revelations was that the sun orbits the Earth. Note also that Fr Robinson fails to note Pope Benedict XV's 1920: Spiritus Paraclitus does not allow 'science' to change anything.
Here is what the Biblical commission said on the question of Yom/day
‘Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis.
VIII: In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.’ --- Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909
Hugh Owen, Kolbe center adds;
‘In reality, the other answers released simultaneously by the PBC in 1909 to questions about Genesis 1-3 exclude the possibility of inserting long ages of time into the Hexameron, but the answer about the meaning of “day,” taken by itself, left an opening that the Earthmovers and evolutionists have been exploiting ever since.’ ---
Needless to say Fr Robinson paid no heed to both above, disregarding the teaching of ALL OF THE FATHERS, and using the Biblical commission to make yom mean 3 billion years each except Sunday which they kept as a day.
Next, Fr Robinson, as you hear in this interview, places his whole teaching of faith and reason is based on human reason being able to age the universe as far older than Genesis. And how does he do this? He says science has proven there arev stars 13.8 billions of 'light-years' away, so that proves his rejection of Genesis. I have put it to him on his Q&A blog that it proves nothing other that God created stars on day 4, the same day He created birds, some stars 13.5 billion light years away. That is the last I heard from him and my argument against his whole notion of faith and science never went up on his Q&A website.
-
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1044874/5402626-a-lounge-room-chat-with-father-paul-robinson
Now skip to 25 minutes and listen to what this 'intellectual' priest was teaching SSPX seminarians. Before that he quotes Pope Leo XIII's encyclical and the Biblical commission on the word yom in Genesis. Now read Providentissimus deus and you will find an encyclical written to STOP the reinterpretation of Scripture after churchmen allowed the changing of the literal geocentric words of Scripture be read as teaching the very opposite. Pope Leo XIII, while rightfully saying that not every opinion of EACH of the Fathers is to be adhered to, did say what ALL OF THE FATHERS agreed on must be held without question. And, as we all know, or should know, one of those revelations was that the sun orbits the Earth. Note also that Fr Robinson fails to note Pope Benedict XV's 1920: Spiritus Paraclitus does not allow 'science' to change anything.
Here is what the Biblical commission said on the question of Yom/day
‘Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis.
VIII: In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.’ --- Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909
Hugh Owen, Kolbe center adds;
‘In reality, the other answers released simultaneously by the PBC in 1909 to questions about Genesis 1-3 exclude the possibility of inserting long ages of time into the Hexameron, but the answer about the meaning of “day,” taken by itself, left an opening that the Earthmovers and evolutionists have been exploiting ever since.’ ---
Needless to say Fr Robinson paid no heed to both above, disregarding the teaching of ALL OF THE FATHERS, and using the Biblical commission to make yom mean 3 billion years each except Sunday which they kept as a day.
Next, Fr Robinson, as you hear in this interview, places his whole teaching of faith and reason is based on human reason being able to age the universe as far older than Genesis. And how does he do this? He says science has proven there arev stars 13.8 billions of 'light-years' away, so that proves his rejection of Genesis. I have put it to him on his Q&A blog that it proves nothing other that God created stars on day 4, the same day He created birds, some stars 13.5 billion light years away. That is the last I heard from him and my argument against his whole notion of faith and science never went up on his Q&A
That the SSPX would use a vain and vulgar priest to evangelize the Carl Sagan (jew) version of creation is simply masonic.
-
There are a number of things taught by Sacred Scripture that are simply incompatible with modern science's view. No amount of "interpreting" it can absolve it of error.
God created the earth before the sun and the stars. Either this is true, or it's an error. In order to explain this away, you have to resort to, "the Bible doesn't intend to teach about science." Regardless, the Bible, having been authored by Holy Spirit, cannot contain error. And this would be error.
God created Adam from the earth, and the woman from the man. This rules out even a theistic version of evolution. There's no way that "earth" could possible be "interpreted" as ... a primate.
Sacred Scripture lays down a very clear chronology for human beings that cannot be reconciled with anything more than about 6,000 or so years. You can't even pull the stunt about, "perhaps there's a different meaning of years," because making a year anything more than a year would result in individual human beings like Adam or Seth having lived for 10s of thousands of years.
If there's error in the Bible, then the Holy Spirit was not the primary author of Sacred Scripture, or else you have to reinterpret what this authorship means, watering it down to, "the Holy Spirit inspired the general message behind each book."
Good points.
Regarding Adam and Eve, there are some elaborate ways of explaining how "Earth", or sometimes soil, means that man was created from the same elements as his environment, so that goes down to atoms, basically. In the end all live comes from atoms in the "soil". So that'd allow for two versions of theistic evolution, one being evolution from apes and the other being supernatural creation of man from Earth, with no connection to apes. The latter is also used often by theistic evolutionists to reconcile an old universe with biblical chronology regarding humans.
When you look at the days of Genesis, the plants are created on the third day, before the sun and moon. That means the Earth should've been too cold for life to exist. Or it was already warmed up to some degree beforehand (I think Dr. Sungenis uses this explanation in his Geocentrism book). But then the temperature had to be just right to be warm enough for life on day 3, but cooled down enough for the Sun to not overheat the planet from day 4, which is quite intricate, thinking about it.
By the way, the measure of "days" was invented by humans by observing the sun (and indirectly the moon for "months"). So if the word "day" is used in Genesis, at a time where the day-night-cycle wasn't in existence yet, that's somewhat interesting.
-
Is this a quote from the Sungenis movie? I remember being very convinced by all his arguments until it got to this part, where I almost choked on my beer. In one simple computer animation in which Sungenis showed this, I was stunned to see the entire geocentric model fall completely apart like a house of cards, and I had been a lifelong geocentrist up to that point. What he showed was basically an animation of the sun and all the stars moving in a circular or elliptical manner around the earth, which remained fixed in the center, and said that the stars were rotating around the sun, but the sun and the stars were rotating around the earth, and therefore the earth was fixed.
:laugh1: Well, let's see.
So what you quoted there from me was what I quoted from a post by cassini, who didn't give special attribution for that paragraph. So either it's from his personal notes, or it's from a Sungenis book or movie.
Regardless, I think it's quite conclusive from a relativistic point of view. If you assume Earth to be absolutely still, that would mean the following, according to our human observations since thousands of years:
- the Sun orbits the Earth in an elliptical orbit and an average diameter of ~93 million miles daily
- the planets orbit the Sun daily
- the Sun changes it's ecliptic (orbital plane) to create the seasons, it oscillates up and down (without changing the planets' ecliptic IIRC)
- all galaxies and stars rotate around the Sun (with insane speed, greater than the speed of light), creating stellar parallax because of the 93 million mile radius movement
General relativity allows to see it that way. You can't tell from just one point (Earth) if you're moving or still, we'd need a second observer to cross-check the results.
There are a couple of problems here. First of all, the computer bizarrely showed this movement from a viewpoint that was outside the universe. Now, since by definition there is nowhere that is outside the universe, the animation cannot be used as a proof of anything. This may sound like a nitpick, but it makes no sense to say, "Here's a rendition of what type of motion I'm talking about," and then demonstrate that with a video that is logically impossible. A video that is logically impossible is worthless as an argument.
Well, a view from Earth would've worked as well in theory, but it's a bad vantage point to view the universe from, it would've been a lot of clutter. Same as e.g. top-down views of our solar system, or the Milky Way, etc.
My second and much more serious objection to this idea is to ask, What does it mean for the earth to be the center? Doesn't it mean that the stars and galaxies rotate around the earth? Basically, doesn't it mean that the stars rotate around the earth the way a wheel rotates around its hub? Isn't the hub the center of a wheel? And yet Sungenis is claiming that the sun functions as the hub of the wheel, and the stars all remain equidistant from the sun, not the earth, and yet somehow it is the earth and not the sun that is the center of the universe. If you posit such a thing, then by what definition or criterion is the earth the center of the universe? What makes it the center? He's basically saying to look at a bicycle wheel and see it rotate, but then he tells you that the reflector halfway up one of the spokes is actually the center of the wheel, and the hub and spokes are rotating around that reflector. By definition, the center of a rotating system is the part that remains equidistant from every other part of the system, and Sungenis said in his system that's the sun, not the earth.
Yeah, the wheel analogy is pretty much on point, but remember the motion of the stars would happen at an orbit of 93 million miles, the center of the stars is the Sun. The center of the Sun is the Earth.
Thirdly, the video posited that the universe as a whole moves with a local motion. This is irrational, illogical and impossible. While it is obvious that the universe as a whole rotates in place like a ball, since we see the heavenly bodies rotate around the earth, if you say that the entire universe moves in an elliptical orbit, you are implicitly saying there is some space in which the universe as a whole moves in that orbit, i.e. you are positing that the entire universe, as a system, is contained within some other space, through which it moves in an elliptical manner. This is a contradiction inasmuch as the universe by definition is all there is, there is nothing outside the universe in which it can move.
Yes, that other "containing space" would be something like the Aether (ether). Sungenis also makes the connection to Genesis there, with the waters above the firmament.
I hope I got these things right from memory and logic, please correct me if I'm wrong. But relativistic Geocentrism is quite interesting and feasible.
Personally I'm skeptical but open minded. Some would say that Heliocentrism contradicts the Sacred Scripture (esp. Genesis) just as much as the otehr points that are mentioned on this thread.
-
Good points.
Regarding Adam and Eve, there are some elaborate ways of explaining how "Earth", or sometimes soil, means that man was created from the same elements as his environment, so that goes down to atoms, basically. In the end all live comes from atoms in the "soil". So that'd allow for two versions of theistic evolution, one being evolution from apes and the other being supernatural creation of man from Earth, with no connection to apes. The latter is also used often by theistic evolutionists to reconcile an old universe with biblical chronology regarding humans.
When you look at the days of Genesis, the plants are created on the third day, before the sun and moon. That means the Earth should've been too cold for life to exist. Or it was already warmed up to some degree beforehand (I think Dr. Sungenis uses this explanation in his Geocentrism book). But then the temperature had to be just right to be warm enough for life on day 3, but cooled down enough for the Sun to not overheat the planet from day 4, which is quite intricate, thinking about it.
By the way, the measure of "days" was invented by humans by observing the sun (and indirectly the moon for "months"). So if the word "day" is used in Genesis, at a time where the day-night-cycle wasn't in existence yet, that's somewhat interesting.
Sure, God created man from the elements that are also in the soil. If you look at the chemical composition of soil, it's almost identical to that of the human body. Nevertheless, the Church Fathers unanimously taught that soil / earth meant soil / earth and was not some metaphor for a monkey. Genesis clearly would have stated God made man from an animal, and not from the soil, i.e. non-living matter.
We're not sure how God did it, but He created light (and presumably warmth) at the very beginning. So there was light and warmth for the plants before the sun was put into place to be a more direct source of light. But there's no way scientologists (I use a pejorative term to counter his "Biblicist" slur) would believe this. They would have to hold that the order of Creation taught in Genesis was just plain wrong. I have yet to see a credible explanation from them as to why this would not be error. All you get is the generic, "Well, the Bible isn't a science book and didn't intend to teach about science." But it did make certain statements regarding the natural world, and these they have to hold to be WRONG. Either God made the plants before the sun or He did not.
Once you allow any error into Sacred Scripture, the floodgates open. What ELSE in there might be wrong because the Bible didn't really "mean" to teach it?
-
Once you allow any error into Sacred Scripture, the floodgates open. What ELSE in there might be wrong because the Bible didn't really "mean" to teach it?
That’s the fatal problem implicit with the scientific revisionism of Biblical interpretation.
-
We're not sure how God did it,
What do you mean? He spoke and it was made :jester:
-
What do you mean? He spoke and it was made :jester:
Well, of course I mean that we don't know what did specifically. He could of course create light and heat out of nothing, with no source, or else He could have created something else to cause light and heat.
-
Scientists don’t know &!@$. It’s all a house of cards. Theories built on conjectures, attached together by guesses.
.
Science was hijacked by Freemasons going back to the Middle Ages, BEFORE GALILEO. Heck, if you believe the book of Enoch (and much I do), then science/astronomy came to man directly from the devil’s/fallen angels/nephalim. Science has been the religion if the devil/evil joos/satanist from the get go. To the Tower of Babel, Philistines, Canaanite, Greeks, Romans, etc. .
You could argue that science is a religion, in many ways. Modern science (post 1400s) is surely a cult. Modern Astronomy is simply part of witchcraft.
.
Everything we *think* we know about the universe, planets, sun, stars, etc...where did this knowledge come from? High-ranking Freemasons such as Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, DaVinci, etc, etc.
.
We all need to take a giant step back from modern science and realize much is a lie, intended to 1) erase God from the creation, 2) inflate man’s ego, and distract him from daily duties by concentrating on “billions of light years” (...how ridiculous) away 3) reduce the importance of earth, which limits the importance of Christ, His Church and our earthy battle for salvation, 4) raise the importance of science over faith/bible/church, 5) create a new industry for $.
We must be very careful when rebutting modern cosmology not to leave ourselves open to rejection by using the expression SCIENCE. The term science covers far more than astronomy, physics and cosmology for within out own households we enjoy many things due to the progress of science. Here we are debating a subject from all over the world instantly due to the progression of computer science etc. There is an endless list of subjects where science has benefited humankind, from medicine to motor-mowers to cut your grass. So be careful to distinguish that the science we are talking about that was truly hijacked is astronomy and cosmology not science in general. Cosmology of course includes the 'science' of evolution. Indeed, the very first evolutionary theory was the Nebular theory, that their solar-system evolved. After that came the evolution of the Earth and Darwin's theory. In other words evolution is the child of heliocentrism..
The history of heliocentrism goes back a long way further than Copernicus:
The word Helios for the sun comes from Helios a sun god, the son of Hyperion and Theia, thus the terms heliocentrism and heliolatry. In the Holy Scriptures (3 Kings 16:31-33) we read of Baal, Bal or Bel, the sun god of the Phoenicians, whose worship was characterised by the most scandalously impure rites. Then there were the sun gods of the Canaanites and Mithraists of Persia. Sun worshipping is also condemned in 4 Kings: 23:5-11 and Wisdom: 13:2 where it teaches ‘the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon’ were created as witness to their Creator and not ‘to be the gods that rule the world.’
‘The people worshiped the sun, moon, and stars as gods, and a knowledge of their true nature would have at once put an end to the influence of the priests, who were believed by the ignorant and superstitious crowd to be able to withhold or dispense, by prayers, invocations, and sacrifices, the divine favor. The priest of a pretended god, when once his god is exposed, stands before the world a convicted impostor. To deny the divinity of the sun, moon, and stars, or, what was the same thing, to permit science to disclose their true nature to the masses of the people was consequently held by the priesthood of Egypt as the highest of crimes. By knowledge of astronomy the priests were able to calculate and to predict eclipses of the sun and moon, events beheld with superstitious awe and fear by the multitude. Seeing how certainly these predictions, when thus made, were fulfilled, the priests were credited with the power to foretell other events, and to look into the future generally. So they cast horoscopes and assumed to be prophets.’ [1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)Robert Hewitt Brown: Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy, p.9.
Two of the most prominent gods were Re and Anu, the sun gods. Cities such as Heliopolis ‘the City of the Sun,’ to the Greeks, were built in his image. These cities regularly contained temples, most noted of all the magnificent Sun Temples ‘that once formed the sacred heart of ancient Egyptian spirituality.’ The architecture of these temples more often than not communicated a heliocentric system of six planets situated around a central fire that symbolised their sun. Then there were the pyramids, built as a stairway to the gods of the sky, their ‘towers of Babel.’ Finally, the phallic obelisks [bel], built ten times higher than their width, were consecrated to the sun-god, which, according to the historian Pliny the Elder, is the meaning of the word in Egyptian.
It is written that the Greek philosopher Pythagoras and Plato had visited Egypt to learn first-hand the ‘wisdom’ of the Egyptians. Rome’s long disapproval of Platonic philosophy resulted in the closing down in 529 AD of the Academy Plato founded in Athens in 380 BC. The Egyptians, we know; had a slightly different version of history to that of the global deluge brought about by God’s punishment of mankind as revealed in Genesis 6-9. They taught that local deluges had at times flooded and destroyed peoples and places off the face of the Earth. Ironically, today, in Catholic encyclopedias and in their Biblical notes the global deluge of Noah has been demoted to one of these pagan local floods, just as Biblical geocentrism has been rejected in favour of the pagan version of the universe, i.e., heliocentric. The gods however supposedly saved Egypt and her ancient buildings, temples and sanctuaries from all deluges. Here we see good reason why the Egyptians falsified the ages of their buildings as seen earlier. Contained in these ancient temples and sanctuaries was preserved knowledge of the origin of the world when man had fraternised with their pagan gods.
Sir Isaac Newton, having researched this subject, believed the ancients showed they understood the universe to be heliocentric. It was this investigation that convinced Newton the order of the universe was as Copernicus illustrated. In his book Burned Alive, Professor Martinez gives us the story of the early Fathers condemning many of these Pythagorean heresies, heresies that Fr Paul Robinson SSPX is now promoting worldwide in his book and to the seminarians of his priestly society under the name of Christian faith and science.
-
We need to break ourselves of Cartesianism if we want a proper understanding of Creation. Good video.
https://youtu.be/27fyOlW0Dqg
-
Cassini,
Thank you for your posts on this topic. You have great command of the subject matter!
It's an important issue and not many trads are able to see through the lies.
Fr. Robinson needs to be confronted and put on the run.
-
Well, of course I mean that we don't know what did specifically. He could of course create light and heat out of nothing, with no source, or else He could have created something else to cause light and heat.
Day 1: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
“God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights…' -- Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.
‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) (Vatican Council I, 1870)
According to the dogma just quoted, God finished His Creation, the Earth and all on it and the sky, all completed, in their whole substance. Most of the Church Fathers held this was done in a literal six-day Creation until Saint Augustine, Fr Paul Robinson tells us in his book, because Genesis says light was created before the sun, proposed that all was created complete immediately but presented in Genesis by way of a six-days to emphasise order in His creation.
If this is true, one wonders if St Augustine ever saw the night light up with lightning in the clouds above with no sun about? If St augustine came back to Earth today and went to a football match in a stadium at night, all lit up with lights, would he say you need the sun for light?
Today, we know that light is but a product of electromagnetism that exists in space. So, God, when creating natural ‘light’ on the first day, must have created universal electromagnetism that could generate light before creating the sun? Now the sun and stars were created on the 4th day to bring its light to bring day and night to the Earth. One could describe them as electric bulbs producing their light on the Earth and moon on the 4th day, not light itself.
Now do you realise what this means for true cosmology? Some of you may know Einstein and the boys have tried to find a connection between 'universal gravity,' (the name they gave to the law that moves cosmic bodies) with electromagnetism. Its called the theory of everything. They failed to do so, and the man who does make the connection will get the Nobel Prize. Well, I will show you such proof in my next post, but I don't think a geocentrist will get that Nobel prize.
-
Cassini,
Thank you for your posts on this topic. You have great command of the subject matter!
It's an important issue and not many trads are able to see through the lies.
Fr. Robinson needs to be confronted and put on the run.
Looks like Fr. Paul, the chicken-hearted logged in to Cathinfo :jester:
-
Is this a quote from the Sungenis movie? I remember being very convinced by all his arguments until it got to this part, where I almost choked on my beer. In one simple computer animation in which Sungenis showed this, I was stunned to see the entire geocentric model fall completely apart like a house of cards, and I had been a lifelong geocentrist up to that point. What he showed was basically an animation of the sun and all the stars moving in a circular or elliptical manner around the earth, which remained fixed in the center, and said that the stars were rotating around the sun, but the sun and the stars were rotating around the earth, and therefore the earth was fixed.
I meant to reply to Yeti's post above until I saw Dankward's reply that Stellar parallax will be found in the geocentric order. If it couldn't then how come in the real science of cosmology Einstein and Mach and every other cosmic physicist didn't agree with you when they made up their Special and General theory of Relativity? If you really do think you have it right I suggest you write up your paper about its beer-choking impossibility. You will be famous. And while your at it add that in your opinion not even God could create His universe geocentrically.
-
Many Traditional Catholics have been poisoned, in varying degrees, by these errors.
-
Many Traditional Catholics have been poisoned, in varying degrees, by these errors.
Yes, I'm glad you agree, modern geocentrism is a poison among traditionalists.
We all need to take a giant step back from modern science and realize much is a lie, intended to 1) erase God from the creation, 2) inflate man’s ego, and distract him from daily duties by concentrating on “billions of light years” (...how ridiculous) away 3) reduce the importance of earth, which limits the importance of Christ, His Church and our earthy battle for salvation, 4) raise the importance of science over faith/bible/church, 5) create a new industry for $.
1) Trying to understand reality does not "erase God from his creation". If it does for you, I hope you recover.
2) It's the anti-science people who brought up "billions of light years". So it is they who inflate man's ego and distract him from his daily duties by concentrating on their nonsense.
3) Non sequitur.
4) I don't see that. But if people insist on rejecting knowledge, preferring lies over the truth even in the natural order, they aren't going to get far in the supernatural order. Grace builds on nature.
5) Not sure what this says except implying you're anti-capitalist.
-
British Physicist Julian Barbour: "It is remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...
"What is the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implication is that the Earth is not moving." - Richard Wolfson, Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury College
"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative." - Henri Poincare
"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest." - Hendrick Lorentz
"No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion." - Lincoln Barnett, Einstein biographer
"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds." - George F.R. Ellis, University of Cambridge
-
Yes, I'm glad you agree, modern geocentrism is a poison among traditionalists.
Modernist ^^^
-
Now for my Nobel Prize solution to the much sought after UNIFIED FIELD THEORY looking for a relationship between universal gravity (the law that moves the universe) and electromagnetism.
Unlike Sungenis, I totally dismiss Newton's theory of gravity. Having studied Newton's life and his years into alchemy and hermetism, there is no doubt he did more of the Devil's work than anyone.
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.
‘There is in addition its gigantic gravitational pull, a force or tension more than what a million, million steel rods, each seventeen feet in diameter, could stand. What mechanism transmits this gigantic force?’--- Sir Bertram Windle
Now let us puit the mass of the Earth to the test. Place a steel marble on the ground. Newton says its the mass of the Earth that holds the steel marble on the ground. Now go get a little magnet and place it above the marble. Up it goes showing that if Newton was right then a little magnet is infinitly more attractive than the whole mass of the Earth. If Newton’s theory of gravity is true, and it is determined by the ‘mass’ of the two bodies in question, then the pull of this little magnet’s attraction is thus calculated to be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than Newton’s ‘mass’ gravity of the whole Earth.
Ok, so much for theory, now for some facts. I notice a few posts refer to 'elliptical' orbits of cosmic bodies. Well there is a history for these ellipses. It began when Kepler, using Tycho de Brahe's calculations worked out a compromise orbit, an ellipse. It was then taken up by Newton who baserd his theories on Kepler's ellipse. But when astronomers looked for planets on their supposed elliptical orbits they went missing now and again. Thus Newton had to invent a 'perturbation theory' to account for the missing planets, that gravity from other planets attracted them off their course.
In the meantime, Domenico Cassini worked out the true orbits of the sun and planets and found they are Cassinian ovals, a never challenged discovery, just ignored by the Earthmovers.
Later it was discovered Cassinian ovals are found in positive magnetic effects. Accordingly, orbits of the sun and planets are electromagnetic curves.
Now on to stellar aberration. Einstein's Relativity falls apart when trying to show both the heliocentric anf geocentric orders can be switched from one to the other according to Einstein's relativity. Geocentric stellar aberration requires that the orbits of the sun and stars move on the same course around the Earth. For this to happen the stars must also move in cassinian ovals. Thus cassinian ovals, which are related to magnetic courses, show the universe is under the infl;uence of electromagnetism. This in turn shows that when God created light it was indeed an electromagnertism throughout the universe.
That then is my unified field theory of the relationship between cosmic movements and electromagnetism but I do not expect the Nobel prize for it. You see Cassini was a geocentrist.
-
Ladislaus, you're just quote mining like a Protestant. They don't say what you seem to think.
British Physicist Julian Barbour: "It is remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...
"Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense. The basic standpoint of this book, hinted at in Chapter 1, is that correct insights into the interconnections of things are apt to suggest concepts of the world and reality that go far beyond the objective facts from which they spring and are suggested. Sooner or later they are shown to be gross distortions of the truth even though they may have done sterling service in the meantime and helped to uncover numerous further objective interconnections between observed phenomena.
Good theories contain high truth content even though they do not tell us the final truth about the world. The measure of their truth content is their ability to make predictions. Ptolemy's theory of the planetary motions had a high truth content because, on the basis of past observations, he was able to predict, with very reasonable accuracy, how the heavens would appear at any time in the future as seen from the surface of the earth. The really dramatic advance that the Copernican revolution brought was that it extended the ability to predict the appearance of the heavens at any date in the future from the surface of the earth to any point in the solar system (in principle, in fact, to the entire universe). Thus, the astronauts knew what the universe would look like from the moon before they got there. This helps to put residual difficulties about the problem of the precise sense in which the earth does or does not move into their proper perspective - while also emphasising that these very same difficulties often give hints of the direction in which new theories will develop, usually with the most profound consequences."
The Discovery of Dynamics, Julian B Barbour, Oxford University Press, Kindle Edition, ref. 2 Jul, 2020
The second quote:
"What is the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implication is that the Earth is not moving." - Richard Wolfson, Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury College
"I want to emphasise this about this experiment. This is not an experiment to measure the speed of light in two mutually perpendicular directions. It's an experiment to determine whether the speed of light differs in two mutually perpendicular directions, and the way we detect that difference is by looking at the interference pattern. One case, we learn nothing from that single case. We rotate the apparatus, and we see if the interference pattern shifts, and the amount of shift tells us something about how different the times were along those two paths.
... [skipping a few paragraphs]
It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? Well, the conservative conclusion is there's no fringe shift. But what's the implication of that conclusion? The implication of that conclusion is the earth is not moving relative to the ether. If the earth were moving relative to the ether, the path lengths, the times to travel the two paths in the Michelson-Morley apparatus would have differed either at different times of year or in different orientations. We would have detected that as a shift in the interference pattern, a shift that was easily measurable for speeds much less than the known speed of the earth in its orbit, and we would have seen that shift."
Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution, Modern Physics for Non-Scientists, 2nd Edition, Richard Wolfson, The Great Courses, Lecture 6: Earth and the Ether
"... relative to the ether". Hmm. Kind of a big omission there, Laddy.
I'm not going to bother with the others. If you cared at all about the truth, you would act differently.
As usual, it takes much less time to lie than it does to correct that lie.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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" ?
-
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:
-
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"
-
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?
Instead you try to discredit him and use Ad Hominums.
But apparently calling someone a heretic is perfectly OK with you?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
But apparently calling someone a heretic is perfectly OK with you?
You called him a Protestant
-
But apparently calling someone a heretic is perfectly OK with you?
You called him a Protestant
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/fr-paul-robinson-sspx-v-young-earth-creationists/msg767629/#msg767629
-
You called him a Protestant
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/fr-paul-robinson-sspx-v-young-earth-creationists/msg767629/#msg767629
That was a Modernist statement. Ladislaus was correct
-
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::
.
-
.
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?
-
Is the earth on the back of a crab or a turtle in that picture?
I believe a turtle is supporting three Indian elephants, who in turn support the disc of our green earth.
-
I believe a turtle is supporting three Indian elephants, who in turn support the disc of our green earth.
:laugh1:
-
I have seen no convincing evidence that the earth is a globe either, rather than flat.
People figured out over 2000 years ago the earth was round. If you have seen "no convincing evidence" yet, then I doubt it's possible to "convince" you of anything.
Also, I uploaded that turtle shadow (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/shadows-eclipses-phases-prove-moon-is-not-a-globe/msg630947/#msg630947) almost 3 years ago.
-
LOL! Maybe you're where I got that picture in the first place. Anyway, I almost died laughing when I saw it, and I was in proximate danger of dying from the same cause for almost a week after seeing it. I believe I saw that image with the caption, "Flat earth eclipses are AWESOME!!!" :laugh2:
-
For that matter, I have seen no convincing evidence that the earth is a globe either, rather than flat.
You haven't seen "convincing evidence that the earth is a globe" --- so far ok, that's just a lack of education --- but then you say: "rather than flat."
Did you see convincing evidence that the earth is flat?
-
There’s a ton of evidence which strongly suggests that the earth is flat. I’m still on the fence about it, but I’m willing to look at the evidence unlike you brainwashed fools.
-
Did you see convincing evidence that the earth is flat?
:popcorn:
.
There’s a ton of evidence which strongly suggests that the earth is flat. I’m still on the fence about it, but I’m willing to look at the evidence unlike you brainwashed fools.
.
Brainwashed by whom? I just told you Aristotle knew the earth was a sphere 400 years before Christ. And Eratosthenes, more or less a contemporary of Aristotle, actually measured the circuмference of the earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_Earth's_circuмference) with startling accuracy using a couple of sticks in the ground and basically a ruler. He got within about 2% of the correct measurement. The human race has always known the earth is round. The idea that the earth is flat is a modern phenomenon invented in Victorian England.
.
EDIT: errors
-
I believe a turtle is supporting three Indian elephants, who in turn support the disc of our green earth.
Some Sunni Saracens believe that the earth is on the back of a whale and the whale is on the head of a bull.
Earthquakes happen when the bull aggressively spasms.
EDIT: Reviewed Hadith on story to correct original post.
-
Nah. All the beasts are above the earth:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Stadtmusikanten_vor_ULF-1.jpg/800px-Stadtmusikanten_vor_ULF-1.jpg)
-
Is the earth on the back of a crab or a turtle in that picture?
It looked like a spider there for a second. Shelob is real guys, just about 10 trillion times the size Tolkien said she was.
-
There’s a ton of evidence which strongly suggests that the earth is flat. I’m still on the fence about it, but I’m willing to look at the evidence unlike you brainwashed fools.
Your kidding, right?
-
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-09/12/11/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-01/sub-buzz-13197-1505231830-3.jpg?downsize=700%3A%2A&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto)
-
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?
No, I do not have a PHd in physics, I don't need one in this case. I figured that one out to show Newton's gravity theory is not the law its made out to be. Two heaver objects, the Earth and a cannonball, according to Newton, have a greater attraction towards one another than the Earth and a feather. But, as is known, both fall at the same rate, which to me shows Newton's mass attraction theory is flawed. That was my point.
