Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 103350 times)

cassini · « **Reply #510 on:** November 01, 2014, 06:56:02 PM »

Now let us view for ourselves, as best we can in two dimensions, both systems, the heliocentric one and the geocentric one, that supposedly have equal plausibility in the wake of Einstein’s relativity theory.

Depicted above is a heavenly view looking down at the earth, sun and stars as they exist on the ecliptic. Moving the earth (E) along the orbital path above with a pencil point, we on the earth see the sun (S) apparently move along through the background stars of the Zodiac (Zs) once a year. In this system, all the stars will have the same aberrations.
To get a view of the geocentric version of the above we hold the pencil point immobile above the earth at (EJAN.I) and move the page under the pencil point again in a counter-clockwise direction as above until the page comes back around to EJANI. Thus, as with the heliocentric system, we see the sun as it moves around with all the Zodiac stars (Zs) in the background. But then it all goes wrong for Einstein as Walter shows:

‘Now all the fixed stars describe actual orbits congruent and synchronous with the yearly orbit of the fixed star [they call] the sun. Hence the size of these orbits as observed by Earth-bound telescopes will be inversely proportional to their distance from us, with the farther away stars therefore showing no measurable movement at all. This is not what we observe…..’ --- Walter van der Kamp, p.27.

Unless of course that the orbit of each star is directly proportional to that star’s distance from our telescopes, which of course is not very plausible. But don’t Einstein’s theories demand an explanation that fits both systems?

'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… Since the issue is one of relative motion only there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centres – in principle, any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter.' --- Sir Fred Hoyle: Copernicus, p.88.

But, as Walter says, whereas Einstein’s theory does a good job in preserving Newton’s solar-system, the problem for the Earthmovers is that the solar-system is not alone in either a heliocentric nor a geocentric universe, for both must include the stars. And that is why Bradley’s stellar aberration is so important; for it alone among all the tests and ‘proofs’ provided by science incorporates the stars with the solar-system and the earth. Now if Einstein’s theory of relativity is to deliver, as Dryer and Hoyle boast above that it does, we have to find a geocentric order that conforms to the stellar aberration that Bradley found. So, what geocentric arrangement must the universe have that will show us all the stars with an equal-size aberration? To do this we have to adopt the Tychonic model and geometrically centre the stars on the sun rather than the earth. Now, from earth, every star will be seen to rotate annually together with the sun’s orbit in the following two-dimensional illustration:

Here above, in two dimensional illustrations, is the only physically possible order that will produce the same-sized annual orbits as found by Bradley in 1726. It is the Tychonic stellatum of old, but with every star in the heavens anchored on the sun, not on the earth. The latter remains at the centre of the world, with the sun, planets and attached stars orbiting every year.

‘The Tychonian system “is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computations of the places are the same for the two systems.”’ ---J.L.E. Dreyer: A History of Astronomy, Thales to Kepler, Dover Publications, 1953, p.363

Sorry Mr Dryer, Walter has just illustrated the two are totally different.

‘Mediate for a few moments and the truth will dawn on you. Such a single observation, but 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. Which in a manner of speaking puts us back to square one. That is in the cul-de-sac into which after 1887 classical science 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 firsthand 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.

Having put the final scientific nail in the coffin of Einstein’s relativity, Walter reminded all what Paul Davies had to say in his book The Mind of God, that Darwin only completed the revolution begun by Copernicus and Galileo. It was the theory of heliocentrism that gave rise to the ‘nebular hypothesis,’ completed by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796. From this came the evolutionary theories of the earth, flora and fauna and finally man. The mother of all evolutionary theories arrived in the twentieth century, the Big Bang beginning. With the collapse of heliocentrism all evolutionary theories must now suffer the same fate. Once again the direct creation of all things complete by God must go hand-in-hand with the creation of the Earth around which God built His universe.