-
No, I’m not kidding. There’s loads of evidence, from experiments conducted to demonstrate that objects are still visible from distances at which they should not be given curvature of the earth, to evidence using sensitive GPS equipment from many miles away demonstrating that tall buildings are not leaning away from each other as they should given earth’s curvature. Phases of the moon are easily explainable if given the paradigm that the sun and moon are much closer to the earth than scientists claim and rotating in circles above the plane of the earth. They’ve done experiments with lasers across large bodies of water where the laser continues to hit its target on a small boat at distances where it should not have been possible given curvature math.
-
Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 03:04:29 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/fr-paul-robinson-sspx-v-young-earth-creationists/msg767636/#msg767636)
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" ?
Ok Stanley, let us recall what the top physicists in history have said about 'no experiment ever demonstrated the motion of the Earth.
‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus [and Galileo] taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18.
‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [heliocentrism] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment ever proved the Earth is in motion.”’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover Publications, 1948, p.73.
Richard Dawkins himself has admitted: ‘It is not actually provable that the Earth orbits the Sun, but it is perverse to deny it.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)Richard Dawkins, speaking on gαy Byrne’s The Meaning of Life, RTE, 18th Oct. 2015.
Finally
‘Nobody that I know of in my field of theoretical physics uses the “so called scientific method.”’ --- Michio Kaku; theoretical physicist at the City College of New York, a best-selling author, and a well-known populariser of science. (Wiki)
Now Stanley, you go show that lot above you know better.
-
No, I do not have a PHd in physics, I don't need one in this case. I figured that one out to show Newton's gravity theory is not the law its made out to be. Two heaver objects, the Earth and a cannonball, according to Newton, have a greater attraction towards one another than the Earth and a feather. But, as is known, both fall at the same rate, which to me shows Newton's mass attraction theory is flawed. That was my point.
Even scientists admit that they have never been able to explain or even to prove the existence of gravity. They can’t explain how objects can act upon one another at a distance. If you were to put two metal balls on a table, gravity should, if ever so slightly, draw them closer to one another, but no such movement has ever been detected. Gravity is nothing but conjecture. I have seen theories where the behaviors formerly attributed to gravity are actually due to electromagnetism. I’ve even come across a theory where a flow of ether causes the behavior. Again, we hav generations of people brainwashed into believing in gravity ... when even scientists admit they have no clue what it is and how it works. Same with evolution. Even top scientists are discarding it, but kids are still brainwashed in schools into believing that it’s proven fact.
-
You haven't seen "convincing evidence that the earth is a globe" --- so far ok, that's just a lack of education --- but then you say: "rather than flat."
Did you see convincing evidence that the earth is flat?
There's a lot of info regarding the flat earth on this subforum (Fighting Errors in the Modern World). Just go to the main subforum page, and you'll see the heading that says...."The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism," and click on the Flat Earth in that heading, and you'll see a bunch of threads on FE. That is, if you are really interested in studying it. Most forum members are against it without really looking into it.
-
It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? Well, the conservative conclusion is there's no fringe shift. But what's the implication of that conclusion? The implication of that conclusion is the earth is not moving relative to the ether. If the earth were moving relative to the ether, the path lengths, the times to travel the two paths in the Michelson-Morley apparatus would have differed either at different times of year or in different orientations. We would have detected that as a shift in the interference pattern, a shift that was easily measurable for speeds much less than the known speed of the earth in its orbit, and we would have seen that shift."
Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution, Modern Physics for Non-Scientists, 2nd Edition, Richard Wolfson, The Great Courses, Lecture 6: Earth and the Ether
"... relative to the ether". Hmm. Kind of a big omission there, Laddy.
I'm not going to bother with the others. If you cared at all about the truth, you would act differently.
As usual, it takes much less time to lie than it does to correct that lie.
'the conservative conclusion is there's no fringe shift.' Sorry Stanley, but there was a fringe.
In fact, this costly and intricate test discovered movement above five kilometres a second, far shorter than the required 30 kilometres per second predicted, but some sort of movement nevertheless. Michelson believed this was a valid demonstration, and even with a margin of error due to human or mechanical shortfalls he believed the 5kms a second interference did show the existence of ether and that it was not altogether dragged along with the Earth as Freshnel’s theory had speculated.
In 1897, Michelson summarised the situation as follows: ‘In any case we are driven to extraordinary consequences and the choice lies between these three:
1) The Earth passes through the ether (or rather allows the ether to pass through its entire mass) without appreciable influence.
2) The length of all bodies is altered (equally) by their motion through ether.
3) The Earth in motion drags with it the ether even at distances of many thousands of kilometres from its surface.’ - Swenson: Ethereal Aether, p.118.
Michelson, we see, was desperate. His first conclusion is a viable theory if the small 3.5kms/s was not found. His second option is of course the Irishman Fitzgerald’s wacky ad hoc. For his third option he chooses the ether-drag theory that Sir Oliver Lodge seems to have falsified five years earlier in 1892. Incredibly however - for these men were after all, supposed to be the world’s leading physicists - Michelson omitted a fourth logical possibility based on the outcome of the experiment; 4) that the Earth does not orbit the sun, but that the geocentric universe rotating around the stationary Earth every day could well be the reason for the interferometer’s 3.5 kms/s interference found (or later when less than 3.5kms/s was found). Now unless all options are considered, the test-results are not being addressed according to the true scientific method.
-
There's a lot of info regarding the flat earth on this subforum (Fighting Errors in the Modern World). Just go to the main subforum page, and you'll see the heading that says...."The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism," and click on the Flat Earth in that heading, and you'll see a bunch of threads on FE. That is, if you are really interested in studying it. Most forum members are against it without really looking into it.
Most people in general are against it ... without any examination whatsoever. I am not 100% convinced, but I will look at the evidence. What I have issues with are those who dismiss it out of hand and refuse to consider both sides of the argument. That's very dangerous, to "trust the science," as we have seen with the entire COVID scenario ... or to trust almost anything that the modern world tells us. THAT is when people get manipulated and brainwashed. They use mockery and derision, instead of making actual arguments. There are two big clues to me that the flat-earthers are in fact onto something.
1) flat-earth theory has been actively ruthlessly suppressed by big tech ... Google, youtube, etc. To find any information you have to go to the Russian search engine Yandex. Why would they bother if there's nothing to it? Would they bother to suppress some really crackpot theory, about how purple aliens from the planet Neptune run the world? They wouldn't waste their resources on suppressing that.
2) on "debunking" sites, the answers to some of the flat earth evidence are usually lame ... with a constant appeal to "refraction" and then ignoring the stuff they can't address, dismissing it with ad hominem attacks and mockery.
Look at the evidence against your position, and if you have an answer for it, then fine. But at least look at it before dismissing it with mockery and derision.
I used to dismiss it as well. I never mocked or ridiculed it, but I did dismiss it. Once I actually looked at some of the evidence presented by flat-earthers, I really had no answer for most of it, and that left me scratching my head. Unless all this evidence is simply made up and the videos I've seen are complete hoaxes, there's definitely something to it.
-
Even scientists admit that they have never been able to explain or even to prove the existence of gravity. They can’t explain how objects can act upon one another at a distance. If you were to put two metal balls on a table, gravity should, if ever so slightly, draw them closer to one another, but no such movement has ever been detected. Gravity is nothing but conjecture. I have seen theories where the behaviors formerly attributed to gravity are actually due to electromagnetism. I’ve even come across a theory where a flow of ether causes the behavior. Again, we hav generations of people brainwashed into believing in gravity ... when even scientists admit they have no clue what it is and how it works. Same with evolution. Even top scientists are discarding it, but kids are still brainwashed in schools into believing that it’s proven fact.
Understanding Gravity:[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hidden. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).
To say Newton solved the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or deceitful for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on Earth, and indeed on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the Earth’s global structure from space, as man can do now, (and the Moon's) we see its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same Earth everybody on its surface has the sky above and the Earth below. Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let us put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global Earth. Now, no matter where we head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the sphere as we head towards it, somehow, by the time we land, we always end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the Earth is always below us. When does the ‘head-under-heels twist’ happen, we ask? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down,’ yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies. How does this happen? ‘It is all because of gravity’ we are told, and thank God for it we say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent state of chaos.
There are, of course, many other known functions served by ‘gravity.’ Experience has shown us that without Earth’s gravity men could not/cannot survive for very long. The ability of our bodily parts to function properly, for example, is totally dependent on the Earth’s perfectly created gravity, and it is this dependency that will make long-term space travel for humans almost impossible, without even considering the effects of radiation. Forget all that hype and nonsense written about men ‘conquering space.’ The truth is that in apparently gravity-absent (weightless) space the human body will eventually break down. First muscle tissue would start to degenerate for want of proper gravity-resisting exercise. Then the bones weaken, start to lose calcium and become brittle. The heart, no longer having to pump blood against the effect of gravity, loses strength and vigour. In time other physical defects would begin to show, such as bodily fluids shifting around causing swelling in various parts of our anatomy. Thereafter physical and mental stress as well as exhaustion would set in. Back on Earth no such problems exist, thanks to the Earth’s ‘gravity.’ All living creatures can exist on its surface where they belong with perfect health and mobility, and the weight of a glass of wine and cigar just perfect.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)From the Latin gravitás, meaning heavy.
-
No, I do not have a PHd in physics, I don't need one in this case. I figured that one out to show Newton's gravity theory is not the law its made out to be. Two heaver objects, the Earth and a cannonball, according to Newton, have a greater attraction towards one another than the Earth and a feather. But, as is known, both fall at the same rate, which to me shows Newton's mass attraction theory is flawed. That was my point.
I didn't say PhD, I said basic physics, the knowledge one should have a few weeks into a high school physics class. And I explained why you were wrong. You still don't get it?
I am amused by the people you quoted. Bertrand Russell? I'm sure you accept everything else he has written. :laugh1: A decently-educated undergrad can see though many of his errors because Russell too-frequently wrote outside his expertise. And Dawkins? Someone else a good Catholic should trust. :laugh1: His field of expertise is not physics or astronomy. I expect you would reject him within his field of expertise, but you accept what he has to say outside his field?
The quote mining is not helping you.
-
Most people in general are against it ... without any examination whatsoever. I am not 100% convinced, but I will look at the evidence. What I have issues with are those who dismiss it out of hand and refuse to consider both sides of the argument.
Why do you think I, for example, "refuse to consider both sides"? Perhaps I already have considered them and found your side wanting.
What does "considering both sides" entail? Do I have to give each "side" 50% of my time and keep it an "open question", when it's not?
Are you still considering "both sides" of ancient aliens, or lizard people running government, or who wrote Frankenstein?
We don't have time to resolve every issue with every position. We decide these on somewhat limited info as a prudential decision. If new info comes along I'll give it some consideration, but on some issues - flat earth - the evidence renders it so unlikely to be true that it's not worth seeking more evidence. I also don't consider it a very important topic.
On more important issues, I DO seek info that challenges my conclusions. (That's partly why I read cathino :laugh1:). For example, I think the evidence strongly points to an old earth, but I have read several young-earth creationist books. Probably more than you have (I'm assuming you're YEC). Have you tried to challenge your beliefs? How many old earth books have you read?
Even scientists admit that they have never been able to explain or even to prove the existence of gravity. They can’t explain how objects can act upon one another at a distance.
Your writing is so imprecise. Gravity obviously "exists" - we stay on the ground. The exact mechanics of how it works at a quantum level may not entirely be resolved yet. It was only a few years ago equipment became good enough to successfully observe gravitational waves. And you're really over-stating by claiming they "can't explain" action at a distance. There certainly are explanations, and gravitational waves help to resolve those explanations.
-
Most people in general are against it ... without any examination whatsoever. I am not 100% convinced, but I will look at the evidence. What I have issues with are those who dismiss it out of hand and refuse to consider both sides of the argument. That's very dangerous, to "trust the science," as we have seen with the entire COVID scenario ... or to trust almost anything that the modern world tells us. THAT is when people get manipulated and brainwashed. They use mockery and derision, instead of making actual arguments. There are two big clues to me that the flat-earthers are in fact onto something.
1) flat-earth theory has been actively ruthlessly suppressed by big tech ... Google, youtube, etc. To find any information you have to go to the Russian search engine Yandex. Why would they bother if there's nothing to it? Would they bother to suppress some really crackpot theory, about how purple aliens from the planet Neptune run the world? They wouldn't waste their resources on suppressing that.
2) on "debunking" sites, the answers to some of the flat earth evidence are usually lame ... with a constant appeal to "refraction" and then ignoring the stuff they can't address, dismissing it with ad hominem attacks and mockery.
Look at the evidence against your position, and if you have an answer for it, then fine. But at least look at it before dismissing it with mockery and derision.
I used to dismiss it as well. I never mocked or ridiculed it, but I did dismiss it. Once I actually looked at some of the evidence presented by flat-earthers, I really had no answer for most of it, and that left me scratching my head. Unless all this evidence is simply made up and the videos I've seen are complete hoaxes, there's definitely something to it.
Well said. It's interesting that FE is being suppressed by Google, youtube, etc. Indeed, why would they bother if they thought there was nothing to it?
I don't want to derail Cassini's thread here, so I might start another thread on this subject. Hopefully it won't become too rancorous.
-
Flat Earth works, in my opinion, as a great exercise in skepticism of scientism. But, I don't believe it is true.
-
Why do you think I, for example, "refuse to consider both sides"? Perhaps I already have considered them and found your side wanting.
No, you haven't. Given your attitude of mockery, it's obvious that you have not considered it with any seriousness.
Your arrogance in favor of modern science is what I object to. I doubt that cassini agrees about flat earth, but he's someone I could have a serious discussion with about, and we could agree to disagree, but your militant defense of all things modern science makes it a non-starter.
Same things holds of other issues. I can have discussions with some R&R folks, but not with others, because they're openly hostile and are clearly not open to honestly debating the issues.
-
Flat Earth works, in my opinion, as a great exercise in skepticism of scientism. But, I don't believe it is true.
Right, even if one does not ultimately come to the conclusion about Flat Earth, studying the subject leads down a lot of paths that expose the fallacies and the fraud of much that is modern science.
-
Well said. It's interesting that FE is being suppressed by Google, youtube, etc. Indeed, why would they bother if they thought there was nothing to it?
I don't want to derail Cassini's thread here, so I might start another thread on this subject. Hopefully it won't become too rancorous.
I agree. I mentioned it in passing, without any intent to debate it. Of course, some of the posters pounced on it and launched into their derision and mockery. If they want to debate the subject, they can go to the FE subforum. As soon as you see derision and mockery, you know you're not dealing with someone who is intellectually honest. It's one thing to say, no, I don't believe it, quite another to deride and to mock it.
-
Ladislaus, RADAR in the military can only go so far because of the Earths curvature. Also what about the fact I can fly from California to China and from China due west I'll end up in the East Coast.
-
Ladislaus, RADAR in the military can only go so far because of the Earths curvature. Also what about the fact I can fly from California to China and from China due west I'll end up in the East Coast.
Great question. Another one is why does the sun *rise* exactly an hour later in each time zone to the west. Or for that matter, why is it ever dark anywhere if the sun is always above the flat earth?
-
I didn't say PhD, I said basic physics, the knowledge one should have a few weeks into a high school physics class. And I explained why you were wrong. You still don't get it?
I am amused by the people you quoted. Bertrand Russell? I'm sure you accept everything else he has written. :laugh1: A decently-educated undergrad can see though many of his errors because Russell too-frequently wrote outside his expertise. And Dawkins? Someone else a good Catholic should trust. :laugh1: His field of expertise is not physics or astronomy. I expect you would reject him within his field of expertise, but you accept what he has to say outside his field?
The quote mining is not helping you.
Stanley, are you a disciple of Fr. Paul in Colorado? Is he your confessor?
Then you should know,
Fr. Robinson’s “realist’s guide to science”, contains a forward written by a physicist heretic, Fr. Stanley Jaki.
I personally posted reams of information debunking Jaki’s errors. For example, on evolution, he is a flaming chump.
He agrees with Teihard de Chardin S. J. that modern scientists are wiser than our Church Fathers.
Do you known Teihard has been found out to be an apostate conspirator and fraud?
Man you are on the wrong boat.
Better to save yourself while there’s still time.
-
He agrees with Teihard de Chardin S. J. that modern scientists are wiser than our Church Fathers.
More intelligent, arguably. But wiser? Utter blasphemy.
-
Great question. Another one is why does the sun *rise* exactly an hour later in each time zone to the west. Or for that matter, why is it ever dark anywhere if the sun is always above the flat earth?
There are answers to all this, but I want to respect cassini's thread and not derail it. Perhaps we could take it up in the FE subforum. Unfortunately, most of us don't keep up with that because it's hidden away and you don't get notifications of new posts that show up. I opened a can of worms by mentioning it in passing.
-
More intelligent, arguably. But wiser? Utter blasphemy.
I wouldn't even say more intelligent. There are certain facts that we know that they did not know, but that's about it.
-
Stephen Hawking, too, admits that their model is based on ideology, and that they have no proof against a geocentric model:
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!
Note: Friedmann’s second assumption is the so called cosmological principle.
P.S.: A PDF is available on libgen.is. Just search for the title. Then search for "modesty" in the PDF.
-
Criticism
Karl Popper criticized the cosmological principle on the grounds that it makes "our lack of knowledge a principle of knowing something". He summarized his position as:
the “cosmological principles” were, I fear, dogmas that should not have been proposed.
-
Yes, I'm glad you agree, modern geocentrism is a poison among traditionalists.
[...]
As far as I'm aware there is no definitive proof of Heliocentrism, or rather, you can't disprove Geocentrism. By simply observing the relative motion of celestial bodies you can't prove anything (according to Einstein, where he was right for once ::)).
Do you have arguments that prove Heliocentrism, and/or arguments that disprove Geocentrism?
Edit:
As Marion mentioned above:
Stephen Hawking, too, admits that their model is based on ideology, and that they have no proof against a geocentric model:
Note: Friedmann’s second assumption is the so called cosmological principle.
P.S.: A PDF is available on libgen.is. Just search for the title. Then search for "modesty" in the PDF.
-
George F. R. Ellis
"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. "
Albert Michelson
"The conclusion (of the Michelson interferometer experiment) contradicts the explanation that the Earth moves"
Einstein
"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
"The two sentences 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest' are simply two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems"
Max Tegmark
"The pendulum has swung all the way and started to come back on the Copernican principle."
Isaac Newton
"celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system."
Henrick Lorentz
"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest."
Henri Poincaré
"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative."
Steven Weinberg
"If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory."
Stephen Hawking
"our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."
"if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe... or the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too... We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption."
Edwin Hubble
"This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort"
"We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs."
"Such a favored position is intolerable".
Lawrence Krauss
"when you look at CMB 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...That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
-
George F. R. Ellis
"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. "
Albert Michelson
"The conclusion (of the Michelson interferometer experiment) contradicts the explanation that the Earth moves"
Einstein
"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
"The two sentences 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest' are simply two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems"
Max Tegmark
"The pendulum has swung all the way and started to come back on the Copernican principle."
Isaac Newton
"celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system."
Henrick Lorentz
"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest."
Henri Poincaré
"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative."
Steven Weinberg
"If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory."
Stephen Hawking
"our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."
"if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe... or the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too... We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption."
Edwin Hubble
"This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort"
"We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs."
"Such a favored position is intolerable".
Lawrence Krauss
"when you look at CMB 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...That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
How about that Stanley? Now, do an ad hominem on that lot.
-
Your arrogance in favor of modern science is what I object to.
.
:facepalm: Lad, why do you keep saying that round earthism is an idea of modern science? It isn't. I just told you Aristotle proved the earth was round 400 years before Christ, because only a sphere could cast a shadow onto the moon that is always perfectly round. Every advanced civilization in history, just about, has believed that the earth is round, and the contrary opinion was basically invented by a 19th-century con artist named Samuel Rowbotham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham) started the Universal Zetetic Society which published tracts arguing that the earth is flat. That society was composed mostly of leftist radicals.
-
Okay, I stand corrected. Wikipedia says the classical age Greeks were the first ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#History) to discover the shape of the earth. But that still takes us back to the beginning of western civilization. I also forgot to mention that the fact that ships disappear from the bottom upwards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#/media/File:Curvatura_2.gif) as they sail away from you was also considered proof that the earth is round. Indeed it is. Strabo argued this around the time of Christ.
.
-
"If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory."
Very nice quotes, Hermes, thanks. I believe those are from Sungenis' Geocentrism book?
Regarding the motion of the galaxies - they'd have to rotate around the world once a day, wouldn't theyBut wouldn't this rotation have to occur daily? In the Heliocentric model, Earth
Stephen Hawking
"This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort"
"We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs."
"Such a favored position is intolerable".
"unwelcome position"... "avoided at all costs"... "intolerable" - but science way beyond any doubt, bias or ideology. :jester:
.
:facepalm: Lad, why do you keep saying that round earthism is an idea of modern science? It isn't. I just told you Aristotle proved the earth was round 400 years before Christ, because only a sphere could cast a shadow onto the moon that is always perfectly round. Every advanced civilization in history, just about, has believed that the earth is round, and the contrary opinion was basically invented by a 19th-century con artist named Samuel Rowbotham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham) started the Universal Zetetic Society which published tracts arguing that the earth is flat. That society was composed mostly of lҽϝƚιsƚ radicals.
The ancient Egyptians for example (among other cultures) believed the world to be flat, and limited to the Nile area, because that was all they knew.
-
Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12047a.htm) both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02025a.htm) by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm)), but the physicist (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12047a.htm) by means of matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) itself.
.
Summa Theologiae, Ia pars, Q. 1, Art. 1, ad 2um
.
Did St. Thomas Aquinas get brainwashed by NASA?
-
.
Summa Theologiae, Ia pars, Q. 1, Art. 1, ad 2um
.
Did St. Thomas Aquinas get brainwashed by NASA?
He did. NASA had a time machine from an ancient alien civilization :jester:
-
Even according to Newtonian physics, heliocentrism is incorrect. In his system, the planets would all revolve around the barycenter of the solar system, and not the sun per se, and occasionally this barycenter is outside of the sun. Then of course the original notion of heliocentrism where the sun was fixed in place is wrong, as scientists allegedly hold that the entire solar system is moving through space, and then the entire galaxy, etc. According to Newton, the only fixed point in the entire universe would be at the very barycenter of the universe. No one can prove that is not the earth.
-
We are mere humans. We can't really see beyond a certain point. We think we can figure it all out in an exact manner - that which God has created. But can we really do that?
-
There are answers to all this, but I want to respect cassini's thread and not derail it. Perhaps we could take it up in the FE subforum. Unfortunately, most of us don't keep up with that because it's hidden away and you don't get notifications of new posts that show up. I opened a can of worms by mentioning it in passing.
I see now. I was asking about this elsewhere.
Why would flat earth be hidden away?
This is such an open forum with regards to almost every topic. Hmm...
It always strikes me strange that flat earth is such taboo.
It's almost a spiritual topic in that it evokes such anger and mocking contempt in people and a refusal to even look at the evidence.
The laaaaassst thing anyone wants to be is a "flat earther" after all.
But why does anyone have to be identified as such.
Can't people be just be humans asking questions? Looking at the science.
It's like daring to point out Trump's history of partying with Epstein and Maxwell his whole life automatically means that you somehow support Hillary or Biden.
Can't you just be a person looking at evidence?
Nope. Not allowed. You have to be one or the other.
And either you are for the vax or you are a dreaded anti-science "anti-vaxxer".
Polarization.
And certain subjects are just so embarrassing that you have to hide them away...
strange....makes me want to look all the more!
God reveals truth to the humble.
-
We are mere humans. We can't really see beyond a certain point. We think we can figure it all out in an exact manner - that which God has created. But can we really do that?
It's not so hard to figure out that flat earthers fall for a sham, initiated (reinvented) by Eric Dubai, probably to additionally dumb down people.
-
Okay, I'll just discuss some anomalies of the Helio Ball Hypothesis for a bit then:
Hurling through space yet the stars are the same for thousands of years?
2min but a few secs will do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiZxEno-cP0
It's Ein Sof/Kabbalah/de Jardin/ever expanding with black matter/wormholes/reaching the omega point/big bang/etc.
Where is the firmament?
How can water bend or curve? Nope. Always level.
Nikon p900 or p1000 cameras prove the ships don't go over a curve at the horizon. Nor is the Chicago skyline bending over the curve with the lower part hidden below the curve when viewed from the other side of the lake. After only 3miles the lower parts of the buildings should be hidden below the curve.
I posted in another thread that Mary is Queen of Heaven and Earth not of the universe. Why?
At Fatima she was seen going through a doorway in the firmament. The sun careening to earth wouldn't work if it's as large as they say and wouldn't zigzag back into the sky.
When we fly from Los Angeles to London we go over the arctic...why? And southern plane patterns make no sense on ball earth. There are emergency landings that make no sense on a ball earth as well.
At the top of Mountains near the ocean there is no visible curve in any direction even though they should begin at 3miles away. There should be a curve to your left and right.
It goes on and on. Helio Ball earth never made sense. It's a religion. When I asked some pilots some of these questions one of them told me I needed to be a freemason to know the answers. That was back in the 90's and I had no idea what Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was back then.
Astronauts are all high level freemasons.
They lied about going to the moon. Not hard to figure that one out. What else are they lying about?
Nasa admits there are no pictures of the earth only artist renderings. Same with planets. They have full time artists on staff. It's like the virus "photos" we are led to believe are real but are just artist renderings.
Nikon p900 or 1000 cameras show planets to be plasma lights not solid rock.
When ancients talk about the earth being round or being a globe it could possibly mean other things. On a flat earth it is round, just not a ball. And a globe earth could be contained inside a globe with a firmament.
Antarctica is a big question which may have some answers. I'd also like to know why Francis and Kirill felt the need to go there??? Do they have a large following there???
9:43 sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6W2jdZsW6PcV/
Hard to discuss these topics without at least giving consideration to the flat earth model.
-
My apologies. The Antarctica video actually explains that using the Pythagorean theorem and spherical earth dimensions the photo of the city of Chicago from across the lake in Michigan would be impossible.
The tallest building would be 900 feet below the horizon.
-
I see now. I was asking about this elsewhere.
Why would flat earth be hidden away?
This is such an open forum with regards to almost every topic. Hmm...
It always strikes me strange that flat earth is such taboo.
It's almost a spiritual topic in that it evokes such anger and mocking contempt in people and a refusal to even look at the evidence.
The laaaaassst thing anyone wants to be is a "flat earther" after all.
But why does anyone have to be identified as such.
Can't people be just be humans asking questions? Looking at the science.
It's like daring to point out Trump's history of partying with Epstein and Maxwell his whole life automatically means that you somehow support Hillary or Biden.
Can't you just be a person looking at evidence?
Nope. Not allowed. You have to be one or the other.
And either you are for the vax or you are a dreaded anti-science "anti-vaxxer".
Polarization.
And certain subjects are just so embarrassing that you have to hide them away...
strange....makes me want to look all the more!
God reveals truth to the humble.
Fair enough Miser. Now while I appreciate others not wanting to derail the rebuttal of Fr Paul Robinson's heretical Big Bang creation on my behalf, let me address the subject. First I have no doubt that the Fr Robinsons would try to undermine the geocentric position if it is coupled with flat-earthism. Personally I have no problem with anyone holding this position. Their defense of it is very impressive and they do seem to have covered all objections. But here is the bit that they cannot cope with, that is, today we have all sorts of cameras in space that show us images of a curved Earth. Now the FlEers have to dismiss these as real or as designed to send back false images to fool the world. Then there is the science of geodesy that has been used for ages to measure the shape of the Earth.
Finally here is the history of the subject;
'It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few flat-earthers, Leukippos and Demokritos for example, by the time of Eratosthenes (300 BC), followed by Strabo (300 BC), Crates (200 BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans. Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few at least two and at most five early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
“All persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the Earth was round. The Venerable Bede (673-735AD) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (700-784AD), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (1195-1256). It informed that not only the Earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn2)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)Jeffrey Russell: summary of Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997)
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref2)Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
Note the statue of the Child of Prague holding a global Earth with the Cross on top of it. Globus Crucriger had long represented Christian God’s reign over the Earth. Further devotion to the image began in 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara took the statue of infant Jesus to Czechoslovakia from Spain. It is now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague, an object of veneration.’
Then there is the Miraculous Medal. Its design was given to St Catherine Labouré by the Blessed Virgin Mary in Rue du Bac Paris in 1830. In her medal the Virgin stands upon Satan the snake atop a section of a globe, representing the entire world. Now our world is centred on the Earth, a globe from which Our Lady ascended into heaven and on which Mary will crush the head of the snake. Then there is the global moon, which is also associated with the Virgin Mary, reflecting as it does the light of the sun, just as Mary reflects the light of her Son who is in Heaven.
The shape of the Earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also indicated to them the Earth as a sphere Then there is the science of geodesy, the mathematics dealing with the shape and area of the Earth, when extended to long distances, shows a sphere. The only ‘flat-earthers’ existing in the seventeenth century churchmen who condemned Galileo and his fixed-sun heresy exist only in the sceptics’ minds and prejudices. It seems some individuals in the past, and indeed in the present, did/do claim the Bible teaches the Earth is flat, while others asserted it revealed the Earth is a globe. That the Earth is a globe was the majority conclusion of ancient reasoning. Anaximander (610-546BC), pupil of Thales, is credited in D. Cassini’s 1693 book as being one of the first to represent the earthly globe.
-
A few at least two and at most five early Christian fathers denied the spherically of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements.
The problem that I have with this part of the work you quoted is that it is taken with a Modernist interpretation of Scripture, built upon Biblical criticism, rather than the classical four-type interpretation of literal, typological, moral and analogical. These Fathers that this man vaguely references would be simply taking the literal sense of the Scripture, which speaks of the Firmament, which lends support toward a flat-earth model (in the sense of earth being contained in a globe). And we can take this passage literally because it does not conflict with what is known by reason, given that the flat earthers also present plausible evidence to support their position.
Edit: To continue to play Devil's advocate, while I agree with the evidence for the spherical earth model based upon Catholic expressions of the Savior of the World holding a globe. This same globe is practically never depicted as a modern globe in the sense we know it, and could still support the idea of the flat earth within a Firmament.
In the context of the thread, it is the Biblical critical method that lends to Fr. Robinson's insistence on theological evolutionism because of the conflict Scripture has with this theory, therefore the literal interpretation is cast aside as dismissed as metaphorical as in the source you utilized above.