Nevertheless:
‘Almost all present models of the universe are based on
Einstein’s theories, one-way or another.’TIME-LIFE Books: The Universe, USA, 1962, p. 171.

cassini · « **Reply #511 on:** November 06, 2014, 10:36:57 AM »

Hereunder is an addition to the above chapter:

Before Einstein, Bradley’s stellar aberration showing equal sized circlets was interpreted as the movement of light. The Earthmovers said this was caused by the orbit of the earth whereas it could of course be explained by the annual movement of the stars. But now, after Einstein’s relativity rescue effort, both must have a physical explanation. In other words the starry circlets of equal size are real. But how on earth could all those stars in the sky show equal sized movements? For this vision all the stars would have to be at the very same distance from earth, yes? Of course they would. And is this the case? No, it is not. Each star’s aberration would depend on its distance from earth, the further from earth they are the smaller the aberration. Walter concludes: ‘Yes, the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric model of the Universe is therefore enormous, and the theory of relativity consequently disproven.’

cassini · « **Reply #512 on:** November 06, 2014, 10:53:18 AM »

Chapter Thirty-Eight [/u]

The Electric
Universe[/font]

The blue globe ball representing the earth is suspended
in mid-air by an electronically controlled magnetic field.

‘For the electromagnetic equations developed by James Maxwell fitted in fact only with an earth as the preferred frame of reference in absolute space.’---Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth, 1993.

There is one further aspect to the Cassinian oval that we shall now disclose. This discovery could have had profound ramifications for the progress of the cosmological sciences had Cassini’s orbital discoveries not conflicted with the Newtonianism of the Royal Society of Earthmovers. In other words, the true progress of astronomy, physics and cosmology has been fatally and universally compromised by the adoption of the Copernican principle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately the author is still working on this chapter but wanted all to know there is a 'simplified field theory, the long sought after theory of everything, trying to show a link between the theory of gravity and electromagnetism,' something Einstein and science has failed to do.

cassini · « **Reply #513 on:** November 06, 2014, 11:30:40 AM »

Chapter Thirty-Nine

20th Century
Faith and Science

‘The Rev. William F. Rigge, S. J., professor of physics and astronomy at Creighton University, has a long article running through the April and May [1913] numbers of Popular Astronomy on “Experimental Proofs of the Earth's Rotation.” It is an abridged and popular presentation of the book published by Father Hagen S.J., [1847-1930] director of the Vatican Observatory (Founded by Pope Gregory XIII in 1578 and formally re-established on 14 March 1891 by Pope Leo XIII who located it on a hillside behind the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica). It is divided into four parts. The first treats of bodies falling from a height, which on account of their being farther from the earth's axis of revolution when on the top of a tower, move eastward faster than the ground and must therefore fall east of the point directly below them. The second mentions various forms of pendulums, especially Foucault's, whose plane of vibration, while really fixed, appears to shift on account of the earth's rotation. The third part treats of gyroscopes, and shows how they are used to prove that our earth turns on an axis. The fourth part explains various other apparatus, including two machines of Father Hagen's own invention. “It looks like an amende honorable to the Galileo imbroglio,” says Fr. Rigge in the Creighton Chronicle (Vol. IV, No. 8), “that the Pope's own astronomer should come openly before the world with such a learned work and should even produce two new experiments to prove the fact of the earth's rotation. Not that we imply that Galileo was condemned for the sole reason that he upheld this doctrine of the earth's motion — for which however he had absolutely no proof whatever — but that we have now one argument more, and one that fully offsets any fault that may have been committed before.”’ --- The Fortnightly Review: Mission Press of the Society of the Divine Illinois, 1913.

Here we have Fr Rigge, Pope Pius X’s appointee, the pope remembered for his attempts to save the Catholic faith from modernist infiltration, giving us a rehash of the ‘proofs’ for the earth’s rotation and seasonal wobble, proofs that can also be attributed to a geocentric model if the Jesuits had a mind for them. ‘It looks like an amende honourable (AMENDE HONORABLE, English law. A penalty imposed upon a person by way of disgrace or infamy, as a punishment for any offence, or for the purpose of making reparation for any injury done to another, as the walking into church in a white sheet, with a rope about the neck, and a torch in the hand, and begging the pardon of God, or the king, or any private individual, for some delinquency.) to the Galileo imbroglio ,’ (An acutely painful or embarrassing misunderstanding) says Fr. Rigge. In other words, the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory in Pope Pius X’s time were very much aware of the Galileo case and actually trying to make amends to Galileo by providing - on behalf of the Church - the proofs that evaded Galileo. It seems then, the Galileo case was alive and well inside the Vatican observatory at least even a century after that infamous U-turn from 1741 to 1835. Our second quote shows another apology from 1913, one of the most read and quoted accounts of the Galileo case at that time.

‘THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEW (1913)
At the present day no one in civilised life could, without being suspected of lunacy, maintain the geocentric system of astronomy that Galileo opposed, or entertain any serious doubt about the heliocentric system that Galileo maintained. Taking up any school textbook of today you will find this latter system outlined briefly as follows….. The theory thus briefly outlined displays of course an immense advancement on Galileo’s knowledge, but in essence it is the Copernican system for which Galileo fought and for which he was condemned. As for proof of its truth, we cannot say that it amounts to a demonstration of strict formal logic; but it is a theory which, first adopted as a hypothesis, has been found to work and to explain everything, and even to afford a reliable basis for anticipating future or unknown facts. And this verification has been carried on so long and so minutely as to destroy all psychological dispositions to doubt its truth.’ --- Fr E. R. Hull S.J.: Galileo and His Condemnations, Examiner Press, Bombay 1913, p.50.

First note Fr Hull’s logic. He began by saying only a lunatic would consider geocentrism as a truth or doubt heliocentrism was not true. He then has to admit that heliocentrism has never been empirically proven so has to be called a ‘theory.’ Now see the effect Newton had on the human psyche. What other theory would command belief to a degree that if one did not believe in it one would be labelled a lunatic? Thus faith and reason becomes ‘faith and theory.’ Now can you imagine making Vatican I’s teaching on faith and reason apply to faith and theory? But that is what they did and still do; base their doctrine of ‘faith and reason’ on theories. Pope Pius X (1903-14) was at this time spelling out the beliefs, tactics, and dangers of ‘updating’ Scripture and Faith by modernistic reasoning, the ‘heresy of all heresies’ as he called it. Yet even in his reign nobody dared question the modernism of Rome that overturned a papal decree confirming the Fathers’ reading of the Scriptures based on Fr Hull’s ‘theory.’ Think about it. Fr Hull then asserts ‘this verification has been carried on so long and so minutely as to destroy all psychological dispositions to doubt its truth.’ Given the game was up since the 1871 Airy and 1887 M&M tests, the only defence of that U-turn had was to continue the psychological programming shown in the above propaganda. Backed up with an imprimatur from Herman Jhuerens, S.J. Archbishop of Bombay and that licence implicit in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus - as we note here below - being used in Fr Hull’s book, what else were Catholics of the day to believe.

‘When informed of this Galileo wrote a letter to Castelli maintaining the view expressed in recent years by Leo XIII, “that the Scripture, not having for its object to teach science, makes use of such expressions as would be intelligible to the vulgar without regard to the true structure of the heavens.” p51.

On reading more of this Jesuit’s book we find further apologies regurgitating all the excuses conjured up over the centuries, just like a worn out gramophone record. Were anyone to challenge the new order they would then and now be considered a ‘lunatic,’ a tactic that has more in common with Communism than Catholicism. Now not for one second do we say Fr Hull intentionally tried to deceive anyone, for he too was caught up in this occult magic. But by such means was the geocentric doctrine purged from the Catholic mind, and by such means did the heresy of Modernism spread throughout Christian thought.[/size]

cassini · « **Reply #514 on:** November 06, 2014, 11:36:31 AM »

1920: Spiritus Paraclitus

On the fifteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of St Jerome (347-420), the greatest Doctor in the exposition of the Scriptures, Pope Benedict XV issued this encyclical to celebrate the life and work of this great saint. St Jerome of course, like all the Fathers, read the Scriptures geocentrically: For example:

Jerome: In Exodus we read that the battle was fought against Amalek while Moses prayed, and the whole people fasted until the evening. Joshua, the son of Nun, bade sun and moon stand still, and the victorious army prolonged its fast for more than a day. --- Against Jovinianus, Bk 2.
Jerome: The moon may dispute over her eclipses and ceaseless toil, and ask why she must traverse every month the yearly orbit of the sun. The sun may complain and want to know what he has done that he travels more slowly than the moon. ---Against the Pelagians, Bk I, 19.

That noted, let us now see where this encyclical could be said to have an association with the geocentric interpretation rejected since 1741. Making reference to Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV writes:

‘Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican, Pope Leo XIII continues: “Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.”

And with this in mind have we not seen the above doctrine put into context earlier when the Rev Roberts wrote of a heliocentric reading of Scripture:

‘Very good. 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 [heliocentric] 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 have that the earth moves is evidence that God was not the author of those passages.’ --- Fr Roberts, p.44

The words of Scripture are undoubtedly geocentric, so the evidence they claim they have that the earth moves is to say that God was not the author of those passages. And that is exactly what Catholics were prepared to do, and did, ignore the contradictions that the U-turn forced on Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics, even that God was not their Author. Benedict XV continues:

‘But although these words of our predecessor Pope Leo XIII leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church -- nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning -- who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point….

With good reason too, for haven’t we seen first hand the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory demonstrate why such a false interpretation was necessary. Once churchmen, from the top down, rejected the 1616 decree for the dictates of modern science, biblical exegesis was blown open to multi-interpretations. Spiritus Paraclitus continues:

‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author's greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that [/size]the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks -- we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture…..
‘Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are -- no less than are the aforementioned critics -- out of harmony with the Church's teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. Yet they are not afraid to deduce such views from the words of Leo Xlll on the ground that he allowed that the principles he had laid down touching the things of nature could be applied to historical things as well. Hence they maintain that precisely as the sacred writers spoke of physical things according to appearance, so, too, while ignorant of the facts, they narrated them in accordance with general opinion or even on baseless evidence; neither do they tell us the sources whence they derived their knowledge, nor do they make other peoples’ narrative their own. Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. After all, what analogy is there between physics and history? For whereas physics is concerned with “sensible appearances” and must consequently square with phenomena, history on the contrary, must square with the facts, since history is the written account of events as they actually occurred. If we were to accept such views, how could we maintain the truth insisted on throughout Leo Xlll's Encyclical -- viz. that the sacred narrative is absolutely free from error?’

Pope Benedict XV, we see, just like Pope Leo XIII, was trying to stop the rot in biblical reinterpretation, unaware of the Copernican virus that had infected biblical exegesis and hermeneutics.

To be continued[/size]:[/font]

glaston · « **Reply #515 on:** November 08, 2014, 07:17:55 AM »

Possibly for another thread but

"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service."

If Earth wobbles
- when you apply the three, "water spin direction down sink" tests, all year round, over years,
- why doesn't the neutralised, 'non' spin of water test, never move off the equator line (due to "variation of latitude")?
(re Newton's Coriolis effect)

cassini · « **Reply #516 on:** November 08, 2014, 03:07:00 PM »

Quote from: glaston

Possibly for another thread but

"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service."

If Earth wobbles
- when you apply the three, "water spin direction down sink" tests, all year round, over years,
- why doesn't the neutralised, 'non' spin of water test, never move off the equator line (due to "variation of latitude")?
(re Newton's Coriolis effect)

Because the earth does not wobble in any way glaston, no perturbation wobble no precession wobble.