-
Einstein
"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
In spite of the quote-mined quotes, were any of them geocentrists? Should that not tell you something?
In these quotes, they are restating the relativity principle, that the laws of physics are the same to any inertial frame observer. They're saying there is no preferred inherent frame of reference in relativity. That is quite the opposite from support for the geocentrist claim that there is a preferred inherent frame of reference.
Also the Einstein quote does not end with a period. The full quote is
While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to the conclusion that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.
So a key part of the quote is omitted. Also, he refers to "optical experiment" rather than "any experiment", and given the context I think he means Michelson-type experiments.
Since you like quotes, here's one from Gerardus Bouw (1994)
I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures
He is not a geocentrist because he thinks it the most reasonable explanation of the observational data. He knows observation of the world as it is does not support geocentrism. (I also do not concede the Scriptures teach geocentrism.)
Even according to Newtonian physics, heliocentrism is incorrect. In his system, the planets would all revolve around the barycenter of the solar system, and not the sun per se, and occasionally this barycenter is outside of the sun. Then of course the original notion of heliocentrism where the sun was fixed in place is wrong, as scientists allegedly hold that the entire solar system is moving through space, and then the entire galaxy, etc. According to Newton, the only fixed point in the entire universe would be at the very barycenter of the universe. No one can prove that is not the earth.
I've responded to your hypothesis before. Does it make any predictions? Why yes, if the earth were at the barycenter, then the mass of near objects like the sun would need to be offset by masses in the other direction, and since we don't see any nearby, they would be a long way away. Do we have any observational support for these? No. Worse, the sun moves in an annual cycle (per geocentrists) so the counter-mass would need to move in a corresponding annual cycle, but when we look at the stars we don't find anything that moves in an annual cycle opposite the sun.
For an analogy, most people who see a basketball player spin a basketball on his finger say he's spinning the basketball. The geocentrist effectively says no, the basketball is at rest and the player and the court are spinning around the basketball, and when the player touches the basketball, the player and surrounding court change their motion. (This is not a strawman. We do observe a change of rotation of the earth due to earthquakes. For the geocentrist, the universe changes its rate of rotation due to the earthquake.)
Theoretically possible, I suppose, but rather counter-intuitive as it goes against how we usually think of causality. Perhaps that's a philosophical reason for choosing one system over another.
... but I want to respect cassini's thread and not derail it.
Aren't nearly all of cassini's threads ultimately about geocentrism?
Same things holds of other issues. I can have discussions with some R&R folks, but not with others, because they're openly hostile and are clearly not open to honestly debating the issues.
And yet, when I tell you facts, you are hostile.
-
Note the statue of the Child of Prague holding a global Earth with the Cross on top of it. Globus Crucriger had long represented Christian God’s reign over the Earth. Further devotion to the image began in 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara took the statue of infant Jesus to Czechoslovakia from Spain. It is now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague, an object of veneration.’
Then there is the Miraculous Medal. Its design was given to St Catherine Labouré by the Blessed Virgin Mary in Rue du Bac Paris in 1830. In her medal the Virgin stands upon Satan the snake atop a section of a globe, representing the entire world. Now our world is centred on the Earth, a globe from which Our Lady ascended into heaven and on which Mary will crush the head of the snake. Then there is the global moon, which is also associated with the Virgin Mary, reflecting as it does the light of the sun, just as Mary reflects the light of her Son who is in Heaven.
The two supposed globes that you refer to above could also be the flat earth globe, because if you include the firmament above a flat earth and the area below a flat earth, it looks like a globe, according to the ancient Hebrews, who took their view from Scripture, mainly Genesis.
-
I see now. I was asking about this elsewhere.
Why would flat earth be hidden away?
This is such an open forum with regards to almost every topic. Hmm...
It always strikes me strange that flat earth is such taboo.
It's almost a spiritual topic in that it evokes such anger and mocking contempt in people and a refusal to even look at the evidence.
The laaaaassst thing anyone wants to be is a "flat earther" after all.
But why does anyone have to be identified as such.
Can't people be just be humans asking questions? Looking at the science.
It's like daring to point out Trump's history of partying with Epstein and Maxwell his whole life automatically means that you somehow support Hillary or Biden.
Can't you just be a person looking at evidence?
Nope. Not allowed. You have to be one or the other.
And either you are for the vax or you are a dreaded anti-science "anti-vaxxer".
Polarization.
And certain subjects are just so embarrassing that you have to hide them away...
strange....makes me want to look all the more!
God reveals truth to the humble.
Yes, exactly.
The subject got hidden away because it caused a lot of friction on the forum, and some forum members campaigned for the subject to be banned altogether (if I recall correctly), but as a sort of compromise, the threads on FE don't show up on the main forum index and can only be discussed on this particular subforum. But at least it still is allowed to be discussed, though it can get ugly.
-
The shape of the Earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere.
The Earth is a sphere, which includes all things above and below the LAND. Why cannot the LAND itself, be flat?
.
The two supposed globes that you refer to above could also be the flat earth globe, because if you include the firmament above a flat earth and the area below a flat earth, it looks like a globe,
Right. It's possible.
.
If it's possible to view the earth from afar, it has to have some shape, doesn't it? A sphere, a block, a rectangle?
.
We know that hell is UNDER the earth and heaven is above it. Don't these things add to the shape of the "flat land" to create a sphere? I don't see why not.
.
Ultimately, "flat earth" is an incorrect term. We should call it "flat land" theory.
-
The Earth is a sphere, which includes all things above and below the LAND. Why cannot the LAND itself, be flat?
.
Right. It's possible.
.
If it's possible to view the earth from afar, it has to have some shape, doesn't it? A sphere, a block, a rectangle?
.
We know that hell is UNDER the earth and heaven is above it. Don't these things add to the shape of the "flat land" to create a sphere? I don't see why not.
.
Ultimately, "flat earth" is an incorrect term. We should call it "flat land" theory.
I agree.
Yes, "flat land" is probably better terminology; since it's really an entire system when you think of and include Heaven and Hell.
As Catholics, we are of course required to believe in Heaven and Hell, and a flat land with Heaven above and Hell below is more suitable than a globe earth. For example, where is Heaven above a globe earth?
-
I agree.
Yes, "flat land" is probably better terminology; since it's really an entire system when you think of and include Heaven and Hell.
As Catholics, we are of course required to believe in Heaven and Hell, and a flat land with Heaven above and Hell below is more suitable than a globe earth. For example, where is Heaven above a globe earth?
'Of the first day Moses says that “In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.” And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men, and the Earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the Earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18:2)…. Of the Earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights….God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.' --- Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.
-
Reminiscent of the Russian oil drilling episode where they were attempting to set the world record for hole depth.
The drill bit module contained microphones allowing them to hear drill bit performance through different earthen strata.
When unexpectedly, technicians heard what sounded like an enormous cavern from which emanated a cacophony of moaning and screams.
They thought they had hit Hell, but perhaps it was Purgatory?
-
Reminiscent of the Russian oil drilling episode where they were attempting to set the world record for hole depth.
The drill bit module contained microphones allowing them to hear drill bit performance through different earthen strata.
When unexpectedly, technicians heard what sounded like an enormous cavern from which emanated a cacophony of moaning and screams.
They thought they had hit Hell, but perhaps it was Purgatory?
Perhaps. All I know is that I remember coming across that when I was an unbelieving teenager and having it scare the hell out of me
https://youtu.be/8iPIXq_jGMQ
-
Would it be possible to dig all the way to hell and let the damned souls and the demons escape?
-
In these quotes, they are restating the relativity principle, that the laws of physics are the same to any inertial frame observer. They're saying there is no preferred inherent frame of reference in relativity. That is quite the opposite from support for the geocentrist claim that there is a preferred inherent frame of reference.
Not so Stanley, for Walter van der Kamp has shown that the Relativity invented by Einstein can be falsified, leaving the result of the M&M test of 1887 a real problem for heliocentrists.
’‘There had to be an explanation [for the Airy and M&M test result]. Either the Earth was motionless with respect to the ether, or the Earth dragged the ether with it, or something. All possible explanations seemed highly unlikely, and for nearly a quarter of a century, the world of science was completely puzzled. It took a scientific revolution to explain the matter, so that the Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the most important “failure” in the history of science.’---Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.388.
Isn't this your position below as stated above?
‘We know that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such difference has no physical significance…’
--- Sir Fred Hoyle: Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p.416.
‘Any object or system of objects (any frame of reference) can be taken with equal validity as being at rest. There is no object, in other words, that is more really ‘at rest’ than any other.’—Isaac Asimov, Understanding Physics, p.249.
Well Walter put this to the test in his RELATIVITY A BROKEN REED and his booklet The Bradley-Airy-Einstein Syndrome in Astronomy.
‘In keeping with this way of thinking Isaac Asimov [and Sir Fred Hoyle above] assure us that in cosmology “any object or system of objects (any frame of reference) can be taken with equal validity as being at rest. There is no object, in other words, that is more really ‘at rest’ than any other. And as far as our Solar System is concerned at first sight there appear to be no problems with this assumption. But what about the stars? It stands to reason that any theory of the cosmos also has to render an account of its predictions with respect to the stars wheeling from East to West around us…. Unbelievable thought it may sound, however, the profession has never paid much attention to the roll of the stars in the economy of the Solar System.’
Yes, both systems must be able to produce stellar aberration and stellar parallax in a relative way. In other words, when we do the REVERSAL test, both have to comply with stellar aberration and parallax. Now go and try this test of relativity. Yes, parallax is interchangable with both, but try as you can, stellar aberration is not interchangable as cosmologists have claimed for over as century.
‘Meditate for a few moments and the truth will dawn on you. Such a single observation, one of momentous importance we have here. According to the ruling relativity it makes with regard to the cosmos that the astronomers observe no physical difference, pontificates Sir Fred Hoyle, whether we declare the universe centered on the sun or the Earth. This profession, you will already have realized, is false. The two universes that this contention envisages could not physically be more different than they are. The Earth-centered one basically requires a Stellatum like that of Antiquity and the Middle-Ages to account for what we “here below” diurnally and annually observe. The never proven, nor provable, gospel of Galileo has in the long run reduced us to little blobs of thinking jelly on a pellet of stardust corkscrewing from somewhere into the nowhere of nothingless. The Sun-centered hypothesis truly “saves the appearance,” but the Earth-centered view only will do this if we re-introduce the Stellatum of yore and arrange the stars in that celestial sphere. A simple observation, but the Einsteinian theories are thereby condemned irrefutably. This, in a manner of speaking, puts us back to square one. That is in the cul-de-sac into which after 1887 classical science [M&M] found itself….
And I have to stress the irrefutability of my conclusion. For here we have much more than a-by means of experimentation acquired “disproof” that can be overcome by suitable ad hocs. We have a logical and ontological impossibility. The structure of the universe that first-hand observations prompt us to extrapolate from an Earth at rest is totally different from that of a Sun at rest. Relativity maintains that there will be no physical differences between the two. Relativity is therefore wrong and Einstein thereby dethroned.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos… p.34-35.
-
'Of the first day Moses says that “In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.” And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men, and the Earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the Earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18:2)…. Of the Earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights….God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.' --- Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.
Mary of Agreda had a lot of good things to say, but do her visions replace and override Scripture?
-
Not so Stanley, for Walter van der Kamp has shown that the Relativity invented by Einstein can be falsified, leaving the result of the M&M test of 1887 a real problem for heliocentrists.
You were misrepresenting quotes. Now you introduce yet another new topic.
Of course relativity can be falsified, it makes predictions. So what?
-
The shape of the Earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere.
The Earth is a sphere, which includes all things above and below the LAND. Why cannot the LAND itself, be flat?
.
I don't think I understand your point. The planet we live in, i.e. the hard mass that we call the earth, is a certain shape. I (and many others) believe the shape to be basically a sphere. There are people here saying it is more like a disc. It can't be both, right?
.
If it's possible to view the earth from afar, it has to have some shape, doesn't it? A sphere, a block, a rectangle?
.
Yes. It is spherical. It casts shadows on the moon during a lunar eclipse, from numerous different angles, and the shadow it casts is always round. A sphere is the only shape capable of doing that.
.
We know that hell is UNDER the earth and heaven is above it. Don't these things add to the shape of the "flat land" to create a sphere? I don't see why not.
.
Hell is traditionally believed to be in the center of the earth. In Scripture, in the book of Numbers, I believe, some evil people were destroyed by the earth opening up beneath them and them falling into it. I don't think the Church has an official teaching on this, but it's a pretty common belief.
.
Ultimately, "flat earth" is an incorrect term. We should call it "flat land" theory.
.
I don't understand the difference between those two terms?
-
"Flat land" means that the "terra firma" part that we walk on, i.e. land, is flat. The oceans' surfaces, which conform to "sea level" according to our "flat land" would also be flat.
.
But below us, is the rest of the earth/hell (which also includes the caverns of the oceans, in some parts of the world), which is very deep and not flat. Above the "flat land" is also the firmament, clouds, earthly heavens, i.e. atmosphere, which is also not flat.
.
So, the earth's land is flat. But the earth itself (including the center/hell and atmosphere/heaven), is a sphere.
-
I don't understand the difference between those two terms?
It tries to maintain the consistencies apparent with evidence for a spherical earth with those finding of adherents to the flat earth. So, the land itself (including the oceans, ice shelf, etc.) make up one concentric disk enclosed within a sort of "glass globe" which is the firmament. The heavens being in the "upper hemisphere" of the firmament, and hell (the underworld) being beneath the land-disk in the "lower hemisphere". Not unlike ancient depictions of the earth:
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1838/1*Stn_v_ynJe7wnxU1KlRIsA.jpeg)
-
DigitalLogos, thank you for the pictures. I'm not a scientist by nature, nor am I very gifted in such studies, by logically, I don't see why a "flat land" and "sphere earth" cannot co-exist. To me, it seems that the term "flat earth" lacks proper distinctions, which is a curse of modern society.
.
Most *apparent* contradictions can be cured using proper distinctions.
-
DigitalLogos, thank you for the pictures. I'm not a scientist by nature, nor am I very gifted in such studies, by logically, I don't see why a "flat land" and "sphere earth" cannot co-exist. To me, it seems that the term "flat earth" lacks proper distinctions, which is a curse of modern society.
.
Most *apparent* contradictions can be cured using proper distinctions.
Oh yes, I agree. That's why I'm enjoying this discussion. To me, if we are at all to entertain the idea of a flat earth, we still must take into account those things which are contrary to such a thesis (such as shadows on the moon, et al).
-
Oh yes, I agree. That's why I'm enjoying this discussion. To me, if we are at all to entertain the idea of a flat earth, we still must take into account those things which are contrary to such a thesis (such as shadows on the moon, et al).
.
I've mentioned Aristotle's proof that the earth is round based on the fact that it always casts a round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse about six times so far in this thread and not one person has responded to it yet.
.
Any of you flatties want to take this and run with it? :popcorn:
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/fd/57/f8/fd57f861e1523e626832cd321501d2d5.jpg)
-
I've mentioned Aristotle's proof that the earth is round based on the fact that it always casts a round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse about six times so far in this thread and not one person has responded to it yet.
Can the spherical firmament not cast a shadow? That is, the mass of clouds, moisture, etc. It could be denser than we think.
.
I can barely spell Pythagoras, so plenty of 3rd graders are more scientific minded than I. But...there are plenty of proofs that the earth 1) does not spin and 2) has a flat land mass...so...I wonder if there is a 3rd conclusion between the stupid-either-or possibilities of flat earth vs round earth.
-
I start to get lost when trying to talk about eclipses and such.
Here are some videos which explain the FE point of view on that:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DITRH/search?query=eclipse
-
https://youtu.be/8iPIXq_jGMQ
Sounds of Hell Debunked:
https://youtu.be/VWo6kTsoiv4
-
The firmament makes it confusing. And the waters above the firmament. This makes it seem like the sun and moon cannot be millions of miles away but must be closer to the earth inside the firmament. Then above the sun and moon is the firmament, and above the firmament is vast amounts of water and above the water heaven. The stars and planets are inside the firmament and it is an optical illusion that when we look at them with telescopes they seem like they are far away. Otherwise, where and what is the firmament? The Bible speaks of it. Was that a falsehood? I always pictured the firmament as being a sphere around the round earth above the atmosphere. I have heard prots say that the firmament was destroyed during the great flood, and the water that came down as rain was the waters above the firmament falling down, so now there is no longer a firmament. They also say the sun was above the firmament and the firmament used to protect us from the sun's radiation, which is why people used to live to be nine hundred years old and now they usually die before one hundred.
-
The firmament makes it confusing. And the waters above the firmament. This makes it seem like the sun and moon cannot be millions of miles away but must be closer to the earth inside the firmament. Then above the sun and moon is the firmament, and above the firmament is vast amounts of water and above the water heaven. The stars and planets are inside the firmament and it is an optical illusion that when we look at them with telescopes they seem like they are far away. Otherwise, where and what is the firmament? The Bible speaks of it. Was that a falsehood? I always pictured the firmament as being a sphere around the round earth above the atmosphere. I have heard prots say that the firmament was destroyed during the great flood, and the water that came down as rain was the waters above the firmament falling down, so now there is no longer a firmament. They also say the sun was above the firmament and the firmament used to protect us from the sun's radiation, which is why people used to live to be nine hundred years old and now they usually die before one hundred.
It might refer to the layers of clouds, clouds being evaporated water
-
You were misrepresenting quotes. Now you introduce yet another new topic.
Of course relativity can be falsified, it makes predictions. So what?
I see it is obvious Stanley that debating with you is a lost cause. You put up numerous quotes that show relativity shows that a geocentric or heliocentric system are both feasible. I answered that they are not when it comes to a heliocentric and geocentric stellar aberration. In otherr words, Einstein's Special theory of Relativity is falsified showing that the M&M test cannot be interpreted heliocentrically and thus we are left with the M&M test showing no orbiting earth therefore no heliocentrism.
Thats what!
-
Sounds of Hell Debunked:
https://youtu.be/VWo6kTsoiv4
That's remarkable, I believed this to be real since I was a kid.
Thanks Marion!
-
The firmament makes it confusing. And the waters above the firmament. This makes it seem like the sun and moon cannot be millions of miles away but must be closer to the earth inside the firmament. Then above the sun and moon is the firmament, and above the firmament is vast amounts of water and above the water heaven. The stars and planets are inside the firmament and it is an optical illusion that when we look at them with telescopes they seem like they are far away. Otherwise, where and what is the firmament? The Bible speaks of it. Was that a falsehood? I always pictured the firmament as being a sphere around the round earth above the atmosphere. I have heard prots say that the firmament was destroyed during the great flood, and the water that came down as rain was the waters above the firmament falling down, so now there is no longer a firmament. They also say the sun was above the firmament and the firmament used to protect us from the sun's radiation, which is why people used to live to be nine hundred years old and now they usually die before one hundred.
The waters above the firmament might be the Aether, the fabric that holds together the universe, or simply the near-vaccuм of space. Or maybe even what modern science refers to as dark matter, although they're probably wrong about that. "Waters" doesn't necessarily refer to H2O.
Also keep in mind that God created space and time with the material world, so thinking that heaven is "above" the firmament and hell is "below Earth" or "inside Earth" may simply be all too human thinking applied to transcendent places, which is not possible.
-
The firmament makes it confusing. And the waters above the firmament. This makes it seem like the sun and moon cannot be millions of miles away but must be closer to the earth inside the firmament. Then above the sun and moon is the firmament, and above the firmament is vast amounts of water and above the water heaven. The stars and planets are inside the firmament and it is an optical illusion that when we look at them with telescopes they seem like they are far away. Otherwise, where and what is the firmament? The Bible speaks of it. Was that a falsehood? I always pictured the firmament as being a sphere around the round earth above the atmosphere. I have heard prots say that the firmament was destroyed during the great flood, and the water that came down as rain was the waters above the firmament falling down, so now there is no longer a firmament. They also say the sun was above the firmament and the firmament used to protect us from the sun's radiation, which is why people used to live to be nine hundred years old and now they usually die before one hundred.
You're right. ROCOR Hieromonk Fr. Seraphim Rose (non-Catholic, so take it with caution) discusses this at length in the third chapter of the first section of his book "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man":
"The very phenomenon of rain is not mentioned in the text of Genesis until the time of Noah; and then it is not an ordinary rain but a kind of cosmic catastrophe: 'All the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights' (Gen. 7:11-12). Immense-to us, nearly unimaginable-amounts of water were loosed on the earth, reducing it virtually to its state on the First Day of Creation, when the "deep" covered the earth. The rains we know today could not cause this to happen; but the text describes something even worse: an immense underground supply of water was loosed, and the "firmament"- the atmospheric condition that preserved a permanent reservoir of water in the air, evidently in the form of clouds such as the planet Venus has even now- was literally "broken" and emptied its contents upon the earth."
He, correctly, in my opinion, argues for the firmament being a reservoir in the atmosphere that no longer exists in our time because of the Flood. I also agree with his opinion, contrary to the Cartesian view today, that the world was far different before the Flood than it is today.
-
I see it is obvious Stanley that debating with you is a lost cause. You put up numerous quotes that show relativity shows that a geocentric or heliocentric system are both feasible. I answered that they are not when it comes to a heliocentric and geocentric stellar aberration. In otherr words, Einstein's Special theory of Relativity is falsified showing that the M&M test cannot be interpreted heliocentrically and thus we are left with the M&M test showing no orbiting earth therefore no heliocentrism.
I haven't put up numerous quotes (someone else did), nor to the best of my knowledge have I said both systems are "feasible".
Special relativity doesn't apply in all circuмstances. In particular, in gravitational fields that significantly warp space-time, general relativity (GR) must be used. GR also has its limitations. But as far as I know, stellar aberration is not among them; a relativistic analysis of aberration can be found many places on the web.
Also, while they are not much in favor among practicing scientists for various reasons, there are alternatives outside GR and geocentrism. An argument against GR would not be an argument for geocentrism unless it ALSO ruled out all the alternatives. You should not assume tertium non datur.
-
"And God called the firmament, Heaven;" (Gen 1)
There are Protestants saying that the firmament is gone?
-
I haven't put up numerous quotes (someone else did), nor to the best of my knowledge have I said both systems are "feasible".
Special relativity doesn't apply in all circuмstances. In particular, in gravitational fields that significantly warp space-time, general relativity (GR) must be used. GR also has its limitations. But as far as I know, stellar aberration is not among them; a relativistic analysis of aberration can be found many places on the web.
Also, while they are not much in favor among practicing scientists for various reasons, there are alternatives outside GR and geocentrism. An argument against GR would not be an argument for geocentrism unless it ALSO ruled out all the alternatives. You should not assume tertium non datur.
Again Stanley, It is most difficult to see clearly what you believe, what you say, and especially where you are coming from. On another post of yours I find you quote Gerardus Bouw (1994)saying
I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures
You commented:
He is not a geocentrist because he thinks it the most reasonable explanation of the observational data. He knows observation of the world as it is does not support geocentrism. (I also do not concede the Scriptures teach geocentrism.)
Why then do you say 'I ALSO do not concede the Scriptures teach geocentrism.?' Isn't that the opposite of what Boux said in your quote of him, that he is a geocentrist because of the Scriptures?
Given relativity prevails, nobody on Earth can know with certainty what the order is. That is a fact, even though we see a geocentric order with our eyes. Boux was wrong saying geocentrism is not the most reasonabler explanation of the OBSERVATIONAL data, if that is what you say he said and meant. Geocentrism is what we see. Heliocentrism is of the mind, not of the observation.
Now for (I also do not concede the Scriptures teach Geocentrism). Is that you writing about your beliefs Stanley? If it is then I know where you are coming from.
You may not believe the Scriptures reveal geocentrism, but I and others do. we believe with certainty because God revealed it in His Scriptures. All the Fathers believed they did, the Church of 1616 and 1633 defined it did, and no pope ever challenged that 1616 confirmation.
But Stanley, I think, although he may have meant the opposite of his statement 'I ALSO do not concede the Scriptures teach geocentrism,' thinks he knows better than all the Fathers.
As for Einstein's Special relativity and his general relativity you comment on above, well both are so full of flaws that it shows us how desperate they were to RESCUE heliocentrism from the M&M experiment. I see you agree that the very theories you must adhere to to keep your heliocentrism, if you are a heliocentrist Stanley, are so flawed that there can be no certainty heliocentrism is a fact.
-
the Church of 1616 and 1633 defined it did
Even if one conceded the 1616/1633 docuмents condemned "heliocentrism" back then, and even if one conceded these were infallible, it would be moot. The sun being motionless was an essential component of "heliocentrism" back then, as is evident from the docuмents from 1633. Nobody today holds "heliocentrism" in that form.
Your thread topic was YEC. I'm inclined to put a wrap on discussing geocentrism here.
-
Even if one conceded the 1616/1633 docuмents condemned "heliocentrism" back then, and even if one conceded these were infallible, it would be moot. The sun being motionless was an essential component of "heliocentrism" back then, as is evident from the docuмents from 1633. Nobody today holds "heliocentrism" in that form.
Your thread topic was YEC. I'm inclined to put a wrap on discussing geocentrism here.
Oh no you don't. Not until I give your version of things one last kick in the you know what. Olivieri tried your nonsense in 1820.
Here is that 1616 decree
(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 [all] the Fathers and theologians.”
Now the word ‘local’ means ‘pertaining to position in space,’ so the heresy is only to say it does not move around the Earth just as the Bible describes literally.. For me geocentrism is what all YECs must hold.
-
Your thread topic was YEC. I'm inclined to put a wrap on discussing geocentrism here.
Good idea Stanley,
Here then is a question for Fr Robinson and yourself Stanley, for you both seem to have a wonderful comprehension of the modern science of cosmology.
The first proof for a solar system supposedly came from Isaac Newton's theory of gravity;
‘It is now often said that incontrovertible evidence for the Earth’s annual motion was not found until early in the nineteenth century, when high precision of astronomical instruments first permitted detection of parallax of certain fixed stars. Direct evidence of the Earth’s daily rotation is similarly said to have awaited the Foucault pendulum in the mid-19th century. Such statements are titillating, but they misrepresent the grounds of scientific conviction. No scientist even then had lingering doubts he gave up at the time of those events. The issue of the Earth’s motions had been effectively settled for scientists by Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which linked innumerable astronomical measurements and the occurrence of tides to the existence of the Earth’s two motions.’ --- Stillman Drake: Galileo, Past Masters, 1980, p.55.
Now we know Newton's theory was used by science to explain how all the cosmic bodies gravitated from atoms, including the Earth with its Newtonian bulge.
200 years later they invented their Big bang explosion theory that continues to expand the universe's matter.
Now Stanley, tell us which came first, the Big Bang scattering matter, or Isaac Newton's contracting matter? Surely to the human reason that Fr Robinson tells us to use as a gift from God shows us each contradicts the other. The only answer I can see is the Big Bang happened, and matter contracted as it expnded. Yeh, I like that one. If someone could ask Fr Robinson the question on his Q&A forum, it would be interesting. He would just ignore me.
By the Way, here is what Fr McDonald said about him anf his book.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-macdonald-reviews-fr-robinson's-book/
-
Father, it has now been nine months since the publication of your book, and it seems to have stirred up some controversy!
Indeed, it has. And while I did not write the book for that purpose, I did anticipate that it might make some waves.
You also gave the example of light above.
Yes. That example shows how the historical sciences rely on the laws of nature being consistent throughout time, as well as space. Looking into a telescope is like looking at the history of the universe in the trails of light coming from galaxies. The history is true, however, only if the laws for light have remained the same throughout time.
The light from the Large Magellanic Cloud that I can see here in Australia, for instance, would seem to be 163,000 years old. If God changed the speed of light, however, in 2,000 BC, my calculations would only be valid for the last 4,000 years. The same would hold true for any other calculations I would make about other galaxies. It would be the death of astronomy.
And you are saying that is what the YECers want?
No, I don’t think they want that necessarily, but it is certainly what the Reformers wanted. Regardless, YEC adherents must come to grips with the fact that such is the result of their theology, whether they like it or not. Their position makes religion an enemy of science and reason.
Which eventuality, I take it, you are not fond of?
Indeed, no. My entire book after all (not just chapter 7!) is about maintaining a proper harmony between religion and science, between faith and reason. This has always been the Catholic spirit. St. Augustine famously says that we must show the world that there is nothing in our sacred books that conflicts with reason. Catholics hold that reason is a precious gift from God and that He wants us to use it for His glory, not destroy it for His glory.
God created the stars and placed them up to 18.5 billion light-years away on the 4th day, the same day He created the birds on Earth. See above how Fr Robinson SSPX uses distances as time years. He tries to make YECs out to be idiots by having to get God to slow down the speed of light to make Genesis timescales credible. He then quotes St Augustine to support him.
Elsewhere, here is what St Augustine really said.
‘It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).
What Augustine the geocentrist (‘motion and rotation of the stars’) is saying here is that the Scriptures should not be misused to offer false philosophy as we can see Fr Robinson doing. Given St Augustine and St Thomas were well aware of the Biblical contradictions of the Pythagorean heresies, would Augustine statement used above not be more suited to describe Fr Robinson's saying ther age of stars is proven by their distance from Earth? Of course it would.
-
You're right, that's the problem. He is operating from the presumption that the scientific data on the distances of stars correlating with their age is true, and then proceeding to interpret Scripture on that basis. When it should be the other way around. Science should always be subordinate to Theology, just as Philosophy is Theology's handmaid. It should never be done that we start from a scientific presumption and then work backwards up to Theology, otherwise you wind up with heresy and error.
-
You're right, that's the problem. He is operating from the presumption that the scientific data on the distances of stars correlating with their age is true, and then proceeding to interpret Scripture on that basis. When it should be the other way around. Science should always be subordinate to Theology, just as Philosophy is Theology's handmaid. It should never be done that we start from a scientific presumption and then work backwards up to Theology, otherwise you wind up with heresy and error.
You also get error if you wrongly interpret Scripture, whether the resulting errors are contrary to philosophy or science.
Knowledge from reason and the natural world is still truth. We have that with us when we read Scripture, and it does put boundaries on interpreting Scripture. For example, we read in Genesis 3:9 that God was "walking in the garden", but I assume you don't take from that that God has legs and (literally) walks. No, we know from philosophy - natural reason - that God is not material, so we understand "walking in the garden" as a metaphor.