I for one am not familiar with the 'direction down sink' tests' so cannot comment.

cassini · « **Reply #517 on:** November 08, 2014, 05:19:33 PM »

Here is a chapter ommitted earlier:

From Heliocentrism
To Evolutionism

‘A model of star and planet formation in which a nebula contracts under the force of gravity, eventually flattening into a spinning disk with a central bulge. A protostar forms at the nebula's center. As matter condenses around the protostar in the bulge, planets are formed from the spinning matter in the disk. This theory is widely accepted to account for the formation of stars and planetary systems such as ours. The first version of the nebular hypothesis was proposed in 1755 by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace.’ ---The Free Dictionary webpage.

Pièrre Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a Catholic mathematician and astronomer, was fascinated by the remarkable order that existed in their heliocentrism. This interest led him to propose an origin for their solar system that has been accepted even to this day. But let us look at the truth of it now.

‘The Nebular Hypothesis first appearing in his book Exposition of a World System published in 1796. Despite the pious attitudes expressed in his early days, Laplace had by this time, reached the conclusion that the stability so obvious in the solar system, would best be accounted for by a process of evolutionary chaos. Laplace had now become one of France’s foremost Monday to Saturday atheists, in spite of his believing attendance at mass every Sunday. His theory is based largely on the observation that all then known planets revolved around the sun in the one direction. Laplace suggested that: The sun was originally a giant cloud of gas or nebulae that rotated evenly. The gas contracted due to cooling and gravity. This forced the gas to rotate faster, just as an ice skater rotates faster when his extended arms are drawn onto his chest. This faster rotation would throw off a rim of gas, which following cooling, would condense into a planet. This process would he repeated several times to produce all the planets. The asteroids between Mars and Jupiter were caused by rings which failed to condense properly. The remaining gas ball left in the center became the sun.
Laplace’s work has had many criticisms; the more serious are listed below.
1. It is now known that not all planets move in the same way. At the time of Laplace, Pluto and Neptune were unknown, and both of these planets rotate from E to W. All other planets rotate from W to E. This difference cannot be explained by a theory which produces all planets from a gas cloud rotating in one direction only.
2. Laplace assumed the original cloud existed and was spinning. He did not attempt to explain where it came from and how it got to be that way.
3. All known physics indicates that a cloud of gas in space will expand and not contract.
4. The Scottish physicist, Maxwell (1831-1879) demonstrated that even a fluid ring in space would not condense into space but form a ring, such as around Saturn, or a belt of planetoids as in the asteroid belt.
5. Studies on the ‘energy of movement’ of the sun and the planets show that 98% of this energy is involved in the movement of the planets. According to Laplace’s theory, most of the energy should still be in the sun. This should have resulted from the fact that as the ball of gas contracted, the energy of motion was tied up in a smaller volume. The ball spun faster, flinging rings of matter from the outside. These rings, however, were only small in mass compared to the gas ball, and therefore would have taken only small amounts of energy from the gas.
6. Laplace’s theory predicts that the sun should be spinning once every few hours, but it spins only once in approximately every 25 earth days.
7. All planets formed from Laplace’s gas cloud lie in the plane of the sun’s equator, however several planets lie at angles to the sun’s plane.
8. The major objection to this theory is best illustrated by a conversation Laplace had with Napoleon: Emperor Boneparte inquired of Laplace after reading his theory ‘Where does God fit into your system?’ Laplace replied: ‘Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.’
The Nebular hypothesis represents the outworking of a man of great intellect who carefully studied and observed the evidence through eyes that were tied to a form of practical atheism. To Laplace, theology and science were independent forms of knowledge, and science was the better way of knowing. Laplace’s comments to Napoleon were not a conclusion that God was not necessary, nor do they represent a belief that God did not exist. They represented the starting point around which he built his theories: God was simply irrelevant to the everyday world of matter and energy.’ --- T. Parsons and J. Mackay: First Creation, 1980

Having accepted heliocentrism as a reality confirmed by the Bible early in the nineteenth century, churchmen were now unable to question the Nebular theory, the first evolutionary theory of the Enlightenment, the precursor to the Big Bang, the mother of all evolutionary theories, introduced in the 1920s by a Catholic priest no less, a Fr Lemaître in what he called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom,” a happening that supposedly occurred 15.5 billion years ago.
In between of course we had uniformitarianism (long ages) and Darwinism, the evolution of the same Nebular gas from inanimate matter to living forms of flora and fauna, from sponges to human beings.