Geocentrism isn't the only obsolete notion commonly held by the ancient world. Consider spontaneous generation. Scripture has passages consistent with this, and the Fathers support it. Does that mean we have to hold it? No. While the Scriptures use language consistent with spontaneous generation, they do not teach it ex professo. Likewise, very few (if any) of the Fathers explicitly teach spontaneous generation is a revealed truth; they believe it as the common science of the time. Someone who held spontaneous generation as a Scriptural truth NOW would, I think, fall under St. Augustine's warning above (even though St. Augustine himself seems to have believed in spontaneous generation in parts of his Literal Meaning of Genesis.)
-
the scientific data on the distances of stars correlating with their age is true,
The whole idea that we could figure out the age of stars, much less their distances, is just silly. It’s a scientific fairy tale. We can’t even get to the moon (that was faked to get funding for nasa, which used the trillions of dollars of the last decades to send up satellites for GPS and surveillance...the moon fakery funded the big brother system and modern war...all to bring about world govt and antichrist).
.
These scientific fairly tales are just nonsense. We can’t fathom the depths, brilliance, and wisdom of Gods creation, so the atheistic scientists lie that “we’ve got it all figured out”. Remember the huge oil spill in Florida by BP year’s ago? Scientists were screaming that the oceans and fish would be ruined. Then what happened? Some weird algae bacteria started eating all the oil and the crisis was over before it started. No one saw that coming because few understand God’s brilliance. He created the earth to work in perfect harmony, even on the natural level. But modern science wants humanity to believe that we can “save” the planet. What Pride! What lies! What silliness!
-
The whole idea that we could figure out the age of stars, much less their distances, is just silly. It’s a scientific fairy tale. We can’t even get to the moon (that was faked to get funding for nasa, which used the trillions of dollars of the last decades to send up satellites for GPS and surveillance...the moon fakery funded the big brother system and modern war...all to bring about world govt and antichrist).
.
These scientific fairly tales are just nonsense. We can’t fathom the depths, brilliance, and wisdom of Gods creation, so the atheistic scientists lie that “we’ve got it all figured out”. Remember the huge oil spill in Florida by BP year’s ago? Scientists were screaming that the oceans and fish would be ruined. Then what happened? Some weird algae bacteria started eating all the oil and the crisis was over before it started. No one saw that coming because few understand God’s brilliance. He created the earth to work in perfect harmony, even on the natural level. But modern science wants humanity to believe that we can “save” the planet. What Pride! What lies! What silliness!
But Fr. Robinson falls for a good deal of jew science & suppositions.
Recall how naively he bought into the Covid narrative, mocking the Biblicists for not being vaxed.
It’s pretty clear to most honest scientist & doctors that the covid/vax don’t add up? It’s comic book science.
-
Knowledge from reason and the natural world is still truth.
Indeed. But please, your own boss, Stephen Hawking, said that all his "knowledge from reason and the natural world" is based on Friedmann's second assumption, Friedmann's unproven second assumption. It's no "knowledge from reason and the natural world" at all.
Geocentrism isn't the only obsolete notion commonly held by the ancient world.
It's been declared "obsolete" because Hawking et al. don't like it.
Don't continue to present yourself as a fool. You try to defend your trade, but the Cardinals of your trade already admitted, that they've got no proof against the geocentrist position of the Church.
-
You also get error if you wrongly interpret Scripture, whether the resulting errors are contrary to philosophy or science.
Knowledge from reason and the natural world is still truth. We have that with us when we read Scripture, and it does put boundaries on interpreting Scripture. For example, we read in Genesis 3:9 that God was "walking in the garden", but I assume you don't take from that that God has legs and (literally) walks. No, we know from philosophy - natural reason - that God is not material, so we understand "walking in the garden" as a metaphor.
Geocentrism isn't the only obsolete notion commonly held by the ancient world. Consider spontaneous generation. Scripture has passages consistent with this, and the Fathers support it. Does that mean we have to hold it? No. While the Scriptures use language consistent with spontaneous generation, they do not teach it ex professo. Likewise, very few (if any) of the Fathers explicitly teach spontaneous generation is a revealed truth; they believe it as the common science of the time. Someone who held spontaneous generation as a Scriptural truth NOW would, I think, fall under St. Augustine's warning above (even though St. Augustine himself seems to have believed in spontaneous generation in parts of his Literal Meaning of Genesis.)
My point was to emphasise how the Earthmovers since Galileo in his Letters to Castelli and Christina use St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas and even the now St Robert Bellarmine to support the old Pythagorean heresy defined and declared as such since 1616. I quoted St Augustine emphasising his geocentrism, and I have pointed out that St Thomas and other saints were biblical geocentrist:
Andrew White writes: ‘This doctrine [of geocentrism] was of the highest respectability: it had been developed at a very early period, and had been elaborated until it accounted well for the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies; its final name, “Ptolemaic theory,” carried weight; and, having thus come from antiquity into the Christian world, St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was “a symbol of the Earth placed in the middle of the universe:” nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture. Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed in the Middle Ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal Church – the last word of revelation. Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself. Though now known to be spurious, they were then considered a treasure of inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely circulated in Western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred Scriptures.
‘The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century, he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of man’s relation to the universe. The author tells the world: “Just as man is made for the sake of God – that is, that he may serve Him, - so the universe is made for the sake of man, that is, that it may serve him; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe that he may both serve and be served.” The vast significance of this view, and its power in resisting any real astronomical science, we shall see, especially in the time of Galileo. The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect between Aristotle and Newton; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just – even more than just – to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica. In this St Thomas carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development. With great power and clearness, he brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.
Then there is the Council of Trent:
‘The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent, - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, -the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denzinger – 783/786)
Next is St Bellarmine;
‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the Earth, and that the Earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’ --- Letter to Foscarini, 1615
But then came Galileo with his Letters to Castelli and Christina and his Dialogue, mouthing all the stuff Stanley says above as though he knows more about how to read Scripture and its revelations than all the Fathers and popes who defended a geocentric revelation.
But worst of all is that Fr Robinson SSPX, a so-called expert on Thomism, faith and science, with his book poisoning so many souls with his and its naturalism based on his FAITH in the Big Bang rather than the dogma of supernatural creation of all immediastely or over 6-days, complete in all its substance. No, not for them this faith, as they think human reason can do better that all the Fathers.
-
Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’ --- Letter to Foscarini, 1615
Fr. Robinson and all the "scientologists" who argue along the lines of "Sacred Scripture doesn't intend to teach about science" need to take this quote from St. Robert and meditate on it. Even IF Sacred Scripture doesn't primarily intend to teach about creation, it's infallible when it does speak about nature, science, and creation ex parte dicentis ... because it's the Holy Ghost speaking.
So, it's just as heretical to say that human beings have not been on the earth for only about 6,000 years as it would be to deny the Holy Trinity.
Also, even though the created world is itself in nature, the act of creation came from outside of nature. So even if science isn't the object of faith ex parte creaturae, it most certainly is ex parte Creatoris.
-
A silence... while Stanley consults with his science confessor, Fr. Paul.
:popcorn:
-
Fr. Robinson and all the "scientologists" who argue along the lines of "Sacred Scripture doesn't intend to teach about science" need to take this quote from St. Robert and meditate on it. Even IF Sacred Scripture doesn't primarily intend to teach about creation, it's infallible when it does speak about nature, science, and creation ex parte dicentis ... because it's the Holy Ghost speaking.
So, it's just as heretical to say that human beings have not been on the earth for only about 6,000 years as it would be to deny the Holy Trinity.
Also, even though the created world is itself in nature, the act of creation came from outside of nature. So even if science isn't the object of faith ex parte creaturae, it most certainly is ex parte Creatoris.
Does the 6000 only come from genealogy described in Genesis?
While we wait for Stanley to respond, can any one anticipate the argument against the 6000 years of genealogy in Genesis?
-
Does the 6000 only come from genealogy described in Genesis?
While we wait for Stanley to respond, can any one anticipate the argument against the 6000 years of genealogy in Genesis?
Yes, it comes from the genealogy. For instance, even historians place Abraham at about 2100 BC ... based on independent evidence. Then in Genesis 11, you get the full genealogy from Shem (Noah's son) to Abraham. And of course you get from Adam to Noah earlier in Genesis 5. And Genesis tells how old the father was before giving birth to the son. So it's pretty easy to reconstruct.
Responses to this vary depending upon the degree of Modernism in the respondent. Some would dismiss the genealogies as simply made up for entertainment purposes, and there never were an Adam and an Eve; they simply happened to evolve from monkeys at the exact same time and place so they could reproduce. Then you might have some claims that there were huge gaps in the genealogy. So when Genesis says that X begat Y, well, that could in fact be a great-great-great-great-great grandfather relationship. Of course, that's contradicted by the fact that Sacred Scripture gives the age at which the father begat the son.
Just read Genesis 5 and then Genesis 11. It clearly says how old each father was when he begat the son. So the genealogy gap argument is an epic fail.
You basically end up having to attribute error to Sacred Scripture.
-
I think someone should tell Father Robinson to read the Roman Martyrology for Christmas. Oh wait, its in his breviary that he has to read on that day.
-
Does the 6000 only come from genealogy described in Genesis?
While we wait for Stanley to respond, can any one anticipate the argument against the 6000 years of genealogy in Genesis?
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.
-
The whole idea that we could figure out the age of stars, much less their distances, is just silly. It’s a scientific fairy tale. We can’t even get to the moon (that was faked to get funding for nasa, which used the trillions of dollars of the last decades to send up satellites for GPS and surveillance...the moon fakery funded the big brother system and modern war...all to bring about world govt and antichrist).
.
These scientific fairly tales are just nonsense. We can’t fathom the depths, brilliance, and wisdom of Gods creation, so the atheistic scientists lie that “we’ve got it all figured out”. Remember the huge oil spill in Florida by BP year’s ago? Scientists were screaming that the oceans and fish would be ruined. Then what happened? Some weird algae bacteria started eating all the oil and the crisis was over before it started. No one saw that coming because few understand God’s brilliance. He created the earth to work in perfect harmony, even on the natural level. But modern science wants humanity to believe that we can “save” the planet. What Pride! What lies! What silliness!
Can you show that it is a fairytale, or cite sources? And I'd argue going to the moon is immensely more complex than measuring the distance to celestial objects. The first has probably been staged completely, while the latter has been worked on by brilliant minds since centuries. But yes of course, most modern scientists are arrogant atheists with a "we've got it all figured out" attitude.
Also, the distance / age of stars is not the only evidence for an "old" Earth (old meaning evidently old, but the actual age as in years passed may be just 6,000). As I meantioned earlier in this thread, there's also ice layers that amount to hundreds of thousands of yearly season cycles, then there are sediment layers, trees that are up to 10,000 years old, etc.
-
Fr. Robinson and all the "scientologists" who argue along the lines of "Sacred Scripture doesn't intend to teach about science" need to take this quote from St. Robert and meditate on it. Even IF Sacred Scripture doesn't primarily intend to teach about creation, it's infallible when it does speak about nature, science, and creation ex parte dicentis ... because it's the Holy Ghost speaking.
So, it's just as heretical to say that human beings have not been on the earth for only about 6,000 years as it would be to deny the Holy Trinity.
Also, even though the created world is itself in nature, the act of creation came from outside of nature. So even if science isn't the object of faith ex parte creaturae, it most certainly is ex parte Creatoris.
Very well spotted Ladislaus, Bellarmine's theology on Biblical exegesis can be extended to everything in Scripture. All the popes defined that every word in Scripture is truth.
But they all keep repeating St Augustine's who said that ‘the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things, that is, the essential nature of the universe.’ Now the ‘essential nature’ of the universe means ‘what causes it to do what it does,’ not how it moves, for we can confirm that with our own eyes? What causes the cosmic order is an ‘essential nature’ Scripture never tells us, a mystery mankind knows not either, except Fr Robinson and all the Newtonianians and Einsteinians like him. They know matter attracts matter and that is the 'essential nature' of the universe.
The Galilean dogma ‘the Bible is not meant to teach us the things of nature,’ is an Earthmover invention and absolute nonsense. There are many places in Scripture where nature is demonstrated; like the stars are as numerous as grains of sand on Earth. Even facts of medical science are there, told many years before modern medicine confirmed these truths. When the Bible tells us God ordered the circuмcision of boys on the eight day after birth (Genesis 17:12 and Leviticus 12:2-3), was that not telling us a fact of nature given that science has now established that the eight day after birth is exactly the right time to perform this operation to avoid problems. Elsewhere we are told to wash our hands in running water to avoid contamination (Leviticus 15:13). Elsewhere, Genesis gives us the dimensions of Noah’s Ark, found to be the perfect measurements for such large barges even today. Does this not suggest there are ‘mundane things’ written in the Bible for readers to know?
-
Bellarmine's theology on Biblical exegesis can be extended to everything in Scripture. All the popes defined that every word in Scripture is truth.
But they all keep repeating St Augustine's who said that ‘the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things, that is, the essential nature of the universe.’
You don't like St. Augustine?
Let's take a look at a more complete quote from St. Augustine (from Literal Meaning of Genesis, bk 2):
It is commonly asked what we have to believe about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but our writers [the sacred writers], with their greater prudence, have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek a blessed life, and, what is worse, they take up precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial. What concern is it of mine whether heaven is a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it on one side? But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge that he has acquired, may withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail to their salvation.
St. Augustine explicitly teaches that the movements and shape of heaven are NOT REVEALED truths.
St. Augustine is the premier Western Father. With this quote goes any claim to your alleged "unanimous" teaching of the Fathers.
So let us no further "they take up precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial."
And if that is not enough, the statement of 1820 should shut the case:
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred.
-
Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail to their salvation.
What St Augustine is saying is this: Scripture did not intend to teach men EVERYTHING about history, science or physics. So what Scripture says on these topics is not COMPLETE. But Scripture is correct and infallible in what it does teach (i.e. specific facts).
.
Conclusion: Scripture gives us facts which make up (as an example) 10% of the whole. God left historians/scientists to explore the rest of the 90% of facts. But that 90% cannot deny or contradict the 10% of Scripture.
-
So, Stanley, do you believe that human beings have only been around for about 6,000 years +/- ? If not, then how do you hold that opinion without attributing error to Sacred Scripture? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just curious about your answer. From Modernists, I have heard the "gap" theory, that there were gaps in the geneaology, but Genesis 5 and 11 are very clear that X was N years of age when he gave birth to Y ... from Adam all the way to Abraham. Then Abraham can be dated independently to about 2,000 B.C.
-
Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail to their salvation.
St. Augustine explicitly teaches that the movements and shape of heaven are NOT REVEALED truths.
St. Augustine is the premier Western Father. With this quote goes any claim to your alleged "unanimous" teaching of the Fathers.
So let us no further "they take up precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial."
How Stanley, can you expect anyone on this forum to take any more of your comments and replies seriously.
You quote St Augustine writing about the SHAPE of the universe, and you then say he explicitly teaches that the movements and shape of heaven are NOT REVEALED truths. Where did the explicit MOVEMENT bit come from?
-
From shortly after the passage already quoted from St. Augustine:
Concerning the heaven, some of the brethren have enquired whether it is stationary or moving. If it is moving, they say, how is it a firmament? And if it is stationary, how do the heavenly bodies that are thought to be fixed in it travel from east to west, the more northerly performing smaller circles near the pole? So heaven is like a sphere, if there is another pole invisible to us, or like a disk, if there is no other axis. My reply is that a great deal of subtle and learned enquiry into these questions would be required to know which of these views is correct, but I have no time to go into these questions and discuss them. Neither have they time, those whom I wish to instruct for their own salvation and for the benefit of the Holy Church.
Elsewhere in St. Augustine:
Anyone who invokes the authority of Scripture in opposition to what is clearly and conclusively established by reason, does not understand what they are doing. What they are opposing to the truth is not the meaning of Scripture, which they have failed to grasp, but their own view, which they have found not in the Scripture, but in themselves.
I hope you can see the merit of St. Augustine's writings, at least today, on his feast day in the Western church.
So, Stanley, do you believe that human beings have only been around for about 6,000 years +/- ? If not, then how do you hold that opinion without attributing error to Sacred Scripture? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just curious about your answer.
I'm for an old earth, but I would agree something unique happened about 6-7k years ago, the start of recorded history. That could be the time of Adam and Eve, and any earlier hominids (neanderthal, denisovan) lacked rational souls.
But if someone showed Adam and Eve were earlier, we would need to say we've misunderstood something about the genealogies (to paraphrase St. Robert). What that might be is not my bailiwick.
-
From shortly after the passage already quoted from St. Augustine:
Elsewhere in St. Augustine:
I hope you can see the merit of St. Augustine's writings, at least today, on his feast day in the Western church.
I'm for an old earth, but I would agree something unique happened about 6-7k years ago, the start of recorded history. That could be the time of Adam and Eve, and any earlier hominids (neanderthal, denisovan) lacked rational souls.
Are you now trying to say that when he said the movement of the firmament is not known, are you saying Augustine contradicted himself when he wrote:
‘It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).
Now Augustine specifically says here the movement of the stars may be known with the greatest certainty. He says nothing about the movement of the firmament is known. There is a difference.
But here is another aspect that Augustine warned us about, that the Fr Robinsons and Stanleys would abuse, THE DISTANCE OF THE STARS. This is Big Bang heresy. Fr Robinson uses the distance of the stars, as you probably do Stanley, to age the universe and the Earth.
-
I hope you can see the merit of St. Augustine's writings, at least today, on his feast day in the Western church.
I'm for an old earth, but I would agree something unique happened about 6-7k years ago, the start of recorded history. That could be the time of Adam and Eve, and any earlier hominids (neanderthal, denisovan) lacked rational souls.
But if someone showed Adam and Eve were earlier, we would need to say we've misunderstood something about the genealogies (to paraphrase St. Robert). What that might be is not my bailiwick.
Let's say for a moment that science claimed that human beings came into existence 100,000 years ago. What would your explanation of the Bible stating otherwise be?
So you reduce what the Bible teaches as the creation of man as "something unique that happened about 6-7k years ago"? I mean, the Bible explains what happened.
-
Let's say for a moment that science claimed that human beings came into existence 100,000 years ago. What would your explanation of the Bible stating otherwise be?
"...if there were a true demonstration ... then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false." (St. Robert).
I gave you an explanation before that seems to me consistent with both the science and the Scriptures. Shouldn't that be enough?
Now you're asking some hypothetical situation about a contradiction between science and Scripture - between truth and truth. I'm not sure how I can answer that, as it seems an impossible hypothetical.
-
From shortly after the passage already quoted from St. Augustine:
Elsewhere in St. Augustine:
I hope you can see the merit of St. Augustine's writings, at least today, on his feast day in the Western church.
I'm for an old earth, but I would agree something unique happened about 6-7k years ago, the start of recorded history. That could be the time of Adam and Eve, and any earlier hominids (neanderthal, denisovan) lacked rational souls.
Finally, for those of our readers who may have lingering doubts about St. Augustine’s faith in the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-11, we invite you to watch the episode on St. Augustine in the DVD series and to read David Gedney’s masterful article on St. Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis (https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001LgiQhunzzQ9U_LYotwxcmhujqVIs3HW6WVJtIeEyTFWyZ9xnrV-d1TcoZJF4OVkOFO1bdArF9_bDZFHHPtY5030AI6359QpIrWANTOlCiv03P1qBk_Vn33wCZh0d4jTGKeCWCxbJLTSMy8qAh3y9fAtep8BZtzDsxXzDZuQZnke_pRlLW1aEfy1mXfVzJfxOfr6XPbMM66brp7scJCxXXApJtYCXKR2QUCZA4JxbKpSBhY7gbTlma-72ocB4FpzRsCDPN3Z8x9nx4E0ZbiHVeu1L4X9p6qVrVW152frcdyZReBmxW0jeH0p4S7nDGUTZ&c=3_mREvJAAiULD_ieESu7etCMcSFflseIvVlEMQ_5T8H3HXXnxY40Gg==&ch=PXOkPN-4NYDxfnAJ4nokjh1b-c56xjhqPCy96o1ANqMjfX7YG7k0Lg==) on the Kolbe website.
Yours in Christ through the Holy Theotokos in union with St. Joseph,
Hugh Owen
https://www.kolbecenter.org/st-augustine-rediscovered-a-defense-of-the-literal-interpretation-of-st-augustines-writings-on-the-sacred-history-of-genesis/
-
[...]
I hope you can see the merit of St. Augustine's writings, at least today, on his feast day in the Western church.
I'm for an old earth, but I would agree something unique happened about 6-7k years ago, the start of recorded history. That could be the time of Adam and Eve, and any earlier hominids (neanderthal, denisovan) lacked rational souls.
But if someone showed Adam and Eve were earlier, we would need to say we've misunderstood something about the genealogies (to paraphrase St. Robert). What that might be is not my bailiwick.
While I too find the evidence pointing towards an old Earth insightful (age of stars/light, age of arctic ice, geology, sediments, fossils, trees, ...), I think it poses a paradox: How could an all-good God let an imperfect universe evolve, wouldn't that mean that He's either not all-good or not all-powerful, as some Atheists say? Because speaking generally, the perfect creation that Scripture tells us about in Genesis would've been totally different from the ecosystems and natural processes we see today, you could say it would've been a completely different creation.
-
While I too find the evidence pointing towards an old Earth insightful (age of stars/light, age of arctic ice, geology, sediments, fossils, trees, ...) ...
You need to actually study these "dating" methods more in depth ... they're pure garbage and rely on unprovable assumptions.
https://www.kolbecenter.org/radio-dating-specious-creativity/
-
"...if there were a true demonstration ... then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false." (St. Robert).
I gave you an explanation before that seems to me consistent with both the science and the Scriptures. Shouldn't that be enough?
Total cop out. If you're saying it's possible that the Sacred Scriptures might have to be re-interpreted to mean something other than what they clearly say, then let us know what you have in mind.
No, it's very clear what the Sacred Scriptures teach on the subject, and there's no re-interpretation.
You're just a run-of-the-mill Modernist and, quite frankly, it disgusts me that you're posing as a Traditional Catholic.
St. Robert's quote only applies to those matters that are in fact open to various interpretations. So don't try hiding behind him when if you lived in his day, he'd have condemned you as a heretic.
If science were to claim that human beings have been around longer than about 6,000 years, then the science is full of it. But science is your god.
-
How could an all-good God let an imperfect universe evolve, wouldn't that mean that He's either not all-good or not all-powerful, as some Atheists say? Because speaking generally, the perfect creation that Scripture tells us about in Genesis would've been totally different from the ecosystems and natural processes we see today, you could say it would've been a completely different creation.
Could you re-phrase your question? I don’t follow.
-
While I too find the evidence pointing towards an old Earth insightful (age of stars/light, age of arctic ice, geology, sediments, fossils, trees, ...), I think it poses a paradox:
Because speaking generally, the perfect creation that Scripture tells us about in Genesis would've been totally different from the ecosystems and natural processes we see today, you could say it would've been a completely different creation.
Firstly, there is no proven evidence that point to an old earth.
Re: How could an all-good God let an imperfect universe evolve, wouldn't that mean that He's either not all-good or not all-powerful, as some Atheists say?
You must know the answer - he didn’t and wouldn’t because all of God’s work is good. What does it matter what atheists say, when they don’t even know God. That puts what they say immediately to be doubted.
Re: the perfect creation that Scripture tells us about in Genesis would've been totally different from the ecosystems and natural processes we see today,
It is not a different creation, but the ecosystems and natural processes we see today, are a direct result of the effects of man’s sin.
-
Firstly, there is no proven evidence that point to an old earth.
Re: How could an all-good God let an imperfect universe evolve, wouldn't that mean that He's either not all-good or not all-powerful, as some Atheists say?
You must know the answer - he didn’t and wouldn’t because all of God’s work is good. What does it matter what atheists say, when they don’t even know God. That puts what they say immediately to be doubted.
Re: the perfect creation that Scripture tells us about in Genesis would've been totally different from the ecosystems and natural processes we see today,
It is not a different creation, but the ecosystems and natural processes we see today, are a direct result of the effects of man’s sin.
Correct Nadir,
‘“You read statements in books that such or such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old,” he commented, “but we learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is about the first dynasty of Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.”’ --- A. J. White, Radio-Carbon Dating, Cardiff, Wales, 1955, p.10.
As for Big Bang theistic-evolutionists, well read this.
‘302. Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:’ ---Pope John Paul II’s Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992).
Such is how Catholic hermeneutics and theology was twisted to accommodate Big Bang theistic-evolutionism as the Jesuit Fr Teilhard de Chardin advocated. Creation did not begin ‘in a state of journeying,’ as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church says above, but ‘finished’ and ‘good’ as Genesis reveals, in a state of relative perfection, ‘in its whole substance’ as the dogma of Vatican I ruled. ‘Substance,’ we know from classic philosophy, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. After Adam’s fall, St Paul teaches creation lost its perfection and entered a ‘state of journeying’ yes, but towards imperfection and decay, not perfection as the ‘new’ catechism asserts. ‘We know that all creation groans and travails in pain until now,’ wrote St Paul, until the Lord delivers it from its slavery (Romans 8:21-23).
‘Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. And not only it, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body.’ (8:21-23)
In the end of time, St Paul tells us, God will also restore the perfect beautiful incorruptible Earth and Sky He created immediately in its whole substance at the beginning of time. But according to the new Big Bang creation theology there was no such incorruptible created ‘creature’ to be delivered back to its original perfection. Again, we ask, when were Catholics taught this future revelation of a reastored creation in recent times?
-
You need to actually study these "dating" methods more in depth ... they're pure garbage and rely on unprovable assumptions.
A field that depends on assumptions that cannot be proven is the ordinary state of affairs. Even mathematics depends on assumptions that cannot be proven.
But you are demonstrating that talking about science with you is an exercise in futility.
No, it's very clear what the Sacred Scriptures teach on the subject,
Since it's "very clear", could you tell us in what year BC Adam was created?
The Eastern tradition is c 5500 BC.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just curious about your answer. From Modernists, I have heard the "gap" theory,
You don't know what modernism is any more than you know science or philosophy of science.
Was "not trying to pick a fight" a bit of a fib?
-
the perfect creation that Scripture tells us about in Genesis would've been totally different from the ecosystems and natural processes we see today, you could say it would've been a completely different creation.
Let's also not forget the BIG changes to both mankind and nature, after Noah's flood. Pre-flood, man had a lifespan of centuries. Nature was also more in harmony with man. Post-flood, God cursed mankind and also nature, as a punishment for sins. Mankind's lifespan was now only 100 years and nature was also more violent/erratic, making man's life that much harder, driving him to more humility.
.
Also, the flood destroyed the firmament in the heavens and it disrupted the foundations/plates of the earth, which separated the continents by thousands of miles. The whole earth was in turmoil due to the flood. These changes were permanent.
-
You need to actually study these "dating" methods more in depth ... they're pure garbage and rely on unprovable assumptions.
https://www.kolbecenter.org/radio-dating-specious-creativity/
This is only about radio carbon dating, which is just one of several dating methods used today. It's also only supposed to be accurate in the five to six figure ages. There are other dating methods which are more accurate for much longer timespans by using decay periods of known radioactive elements in rocks to date them. But that by far is not the only thing that points towards an old universe. There's increasing evidence that the universe is in fact very old, things which I and others have listed before in this thread. I can't yet wrap my head around this dilemma.
-
This is only about radio carbon dating, which is just one of several dating methods used today. It's also only supposed to be accurate in the five to six figure ages. There are other dating methods which are more accurate for much longer timespans by using decay periods of known radioactive elements in rocks to date them. But that by far is not the only thing that points towards an old universe. There's increasing evidence that the universe is in fact very old, things which I and others have listed before in this thread. I can't yet wrap my head around this dilemma.
As for radio active dating, well here is the expert, worth listening to.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/wonderful-interview-with-dr-robert-gentry-creationist/
-
Could you re-phrase your question? I don’t follow.
My question was based on the assumption that the universe would in fact be very old and that evolution happened, controlled by God. Thus the question:
How could an all-good God let an imperfect universe evolve, wouldn't that mean that He's either not all-good or not all-powerful [...]
But disregarding the age of the universe: The perfect creation that Scripture tells us about in Genesis must've been totally different from the fallen creation we have today, one could say it would've been a completely different creation. There are animals that don't make any sense whatsoever in a perfect creation, they couldn't work that way.
Why did the velociraptor exist? It's a killing machine. How and why did any carnivores even exist? How did parasites live? Have you ever seen an animal infested by mangoworms? What's that about? It all seems to be about killing, blind, pitiless indifference. What about aging, wearing of bones etc.? The larger or stronger or smarter species survives. What about storms, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc.? I'm having a lot of difficulty imagining the perfect creation.
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/velociraptor-dinosaur-full-skeleton-scientifically-correct-view-picture-id178167447?k=20&m=178167447&s=612x612&w=0&h=3oDhc2BP4TvQv_tWHjzLrrqoztJx92Ha7MSctghLCgk=)
-
This is only about radio carbon dating, which is just one of several dating methods used today. It's also only supposed to be accurate in the five to six figure ages. There are other dating methods which are more accurate for much longer timespans by using decay periods of known radioactive elements in rocks to date them. But that by far is not the only thing that points towards an old universe. There's increasing evidence that the universe is in fact very old, things which I and others have listed before in this thread. I can't yet wrap my head around this dilemma.
There's other stuff out there about the other radio dating methods that's just as damning.
-
The Eastern tradition is c 5500 BC.
You don't know what modernism is any more than you know science or philosophy of science.
As far as the dating, there's an intersection between the Bible going forward in time and historical sources going backward in time. So, for instance, the Genesis account in terms of clear dating terminates at Abraham. So it depends on when historical sources place Abraham and the degree of certainty we have about those historical dates. There are probably other indications in the Bible of chronology. But we're talking about 6,000 +/- years vs. the absurd claim that human beings have been around for 200,000 years. Depending on historical knowledge, the dates could vary plus or minus by a few hundred years ... not a few hundred thousand.
I went to both a Jesuit High School and a Jesuit University, and I have an intimate knowledge of Modernism. And you're a Modernist.
-
Why did the velociraptor exist? It's a killing machine. How and why did any carnivores even exist? How did parasites live? Have you ever seen an animal infested by mangoworms? What's that about? It all seems to be about killing, blind, pitiless indifference. What about aging, wearing of bones etc.? The larger or stronger or smarter species survives. What about storms, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc.? I'm having a lot of difficulty imagining the perfect creation.