cassini · « **Reply #518 on:** November 08, 2014, 05:27:55 PM »

Uniformitarianism (long-Ages)

Once they conjured a ‘natural’ explanation for the existence of an orbiting earth they then had to try to explain the topography of the earth, the physical structure of the surface of the earth as we find it today. History records it was Charles Lyell (1797-1875), Adam Sedgwick, Sir Roderick Murchison and many other like-minded men of The Geological Society of London, founded in 1807 that ‘solved’ this problem. He/they proposed that slow processes acting over long periods of time formed everything, including sedimentary rock, with each of its layers representing its own age of millions of years. In his book The Rise of the Evolution Fraud,(Malcolm Bowden: The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California, 1982,) Malcolm Boden quotes a letter of 1830 from Lyell to one Poulette Scrope - who was about to review the first volume of Lyell’s The Principles of Geology, a thesis on uniformitarianism for rocks - saying ‘I am sure you may get into Quarterly Review what will free science from Moses.’ Boden goes further and presents a record of this geological revolution similar to the heliocentric fraud wherein assumptions and theories were upheld as empirical facts by powerful men who filled the important places in universities and teaching institutions and who in turn ensured the uniform method was placed in all textbooks since that time.

‘Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that “the present is the key to the past” and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism. Uniformitarianism was formulated by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830. The term uniformitarianism was coined by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the idea that Earth was shaped by a series of sudden, short-lived, violent events.’ ---Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia

Up until the Copernican revolution the world was aged according to the Holy Scriptures (6,000 to 10,000 years-old). Here is a more precise account.

‘The year from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created heaven and earth, five thousand one hundred and ninety nine: From the Deluge, the year two thousand nine hundred and fifty seven: from the birth of Abraham, the year two thousand and fifteen…’ (The above composition belongs to Roman Martyrology first published in 1583 by Pope Gregory XIII, the pope who decreed the revision of the Julian calendar. At the office of the prime, in cathedral chapters and monasteries, the announcement of the following day’s feast [Christmas day] was made with unusual solemnity. The Lector, who frequently is one of the dignitaries of the choir, sung, to a magnificent chant, the above lesson from the martyrology. On that day alone, and on that single occasion, did the Church adopt the Septuagint chronology, according to which the birth of the Saviour took place five thousand years after the Creation; whereas the Vulgate version, and the Hebrew text, places only four thousand years between the two events.)

New Translation: ‘unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own image.’ --- USCCB Translation (Committee on the Liturgy, 1994.)

Now let us see how uniformitarianism did away with the literal interpretation of Noah’s flood, once believed to have caused the topography of the earth, and indeed the Ark as a divine type of Christ, only in Whom can one be saved.

‘Down to a generation or two ago it was the general belief of Christians that the deluge of Noah covered the whole earth, and that it is so described in the most explicit terms in the Bible. Certain new considerations, mainly drawn from geology, led specialists to the contrary conclusion that the deluge was by no means universal, but was a comparatively local phenomenon; widespread enough to cover the area occupied by mankind at that time, but not much more. This view at first found considerable opposition in theological circles; partly because the restriction of the area of the flood was not as yet demonstrated beyond question, and partly because it ran counter to the literal text of the Scripture as universally understood by its interpreters. Fortunately, the view did not attain such sudden publicity as to cause a widespread sensation, and so no crisis arose. The partial-deluge-view gradually came to look more and more feasible, and the possibility of interpreting Scripture accordingly became more and more evident. The new view gradually filtered down from learned circles to the man in the street, so that nowadays the partiality of the deluge is a matter of commonplace knowledge among all educated Christians, and is even taught to the rising generation in elementary schools.’--- Fr Ernest R. Hull, S. J: Galileo and his Condemnation, p.71.

Witness how Noah’s Flood was placed by this Jesuit Fr Hull into the hands of ‘specialists’ in geology to ‘interpret.’ Today, one hundred years after Fr Hull, the Flood of Noah is depicted in a Catholic Bible like so:

‘Deluge. The great flood which covered the whole land or region in which Noe lived (Gen. 6:1-9:19). God sent this flood to destroy all men in this region because of their wickedness. Noe and his family alone were spared (Gen. 6:1-8). Scriptural scholars say that the flood did not necessarily cover the whole earth as we know it today; some even hold that it not necessarily destroys all the people on the earth.’

What then is all that in Genesis about Noah having to build a huge Ark, filling it up with animals of all sorts and having to spend a year afloat on a ‘lake’ while kept ignorant there was land outside his ‘region?’ Noah and his family could have gone on holiday with horse and cart and enjoyed himself with all those others outside the Ark - a divine type of Christ - as most churchmen insist on since 1835. If one does not see in this new ‘science’ led exegesis and hermeneutics the seeds of the modernists’ doctrine, that is, even those outside the Ark (Catholicism) can be saved, then one is wearing a blindfold.

cassini · « **Reply #519 on:** November 08, 2014, 05:35:52 PM »

Guy Berthault

As an anecdote to the above let us bring ourselves up to date on this subject of uniformitarianism (long-ages) based on the research by the French geologist-sedimentologist Guy Berthault. Experiments conducted by this man at the University of Colorado between 1985 and 1990 have shattered all conceived ideas that sediments were laid down one layer on top of another throughout the ages. (Geological Society of France’s Journal, October 1993.)
In fact he found sediments are laid down in a sideways motion, thus in fact the bottom strata in any one deposit, always considered the oldest according to Lyell, can well be younger than the top strata further back along the path of deposit. This evidence, after confirmed and valid tests, means animal fossils in one stratum at or near the surface can well be buried longer than fossils in the lower strata, thus shattering the whole ‘fossil-column’ assertions of the evolutionists. In other words fossils found at the bottom of a ravine, may well be younger than a fossil found further up the cliff-face. And not only does this falsify Lyell’s postulation that ages of fossils can be classified according to their depth in the rock, but it shows that the radioactive dating used to confirm this false theory is itself manipulated to suit the evolutionists. Other discoveries, such as radioactive halos left behind by decaying radioactive elements in the ‘Precambrian granites’, and in coal, (R. V. Gentry, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Sciences Association, Tennessee, 1986.)
and that two hundred year old lava rock has been dated at three million years old, provide empirical evidence that falsifies the theories from the Big Bang to the great uniformitarian hoax. Berthault’s work totally falsified Hutton’s and Lyell’s nineteenth century account of the earth’s sediments and the fossils in them that they claimed proved all were laid down and formed successively over millions of years. Berthault’s findings (Guy Berthault: Principles of geologic dating in question, Fusion, May-June, 2000 pp.32-39.)
- coupled with observations gleaned from the well docuмented volcanic eruption at Mt St Helens in Washington State during the 1980s where massive deposits of sediments (millions of years of them?) were laid down in a matter of hours - offered the world more empirical evidence that showed the long-age sedimentation geology used by Darwin for his evolution, from gas to human beings, is no longer feasible. The above findings were published in the French scientific review Fusion. Peter Wilders tells us how the scientific world reacted.

‘First was the classical and normally most effective tactic of silence. By not replying to the docuмentation sent to them, the Geological Society, in this case that of France, blocked all dialogue. The author of the experiments countered their tactics by sending a copy of the scientific journal to all the 1,200 or so active members of the society. In this way, everyone in the geological community in France was made aware of the experimental results. The society retaliated by attacking the experimenter from authority, i.e., they claimed that all the geologists for three centuries could not be wrong; therefore the experimental evidence could be safely ignored. The success of such a method depended upon the geologists being united. To a large extent they were, but a few responded independently of the society saying they were interested… Supportive geologists fearing for their credibility and, therefore livelihood, wait in the wings.’ ---P. Wilders, David and Goliath, Christian Order, May 2001, p.335.