Parasites, natural disasters and all that are punishments for sin. If we stopped sinning, those would be decreased dramaticly.
Also the velocerapter is only about 2 feet tall. Unlike what was pictured in Jurassic Park
-
Let's also not forget the BIG changes to both mankind and nature, after Noah's flood. Pre-flood, man had a lifespan of centuries. Nature was also more in harmony with man. Post-flood, God cursed mankind and also nature, as a punishment for sins. Mankind's lifespan was now only 100 years and nature was also more violent/erratic, making man's life that much harder, driving him to more humility.
.
Also, the flood destroyed the firmament in the heavens and it disrupted the foundations/plates of the earth, which separated the continents by thousands of miles. The whole earth was in turmoil due to the flood. These changes were permanent.
.
Not to nitpick, but we technically don't know if people in general lived for centuries before the Flood. There is no general statement to that effect in the Bible. All we have is a list of patriarchs and how long they lived. So it's possible the people listed lived a miraculous length of time and everyone else lived to be 100 or 120 years or so.
.
I've always wondered about that. If I have time today, I will try to see what Cornelius a Lapide had to say on this question, if anything.
.
I agree with everything in the rest of your post, though. The environment of the earth became less healthful after the Flood. That is why God told Noe to eat meat when he landed (implying that people didn't do that before the Flood, apparently not needing that extra nourishment), and also why God inspired Noe to make wine, another thing that the human diet only required after the Flood. Apparently Noe was the first person to consume wine.
.
I think there is good evidence that dramatic changes in the weather were also the result of the Flood. Extremes of temperatures for the seasons, hurricanes, storms, rain. I think there is a verse that even suggests there wasn't exactly rain before the Flood, but that the earth was watered from within. I'd have to look up exactly what it says, but in any case the fact that God used a rainbow as a sign to Noe that He would never destroy the earth with another Flood seems to imply that a rainbow had never been seen before on earth. And a rainbow can only be seen when it's raining, so probably it didn't rain before the Flood.
-
But disregarding the age of the universe: The perfect creation that Scripture tells us about in Genesis must've been totally different from the fallen creation we have today, one could say it would've been a completely different creation. There are animals that don't make any sense whatsoever in a perfect creation, they couldn't work that way.
Why did the velociraptor exist? It's a killing machine. How and why did any carnivores even exist? How did parasites live? Have you ever seen an animal infested by mangoworms? What's that about? It all seems to be about killing, blind, pitiless indifference. What about aging, wearing of bones etc.? The larger or stronger or smarter species survives. What about storms, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc.? I'm having a lot of difficulty imagining the perfect creation.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
1. Garden of Eden. No sin, Adam named all the animals, which were friendly to humans and animals didn't kill each other. There was no death in Eden. Perfect peace and harmony between humans and nature.
.
2. Post-sin earth. Humans still ate plants only; not meat, but nature was not as "nice" to humans, this being a punishment for sin. Did animals still attack and eat each other? I don't know. Is this where we get the dinosaurs (if they even existed...i'm not convinced), and super-large predators, due to the revolt of nature, and the necessity of killing and death? Probably. God changed Adam and Eve's nature due to sin; it's reasonable to suggest He also changed the nature/instincts of animals.
.
3. Post Flood earth. God reduced man's lifespan; he would also reduce earth's lifespan (due to the chaos involved in the flood) and increase nature's animosity towards humans. When animals and nature once got along, now, most animals cannot be trained/loved by humans. Nature itself (in the form of hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes) now was at war with humanity, as a reminder of God's wrath for sin. Before the flood, there was no such thing as rain, nor earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.
-
Not to nitpick, but we technically don't know if people in general lived for centuries before the Flood. There is no general statement to that effect in the Bible. All we have is a list of patriarchs and how long they lived. So it's possible the people listed lived a miraculous length of time and everyone else lived to be 100 or 120 years or so.
Name anyone who lived hundreds of years in the bible. When were they born? Before the flood. Is there anyone born AFTER the flood who has lived longer than a 100 or so years? No. Therefore, indirectly, the Bible confirms what many Fathers and revelations have told us.
-
Name anyone who lived hundreds of years in the bible. When were they born? Before the flood. Is there anyone born AFTER the flood who has lived longer than a 100 or so years? No. Therefore, indirectly, the Bible confirms what many Fathers and revelations have told us.
Okay, so I looked it up in Cornelius a Lapide's commentary on Genesis. Thanks! I've been meaning to check this question for a long time, and you just gave me the reason to do so. Seems you're basically right.
.
Cornelius a Lapide, commentary on Genesis 5:5
You will ask, why were men so long-lived at that time? Pererius gives different reasons: First, there was an original excellence in the composition and temperament of the body in the first men; second, there was general sobriety that was so great that they used neither meat nor wine; third, there was the first strength of the earth, of fruits and foods, which in the beginning of creation were far more life-giving and nutritious and powerful than now, when they are weakened; fourth, there was the knowledge of Adam, which he communicated to others, by which he knew better than our doctors the power of herbs, fruits, metals, and so on; fifth, there was the good appearance, cooperation and influx of the stars [not sure what that one means, sounds like astrology or something]; sixth, there was the will of God and His secret assistance, Who did this so that men would be more quickly propagated, and learn thoroughly all the arts and sciences through long study, and also so that the first men would hand down to their most remote descendants a faith in the original creation of the world, and a knowledge and worship of God. This is why Lipomanus attributes this longevity more to a miracle of God than to nature.
-
God changed Adam and Eve's nature due to sin; it's reasonable to suggest He also changed the nature/instincts of animals.
Some theologians have written on this. Animals were ordered to God through men, and when men became disordered vis-a-vis God, so did the animals. That is probably why a saint like St. Francis of Assisi could command animals and get the most wild and ferocious ones to become docile ... because God had all but eliminated the disorder from Origiinal Sin in him.
-
Why did the velociraptor exist? It's a killing machine. How and why did any carnivores even exist? How did parasites live? Have you ever seen an animal infested by mangoworms? What's that about?
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/velociraptor-dinosaur-full-skeleton-scientifically-correct-view-picture-id178167447?k=20&m=178167447&s=612x612&w=0&h=3oDhc2BP4TvQv_tWHjzLrrqoztJx92Ha7MSctghLCgk=)
Dankwark, can you not see that even the language you are using here is tantamount to fantasy.
This being was apparently the size of a turkey, and even if it were huge, it was never a “killing” “machine”. Where are you getting your information? fantasy script writers? Sharks exist but they are not killing machines, tigers are not killing machines either. Animals kill to feed themselves (so do we).
The first ever death was when the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them. (Gen 3:21), this a direct consequence of their loss of innocence through sin. They felt naked, and so He clothed them.
It all seems to be about killing, blind, pitiless indifference. What about aging, wearing of bones etc.? The larger or stronger or smarter species survives. What about storms, hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc.? I'm having a lot of difficulty imagining the perfect creation.
This is exactly the evolutionists do, to make you confused (as you say yourself, in a di-lemma, i.e., of two minds). It was not communism that the Chinese taught to introduce their reign of terror,* which continues today worldwide (including your land and mine). No, they promoted evolution. A philosophy of no hope. A lie which says everything is evolving, which means in people’s minds, improving, when it is plain as the nose on your face that it is getting worse.
*maybe someone here can remember the missionary bishop who said this. I have a small book by/about him.
-
Okay, so I looked it up in Cornelius a Lapide's commentary on Genesis.
Im sure this is where I read it long ago, or from some theologian. These are not my personal musings.
-
*maybe someone here can remember the missionary bishop who said this. I have a small book by/about him.
Are you thinking of Bishop O'Gara, Nadir?
https://gwulo.com/node/23963
https://store.casamaria.org/the-surrender-to-secularism/
https://catholicism.org/in-china-darwinism-preceded-marxism.html
A friend of mine just sent me a booklet written by Most Rev. Cuthbert O’Gara, a bishop who had spent two years as a prisoner of the Chinese Communists. It is entitled The Surrender to Secularism. O’Gara was a member of the Passionist order and at the time of his arrest in 1951 he was the Bishop of Yuanling, China.
Born in Ottawa, Ontario, in 1886, Cuthbert received an excellent education both at home from his parents, Martin and Margaret, and in Catholic school. He graduated from the University of Ottawa in 1910 and from the Grand Seminaire in Montreal with a degree in Canon Law in 1913. Discerning that his vocation was to a religious order he entered the Passionist novitiate in Pittsburgh and, after taking vows, he was assigned to the monastery of Saint Michael in Union City, New Jersey. Having already completed his seminary training in Montreal he was ordained a priest in 1915. From 1917-1924 he taught theology, canon law, and holy scripture to Passionist students at Saint Michael’s. It was in 1924 that Father Cuthbert’s contemplative and scholarly life took a turn in a completely different direction. He was assigned to teach in a minor seminary and do missionary work in Shenchow, Northwest Hunan, China.
When he arrived in Hunan the province was in the midst of a horrible famine. Feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick and the dying took immediate precedence over every other work. Thus began the humble and exhausting labor that would accompany almost his entire thirty year apostolate in China.
In 1930 Father O’Gara was assigned as Prefect Apostolic of Shenchow as part of Rome’s earnest efforts to build the Church’s hierarchical structure in this immense mission land. In 1934 he was named Vicar Apostolic of Yuanling and consecrated Titular Bishop of Elis. During the eight years of the Sino-Japanese War Bishop O’Gara engaged himself with great fervor in tending to those wounded in the sporadic bombings from Japanese air raids. During the war he earned the title of “Stretcher-Bearer Bishop,” so often would he be seen carrying the wounded to his Mission Hospital. When the stretchers ran out he would carry the maimed on his back. During the long conflict with Japan Bishop O’Gara founded two hospitals and established thirteen refugee camps sheltering and feeding some 100,000 victims. In 1941 the Japanese arrested the bishop and condemned him to death. The sentence was never carried out as their troops gradually pulled out of China to fight the Allied forces on other Pacific fronts.
With the end of the war in 1945 came a few years of peace; Yuanling was established as a diocese; and Bishop O’Gara was installed as the Ordinary. Peace soon ended when the Chinese Communists began their onslaught of the northern provinces, taking over the entire country by 1949. At first, after the Reds’ final victory, they did not directly persecute every missionary, although they had killed many before that. They even tried persuading some to support their cause; that failing, then came threats and intimidation. Bishop O’Gara would never compromise in the defense of his flock and Church property. Finally, in June of 1951, they dragged him before the high altar of his cathedral, stripped him of his episcopal robes and insignia, and cast him into a solitary confinement at his mission where they applied various kinds of sadistic psychological tortures to break him. Bishop Sheen would later laud O’Gara as a man who could “pass the breaking point and not break.” After a brutalizing period of house arrest the bishop was moved to a filthy prison with vermin infested beds and kept alive by a paltry diet of watered down rice. A guard was assigned to watch him twenty-four hours a day. After twenty months of this treatment, which left him unable to walk, he was released, escorted to Hong Kong, and exiled for life. The Passionists were alerted and were waiting for the bishop with a stretcher on the Hong Kong side of the bridge. Two of their priests crossed over the bridge to Shenzhen, received the exiled missionary, and carried him to freedom.
When he returned to the United States Bishop O’Gara committed himself to preaching and giving lectures not only about Communism but also what he clearly perceived to be a growing cancer of secularism in America. With his first-hand knowledge of Communist doctrine, indoctrination methods, terror tactics, and global goals, it is not surprising that O’Gara was an ardent supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy. On November 26, 1954, three days before McCarthy was Judasized by his fellow senators, Bishop O’Gara gave a stirring invocation to a pro-McCarthy rally in Madison Square Garden.
A year before he died the holy bishop published the treatise I have just read. It was his last attempt at waking up indifferent American Catholics who, he believed, were on a slippery slope that could only end in atheistic tyranny. Secularism was preparing the grounds. In this work the bishop revealed a very interesting fact in the opening paragraphs. He explained that when the Red Army took over his diocese in 1949, they were followed by a civilian propaganda corps. These were the real fanatics for the revolution, the zealots committed wholeheartedly to the cause. All of the people were divided into their professional class and indoctrinated as a group: the doctors, the lawyers, the farmers, the teachers, even down to the coolies.
“Now what, I ask,” wrote the bishop, “was the first lesson given to the indoctrinees? One might have supposed that this would have been some pearl of wisdom let drop by Marx, Lenin, or Stalin. Such however was not the case. The very first, the fundamental, lesson given was man’s descent from the ape – Darwinism! . . . Darwinism negates God, the human soul, the after-life. Into this vacuum Communism enters as the be-all and the end-all of the intellectual slavery it has created. In the Red prison in which I was held, the slogan, ‘Bring your mind over to us and all your troubles will end,’ was hammered into the minds of the prisoners with brutal and numbing monotony. Nothing but a groveling h0Ɩ0cαųst of the human person can satiate the lust for dominance of Peking’s Red regime.”
On May 13, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, 1968, the valiant Bishop Cuthbert O’Gara died of a heart attack in his monastery of Saint Michael, Union City, New Jersey.
Currently, a fellow Passionist, Father Rob Carbonneau, Ph.D., is seeking information on Bishop O’Gara so that he might write a fitting biography of the heroic missioner. Some of the information I have in this column comes from his short biography, which can be found here (http://www.cpprovince.org/archives/heritage/fall94/fall94-3-1.php). The Surrender to Secularism can be ordered from the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, P.O. Box 11321, Saint Louis, MO 63105
-
That’s the one, Emile, thank you.
Bears repeating
“Now what, I ask,” wrote the bishop, “was the first lesson given to the indoctrinees? One might have supposed that this would have been some pearl of wisdom let drop by Marx, Lenin, or Stalin. Such however was not the case. The very first, the fundamental, lesson given was man’s descent from the ape – Darwinism! . . . Darwinism negates God, the human soul, the after-life. Into this vacuum Communism enters as the be-all and the end-all of the intellectual slavery it has created. In the Red prison in which I was held, the slogan, ‘Bring your mind over to us and all your troubles will end,’ was hammered into the minds of the prisoners with brutal and numbing monotony. Nothing but a groveling h0Ɩ0cαųst of the human person can satiate the lust for dominance of Peking’s Red regime.”
The same trash that Fr Paul Robinson promotes, whether you call it darwinism or big bang or millions of years of evolution. It is a denial of God’s Word.
-
How sad that some Catholics have less Faith in the Bible than fundamentalist protestants.
There are lots of fundie prots who earnestly believe in a young earth, and seek out alternate, Bible-friendly explanations to all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE science has turned up.
And they've done very well, too!
-
.
Not to nitpick, but we technically don't know if people in general lived for centuries before the Flood. There is no general statement to that effect in the Bible. All we have is a list of patriarchs and how long they lived. So it's possible the people listed lived a miraculous length of time and everyone else lived to be 100 or 120 years or so.
.
I've always wondered about that. If I have time today, I will try to see what Cornelius a Lapide had to say on this question, if anything.
.
Domenico Cassini (1625-1712), for one, using the means given to him by King Louis XIV (1638-1715) sought this history up to his time through study of the oldest and rarest books on the subject he acquired from around the world. Cassini writes:
‘There is no room for doubt that Astronomy was invented at the beginning of the World. As there is nothing more noteworthy than the regularity of movement among these great luminous bodies that turn unceasingly around the Earth, it is natural to think that one of the first interests of men was to consider their course and observe their periods. But mere curiosity alone was not solely responsible for leading men to set themselves astronomical speculations, for it can be maintained that necessity as well obliged them. For should one not observe the seasons that vary by the movement of the Sun, it would be impossible to make a success of agriculture; were one to fail to note the suitable times for travel, one could establish no Business; should one not have determined once for all the length of the month and the year, there could be neither order established between civil affairs, nor could days be marked out for religious purposes: hence as agricultural farming, commerce, politics and even religion cannot do without astronomy, it is obvious that men must have been obliged to study this science right from the World’s beginning. Both sacred and secular history confirms this truth. What the Holy Scriptures reveals about the years that the ancient Patriarchs lived up to is proof positive that the first men studied the movements of the stars. For had they not taken account of the exact number of days that last in the varying phases of the Moon which serve to conceal the months; and of the number of months during which the Sun little by little approaches the Zenith and afterwards distances itself from it, marking the changes by increase and diminution of the days, which allow one to establish the length of the year, they could not have noted the number of years each Patriarch had lived, nor the times of their birth and death, as precisely as Moses records it in Genesis. And there certainly was need in this first age of the world to observe the stars with a great deal of care, for by the circuмstances of the history of the great flooding which are also reported in Genesis, one can see that the year from the time of the Deluge was regulated following the movements of the Sun and Moon: which supposes a boundless number of observations. It is yet to be understood how all the application imaginable by the first men studying the sky could have gained them so much knowledge of the movements of the stars, unless their lives were longer than ours. By the living of such long lives gained for them great advances in astronomy. Flavius Josephus (37-100AD) was of the opinion that so necessary was this science that one of the reasons why God granted the first men such a long-lasting life was to facilitate for them the knowledge of the movements of the stars.’
-
Cassini continues: ‘Nothing better helps to know the antiquity of astronomy than what Ptolemy (120AD) says of the observations of the skies by which Hipparchus (140BC) reformed this science two thousand years ago. Ptolemy reports that those who were already called astronomers in the days of Hipparchus had observed that the Moon not only moves unequally both by longitude as well as latitude but also that the extent of its inequality, since known as Apogee and Perigee, successively passes through all the degrees of the Zodiac, and that its greatest latitude as well in the north regions as in the regions of the south is transported by the flight of time, by all the degrees of this same circle, in such manner that at each revolution the Moon cuts across the Ecliptic in different degrees. That these astronomers, in order to discover the rules governing these inequalities, compared together many lunar eclipses by which means they sought to find the longest periods of time which being equal among themselves, each contained the same number of unequal months, that Hipparchus, to connect these long periods once found, had chosen from a great number of ancient observations those proper to his purposes; and that having compared them amongst themselves, he noticed that the Sun and the Moon starting from that same point in the sky, would meet 4267 times in 126007 days and one hour after the Moon had made 4612 revolutions by the Zodiac with regard to the fixed stars, less seven degrees and one half, and that it made 4573 returns to the point of its apogee. That nevertheless after this period of 4573 revolutions, the eclipses do not come back to the original size, but only after 5458 months. This witness by Ptolemy shows of course that some of these observations of the skies used by Hipparchus were very old. For a very long interval of time is required and a great number of observations as well to be able to conclude that these very long periods observed together by Hipparchus were uniform; it is not difficult to see the need for many observations to control this uniformity when one thinks that of all the eclipses occurring from 2500 years ago to the present moment there are not two that would be out of conformity with the spaces of these long periods. An objection that could render suspect the antiquity of these observations used by Hipparchus is that about 2200 years from the time this astronomer lived up to the Deluge, which would appear to have buried all monuments of arts and sciences. But one must not be surprised that the memory of the astronomic observations made during the first age of the world, could have lasted even after the Flood, since Josephus recalls that the descendants of Seth to preserve for posterity the memory of the observations of the skies that had been made, sculpted the main ones on two columns, one of stone, the other of brick; that the one of stone survived the Deluge, and that in his time one could see traces of it in Syria. It is therefore established that right from the first age of the world, men had already made great progress in the science of the movement of the stars. One could even say that they were more versed in this lore than they have been since the Flood, if it is true that the year used as a yardstick by the ancient Patriarchs was of the greatness of those composed by the great period of 600 years, as mentioned in the Antiquities of the Jews written by Josephus. We cannot find in the remaining monuments of all the other nations any vestige of this period of 600 years, one of the finest yet to be invented. For supposing the lunar month of 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes and 3 seconds, one finds that 219146 days and a half make 7421 lunar months; and this same number of 219146 days and a half gives 600 solar years each consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 51 minutes and 36 seconds. If this is the year in use before the Flood, as there appears to be every chance of being so, it must be admitted that the ancient Patriarchs knew already with great precision the movement of the stars; for this lunar month accords, for one second out, with that which has been determined by modern astronomers; and the solar year is more exact than that of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, who assigned the year 365 days, 5 hrs, 55 minutes and 12 seconds. [Today’s tropical year is said to be 365 days, 5 hours, 48 min., 51.6 seconds]. After the Deluge, mankind, having been dispersed throughout the world, the Kings of each people took great care to cultivate astronomy, as the historians of all nations attest. Uranus, King of the peoples that first inhabited the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, was considered to be of the race of the gods because he had a special knowledge of the skies. Zoroaster, King of the Bactrian, is only so well-known because he excelled in astronomy. The first Kings of China acquired for themselves an immortal glory for having made 4000 years ago, shortly after the Flood, many astronomical observations that the Chinese have conserved to this day. Finally, Prometheus, King of Scythia, son of ‘Japer’, that many famous authors hold to have been the same as ‘Japeth’ one of the sons of Noah, taught his ignorant and stupid people the science of the stars; which gave rise among the poets to the saying that he had stolen fire from Heaven, and had brought statues to life. The peoples had such great veneration for these great men that studied astronomy that they rendered them divine honours and dedicated to them temples and altars. But whatever one may make of all these stories whose chronology is perhaps not always very exact, it is certain that soon after the Flood, the Chaldeans observed the skies with much care. Philo attests that Thare, who was born in Chaldea over a hundred years before the death of Noah, was very much given up to astronomy and that he taught it to his son Abraham. Josephus adds that Abraham came to the knowledge of the true God in contemplating the stars; and that having passed from Chaldea into Egypt; he brought the science of astronomy there. This science was held in such esteem at this time that only Kings or Priests made profession of it. Perhaps this is why Virgil, speaking of Dido and Eneus, introduces Lopas who sings what Atlas, King of Mauritania, had taught of the eclipses of the Sun and of the Moon, and of the situation and movements of the stars. Astronomy being held in such esteem in Egypt, it is not surprising that it was taught to Moses who was raised as a Prince Royal of the care of the daughter of Pharaoh. Clement of Alexandria says that Moses made great progress in this science, and that he later taught it to the Jews. Thus astronomy having come from Chaldea into Egypt, passed from Egypt into Judea, and was in a short time carried into Phoenicia and into all the neighbouring countries.
‘Up to then astronomers hadn’t yet attempted to apply their speculations for use of navigation. But as the Phoenicians were as entrepreneurial as they were hard working, they began to use the observations of the skies to lead them on long distance voyages. So successful was their profiting from the advantages of astronomy, that they were able to carry commerce into far distant lands, made themselves into masters of the seas, established colonies along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, and having entered the ocean, took hold of the Isle of Cadis and built there a very magnificent city. The reputation they had of excelling in navigation caused them to be called upon in various kingdoms to conduct the fleets of foreign princes. Salomon gave them the control of the fleet that he sent via the Red Sea into Ophir; whence they brought back much gold and a great store of the same goods that Europeans presently bring back from South Africa and the Indies. Nechao II, King of Egypt, also employed them to conduct his fleet, which made a much longer voyage according to Herodote: for he says that having followed the Red Sea coast it entered the ocean, crossed the Torrid Zone, toured Africa and came back to Egypt via the Mediterranean Sea.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/very%20last%20final%20edit%20of%20TE.doc#_ftnref1)J. D. Cassini: The Progress of Astronomy and its Use for Geography and in Navigation, Paris, 1693, pp.1, 5.
-
How sad that some Catholics have less Faith in the Bible than fundamentalist protestants.
There are lots of fundie prots who earnestly believe in a young earth, and seek out alternate, Bible-friendly explanations to all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE science has turned up.
And they've done very well, too!
And that goes for a defense of geocentrism too. First a quote from 1873, 38 years after Pope Pius VII allowed heliocentric books to be read as correct.
‘Which [universe] is right? It would be very simple to me which is right, if it were only a question for human import. But the wise and truthful God has expressed Himself on this matter in the Bible. The entire Holy Scriptures settles the question that the Earth is the principal body of the universe, and it stands fixed, and that the Sun and the Moon only serve to light it. -- Lutheran Teachers’ Seminary, St Louis, Astronomische Uterredung, 1873.
The above quote, from a Lutheran seminary of all places, shows more faith in the true interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures concerning its revelation of a geocentric world in 1873 than did Catholic churchmen of the Holy Office of that time. To our knowledge there is no record of any proper Catholic Church defence of a geocentric reading of the Bible after 1835.
Now witness the debate in 1820 between the geocentrist Fr Anfossi anf Fr Olivieri the heliocentrist who wanted to get heliocentrism into the womb of the Church.
Anfossi: ‘Will Canon Settele not show toward the [geocentric] assertions of Scripture the respect which a heretic [the Protestant Tycho de Brahe] had for them.’
Olivieri: ‘Allow us to ask him in turn: in astronomy Protestants have abandoned Tycho, despite his extremely great merit, and they believe his system is a monstrous absurdity; instead they have turned to follow Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo (all great Catholic men) [Kepler was not a Catholic, he was a Protestant], who are believed to hold the truth, the physical evidence, and the increasingly stronger observational confirmations; why then do you want to oblige a Catholic to follow a heretic who has been abandoned by his fellow heretics.’
Using the quote above from the Luthern seminary as an example, it was Protestant who championed the geocentrism of Scripture long before any Catholic became involved. Given the spurious arguments offered by Olivieri in support of heliocentrism and the removal of the bans against heliocentrism, it is worth noting he also tried to have his way by taunting Anfossi throughout his report, just as YECs are taunted on CIF by others. Here are more examples of the ridicule Fr Olivieri used against Fr Anfossi: ‘This proposition seems to me to be infected with intolerable absurdity.’ ‘The fact is that you say nothing with any perspicacity or with distinct clarity.’ ‘The Rev. Father must be joking when…’ ‘He also dares to say..’ ‘Why, Most Rev. Father, instead of talking off the top of your head…’ ‘I find his internal incoherence stupefying.’ ‘Any Catholic should be ashamed for him of what he says.’ ‘He’s been seduced by unknown incompetent persons.’
-
But we're talking about 6,000 +/- years vs. the absurd claim that human beings have been around for 200,000 years. Depending on historical knowledge, the dates could vary plus or minus by a few hundred years ... not a few hundred thousand.
6000 years means Adam was created c 4000 BC. As I said, the Eastern tradition is c 5500 BC.
So are you condemning the Eastern tradition, or does "plus or minus a few hundred years" include 1500 years? How about 5000? How much is too much?
I went to both a Jesuit High School and a Jesuit University, and I have an intimate knowledge of Modernism.
You apparently didn't learn much from them.
There's other stuff out there about the other radio dating methods that's just as damning.
The "other stuff out there" usually boils down to two claims about radiometric dating - that decay rates vary, and that "contamination" affects the results.
Decay rates are not affected in any significant way by extreme pressure or temperature. There's a reason for that. Electrons "shield" the atomic nucleus from external conditions, so decay depends almost entirely on the conditions in the nucleus. That means decay rate depends almost entirely on the element. What little variation might exist is not enough to change dates of billions of years into thousands of years.
"Contamination" is also not a concern. It can usually be recognized without testing. Contamination would also usually result in the measured age being younger than the actual age, so it doesn't help the YEC arguments. (That is, if an item is dated to X years ago, a claim that it was "contaminated" would usually mean its actual age would have to be greater than X.)
How sad that some Catholics have less Faith in the Bible than fundamentalist protestants.
There are lots of fundie prots who earnestly believe in a young earth, and seek out alternate, Bible-friendly explanations to all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE science has turned up.
YEC is not faith in the Bible per se, but faith in a particular interpretation.
Jehovahs Witnesses believe its wrong to take blood during surgery, and they will die for it. One could admire their faith.
That doesn't mean their particular interpretation of the Bible is correct.
-
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
https://www.brighteon.com/e11a9e0b-d754-4c81-89be-4dcdcaf36c34
-
As far as the dating, there's an intersection between the Bible going forward in time and historical sources going backward in time. So, for instance, the Genesis account in terms of clear dating terminates at Abraham. So it depends on when historical sources place Abraham and the degree of certainty we have about those historical dates. There are probably other indications in the Bible of chronology. But we're talking about 6,000 +/- years vs. the absurd claim that human beings have been around for 200,000 years. Depending on historical knowledge, the dates could vary plus or minus by a few hundred years ... not a few hundred thousand.
I went to both a Jesuit High School and a Jesuit University, and I have an intimate knowledge of Modernism. And you're a Modernist.
Stan’s just a disciple of a modernist heretical priest.
-
Parasites, natural disasters and all that are punishments for sin. If we stopped sinning, those would be decreased dramaticly.
Also the velocerapter is only about 2 feet tall. Unlike what was pictured in Jurassic Park
You're right about the size, velociraptors are not that tall (as opposed to Deinonychus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus), which the films' raptors are based on), but they were a huge threat to animals lower in the food chain still. As you can see in a lot of animals, they're designed to kill as efficiently as possible, that's why I was saying that they're bascially killing machines.
I really don't understand why the bible is so silent on all those things, when new animals were created (parasites etc.), when the lifespan of humans was reduced, and so forth. It doesn't really like teaching about "mundane" scientific details, does it?
Dankwark, can you not see that even the language you are using here is tantamount to fantasy.
This being was apparently the size of a turkey, and even if it were huge, it was never a “killing” “machine”. Where are you getting your information? fantasy script writers? Sharks exist but they are not killing machines, tigers are not killing machines either. Animals kill to feed themselves (so do we).
The first ever death was when the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them. (Gen 3:21), this a direct consequence of their loss of innocence through sin. They felt naked, and so He clothed them.
Nadir, please see my response to Romulus above. My phrase "killing machines" might be a bit graphic, but it gets the meaning across I think. There are tons of carnivorous animals that are built specially for efficient killing. The crocodiles, which are one of the still living reptiles that are closely related to dinosaurs, are a good example for this. But also with birds, fish, mammals, there are a lot of examples which exist right in front of your eyes. Sharks, by the way, kill not only to feed themselves. For example dolphins and orcas are known for killing young conspecifics of theirs just for fun. Nature is more brutal than you might think, you should really get away from feel-good nature docuмentaries and inform yourself.
This was all to show the difficulty I'm having with aligning a perfect creation, which must've contained none of these terrible traits of fallen creation, with nature as we see it today.
This is exactly the evolutionists do, to make you confused (as you say yourself, in a di-lemma, i.e., of two minds). It was not communism that the Chinese taught to introduce their reign of terror,* which continues today worldwide (including your land and mine). No, they promoted evolution. A philosophy of no hope. A lie which says everything is evolving, which means in people’s minds, improving, when it is plain as the nose on your face that it is getting worse.
*maybe someone here can remember the missionary bishop who said this. I have a small book by/about him.
Dilemma, noun: a situation with two (or more) alternatives to choose from, and where all alternatives are unsatisfactory or undesirable
- from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dilemma
What I can agree on is that when looking for evidence of "evolution" over known history, all we can see is devolution in men. For example linguists can tell you that languages are getting simpler over time, more unified, "dumber", you could argue.
-
Question to you, Stanley N (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Stanley%20N/), as advocate of an old universe:
What do you actually believe? It's at least very hard to reconcile atheist modern science's assertions about the history of the universe with the Catholic faith. I'm currently wondering how and if it's possible at all. Do you believe that after a big bang, formation of matter, galaxies, stars, celestial bodies etc., God made the perfect creation via evolution? Wouldn't that be against the principle of evolution which can only happen by trial and error, or rather, by killing and death? Because if yes, that'd mean once again that evolution and an old unvierse in general and creation by an all-good, all-powerful God are mutually exclusive.
-
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
https://www.brighteon.com/e11a9e0b-d754-4c81-89be-4dcdcaf36c34
I'm not sure if this video really helps your cause (I'm assuming you were trying to make a point about flat Earth?). Because that's one of the problems with FE: You need to believe that just about everything is fake. Of course the governments lie, NASA lies, Russia lies, etc. But Aristotle? And all the other globe Earth advocates? All the experiments? All the video footage?
I scrubbed through the video a bit, and they got to one of SpaceX's Starship rocket launches at about 6mins into the video. It's hilarious to hear them argue that this, too, is of course CGI, just as anything that ever went further than a few miles above the ground, which is absolutely ridiculous. These modern rocket launches are watched and observed by millions of people on Earth, and by thousands on-site every time, you can't just fake stuff like this. Then he goes on about how a side shot of a rocket with a few kilometers altitude is impossible - I thought FE's were experts at perspective, weren't they? Then he's obviously missing the whole concept of rocket thrusters, and everything he can't explain is simply fake.
And space shuttles are completely fake as well? Oh dear... these people live in a parallel universe. The only things he's probably right about is the SS Challenger disaster, which had some strange things going on for sure, it was probably staged and the astronauts weren't really onboard, and he knows about the Georgia Guide Stones. Not too bad.
The rant could go on but... :facepalm: it's off-topic here anyway, sorry.
-
Correction, it was actually Eratosthenes who measured Earths circuмference this way:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Eratostene--Calcolo_Raggio_Terrestre.jpg/610px-Eratostene--Calcolo_Raggio_Terrestre.jpg)
-
Correction, it was actually Eratosthenes who measured Earths circuмference this way:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Eratostene--Calcolo_Raggio_Terrestre.jpg/610px-Eratostene--Calcolo_Raggio_Terrestre.jpg)
Yes, and Carl Friedrich Gauß perfected the method, to survey Prussia even without shadows, confirming curvature of the surface of Prussia.
-
I'm not sure if this video really helps your cause (I'm assuming you were trying to make a point about flat Earth?). Because that's one of the problems with FE: You need to believe that just about everything is fake. Of course the governments lie, NASA lies, Russia lies, etc. But Aristotle? And all the other globe Earth advocates? All the experiments? All the video footage?
I scrubbed through the video a bit, and they got to one of SpaceX's Starship rocket launches at about 6mins into the video. It's hilarious to hear them argue that this, too, is of course CGI, just as anything that ever went further than a few miles above the ground, which is absolutely ridiculous. These modern rocket launches are watched and observed by millions of people on Earth, and by thousands on-site every time, you can't just fake stuff like this. Then he goes on about how a side shot of a rocket with a few kilometers altitude is impossible - I thought FE's were experts at perspective, weren't they? Then he's obviously missing the whole concept of rocket thrusters, and everything he can't explain is simply fake.
And space shuttles are completely fake as well? Oh dear... these people live in a parallel universe. The only things he's probably right about is the SS Challenger disaster, which had some strange things going on for sure, it was probably staged and the astronauts weren't really onboard, and he knows about the Georgia Guide Stones. Not too bad.
The rant could go on but... :facepalm: it's off-topic here anyway, sorry.
There's probably about 30 minutes of obviously fake footage there ... in addition to the Challenger problem. And the U.S. moonlanding was obviously faked as well. Mars rovers they pretended were on Mars were actually in Greenland and Devon Island. It's non-stop fakery from NASA.
-
Correction, it was actually Eratosthenes who measured Earths circuмference this way:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Eratostene--Calcolo_Raggio_Terrestre.jpg/610px-Eratostene--Calcolo_Raggio_Terrestre.jpg)
In the flat earth model, the sun is much closer than the purported 93 million miles and much smaller than alleged, and so the rays of the sun would not be parallel.
-
It seems to me that the novelty of “flat Earth” was invented to muddy the waters and to aid in ridicule the geocentric model.
Flat Earthers please give a cogent explanation for the difference in appearance of the moon in the Southern and Northern Hemispheres?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner)
https://www.gettyimages.dk/detail/photo/the-moon-as-seen-from-the-southern-hemisphere-royalty-free-image/168839237 (https://www.gettyimages.dk/detail/photo/the-moon-as-seen-from-the-southern-hemisphere-royalty-free-image/168839237)
-
It seems to me that the novelty of “flat Earth” was invented to muddy the waters and to aid in ridicule the geocentric model.
Flat Earthers please give a cogent explanation for the difference in appearance of the moon in the Southern and Northern Hemispheres?
You're not very well acquainted with the flat earth model. Even most anti-flat-earthers concede that this is a non-issue. Those in the north look at it from the opposite angle as those from the south. There are some discussions regarding the moon's phases but there are solid explanations for those as well.
-
Dankward:
As you can see in a lot of animals, they're designed to kill as efficiently as possible, that's why I was saying that they're bascially killing machines.
I really don't understand why the bible is so silent on all those things, when new animals were created (parasites etc.), when the lifespan of humans was reduced, and so forth. It doesn't really like teaching about "mundane" scientific details, does it?
Who designed the animals? I sincerely hope you believe it was Almighty God who designed them.
If you do believe that God is the Designer, then it goes against the Faith to say they were designed to kill as efficiently as possible. Have you read the first chapter of Genesis? You certainly need to read it again. Every thing He created “was good”. To say he created a killing machine is plainly false.
The answer to your question has been dealt with in previous posts of this thread.
My phrase "killing machines" might be a bit graphic, but it gets the meaning across I think. There are tons of carnivorous animals that are built specially for efficient killing. The crocodiles, which are one of the still living reptiles that are closely related to dinosaurs, are a good example for this. But also with birds, fish, mammals, there are a lot of examples which exist right in front of your eyes. Sharks, by the way, kill not only to feed themselves. For example dolphins and orcas are known for killing young conspecifics of theirs just for fun.
Your phrase killing machine is not so much graphic as it is imaginative, emotional. That animals kill for fun is pure fantasy.
Nature is more brutal than you might think, you should really get away from feel-good nature docuмentaries and inform yourself.
This was all to show the difficulty I'm having with aligning a perfect creation, which must've contained none of these terrible traits of fallen creation, with nature as we see it today.
My experience of nature is from real life, and not from nature docuмentaries. I know a bit about crocs, though my experience is not extensive. But that’s another story. it matters not whether they are related to dinosaurs. They kill to eat, or maybe in competition with a rival for female favours. But they, and no other animal can be called a killing machine. Use of such language is highly emotive and indicates that one has a warped image of Creation.
-
Dankward, I forgot to say:
The whole reason for the promotion of evolution is to destroy your trust in a good God, one who created a world that is good. This is why the Chinese taught evolution ahead of communism, and why we have been brainwashed, by the education system. Nobody is untouched by this evil teaching, and here we have an SSPX priest teaching it. Tragic!
-
Question to you, Stanley N (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Stanley%20N/),
I do not see a predator-prey relation as bad. Predators follow their nature, their instincts as instilled by God, and that's good. (Animal evolution would be subject to divine Providence, so even with evolution, animals would have their instincts instilled by God.)
Before man, carnivores killed and ate other animals according to their natures. Once Adam was created, animals were subject to man's governance. When Adam sinned, man lost full governance over animals. I do not believe animal natures were substantially changed by Adam's sin.
Personally, I find it odd that people who reject evolution think predators such as sharks were herbivores and suddenly changed to carnivores, yet both are sharks?
-
I do not see a predator-prey relation as bad. Predators follow their nature, their instincts as instilled by God, and that's good. (Animal evolution would be subject to divine Providence, so even with evolution, animals would have their instincts instilled by God.)
Before man, carnivores killed and ate other animals according to their natures. Once Adam was created, animals were subject to man's governance. When Adam sinned, man lost full governance over animals. I do not believe animal natures were substantially changed by Adam's sin.
Personally, I find it odd that people who reject evolution think predators such as sharks were herbivores and suddenly changed to carnivores, yet both are sharks?
Predator-prey is a consequence of sin.
So for what length of time did the animals roam the earth without the governance of man, and before Adam sinned.
The scripture tells us:
And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=28-#x) And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=29-#x) And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=30-#x) And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
That means neither man nor animal needed to kill to eat. Killing and death came into the world through the sim of Adam. Do you deny this?
It also means that the animals were created the day immediately preceding the creation of man. Does scripture give us falsehood?
-
That means neither man nor animal needed to kill to eat. Killing and death came into the world through the sim of Adam. Do you deny this?
That's your interpretation.
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, I, 96, 1 ad 2. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm
In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state [of innocence], have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30 say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon.
It's human death that came into the world through sin.
It also means that the animals were created the day immediately preceding the creation of man. Does scripture give us falsehood?
You are aware that a decision of the Biblical Commission under St. Pius X permits interpreting "day" as a period of time?
There's probably about 30 minutes of obviously fake footage there ... in addition to the Challenger problem. And the U.S. moonlanding was obviously faked as well.
You mean allegedly fake footage.
Weiss is a con-man. Most of what he says is nonsense, but he says it with a veneer of conviction so the rubes eat it up. His fantasyland FE makes less sense than a fiction series called Discworld.
The moon landings were one of - perhaps the - most docuмented events in recent history. They happened around 50 years ago, with plenty of eyewitnesses including the astronauts themselves, many of whom are still alive. It seems absurd to say the moon landings are not credible. There may be some anomalies in that huge mass of evidence, but in most cases, these anomalies have been explained, by people with relevant training.
-
That's your interpretation.
You didn’t answer my question, just dodged it. I take therefore from this response that you do deny that killing and death came into the world through the sin of Adam.
You are aware that a decision of the Biblical Commission under St. Pius X permits interpreting "day" as a period of time?
Of course. Is a day not a period of time, in fact the period of time chosen by God Himself? He could have chosen to use hours, but days fitted His plan for our life, which is based on a 24 hour a day, 7 day week cycle, 6 to work then the 7th day to rest.
In his 1893 encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII made it clear that the burden of proof rests upon those who would change the meaning of the first chapters of Genesis from their plain and literal sense:
"But he [the expositor of Scripture] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine -- not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate."
Although the Magisterium has never ruled definitively on the question of animal death before the Fall, St. Augustine is the only Church Father whose writings on Genesis have been preserved who believed that animals practiced carnivory before the Fall. All of the other Fathers held that animal death did not begin until after the Original Sin.
As Father Victor Warkulwiz docuмents in his book, The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church interpreted Genesis as authentic history up until the 19th century, and it was not new theological insight that produced the modern allegorical interpretation, but rather the desire of theologians to accommodate Scripture to the emerging theories of old age and evolution.
[59] Warkulwiz, M.S.S., The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins.
https://www.kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/
-
It seems absurd to say the moon landings are not credible.
:facepalm: :laugh2:
-
:facepalm: :laugh2:
ASTRONOT DON PETIT EXPLAINS WHY WE CAN’T GO BACK TO THE MOON
1min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SrihxLRjdmnX/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/SrihxLRjdmnX/)
Accidentally erased the moon landing tapes--Ooops
2min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCygZNtp-WQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCygZNtp-WQ)
They can't send man to mars cause would burn up in Van Allen belt but we sent them to moon:
6:34min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0pVNhkdlg7KO/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/0pVNhkdlg7KO/)
Can't agree on ability to see stars in space:
4:40
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WvnOvjtoCpc5/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/WvnOvjtoCpc5/)
-
...
Can't agree on ability to see stars in space: 4:40
All of which are easily understood, if you have an open mind.
But a shout-out to the last one. Nice job putting together clips from different contexts to create the appearance of a dilemma where none exists.
-
Although the Magisterium has never ruled definitively on the question of animal death before the Fall, St. Augustine is the only Church Father whose writings on Genesis have been preserved who believed that animals practiced carnivory before the Fall. All of the other Fathers held that animal death did not begin until after the Original Sin.
Whether there were predators before the Fall or not is a long debated subject. Like St Augustine, I had long come to the conclusion there had to be, for certain reasons. The Lord said creation was GOOD. For me this meant that there would be a natural way to keep a balance of creatures on Earth. Just imagine a situation where every creature, from dinosaur to insect, were herbivore and breeding away with no casualties. That Earth would soon be overcome with their kinds. For a good Earth it would be necessary to have a balance where no such overwhelming numbers of creatures would fill the Earth leaving mankind little room to live in.
Second, many creatures are designed to consume other kinds. There is a huge difference between herbivores and carnivores, be they birds, animals and fish kinds. Take the whale designed to scoop up millions of Krill, fish or zooplankton. Were they once before the fall able to eat herbs? Were the seas filled with such herbs as was the land. Can you imagine the 'evolution;' necessary to turn all those creatures from herbivores to carnivores? Boy wouldn't the evolutionists love that.
Now that said, I noticed on one Nadir post the fact that God created all His whales, animals and insects on day 5, the day before Adam and Eve, and their Original Sin that supposedly turned all those herbivores into carnivores. Now that was a Eureka moment for me. On another post it said that the term day was not necessarily a 24hour day, but used to describe the order of creation, one creation as a result of the creation before it. St Augustine said all were created immediately but described in days of the week to give them order.
In other words, with St Augustine's immediate creation, there was no time for carnivores to indulge before the Fall. How then could he have believed there was animal death before the Fall? One of the reasons for dismissing carnivores before the Fall of Adam and Eve was that there would have been death before the Fall, a favourite excuse for evolutionists to dismiss the six-day or immediate creation. Nor would there have been a necessary evolution of herbivores to carnivores after the Fall. And that is how we can understand how God's creation was 'good.' I will now go along with all the Fathers that held to no death before the Fall.
-
All of which are easily understood, if you have an open mind.
But a shout-out to the last one. Nice job putting together clips from different contexts to create the appearance of a dilemma where none exists.
These "clips" of NASA fraud go on for HOURS. It was demonstrated conclusively that the pictures NASA had from a Mars Rover were actually done in Greenland, and another Mars rover was located on Google earth ... on Devon Island.
This whole flat earth thing could be put to be very easily by just taking a an actual video of the rotating earth from space, from some kind of probe or whatever. Build something just for this purpose. By NASA's own admission (or, rather, the admission of people who worked for NASA), every single official picture of the globe earth is composite and/or CGI. They released ridiculous versions where the continents were different sizes, one where North America was absurdly large. In addition to the "glitches" in footage from ISS, there are pictures of spacewalks where air bubbles can be seen, making it clear that they were actually filming in their underwater training facility at Johnson. This garbage goes on for hours and hours and hours ... and cannot be reduced to a "few clips taken out of context". There's a short video where George H.W. Bush was being rolled through NASA in a wheel chair and --oops-- you could actually see the "astronaut" who was allegedly live from space doing his act in front of a green screen. It's to the point of being absurd.
Just as flat earth could be put to bed with simple technology, so also the entire branch of science that arose out of rejecting the results of Michelson Morley could be decided very quickly by putting a Michelson Morley apparatus on the moon. But they're absolutely terrified. If M-M were to show movement of the moon through ether, then it would blow away all of modern physics ... and would prove that the earth is motionless.
If you actually opened up your mind and took the trouble to look.
-
In other words, with St Augustine's immediate creation, there was no time for carnivores to indulge before the Fall.
Moles live on worms and insects and need to eat almost continuously. Some species have such high metabolism that they supposedly can't go more than an hour without food.
I'm sure there are parasites and microorganisms that consume on much shorter time scales, like minutes or even seconds.
So you're suggesting Adam was created and fell practically immediately, like the fallen angels.
-
In other words, with St Augustine's immediate creation, there was no time for carnivores to indulge before the Fall.
I wanted to thank you for bringing this up. Had I brought it up, I suspect Ladislaus would have dismissed it as modernist.
I rather like St. Augustine's view of immediate creation. I tend to think of Gen 1 as organised chronologically, but the structure of 3 days of separation and 3 days of adornment is also clear. I wouldn't exclude St. Augustine's logical rather than chronological organisation.
And overall, this was one of your best posts. You combined things said in the thread, came up with a hypothesis, and composed a post without a bunch of cut-and-paste. (And the font is uniform.)
-
I rather like St. Augustine's view of immediate creation.
Of course you do ... so you can use this to dismiss the rest of the Genesis account, which St. Augustine didn't do.
-
I wanted to thank you for bringing this up. Had I brought it up, I suspect Ladislaus would have dismissed it as modernist.
Now you're straw-manning here. This part is pure speculation and is not indicated by Scripture. I'm talking about where Scripture does actually teach something.
Nevertheless, here, there's a future-state indication of the "lion laying down with the lamb" ... which may be a metaphor, or it may be real. Again, this is pure speculation. Despite the fact that these animals appear to be designed to be carnivores, that could have been done by God in anticipation of the Fall. Even animals that are now carnivores could have survived without actually indulging in the behavior ... eating various fruits and nuts that may have been available at the time. But it's pure speculation and has nothing to do with your other Modernist tendencies.
Also, there have actually been some situations where scientists assumed that some animals were carnivores due to various physiological considerations and found out later that they had been mistaken. I can't recall the scenario exactly, but I did hear about it somewhere.
Even if animals ate other animals, it's also possible that they did so immediately after the animals just happened to die, or else only hunted or attacked other animals when necessary for food. I could see an in-between state, where even if some carnivorous activity took place, there was little other aggression between the animals.
-
You're not very well acquainted with the flat earth model. Even most anti-flat-earthers concede that this is a non-issue. Those in the north look at it from the opposite angle as those from the south. There are some discussions regarding the moon's phases but there are solid explanations for those as well.
Lad, I’m surprised you’re taking this seriously. This is an obvious set up to make traditionalists look ridiculous.
-
Also, there have actually been some situations where scientists assumed that some animals were carnivores due to various physiological considerations and found out later that they had been mistaken. I can't recall the scenario exactly, but I did hear about it somewhere.
Some good examples of this would be the cases of the Grizzly bear and the Black bear:
Bears are omnivores that have relatively unspecialized digestive systems similar to those of carnivores. The primary difference is that bears have an elongated digestive tract, an adaptation that allows bears more efficient digestion of vegetation than other carnivores (Herrero 1985). Unlike ruminants, bears do not have a cecuм and can only poorly digest the structural components of plants (Mealey 1975). To compensate for inefficient digestion of cellulose, bears maximize the quality of vegetal food items ingested, typically foraging for plants in phenological stages of highest nutrient availability and digestibility (Herrero 1985).
The food habits of grizzly bears in Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) have been described in detail by Knight et al. (1984) and Mattson et al. (1991). Overall, army cutworm moths, whitebark pine nuts, ungulates, and cutthroat trout are the highest quality food items available to grizzly bears in the GYE. These foods impart the greatest nutritive value in exchange for the least foraging effort (Craighead et al. 1995). Grizzly bear food habits are influenced by annual and seasonal variation in available foods.
Source: https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/bearfoods.htm
Another case would be that of the common, or spectacled caiman, which has been observed to occasionally eat plants in the island of Puerto Rico, where it is an invasive species.
See here for general info regarding this animal: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=222
Here for research concerning its diet in Puerto Rico, page 5 is especially notable: https://data.fs.usda.gov/research/pubs/iitf/ja_iitf_2016_Bontemps001.pdf
These are two different kinds of animals that one would not expect to consume plants or berries as food based on their fierce appearances and reputation, but yet they do.
-
There's probably about 30 minutes of obviously fake footage there ... in addition to the Challenger problem. And the U.S. moonlanding was obviously faked as well. Mars rovers they pretended were on Mars were actually in Greenland and Devon Island. It's non-stop fakery from NASA.
Yes. Moon landings were probably all fake, humans never went to the moon, but something was observed flying there for every mission by multiple independent sources like small observatories, so they probably sent some unmanned probes there. It'll be interesting to see if the planned moon landings in the next few years (2024 and on I think) will be faked too and the van Allen belts indeed turn out to be insurmountable , or if they'll actually go there. They did send fake images of Mars rovers from Devon Island, yeah, but I'm not sure if a rocket ever sent a rover to Mars or if that's completely fake, too. But the ISS and other satellites are way closer and observable from Earth. If you buy a somewhat decent telescope with tracking equipment, you can photograph the ISS whipping over the horizon. The Space Shuttle program was real too, these things did launch and rendezvous with the ISS to dock, and landed on Earth back again. The bloke from that video sounded like he'd only ever seen sketchy video footage of these on youtube.
-
It seems to me that the novelty of “flat Earth” was invented to muddy the waters and to aid in ridicule the geocentric model.
Flat Earthers please give a cogent explanation for the difference in appearance of the moon in the Southern and Northern Hemispheres?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner)
https://www.gettyimages.dk/detail/photo/the-moon-as-seen-from-the-southern-hemisphere-royalty-free-image/168839237 (https://www.gettyimages.dk/detail/photo/the-moon-as-seen-from-the-southern-hemisphere-royalty-free-image/168839237)
These are wise words, I believe just the same! It's a strawman that all people will have in the back of their heads when they hear "conspiracy theory".
-
Who designed the animals? I sincerely hope you believe it was Almighty God who designed them.
If you do believe that God is the Designer, then it goes against the Faith to say they were designed to kill as efficiently as possible. Have you read the first chapter of Genesis? You certainly need to read it again. Every thing He created “was good”. To say he created a killing machine is plainly false.
The answer to your question has been dealt with in previous posts of this thread.
I wasn't saying that God designed or created a "killing machine", I was merely observing that there are a multitude of animals which are built specifically to kill (for food, mostly).
Your phrase killing machine is not so much graphic as it is imaginative, emotional. That animals kill for fun is pure fantasy.
Nadir, it certainly is not pure fantasy. Animals can be evil too. Here are some easy to verify examples:
1. Article about Surplus killing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing)
2. Killer Whales Playing with Their Prey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk1VdQxeTn4)
3. Adult male dolphins attack baby dolphin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSaqaw9bOAo)
My experience of nature is from real life, and not from nature docuмentaries. I know a bit about crocs, though my experience is not extensive. But that’s another story. it matters not whether they are related to dinosaurs. They kill to eat, or maybe in competition with a rival for female favours. But they, and no other animal can be called a killing machine. Use of such language is highly emotive and indicates that one has a warped image of Creation.
Looking at the examples I gave before, I submit to have a realists image of fallen Creation.
-
I'm not buying that flat earth was invented to discredit people. One huge clue is that Big Tech have been massively censoring it. Regardless of whether it's all true, there's something there that they're actively trying to suppress.
-
ASTRONAUT DON PETIT EXPLAINS WHY WE CAN’T GO BACK TO THE MOON
1min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SrihxLRjdmnX/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/SrihxLRjdmnX/)
Accidentally erased the moon landing tapes--Ooops
2min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCygZNtp-WQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCygZNtp-WQ)
They can't send man to mars cause would burn up in Van Allen belt but we sent them to moon:
6:34min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0pVNhkdlg7KO/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/0pVNhkdlg7KO/)
Yeah, these are pretty common and good arguments, but not total proof (does something like that even exist for the moon landings?)
Can't agree on ability to see stars in space:
4:40
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WvnOvjtoCpc5/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/WvnOvjtoCpc5/)
This is dueto camera exposure, the stars are extremely dim, if you'd adjust a camera to the brightness of the stars while in a brightly lit environment like on the moon surface or pointing at Earth (satellites, ISS, ...), you'd get an overly white, blown out image, or you'd still not see the stars (something like this (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/206048/why-are-there-no-stars-visible-in-this-photograph)). Did you ever see stars during the day? No, because you can't.
Doesn't prove the landings were real, but also doesn't disprove them.
Honestly, there's a lot of good evidence that they did happen, but also a lot of sketchy stuff going on that says otherwise.
Can you refute all this evidence? I for one can't.
- https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/28172/how-do-we-know-the-apollo-moon-landings-are-real
- https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1128/has-man-walked-on-the-moon
-
Unlike ruminants, bears do not have a cecuм and can only poorly digest the structural components of plants (Mealey 1975).
And before the Flood, humans could get all nutritional needs from plants. Why couldn’t this be the case for animals?
.
Post flood, God changed human longevity so that humans HAVE TO eat meat to be healthy. No such thing as a healthy vegan, long term. You have to supplement for vitamins/minerals not found in plants (or poorly digested/absorbed by humans...again, God changed our nature, making it weaker). Why couldn’t God have changed certain animals’ nature’s post-flood, to make meat necessary?
-
This whole flat earth thing could be put to be very easily by just taking a an actual video of the rotating earth from space, from some kind of probe or whatever. Build something just for this purpose. By NASA's own admission (or, rather, the admission of people who worked for NASA), every single official picture of the globe earth is composite and/or CGI. They released ridiculous versions where the continents were different sizes, one where North America was absurdly large. In addition to the "glitches" in footage from ISS, there are pictures of spacewalks where air bubbles can be seen, making it clear that they were actually filming in their underwater training facility at Johnson. This garbage goes on for hours and hours and hours ... and cannot be reduced to a "few clips taken out of context". There's a short video where George H.W. Bush was being rolled through NASA in a wheel chair and --oops-- you could actually see the "astronaut" who was allegedly live from space doing his act in front of a green screen. It's to the point of being absurd.
Ladislaus, here are uncomposited images from the ISS in orbit, live, 24/7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIk7gwjgIM. There are also uncomposited images of Earth by other satellites, not just early NASA footage that may or may not be fake or composited from a set of partial images.
Regarding the supposedly fake Space Shuttle missions we talked about earlier, I found a nice little video about a SS SRB trip here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLl7oqdm_B8. NASA are either the best CGI and sound artists of the world, or what you were saying is just wrong.
-
NASA has been caught faking so much footage that you can't believe any video THEY produce. CGI makes anything possible. When you have that kind of budget, you can produce CGI. They were caught with the "Mars rover" in Greenland, with fake footage from "ISS" ... not to mention the faked moon landings. Musk's "Tesla in space" was such a bad job, on the other hand, that even he remarked that "you know it's gotta be real because it looks so fake. We've got better CGI than that." In order to fake curvature, you need nothing more than a fisheye lens. At about 17 minutes into the second video (I just skipped through different sections) you can even see the fisheye lens at work as the curve reverses ... watch from 17:00 - 17:30. Nobody's saying that the space shuttle doesn't exist anyway ... just that it doesn't go as high as they claim.
Meanwhile, there was a super high-altitude weather balloon launched by some private citizens and it showed the horizon to be flat all the way up. There's even one of a rocket that just stopped dead in its tracks at about 73 miles up ... which is precisely where it's theorized that the firmament is, with the firmament being made of solid oxygen. Some people claiming to work in Antarctica say that they make expeditions to where the firmament touches down and get samples, and it's made of a type of frozen oxygen that when it melts it goes straight to a gas and doesn't melt into water first (i.e. it sublimates).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWDPRjWPXh0
You'll also notice from the side camera angle that there's absolutely no curvature; there should be some curvature visible starting at about 7 miles up.
-
Yes. The whole idea of there being no death and so no predators before the fall, is reinforced (that’s probably not the correct word, but you get my drift) by Isaiah in these verses, which predict and promise return to the pristine state of creation, when “God saw that it was good”, when there will be no predators, no killers, no death, now that carnivores share their veggies with herbivores, and the serpent bites the dust.
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 11:6 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=11&l=6#x)]
"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together; the lion and the ox shall eat straw; and dust shall be the serpent's food: they shall not hurt nor kill in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 65:25 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=65&l=25#x)]
Gee, I can’t wait.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWDPRjWPXh0
You'll also notice from the side camera angle that there's absolutely no curvature; there should be some curvature visible starting at about 7 miles up.
Lad, no offense, but that really looked fake. Also, going that fast (60 miles per minute!) and stopping suddenly, it would have splattered into a million pieces. I don’t believe the moon landings either and I believe NASA faked a bunch of stuff, but that was totally fake.
-
Yes. The whole idea of there being no death and so no predators before the fall, is reinforced (that’s probably not the correct word, but you get my drift) by Isaiah in these verses, which predict and promise return to the pristine state of creation, when “God saw that it was good”, when there will be no predators, no killers, no death, now that carnivores share their veggies with herbivores, and the serpent bites the dust.
Yes, this is a great Scripture verse. Definitely, animals did not kill in the garden of Eden. It only makes sense. No corruption, no death.
.
Post Original Sin, there was corruption and death - which would've affected animals, in addition to human nature.
.
The question is...post FLOOD...human nature changed and was shortened by God (also allowing the eating of meat). So what extent did the animal kingdom change between post-Eden and post-Flood. I have no idea; but if any saint talks about it, I would love to know.
-
Ladislaus, here are uncomposited images from the ISS in orbit, live, 24/7:
Curve = Fisheye lens
-
I wasn't saying that God designed or created a "killing machine", I was merely observing that there are a multitude of animals which are built specifically to kill (for food, mostly).
Nadir, it certainly is not pure fantasy. Animals can be evil too. Here are some easy to verify examples:
1. Article about Surplus killing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing)
2. Killer Whales Playing with Their Prey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk1VdQxeTn4)
3. Adult male dolphins attack baby dolphin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSaqaw9bOAo)
Looking at the examples I gave before, I submit to have a realists image of fallen Creation.
I am puzzled that there appear two videos and when I click Quote there are three title but no links to videos. Never mind.
The point I wish to make is that in the BBC video we have none other that the anti-creation, humanity despising, godless David Attenborough, sprouting nothing but emotive projection of human qualities onto mere animals. Pure emotion. If you turn off the sound and just watch the visual, there is nothing to see.
Attenborough described humans as a "plague on the Earth",[112] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-112)[113] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-113) and criticised the act of sending food (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid) to famine (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine)-stricken countries while overlooking population control (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control).[114] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-114)
In his 2020 docuмentary film David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_On_Our_Planet), Attenborough advocates for people to adopt a vegetarian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian) diet or to reduce meat consumption in order to save wildlife (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife), noting that "the planet can’t support billions of meat-eaters."[103] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-103)
In 2002, Attenborough joined an effort by leading clerics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy) and scientists to oppose the inclusion of creationism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) in the curriculum of UK state-funded independent schools which receive private sponsorship, such as the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Schools_Foundation).[119] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-119) In 2009, he stated that the Book of Genesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis), by saying that the world was there for people to dominate, had taught generations that they can "dominate" the environment, and that this has resulted in the devastation of vast areas of the environment. He further explained to the science journal Nature (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)), "That's why Darwinism, and the fact of evolution, is of great importance, because it is that attitude which has led to the devastation of so much, and we are in the situation that we are in."[120] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-120)
Be careful of your sources.
Have you checked out Kolbe Creation yet, Dankward?
-
For what it’s worth, I have a friend who has flown in the Concord multiple times and he stated that the curvature of the Earth was clearly visible when they reached cruising altitude.
-
This garbage goes on for hours and hours and hours ... and cannot be reduced to a "few clips taken out of context". There's a short video where George H.W. Bush was being rolled through NASA in a wheel chair and --oops-- you could actually see the "astronaut" who was allegedly live from space doing his act in front of a green screen. It's to the point of being absurd.
You mean this: https://flatearth.ws/iss-green-screen
Look at what's in the background. It's not the astronaut, but a video screen. The astronaut isn't there, and the astronaut is NOT even in front of a green screen. The background is a grid.
And that illustrates a key difficulty discussing any of this with people like you.
You've seen some things in the past that you didn't really understand and can't remember exactly. Now you think there are, say, a hundred "anomalies" with NASA, though most of these are easily explained. So people try explaining these "anomalies" to you, but you always have in your mind that even if we correctly explain this one or that one, there are a bunch of other "anomalies" that "prove" your view.
That's why your responses don't stay on point; you're always jumping to other topics, in effect "what about this" and "what about that".
-
I am puzzled that there appear two videos and when I click Quote there are three title but no links to videos. Never mind.
The point I wish to make is that in the BBC video we have none other that the anti-creation, humanity despising, godless David Attenborough, sprouting nothing but emotive projection of human qualities onto mere animals. Pure emotion. If you turn off the sound and just watch the visual, there is nothing to see.
Attenborough described humans as a "plague on the Earth",[112] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-112)[113] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-113) and criticised the act of sending food (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid) to famine (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine)-stricken countries while overlooking population control (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control).[114] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-114)
In his 2020 docuмentary film David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_On_Our_Planet), Attenborough advocates for people to adopt a vegetarian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian) diet or to reduce meat consumption in order to save wildlife (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife), noting that "the planet can’t support billions of meat-eaters."[103] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-103)
In 2002, Attenborough joined an effort by leading clerics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy) and scientists to oppose the inclusion of creationism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) in the curriculum of UK state-funded independent schools which receive private sponsorship, such as the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Schools_Foundation).[119] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-119) In 2009, he stated that the Book of Genesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis), by saying that the world was there for people to dominate, had taught generations that they can "dominate" the environment, and that this has resulted in the devastation of vast areas of the environment. He further explained to the science journal Nature (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)), "That's why Darwinism, and the fact of evolution, is of great importance, because it is that attitude which has led to the devastation of so much, and we are in the situation that we are in."[120] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#cite_note-120)
Be careful of your sources.
Have you checked out Kolbe Creation yet, Dankward?
Great Post Nadir. Those poor seals. Has anyone ever seen a salmon with a big bite of flesh caused by a seal? Fish it seems, are the forgotten creature. They don't count in the food chain. All their predators are admired, photographed and molly-cuddled. Well I have a special regard for fish and little for seals and elephant seals and walruses. But it was God who created them, probably after the Fall, so who am I to complain.
-
No, Stan, it’s not about having seen one or two things. It’s about having seen literally hours of faked NASA footage ... from Mars rovers in Greenland to the hours of proof that the moon landings were faked, from objects that astronauts pretended to be grabbing bring invisible or passing right through their hands, to astronauts obviously hanging on wire harnesses, to astronauts pretending to be doing space walks but having air bubbles floating around them making it obvious that it was filmed in the underwater “training” center at Johnson ... scenes of fakery which go on for hours.
But you are so brainwashed that you refuse to look any of it but prefer to impugn the Word of God. You’re actually a pathetic individual ... ignorant of the fact that “science” has had a very deliberate and open agenda to attack God for the past 200-300 years at least. Study a bit of their correspondence with each other.
Then there’s the massive Masonic symbolism all over NASA, the fact that most of the Apollo astronauts were Masons, and NASA’s original founders were tied to the occult ... including connections to Aleister Crowley.
And the fact that you give these anti-God scuм more credibility than the Holy Spirit, the author of Sacred Scripture ... that exposes your bad will. You are without a doubt a Modernist.
On top of that Big Tech have been actively suppressing Flat Earth ... which means that they’re onto something. While every one in a while there’s a valid explanation for some of the phenomena cited in favor of flat earth, there’s too much there for which there is no explanation. It is in fact you who refuse to actually study the evidence. You’ve decided up front that it must be wrong and assume it’s all wrong due to a cognitive dissonance whereby you filter out anything that exposes your sellout of the faith to the enemies of God.
-
There’s a great app out there called the Flat Earth Sun, Moon, and Zodiac clock. Besides the fascinating clock, it’s got tons of links to videos that are suppressed by Big Tech. They used their own search algorithm instead of the ones rigged by Big Tech. There’s just too much there to ignore. If anyone’s truly interested in looking at the evidence with an open mind, have a look. I’m going to start making lists of these over at the Flat Earth sub forum.
-
Nadir said: The point I wish to make is that in the BBC video we have none other that the anti-creation, humanity despising, godless David Attenborough, sprouting nothing but emotive projection of human qualities onto mere animals. Pure emotion. If you turn off the sound and just watch the visual, there is nothing to see.
Regarding the BBC orca clip (https://youtu.be/bk1VdQxeTn4) I definitely agree with Nadir regarding David Attenborough; he has a proven track record of these kinds of errors.
However, I disagree regarding there being "nothing to see" in the footage itself. We don't need commentaries from liberals to understand or appreciate zoology, which is in and of itself a valid discipline. Aristotle, St. Albert the Great, and St. Hildegard of Bingen all wrote on behavior of animals, and most likely would have taken interest in this footage.
Dankward's clip is actually a very good example of an inherently predatory animal behaving like a predator, which I think is what he is pondering. The particular behaviors exhibited by the orca in the footage have now been docuмented for years; Attenborough is far from the first to mention this. They do "play" with their prey, not "as if exalting in triumph" as Attenborough says, but to practice their hunting skills. Animal behaviors often spun by docuмentary makers as "sadistic" or "lurid" (even infanticide in the case of the bottlenose dolphins), exist for a purpose.
Dankward said: Nadir, it certainly is not pure fantasy. Animals can be evil too. Here are some easy to verify examples:
Technically speaking, in Catholic theology/philosophy, animals cannot "be evil" or sin, as they are non-rational; only the rational animal with the rational, immortal soul (man) can sin. This is not to say that animals don't have great instinct or (in the case of the orca) impressive learning skills/communication. But they cannot reflect upon the morality of their actions, and don't have an immortal soul. This is not to say that predatory behavior does not remind us in some way of our fallen nature. As it is, many sins involve man denying his rational nature and behaving like non-rational animals (ok for them but not for man), so perhaps when we see predatory behavior it reminds us of this?
The question of whether predation existed before the fall of Adam is an interesting one. There certainly are many examples of animals which we consider to be "predators" that do in fact feed partly on plant matter (as mentioned before, bears, a caiman species, etc). However, there are many others which are pretty much predators or parasites by nature and definition, and I think this is what Dankward is looking at. Everything about that orca (the teeth, the digestive tract, the behavior etc.) is designed to make it a predator. Not a "killing machine" that kills for no purpose; basically it was made a predator for its own survival, and must behave this way because of its nature. The same could be said of sharks, many cat species, and parasites. If you feed a cat a vegan diet (believe it or not, a trendy thing for the "greenies" to do nowadays), it falls into ill health. If you remove a parasite (for example a tapeworm or a kidney worm) from its host, or even from the anatomical region of the host it inhabits, it will die. Some parasites (tapeworms) do not even have a digestive tract as they basically rely on the digestive tract of their host. Changing these animals to not be predators or parasites and consume plants (or in theory vice versa) would involve changing some of these animals to the point that their very definition or "kind" would change.
It might be interesting to see what various saints say about this. It has been posted before here, but interestingly St. Thomas Aquinas clearly thought that there was predation before man's sin:
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, I, 96, 1 ad 2. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm)
"In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state [of innocence], have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30 say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon."
Therefore, there is a need to explain St. Thomas's thinking in the light of the biblical quotes mentioned earlier.
-
No, Stan, it’s not about having seen one or two things. It’s about having seen literally hours of faked NASA footage ... from Mars rovers in Greenland to the hours of proof that the moon landings were faked, from objects that astronauts pretended to be grabbing bring invisible or passing right through their hands, to astronauts obviously hanging on wire harnesses, to astronauts pretending to be doing space walks but having air bubbles floating around them making it obvious that it was filmed in the underwater “training” center at Johnson ... scenes of fakery which go on for hours.
I just demolished one of your alleged disproofs (the Bush tour). You were wrong, and your memory was faulty. Do you acknowledge this? No. As I expected, you list a whole bunch of other things. But no references. No video for me to look at.
Greenland: I have seen moon landing deniers use video of training (which NASA identified as training, on earth) and claim it was NASA video from space. That's what I would suspect you saw. Also, two landscapes looking similar does not prove they are the same landscape.
Pretending to grab: Allegedly.
Harnesses: Allegedly. Do you have a lot of experience with low gravity environments?
Air bubbles: Some narrator probably said there were air bubbles, and you may think you saw air bubbles. I've seen these, and it's debris. Usually looks like ice crystals from water vapor in the ISS environment, especially when it comes out of an airlock opening.
Your "literally hours of faked footage" is alleged. Do you grasp that you could be just as wrong in your understanding of other footages as you were about the Bush tour?
But you are so brainwashed that you refuse to look any of it but prefer to impugn the Word of God.
I wasn't aware the Scriptures talked about NASA. You're changing the topic again.
I've looked at the stuff you believe about NASA. Whatever I have looked at was misinterpreted by people like Weiss. I'm sorry you believed the nonsense peddled by Weiss et al. You shouldn't have.
Your approach to the moon landings is unreasonably skeptical. If you took the same skepticism and applied it to the Church, you would undermine the natural motives of credibility for the Catholic faith.
There’s a great app out there called the Flat Earth Sun, Moon, and Zodiac clock.
An app promoted by the con man David Weiss.
-
What is it about NASA that cause people to defend it so wholeheartedly? Why are they (NASA) just so cool and awesome, in the eyes of their ardent fans?
NASA, from what I can tell, doesn't uphold or believe in any true religious belief. They never talk about God, who is the REAL creator of the universe and everything in it.
So why such a strong defense of NASA? I don't get it.
-
NASA, from what I can tell, doesn't uphold or believe in any true religious belief.
They have a religion, an admixture of Masonry, paganism, Aleister Crowley's Thelema, and Scientology.
-
I just demolished one of your alleged disproofs (the Bush tour). You were wrong, and your memory was faulty. Do you acknowledge this? No. As I expected, you list a whole bunch of other things. But no references. No video for me to look at.
You didn't demolish anything. You posted a link, but a garbage "debunking site". OK, it wasn't a green screen per se, but the guy was still pretending to be on ISS when he was actually right there on the ground.
You find one detail that was off and declare victory. There are hundreds of such videos, with weird things happening to the special effects, objects going through people, objects that the "astronaut" was pretending to handle but were invisible, air bubbles in "space". 95% of NASA videos are just hoaxes. But you've decided up front that NASA is your God ... even though it was founded by a bunch of occultists.
-
You didn't demolish anything. You posted a link, but a garbage "debunking site". OK, it wasn't a green screen per se, but the guy was still pretending to be on ISS when he was actually right there on the ground.
You find one detail that was off and declare victory. There are hundreds of such videos, with weird things happening to the special effects, objects going through people, objects that the "astronaut" was pretending to handle but were invisible, air bubbles in "space".
No, there is nothing to suggest he was "right there on the ground". You still can't admit you were wrong.
I just explained the other things.
I've seen videos in which people claim there were "air bubbles" in space. They aren't air bubbles. At the very minimum, you can't prove they were air bubbles.
But you just keep repeating the same lies your con men tell.
-
You didn't demolish anything. You posted a link, but a garbage "debunking site". OK, it wasn't a green screen per se, but the guy was still pretending to be on ISS when he was actually right there on the ground.
You find one detail that was off and declare victory. There are hundreds of such videos, with weird things happening to the special effects, objects going through people, objects that the "astronaut" was pretending to handle but were invisible, air bubbles in "space". 95% of NASA videos are just hoaxes. But you've decided up front that NASA is your God ... even though it was founded by a bunch of occultists.
Well said, Lad.
I've saved off several such videos in the past.
There is only ONE explanation for them: some breed of fakery. Astronauts on the ISS should NOT be getting caught up in invisible wires. Shouldn't happen, according to the mainstream view that we can go to space...
-
No, Stan, it’s not about having seen one or two things. It’s about having seen literally hours of faked NASA footage ... from Mars rovers in Greenland to the hours of proof that the moon landings were faked, from objects that astronauts pretended to be grabbing bring invisible or passing right through their hands, to astronauts obviously hanging on wire harnesses, to astronauts pretending to be doing space walks but having air bubbles floating around them making it obvious that it was filmed in the underwater “training” center at Johnson ... scenes of fakery which go on for hours.
But you are so brainwashed that you refuse to look any of it but prefer to impugn the Word of God. You’re ignorant of the fact that “science” has had a very deliberate and open agenda to attack God for the past 200-300 years at least. Study a bit of their correspondence with each other.
Then there’s the massive Masonic symbolism all over NASA, the fact that most of the Apollo astronauts were Masons, and NASA’s original founders were tied to the occult ... including connections to Aleister Crowley.
And the fact that you give these anti-God scuм more credibility than the Holy Spirit, the author of Sacred Scripture ... that exposes your bad will.
On top of that Big Tech have been actively suppressing Flat Earth ... which means that they’re onto something. While every one in a while there’s a valid explanation for some of the phenomena cited in favor of flat earth, there’s too much there for which there is no explanation.
Well said!
NASA is evil, not of God, and completely a work of the devil's henchmen.
It is not "neutral" as perhaps many Catholics were taught in the 60's and 70's.
Nor is it just "an unfortunate atheist" -- but a malicious satanist. Big difference.
But it makes sense -- if one firmly and stubbornly rejects God, one will end up serving the devil openly. THERE ARE ONLY TWO SIDES IN THE GLOBAL, ETERNAL BATTLE.
The constant lies coming from NASA that Ladislaus mentions above is a hallmark of the satanic. satan is "the father of lies".
Lies and murder are two of the main "sacraments" of the satanic "religion".
-
THERE ARE ONLY TWO SIDES IN THE GLOBAL, ETERNAL BATTLE.
You seem to be pulling Lad's leg. It's TWO SIDES OF A DISH SHAPED ETERNAL BATTLE.
:laugh1:
-
We can't go to space? That's ridiculous.
You can track tons of satellites and spacecraft from the ground using various imaging techniques such as radar and telescopes. Just scroll over this article a bit: https://satelliteobservation.net/2017/04/20/observing-satellites/ (https://satelliteobservation.net/2017/04/20/observing-satellites/)
A "fake" space shuttle docked with the "fake" ISS: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/141hb7/iss_docked_with_the_space_shuttle_seen_from_a/
Very fake amateur CGI footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsOifg4Mm0
Or just skip through a video like this with over 20min of continuous microgravity and explain to me how it's all stage props and greenscreen panels instead of windows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4
I'm not sure if bombarding you with links to material that you'll wholly dismiss as CGI footage is worth anything.
-
Regarding the BBC orca clip (https://youtu.be/bk1VdQxeTn4) I definitely agree with Nadir regarding David Attenborough; he has a proven track record of these kinds of errors.
However, I disagree regarding there being "nothing to see" in the footage itself. We don't need commentaries from liberals to understand or appreciate zoology, which is in and of itself a valid discipline. Aristotle, St. Albert the Great, and St. Hildegard of Bingen all wrote on behavior of animals, and most likely would have taken interest in this footage.
Dankward's clip is actually a very good example of an inherently predatory animal behaving like a predator, which I think is what he is pondering. The particular behaviors exhibited by the orca in the footage have now been docuмented for years; Attenborough is far from the first to mention this. They do "play" with their prey, not "as if exalting in triumph" as Attenborough says, but to practice their hunting skills. Animal behaviors often spun by docuмentary makers as "sadistic" or "lurid" (even infanticide in the case of the bottlenose dolphins), exist for a purpose.
[...]
Thank you for this insightful post, glad you got the idea I was trying to convey. I was not at all focusing on David Attenborough and I completely agree on his problematic views and statements.
-
The constant lies coming from NASA that Ladislaus mentions above is a hallmark of the satanic. satan is "the father of lies".
Far by me to break up your mutual admiration society, but I addressed what Ladislaus said.
You may think there are "lies" from NASA, but the allegations I've looked at turned out to be easily explainable.
The real lies come from con men like Weiss. So according to you, that puts Weiss among satan's minions.
Meg asked why people defend Nasa. I'm not, and I'm not that interested in what nonsense random people on the internet believe in.
But with you I share a religion (though at times I wonder), and some of you I know. If one of my closer friends were stuck in the rabbit hole of FE or moon landing denial nonsense, yes, I would talk to him and try to get him out of the hole for his mental and spiritual welfare. Believing con men like Weiss is not good for you.
-
Good to read Hansel and Dankward. No time to comment now. Thank you.
-
If one of my closer friends were stuck in the rabbit hole of FE or moon landing denial nonsense ...
I'm sorry, but you have to be a bloody idiot to believe that the US was capable of landing on the moon.
-
I'm sorry, but you have to be a bloody idiot to believe that the US was capable of landing on the moon.
How do you "know" the US was not capable of landing on the moon?
-
So are we going to see some arguments for and against the moon landings? They're both hard to prove and hard to disprove because the whole undertaking is very complex and multilayered.
Perhaps you want to make a start, Ladislaus, as you seem to have a very strong opinion on this? ::)
I'm sorry, but you have to be a bloody idiot to believe that the US was capable of landing on the moon.
-
I remember my friend from Church telling me how he was introduced to conspiracy theories. He had a friend who told him, Paul McCartney died and was replaced in 1966, and then that the moon landing was a hoax. The thing about the moon landings is why haven't we gone back in fifty years? Every area of technology has gotten so much better, but in that one thing we are not nearly as capable? Going to the moon should be easy by now. If going to the moon advanced at the same rate as other technology, we would have colonies there by now, and hotels for the rich and famous.
-
So are we going to see some arguments for and against the moon landings? They're both hard to prove and hard to disprove because the whole undertaking is very complex and multilayered.
Perhaps you want to make a start, Ladislaus, as you seem to have a very strong opinion on this? ::)
There's more where this one came from I believe.
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/to-those-who-believe-in-the-moon-landings
-
There's more where this one came from I believe.
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/to-those-who-believe-in-the-moon-landings
Some good information there, thanks Nadir!
-
I remember my friend from Church telling me how he was introduced to conspiracy theories. He had a friend who told him, Paul McCartney died and was replaced in 1966, and then that the moon landing was a hoax. The thing about the moon landings is why haven't we gone back in fifty years? Every area of technology has gotten so much better, but in that one thing we are not nearly as capable? Going to the moon should be easy by now. If going to the moon advanced at the same rate as other technology, we would have colonies there by now, and hotels for the rich and famous.
Yeah, that's a huge red flag for the moon landing, they claim that for manned moon landings, humans traveled about 1000 times further from the Earth (beyond e.g. the Van Allen belts) than the well-known spacecraft and satellites are (low earth orbit). Though it's worth mentioning that there are a lot of satellites and other spacecraft that probably have travelled into deep space, I don't think these are fake too. But then there's fake images of the mars rovers, so you can't be too sure of other claims either.
We'll see what SpaceX does with it's HLS craft in 2024 as they got a contract by NASA to go "back" to the moon.
-
Here's something of interest to some who seem to be under the impression that Fr. Robinson believes in theistic evolution. I follow him on Goodreads.
-
Here's something of interest to some who seem to be under the impression that Fr. Robinson believes in theistic evolution. I follow him on Goodreads.
So .... what is he?
-
Fr Robinson probably invented a new term, to explain his quasi-heresies. He's so "special" that old terms can't apply to him.
-
Fr Robinson probably invented a new term, to explain his quasi-heresies. He's so "special" that old terms can't apply to him.
There are only two ways to reject the compound term "theistic evolutionist". Either he's an evolutionist but not theistic (i.e. atheistic evolutionist) or else he's not an "evolutionist" at all ... for which I have seen no evidence. So I have no idea what the heck he's trying to say there. Is he rejecting the "theistic" part or the "evolutionist" part?
-
I asked the question before but don't remember if someone knew or answered, does Father Robinson believe that human beings have been around for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years?
-
Just got Fr Paul Robinson SSPX's book THE REALIST GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE to read again from a friend. He said I could keep it. I can now answer any questions on it. I will be back later 9after dinner, steak tonight0 to answer Ladislaus first.
-
Just got Fr Paul Robinson SSPX's book THE REALIST GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE to read again from a friend. He said I could keep it. I can now answer any questions on it. I will be back later 9after dinner, steak tonight0 to answer Ladislaus first.
Thank you.
-
Just got Fr Paul Robinson SSPX's book THE REALIST GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE to read again from a friend. He said I could keep it. I can now answer any questions on it. I will be back later 9after dinner, steak tonight0 to answer Ladislaus first.
Understanding Fr Robinson's beliefs lies in the word REALIST of his book. Over 500 pages telling us in a very philosophic way what he believes in. In other words, he gives you two beliefs but rarely states the one he believes in. Ratzinger used the same tactics by quoting others. If later he is accused on holding this belief he sayas it wasn't his belief but the one he was quoting.
For him, the modern Catholic has two truths that cannot contradict one another, science first and faith last. He begins with his proof that the world is 13.5 billion years old. He bases this on the distance of stars, a proven scientific distance. He is a believer in the Big Bang that took 13.5 billion years to expand. This is his first 'science' that means we cannot take Genesis and the dates in it for then faith and science clash. And according to our Catholic faith, the two cannot clash.
Now in Genesis, Moses, inspired by the Holy Ghost, said literally, that God created the stars visible on Earth on the fourth day. So if one has fasith in God's revelations, there was never any delayed star-time.The Bible reveals God created the world geocentric, with the stars rotating around the Earth. Copernicus said if this was true, then the stars would expand like a circular swing. In other words, faith in Genesis would contradict modern science that conjured up a Big Bang from Hubble's find of expanding stars.
Now as a priest you would think Catholic faith in the word of God should come first and human reasoning second. Not with Fr Robinson. If he was present at the wedding when Jesus turned water into wine, and tasted what must have been the nicest wine ever made, he would have said: 'This is matured wine, it could not have been made today, it must have been stored up to mature its so nice.
Fr Robinson says he is not a theistic evolutionist. He certainly does not believe Adam's body came from a monkey. He stretches his understanding of animals being created by God in that time. How God did it he doesn't say but behing the screen lies theistic=-evolution. What other way could animals be if the Earth is billions of years ol;d.
Now to understand the faith and science of modern Catholicism, you must know it is basded on the 1820 concession to Galileo's heliocentrism and his heliocentric exeges and hermeneutics. Pope Leo ZIII in Providentissimus deus allowed 'science' to correct misunderstood meanings of the Bible. Fr Robinsobn quotesd Leo as Catholic faith with regard to faith and science. He also quotesd Pius XII saying to the PAS that the Big Bang billions of years ago was God's created act. Thus FGr Robinson can quote popes and Catholic belief as supporting his 13.8 billion years Genesis.
Apologies for any typo errors,.
-
Now in Genesis, Moses, inspired by the Holy Ghost, said literally, that God created the stars visible on Earth on the fourth day.
Does he even attempt to explain this? I would say that the "Holy Ghost, using Moses, said literally ..." Moses was just an instrument of the Holy Ghost, just as we would write something with a pen (although done in an incredibly mysterious way).
-
Now as a [Traditional Catholic] priest you would think Catholic faith in the word of God should come first and human reasoning second. Not with Fr Robinson.
My addition in bold. Sure, with an NO priest, this is to be expected, but ESPECIALLY would be expected of a Traditional Catholic priest. That makes his writing especially scandalous, since it could lead Traditional Catholics into believing his Modernist BS because, it's a Traditional Catholic priest, so it can't be that wrong. And SSPX promotes his Modernist trash, that is not good to be used as toilet paper.
-
Does he even attempt to explain this? I would say that the "Holy Ghost, using Moses, said literally ..." Moses was just an instrument of the Holy Ghost, just as we would write something with a pen (although done in an incredibly mysterious way).
No Ladislaus, Fr Robinson does not even mention this fact. I use it to show the Faith side of the distance of stars that explains the faith distance contrary to Fr Robinson's preferred scientific explanation of them for Catholics.
-
I asked him what his position is, I'll let you know what he says.
-
My addition in bold. Sure, with an NO priest, this is to be expected, but ESPECIALLY would be expected of a Traditional Catholic priest. That makes his writing especially scandalous, since it could lead Traditional Catholics into believing his Modernist BS because, it's a Traditional Catholic priest, so it can't be that wrong. And SSPX promotes his Modernist trash, that is not good to be used as toilet paper.
I got word there are priests in the SSPX that are outraged that a priest of the SSPx could be allowed to write such a book and have condemned it locally.
-
I got word there are priests in the SSPX that are outraged that a priest of the SSPx could be allowed to write such a book and have condemned it locally.
I am glad to hear that. Apart from those faithful, however, who have heard those priests speak out against it, the damage done by such a book coming out under the auspices of a Traditional Catholic group is incalculable. There would have been less damage had an SSPX priest written a pornographic smut novel, since at least the faithful would easily realize that it was inappropriate. But with this stuff, I can see it making many Traditional Catholics lend more credence to atheistic-agenda-driven modern science and to doubt the Sacred Scriptures. Fr. Robinson's book should be recalled, burned, and put on the Index. Sacred Scripture was the first target of the Modernists, and the damage done against belief in the inerrancy and historicity of Sacred Scripture has been widespread.
-
Out of curiosity, how many here have read his book apart from Cassini?
-
Out of curiosity, how many here have read his book apart from Cassini?
I haven't read it, but it's been quoted from extensively here and elsewhere on the internet. I would read it if I can get a copy without paying for it, since I don't want to support it financially. Father Robinson also made himself infamous by refusing to sign jab religious exemption letters.
-
I haven't read it, but it's been quoted from extensively here and elsewhere on the internet. I would read it if I can get a copy without paying for it, since I don't want to support it financially.
That's fair. I ask because he said that people condemning him as a theistic-evolutionist is due to them not reading his book.
I haven't myself, which is why I'm not going to make a determination either way here. But I have seen the fruits of that book when I was on FE and the fence-sitting of some there on the evolution debate due to reading his book. And, then, as for me, as some of you already know, I don't even entertain the possibility of evolution since I'm a YEC and "true earther". :laugh1:
-
That's fair. I ask because he said that people condemning him as a theistic-evolutionist is due to them not reading his book.
That's why I asked ... which part of "theistic evolution" does he reject, the "evolution" or the "theistic"?
-
I could be persuaded that the universe is older than 6,000 years, in that even the Holy Office under Pope St. Pius X permitted that thinking ... since it doesn't contradict Sacred Scripture to take a different perspective on what a "day" means (since there were days/nights before the creation of the sun and moon). But of course that is NO ONE's argument today, because 99.9% of those who believe the universe is billions of years old do not believe that God created the sun, moon, starts LATER.
But there's no getting around the contradiction of Sacred Scripture in holding that the stars and the sun were created before the earth. Zero.
Nor is there any getting around the contradiction of Sacred Scripture to believe that human beings have been around longer than (about) 6,000 years.
-
That's why I asked ... which part of "theistic evolution" does he reject, the "evolution" or the "theistic"?
He rejects evolution and holds to an "old earth creationism". Which, in my opinion, is erroneous, but I don't know if I would say heretical and certainly isn't indefensible. I'd be interested in reading his book to see why he holds that view, but I still have major problems with the earth purported to be billions of years old or whatever.
-
Understanding Fr Robinson's beliefs lies in the word REALIST of his book. Over 500 pages telling us in a very philosophic way what he believes in. In other words, he gives you two beliefs but rarely states the one he believes in. Ratzinger used the same tactics by quoting others. If later he is accused on holding this belief he sayas it wasn't his belief but the one he was quoting.
For him, the modern Catholic has two truths that cannot contradict one another, science first and faith last. He begins with his proof that the world is 13.5 billion years old. He bases this on the distance of stars, a proven scientific distance. He is a believer in the Big Bang that took 13.5 billion years to expand. This is his first 'science' that means we cannot take Genesis and the dates in it for then faith and science clash. And according to our Catholic faith, the two cannot clash.
Now in Genesis, Moses, inspired by the Holy Ghost, said literally, that God created the stars visible on Earth on the fourth day. So if one has fasith in God's revelations, there was never any delayed star-time.The Bible reveals God created the world geocentric, with the stars rotating around the Earth. Copernicus said if this was true, then the stars would expand like a circular swing. In other words, faith in Genesis would contradict modern science that conjured up a Big Bang from Hubble's find of expanding stars.
Now as a priest you would think Catholic faith in the word of God should come first and human reasoning second. Not with Fr Robinson. If he was present at the wedding when Jesus turned water into wine, and tasted what must have been the nicest wine ever made, he would have said: 'This is matured wine, it could not have been made today, it must have been stored up to mature its so nice.
Fr Robinson says he is not a theistic evolutionist. He certainly does not believe Adam's body came from a monkey. He stretches his understanding of animals being created by God in that time. How God did it he doesn't say but behing the screen lies theistic=-evolution. What other way could animals be if the Earth is billions of years ol;d.
Now to understand the faith and science of modern Catholicism, you must know it is basded on the 1820 concession to Galileo's heliocentrism and his heliocentric exeges and hermeneutics. Pope Leo ZIII in Providentissimus deus allowed 'science' to correct misunderstood meanings of the Bible. Fr Robinsobn quotesd Leo as Catholic faith with regard to faith and science. He also quotesd Pius XII saying to the PAS that the Big Bang billions of years ago was God's created act. Thus FGr Robinson can quote popes and Catholic belief as supporting his 13.8 billion years Genesis.
Apologies for any typo errors,.
Spot on Cassini!
You're the best man for the Fr. Paul Robinson analysis.
Somehow, Fr. Paul, the computer engineer, absorbed some of Teilhard de Chardin's illusory thinking of the "cosmology of man".
Since Fr. Paul, wasn't truly trained in the hard sciences and was easily misled.
I caution reading any of Fr. de Chardin's works because he was fundamentally insane.
As Bp. Williamson once lectured, his mind was unhinged.
Related to de Chardin's life and his theories.
1. It has been revealed, that the Rothschilds funded and promoted Charles Darwin's book, "Origin of the Species".
Jєωs blow gasket over Darwin revelation (https://christiansfortruth.com/Jєωs-blow-gasket-when-fox-news-reporter-claims-rothschilds-hired-charles-darwin-to-invent-theory-of-evolution/)
2. This:
Fr. Teilhard de Chardin probably did as much to justify the liturgical revolution as anyone in the Catholic Church with his “new Christianity (https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001yW7gPxt-kIGfxIJ94f-514p2-HlSvIQpSete2fLp48gQTezOo6cdBOeb61B-9ZndbQXYTLg7STm1Hl_XDyLXn4OJqbgNUgs9f0T6kmwuObDE7WNwgjJ2cXw4rIe-oTH3KShUJyEcgLaGB-0IjK3VuwIQdzmfMfDFC61w8MWQuMUo0xpO5Pnc-dPWIFIpVpt7yWA-OFGUP_y4hn5Zld31AzKADmzpqQ9B&c=6DxZa4uqlf8gQmhr0jdPVDPyfwSN59CULBF6bdlzgJ8WQN94whsV6A==&ch=dueJiZ_irBLPQ8H44of8fmZYA1NMFxRW-VYvJVD0CUuwULeFmY1jUA==)” based on evolution. But did you know that he prayed, "O God, if in my life I have not been wrong, allow me to die on Easter Sunday"? — Read any biography of him and it will tell you that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin died of a heart attack on April 10, 1955, at 6 p.m., after attending Holy Mass on Easter Sunday. Thus, his disciples conclude that his prayer was answered in the affirmative. |
|
| (https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/t50-_WkQ2uhJII4wzkrDPbjt0tjMBSJb6IDhgO3Sr0ArOEnRROplYZMHGCe6Hm8NMSHrqG3Kd3tR1vqDAbZki4Un2ETsIIiEnSer90HbkSeP16lgLYWQnH0oHoTLux9FExVhkdKNV0OsO0dJTt5gqqTi=s0-d-e1-ft#https://files.constantcontact.com/99e23de0101/ae06306b-5678-4009-88ff-65b8a01b6516.jpg?rdr=true) |
|
Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, S. J. But was it?
According to God’s time, according to Liturgical Time, did he die on Easter Sunday? No, he did not. According to God’s time, according to liturgical time, according to the daily rhythm established by God Himself in the Hexameron, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin died on Easter Monday, at the hour of Vespers, when the Church prays as She has done for almost 1500 years: |
|
Blest Creator of the light Who mak'st the day with radiance bright. And o'er the forming world didst call The light from chaos first of all; Whose wisdom joined in meet array The morn and eve, and named them Day: Night comes with all its darkling fears; Regard Thy people's prayers and tears. Lest, sunk in sin, and whelmed with strife, they lose the gift of endless life. While thinking but the thoughts of time, They weave new chains of woe and crime. But grant them grace that they may strain The Heavenly gate and prize to gain: Each harmful lure aside to cast And purge away each error past. |
|
| (https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/i1osAHDn5zkGW3r1sADrkBTOwWVR4I5OklGZE-csVn-K59ciai5Zr8qllcBmb2ntNqqAxFMosjOYJriS2GMw1WPDDQuSvFo24NRcnbzypXtgag6Xgbdz0XAfuE5TkjlyMRXbJJ8ubOR2b3xMFCINleVl=s0-d-e1-ft#https://files.constantcontact.com/99e23de0101/d965ee6d-1751-460c-83bd-434eeb1af2dd.jpg?rdr=true) |
|
And can it be a coincidence that the prayer of Vespers that sums up the work of Monday, the second day of creation, the day on which, liturgically speaking, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin met his Maker, includes these words: |
|
Pour forth now, most gracious Lord, The gift of Thy never-failing grace, Lest by the misfortune of some new deception The old error should overwhelm us. |
|
The words in bold appear remarkably prophetic in relation to Fr. de Chardin’s errors, since, as anyone who reads St. Irenaeus’s second-century work Against Heresies can attest, the evolutionary account of the origins of man and the universe is a very “old error” indeed and was widespread in the days of the Apostles and Church Fathers. Thus, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the prayer of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin was answered—in the negative!
|
|
-
Fr Paul Robinson, as we see, wrote a book The Realist Guide to Religion and Science.
Now I have read his book that tries to make 'modern science' Catholic, in and out between endless pages of typical philosophical waffle so that after reading some of it the reader does not know what is going on. If any problem arises with his Big Bang 18.5 billion years of evolution, he suggests that only God could have made that happen and therefore no atheist has a leg to stand on.
For a superbly substantial and thoroughly researched and docuмented critique of Fr. Robinson's book see Dr. Robert Sungenis' 575 page masterpiece, Scientific Heresies and their Effect on the Church: A Critical Analysis of "The Realist Guide to Science and Religion." It can be found at https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/new... (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/new-book-by-robert-sungenis-scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)
See also https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)
On pp 1-2 of Robert Sungenis' new 564 page book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of: "The Realist Guide to "Religion and Sicence" we find this remarkable passage: "A good friend of mine who is a priest in the SSPX confided the following to me: 'Let me just note that being in the SSPX for over 35 years now, there have always been priests who did not accept 6-day Creation, and who would not even have considered geocentrism as an option , and who were open to certain forms of evolution. The SSPX has always been a mix of ideas of everything that was still considered orthodox in the 1960s. Those in authority have feared to accept new creationist and geocentric proofs which have come forth since the 60's, and have willed to keep a 60's - 70's mentality, despite new proofs, or have not been willing to consider as serious science anything which has come forth from geocentric or creationist arguments. I know, however, several priests open to geocentrism, etc., in the SSPX. You will also note that Father Robinson's book [The Realist Guide to "Religion and Sicence] was curiously published by Gracewing Publishers and not an SSPX publisher such as the Angelus Press. Perhaps Father Robinson wanted a wider readership, at the same time Angelus Press might have realized that such a book would rock the boat among SSPX faithful."
In all seriousness, can anyone think of a worse (and more dangerous and more scandalous) book that has ever been officially sold by the SSPX in their entire history than The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX? Surely, this is one of the greatest testaments to how far astray the leadership in the SSPX has gone. They need to be made aware in the strongest of terms that the book is outright modernism, plain and simple. (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/new-book-by-robert-sungenis-scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)
(https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/new-book-by-robert-sungenis-scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/fr-paul-robinson-v-robert-sungenis/
(https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/fr-paul-robinson-v-robert-sungenis/)The Kolbe Center issues a thorough and well docuмented reply to Fr. Paul Robinson -- http://kolbecenter.org/scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days-a-reply-to-fr-paul-robinson-fsspx-2/ (http://kolbecenter.org/scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days-a-reply-to-fr-paul-robinson-fsspx-2/)
-
Old Earth Creationism is just dodging the main question I have for most who are suspect of Modernism. How long have human beings been in existence? Fr. Robinson probably simply holds that the Big Bang was touched off by God and labels that OEC.
-
Old Earth Creationism is just dodging the main question I have for most who are suspect of Modernism. How long have human beings been in existence? Fr. Robinson probably simply holds that the Big Bang was touched off by God and labels that OEC.
Well said. That is precisely what Fr. Robinson holds.
-
Well said. That is precisely what Fr. Robinson holds.
I did some additional reading, and indeed that's what he holds. I will not dignify that belief with the term "creationism". It's more of a Freemasonic Deist concept.
-
This is an excellent criticism of Fr. Robinson:
https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=1555
One of the most disturbing things I read was this quote from Fr. Robinson:
Anyone who starts such a project knows that they have to have a strong motivation to do so. In my case, I wanted to set the record straight on the Church’s teaching on science in relation to the Bible. I could see that what I was taught as a seminarian and what I was teaching as a seminary professor somehow was not being passed on to the faithful.
More and more we see the neo-SSPX showing their true colors.
I can assure you that if I were the rector of a Traditional Catholic seminary, Fr. Robinson would never have made it to clerical tonsure, much less priestly ordination.
And now he's getting the good word out to the next generation of Traditional Catholics (and probably the last, the way things are going):
https://ourladyhelpofchristians-academy.com/en/our-principal-our-lady-help-of-christians
-
Old Earth Creationism is just dodging the main question I have for most who are suspect of Modernism. How long have human beings been in existence? Fr. Robinson probably simply holds that the Big Bang was touched off by God and labels that OEC.
Which begs the question as to why the supposed "Big Bang" needed to occur in deep time, rather than only 6-10,000 years ago? I chock it up to disbelief in God being capable of instantaneous creation (something that Our Lord demonstrated repeatedly in the Gospels through His miracles; Lk. 18:42; Mt. 8:13; Mk. 2:9; etc). Which was something I would run into with NO conservative evolutionists who would say "Well, maybe God chose to do it that way?" as if it were an argument. When the evolutionary process itself serves as a sort of demiurge.
The question of stellar distances and time is one that I recall Dr. Sugenis covering in one of his Geocentrism books; where the stars may have been placed at absurd distances from the earth but have only the appearance of longevity as they were created in their prime like Adam. I reject this idea of stellar distances on the ground that I don't believe the stars are of the size modern science claims, nor even of the substance that they claim, so that eliminates the massive distances required between these bodies.
The heart of the issue here is modern cosmology itself and the presuppositions it draws from the data.
So this is where I can see Fr. Robinson erring into an OEC position: as he looks at what modern cosmologists are pumping out on the "age" of the cosmos, and tries to fit the Creation account into that framework. Possibly not realizing that by accepting such things he is also accepting the concept of stellar evolution, even though he rejects biological evolution.
-
The question of stellar distances and time is one that I recall Dr. Sugenis covering in one of his Geocentrism books;
Ha, the word stellar rings a bell. As amazing and as seemingly unbelievable as it may seem, Fr. Robinson who promotes heliocentrism very strongly as if it is a scientific fact gives only one (only one!) "proof" of heliocentrism in his book: stellar parallax. Only problem is stellar parallax has been totally debunked -- a long time ago. No respectable scientist today would ever dream of using it as a proof of heliocentrism!
-
Fr. Paul fell for the modern science explanations of an old earth: "Big Bang" theory, Carbon dating.
If he believes in an old earth theory he's in accord with the explanation of global distribution of geological changes such as seismicity, volcanism, continental drift, and mountain building in terms of the formation, destruction, movement, and interaction of the earth's lithospheric plates.
i.e., the earth's changes came about through plate tectonics.
A young earth, with seabed fossils on top of mountains, is best explained by deluge (flooding upheaval) geology.
-
Ugh! Oh, no! Say it ain't true Father. Seen at https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/18499280-fr-laisney-s-support-of-the-realist-guide (https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/18499280-fr-laisney-s-support-of-the-realist-guide)
Simply stated Fr. Robinson's book is at grievous odds with the Oath Against Modernism!
Fr. Laisney's Support of The Realist Guide (https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/18499280-fr-laisney-s-support-of-the-realist-guide)
(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1561164784i/27703802.jpg)
Fr François Laisney, former District Superior of the United States and then of Australia, author of Archbishop Lefebvre And The Vatican (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1674993.Archbishop_Lefebvre_And_The_Vatican) and Is Feeneyism Catholic? (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2779295.Is_Feeneyism_Catholic_), and current prior in New Zealand, has written a positive review of The Realist Guide on the Angelus website (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science). Among other things, he says the following about the book:
I read the whole book, and truly consider its contribution to the defense of the Faith very important in our modern world… Note that Father Robinson does not support evolution. The big-bang theory, which Father shows as compatible with the faith, should rather be put in parallel with the growth of a baby in the womb: it starts very small (the primeval atom / the first cell) and unfolds in a most marvellous way, yet perfectly PLANNED by the Divine Intelligence. Both unfolding manifest in a beautiful way the Wisdom and the omnipotence of God as the Author of Nature. And that is much better than the notion of God as a fairy with a wand making all things on the spot as we see it today: this is imagination, and not theology.
Fr Laisney has also had occasion to defend the position that The Realist Guide takes on the question of The Great Flood. He has given permission for an excerpt from a letter he wrote on this subject to be published on The Realist Guide blog (https://therealistguide.com/blog). Here follows the excerpt, which continues to the end of this page.
“You joined some thoughts about a sentence in Fr Paul Robinson’s excellent book The Realist Guide to Religion and Science (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38256904.The_Realist_Guide_to_Religion_and_Science), questioning what he writes ‘against a geographically universal flood.’ It is quite providential that your letter arrives so close after the feast of the Ascension. Indeed, the homily of St Gregory at Matins of that feast sheds light on that very matter. In the third reading of that homily, ninth lesson of Matins, St Gregory says:
When then, He had rebuked the hardness of their heart, what command did He give them? Let us hear. "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." Was the Holy Gospel, then my brethren, to be preached to thing insensate, or to brute beasts, that the Lord said to His disciples: "Preach the Gospel to every creature"? Nay, but by the words "every creature" we must understand man, in whom are combined qualities of all creatures. Being he hath in common with stones, life in common with trees, feeling in common with beasts, understanding in common with angels. If, then, man hath something in common with every creature, man is to a certain extent every creature. The Gospel, then, if it be preached to man only, is preached to every creature.
Now let us reflect on what St Gregory teaches. Our Lord Jesus Christ said: ‘preach the Gospel to every creature.’ And St Gregory explains: it does not apply to every creature, but only to every man. Thus, we are not obliged to go onto the moon to preach to the stones there, nor to go to Mars or Venus, nor any other planet or star. We may stay on the earth and even there, we are not obliged to preach to every penguin in Antarctica: it is sufficient to preach to every man.
Similarly, when Moses says in the book of Genesis “And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered – opertique sunt omnes montes excelsi sub universo caelo” (Gen. 7:19), it is sufficient to say: it covered the whole heaven where men were living, so that all men were engulfed in the Flood, not necessarily the top of Mount Everest, because there was no one there, nor anywhere around, because men had not yet spread over the earth: it was before the tower of Babel.
Do you see the parallel of such interpretation with that of St Gregory? As St Gregory is not opposed to the truth of the Gospel when he applies the universality of the words of our Lord merely to all men, so is Fr Paul Robinson not opposed to the truth of Genesis when he applies the universality of the flood merely to all men. He does not say the Scriptures is wrong, he says its universality is that of all men (and women!). Such interpretation is not a denial of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, it is rather proposing the right interpretation of the Scriptures and is in perfect conformity with St Gregory according to the exegetical principles of St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine.
Please, do consider this: God does not say one thing to one and the opposite to the other. He is the Author of Nature, and one can consider Nature as a big book that speak to us about its Author. Every flower tells us: “God made me!” The Scripture itself tells us: “The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands” (Ps. 18:2). And that is true not only of the heavens, but also of the earth: every creature somehow speaks to us about its Creator.
Now when we study the book of nature, we find fossils that “tell” us that they are very old. Did God create dead fossils that appear to be so old, but in fact never lived? Were they created dead? Not a single Father of the Church ever claimed that! We should rather believe that God is as true in the Book of Nature as in the Scriptures! This is the teaching of the Fathers and of the Church. The important thing is to understand properly the one and the other. What Father Robinson teaches – and very well – is precisely that the conflicts between religion and science only comes when people do not understand properly one or the other or both. And the way to reach a proper understanding of both is precisely to adopt a realist philosophy, which is that of St Thomas Aquinas, and which the Church made her own.
So, similarly, when St Peter says: “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Pet. 3:6), he does not mean that the whole universe perished, but only the inhabited world, it was everything that the men of the time had ever known, their world. Such interpretation is very much respectful of the truth of the Scriptures, and follows exactly St Gregory’s exegesis.
At the end of your reflections you mention the principle of uniformity. This principle states simply that the Laws of nature, as we know them today, have been the same since the beginning of creation and shall remain the same until the end of time. Such principle is most certainly not opposed to the faith. First of all, the very acknowledgement of natural laws evidently implies that the acknowledgement of the existence of a Lawmaker, i.e. God! Moreover, such principle is not against miracles: God is not limited by the very laws that He has set. He can produce an effect without its normal natural causes. Now the Flood is like the crossing of the red sea: both are miracles, and both signify Baptism. A miracle such as the Flood does not terminate the Laws of nature: they were true before and remain true after even though God bypassed them for the duration of that miracle.
Thus, the dogma of the flood is not opposed to the natural principle of uniformity.
I hope that these explanations can be of a help, to better understand the holy Scriptures and to appreciate the value of Father Paul Robinson’s excellent book.
(https://www.goodreads.com/user/new?remember=true&return_url=%2Fauthor_blog_posts%2F18499280-fr-laisney-s-support-of-the-realist-guide)
-
Simply stated Fr. Robinson's book is at grievous odds with the Oath Against Modernism!
Yes, Modernism is at odds with the "Oath Against Modernism".
As I said, the most disturbing thing I read, however, was Fr. Robinson's assertion that this is what is being taught and what he himself taught at the SSPX seminary.
-
Fr. Paul fell for the modern science explanations of an old earth: "Big Bang" theory, Carbon dating.
If he believes in an old earth theory he's in accord with the explanation of global distribution of geological changes such as seismicity, volcanism, continental drift, and mountain building in terms of the formation, destruction, movement, and interaction of the earth's lithospheric plates.
i.e., the earth's changes came about through plate tectonics.
A young earth, with seabed fossils on top of mountains, is best explained by deluge (flooding upheaval) geology.
That's only because we faithful who object to his Modernism are merely ignorant and he's out to set us all straight.
-
Did anyone else catch this statement made by Fr. Laisney?
And that is much better than the notion of God as a fairy with a wand making all things on the spot as we see it today: this is imagination, and not theology.
Jorge Bergoglio:
When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.
Fr. Laisney characterizes Fr. Robinson's book as a "defense of the Faith ... in our modern world." Unbelievable. In other words, try to spin the Faith as if it's compatible and reconcilable with "the modern world". Isn't this Vatican II in a nutshell?
Between this and Father Laisney's extremely dishonest (to the point of using ellipses to eliminate words mid-sentence from Church Fathers that were inconsistent with his narrative) screed against "Feeneyism", I suspect that Fr. Laisney is a modernist infiltrator.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/is-feeneyism-catholic-francois-laisney-sspx/
-
Which begs the question as to why the supposed "Big Bang" needed to occur in deep time, rather than only 6-10,000 years ago? I chock it up to disbelief in God being capable of instantaneous creation (something that Our Lord demonstrated repeatedly in the Gospels through His miracles; Lk. 18:42; Mt. 8:13; Mk. 2:9; etc). Which was something I would run into with NO conservative evolutionists who would say "Well, maybe God chose to do it that way?" as if it were an argument. When the evolutionary process itself serves as a sort of demiurge.
The question of stellar distances and time is one that I recall Dr. Sugenis covering in one of his Geocentrism books; where the stars may have been placed at absurd distances from the earth but have only the appearance of longevity as they were created in their prime like Adam. I reject this idea of stellar distances on the ground that I don't believe the stars are of the size modern science claims, nor even of the substance that they claim, so that eliminates the massive distances required between these bodies.
The heart of the issue here is modern cosmology itself and the presuppositions it draws from the data.
So this is where I can see Fr. Robinson erring into an OEC position: as he looks at what modern cosmologists are pumping out on the "age" of the cosmos, and tries to fit the Creation account into that framework. Possibly not realizing that by accepting such things he is also accepting the concept of stellar evolution, even though he rejects biological evolution.
In Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12, we find a comparison between the number of stars in the sky with the finite numbers of grains of sand by the seashore.
‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.
Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the sea shore? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine addressed this very revelation:
‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’
Again, how often do we hear the apologists in the Church telling us that the Bible never meant to ‘teach’ us anything about the natural sciences, even quoting St Augustine accordingly? Yet, here above Saint Augustine adheres to the word of the Bible in which St Paul tells us there are stars we see and that there are many more that God created in His universe that are out of sight.
-
Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the sea shore? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many.
Again, this presupposes that stars are massive bodies of burning plasma millions of miles in diameter. If they aren't much bigger than, say, a car, with an intense luminosity, you don't need a seemingly endless expanse of void to fit them all.
All the grains of sand fit within the purported 24,000 miles of earth. You could certainly fit a comparable number of stars within a Firmament of, say, a million miles in circuмference.
-
Again, this presupposes that stars are massive bodies of burning plasma millions of miles in diameter. If they aren't much bigger than, say, a car, with an intense luminosity, you don't need a seemingly endless expanse of void to fit them all.
All the grains of sand fit within the purported 24,000 miles of earth. You could certainly fit a comparable number of stars within a Firmament of, say, a million miles in circuмference.
By endless I meant finite Digital. Indeed here again, the stars do confirm the universe is not infinite. But only a geocentric universe proves the world is not infinite as it rotates daily, whereas a heliocentric universe, wherein the stars just remain out there, could be said to be infinite. Thus heliocentrism is open to another heresy
-
Starlight and Time
Beginning with Einstein’s whacky Special Theory of Relativity, Genesis time entered the madhouse of modern cosmological theoretical space-time. First they said that the stars were expanding and therefore there must have been an initial cause, the Big Bang. Next the speed of light was found to be finite and variable. Then they said the furthest star was about 13.5 billion light years away so the age of the universe had to be 13.5 billions of years old. Einstein and others took the theory further. In his relativist universe, space and time are interchangeable. The further we look out at stars in space, the further back in time we are observing. Einstein was a Wellsian time-traveller, or, as it was said, “All time is eternally present.” But as T.S. Eliot put it, ‘If all time is eternally present - all time is unredeemable.’
‘And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the Earth. And it was so done. And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, and the stars.’ (Gen. 1:14-16)
If, however, the light from the sun, moon and stars, no matter their distances from Earth, those that we can see every day with the naked eye and through telescopes, were made visible on Earth before Adam was created, as revealed in Genesis above, then no such delayed billions of years of star-time exist or ever existed for mankind. In other words, God created the universe with one time-zone overall, a 24-hour Earth-universe time zone. Moreover,
‘And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the Earth distress of nations bewildered by the roaring of the sea and waves….; for the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming upon a cloud with great power and majesty.’ --- (Luke: 21:25)
So, does this prophesy not confirm Genesis star-time, with the shaking stars immediately visible on Earth on the day the Lord wills it? Try harmonising this prophesy with Einstein’s and Fr Paul Robinson's relativity’s space-time. If God were to make signs by way of the stars, as he prophesised, then, according to Einstein’s modern light-year timing, mankind would have to wait years to see them all ‘shake’ as the Bible says they will. Just as God made the stars visible from Earth at creation with no time-lag, so will he make their shaking visible in the end of the world.
Then there is that state without physical time called ‘eternity,’ the ‘duration of what is altogether unchangeable,’ what subsists by its essence with no kind of succession, without beginning or end, and without the possibility of either. Such eternity belonged only to God, but when He created mankind, after our deaths, it becomes the future for all.
-
Relative to the above;
The first object of astronomy was measuring time, begun, as Domenico Cassini recorded, by the first people to inhabit the Earth. Every measurement, from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall, is but a division of the sun’s movement, a day, a year, a century, a millennium. Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of created time is that it has to be universal, that is, all understanding of time must be the same for everyone. When we relate to the past, present and future, we must all have the same understanding of it. Fortunately, for most of us, apart from the space-time relativists that is, who think the cosmos is made up of different times the further out the stars are, this is how it is, and always will be. Dogmas held by the Catholic Church must surely need true time forming an absolute framework within which the material and spiritual events of heaven and Earth run their course in imperturbable divine order. Such at least, is demanded by the Christian intellect and is reflected in the Bible, and in scholastic philosophy theology and metaphysics.
-
The Center of the Universe by St Charbel
‘The whole universe moves around the mystery of the cross. Man believes that the universe revolves around him personally, but the cross is the center of the universe; therefore he who wants to be at the center of the universe must be with the Crucified on the cross. He who does not live the mystery of the cross cannot understand the mystery of the universe…. For God, the beginning of creation and the end of the universe happen together, in the present. If you sanctify the present moment of your life through love of God, you will realise the mystery of eternity. Through love, man dwells eternally in God. Sanctify time, sanctify your life through love, sanctify every moment of your life. Do not let the clock distract you, because you cannot stop it, you can only be ready when your hour arrives. If anyone removes God far from his life, his mind, and his heart, time will oppress him and hurl him into death; this does not mean that God does not exist; rather he himself is the one who no longer exists. As the light shows the eyes what exists, so Christ reveals existence to the mind and the heart. Without light, the human eye does not see what exists. Without Christ, man does not see existence. God created matter and put it in order; He created the intellect and put spirit into it and gave life. As reason grasps the order and understands matter through logic and analysis, the mind grasps the love of God and the secret of the uníverse by faith, prayer, and true worship, and gives life. There are flowers that we pick in the spring as a decoration, while others age and fade to provide new seeds in autumn. There are flowers that disperse their petals to the wind, and their perfume can be smelled far away and almost fills the Earth. In every movement God has placed His wisdom; pray, therefore, to understand and to live according to His will, not to change it. The Father’s will is always for you good.
Perfume yourselves with the scent of oak and thyme. Do not wear the colors of this world and do not breath forth its odors. The actions of God’s hand in you are more important than anything this world can clothe you with, which will pass away. Walk at a stead fast pace on the path of sanctity. Let Christ live in you, and then you will live at the heart of the mystery of the universe, in the source of light.’ ---Love is a Radiant light, by Hanna Skandar, Angelico press.
-
The Center of the Universe by St Charbel
‘The whole universe moves around the mystery of the cross. Man believes that the universe revolves around him personally, but the cross is the center of the universe; therefore he who wants to be at the center of the universe must be with the Crucified on the cross. He who does not live the mystery of the cross cannot understand the mystery of the universe…. For God, the beginning of creation and the end of the universe happen together, in the present. If you sanctify the present moment of your life through love of God, you will realise the mystery of eternity. Through love, man dwells eternally in God. Sanctify time, sanctify your life through love, sanctify every moment of your life. Do not let the clock distract you, because you cannot stop it, you can only be ready when your hour arrives. If anyone removes God far from his life, his mind, and his heart, time will oppress him and hurl him into death; this does not mean that God does not exist; rather he himself is the one who no longer exists. As the light shows the eyes what exists, so Christ reveals existence to the mind and the heart. Without light, the human eye does not see what exists. Without Christ, man does not see existence. God created matter and put it in order; He created the intellect and put spirit into it and gave life. As reason grasps the order and understands matter through logic and analysis, the mind grasps the love of God and the secret of the uníverse by faith, prayer, and true worship, and gives life. There are flowers that we pick in the spring as a decoration, while others age and fade to provide new seeds in autumn. There are flowers that disperse their petals to the wind, and their perfume can be smelled far away and almost fills the Earth. In every movement God has placed His wisdom; pray, therefore, to understand and to live according to His will, not to change it. The Father’s will is always for you good.
Perfume yourselves with the scent of oak and thyme. Do not wear the colors of this world and do not breath forth its odors. The actions of God’s hand in you are more important than anything this world can clothe you with, which will pass away. Walk at a stead fast pace on the path of sanctity. Let Christ live in you, and then you will live at the heart of the mystery of the universe, in the source of light.’ ---Love is a Radiant light, by Hanna Skandar, Angelico press.
I love this
-
I love this
The saint that wrote this piece is
Youssef Antoun Makhlouf, who later took the name of Charbel, was born on May 8th, 1828, in Bekaa Kafra, the highest village in Lebanon, situated at an altitude of 1,700 meters (5,575 feet) in the mountains in the north of the country dominating the famous valley of Kadisha, ‘the valley of the saints.’ Considered very intelligent; one of the best students in the Theological Institute of Saints Cyprian and Justina in Kfifan, excelling particularly in theology. Ordained a priest in 1859, he lived as a hermit and was formed by asceticism and prayer. On December 18th, 1898, while celebrating Mass, he suffered a stroke and began an agony that lasted six days, during which he remained in peace. Father Charbel unceasingly repeated the prayer that he had not been able to finish at Mass: ‘Father of truth, behold your son. He also repeated the names Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and also Peter and Paul, patron saints of the hermitage. Charbel’s soul went to heaven on December 24th, 1898, Christmas Eve.
Now the beautiful passage 'The Center of the Universe' of St Charbel is a post 1820 one and geocentric. Can you imagine such a homily arising from Fr Paul Robinson's naturally evolved 13.5 billion years old universe. Take as another example what Vatican II taught to the flock:
‘The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians [like all the Church Fathers]) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.
The popes, theologians and churchmen of 1616 and 1633 are blamed for ignoring ‘the rightful autonomy of science’ when Saint Thomas had taught the only autonomous science in Catholicism is theology, and in this case the theological consensus of the Fathers when reading Scripture testified to the revelation of Biblical geocentrism. To our knowledge not one churchman of note disagreed with this Vatican II accusation, neither so-called traditionalist nor modernist, nor that this council’s opinion was based on a book described by scholars as no better than a forgery.
-
‘And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the Earth distress of nations bewildered by the roaring of the sea and waves….; for the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming upon a cloud with great power and majesty.’ --- (Luke: 21:25)
https://youtu.be/TN7BAE6jJ_k?t=2515
Extreme shifting of the Earth's crust could make the stars appear to shake as explained somewhere in the video above.
-
https://youtu.be/TN7BAE6jJ_k?t=2515
Extreme shifting of the Earth's crust could make the stars appear to shake as explained somewhere in the video above.
Watched until he said 'the Earth's rotation changed.' Sounded like what Fr Robinson would say. Why not take God's word literally, that man will see signs in the stars as they shake while the seas create the perfect storm. Didn't wait to hear his version of seeing the Son of Man coming upon a cloud. One could say the 'cloud' will be the name of the latest car of the time.