Wilders goes on to say that the final rejection of Berthault’s evidence came from the Catholic hierarchy. Although out of their competence, they placed a letter in the Geological Society’s half-yearly newsletter and, giving no heed at all to the empirical evidence supplied by Berthault, they accused the scientist of ‘pseudo-science and creationism.’ ‘By attacking his personal credibility they knew that most geologists would not take his work seriously’ wrote Wilders. Where now their apostolic duty to proscribe false philosophy as a means to protect the wisdom that comes from a combination of true faith and reason?
The world, like Copernicanism, was sold uniformitarianism, and after that evolutionism, under false premises by those in both Church and State. Today, Guy Berthault’s advances in knowledge of sedimentary rock (and its fossils) and how it is laid down have made Lyell’s theories absolutely redundant.
Finally, the Mount St Helens volcano eruption in Washington State in 1980. In a matter of hours and days layer after layer of sedimentation formed before the very eyes of the scientists studying the explosion. This demonstrated that the supposed thousands, if not millions of years of uniformitarian sediment building, could be achieved in hours or days. In other words a catastrophic flood accompanied by volcanic eruption, which then receded, could well have formed very quickly most of the sedimentary and igneous deposits as well as the great canyons and other land formations found on earth today. Apply this evidence to the rule of faith, where all that is necessary to confirm the opinion of the Fathers of the Genesis flood is that it has never been proven untrue and that it remains probable, and rest assure yourself that so-called science never came close to empirically falsifying the literal account of the beginning of the world as recorded in Scripture. But the Catholic hierarchy had long committed themselves to Copernicanism, a faith determined by pseudo-science.

‘Yet these words (Genesis I: 1-10) give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard – the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that the creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion – an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them.’ --- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI): In the Beginning, 1986.

cassini · « **Reply #520 on:** November 08, 2014, 05:58:24 PM »

1859 Darwinism

‘All that exists outside of God was, in its whole substance produced out of nothing by God.’ (De. Fide.)

Darwin’s theory came about through observation. He concluded certain species were formed by their environment or change in surroundings brought about by many different causes. For example, finches evolved certain shapes of bills to adjust to the food found in certain areas, and animals evolved white coats in the arctic to blend with the snow. The most famous evolutionary example of them all was the change in moths from white to dark during an era wherein the emissions from coal fires darkened the environment. The brighter the moth the more likely it was seen by predators and devoured. Accordingly the darker ones tended to survive and breed. Thus over time the species went from white to dark. Science has long confirmed the genetic make-up of any creature has the ability to allow micro-adjustments to survive changing situations.

‘Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact.' --- Wikipedia.

We see however, that Darwin and like-minded men went further, much further in their interpretation of evolution. They claimed if species can do this micro-evolution, why not a macro-evolution, mutate from one kind to another, a theory that grew from gas into a single cell ending up as a sponge, then a fish, a mammal, a monkey and finally a man. Now there is a very simple way of discerning the real value of the ‘scientific’ worldview on offer then and now, the evolution of the universe and all in it. It lies in the law on entropy or energy decay; especially that called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law can be observed in action by anyone, and examples are everywhere. We see it in a supernova, a star disintegrating, or seeing an old building fall to bits over time, or observing metal rust into dust. The whole universe, our senses, physicists and chemists assure us, is like a gigantic clock winding down, all order in a process of decay into disorder.
(The evolutionists respond by saying the introduction of solar power can thwart the second law of thermodynamics by providing the energy needed to build up the various order of things. The fact is however, that solar radiation will accelerate the second law unless there is present the ability for photosynthesis, that is, the ability to convert and utilise solar radiation to other forms of energy. The evolutionists’ problem, of course, is to explain how inanimate matter obtained this incomprehensible formula of photosynthesis that supposedly enabled solar energy to assist its theoretical evolution from chemicals into plants, animal-forms and intelligent man.)

If we move on into the next faculty in the Open University we find biologists, geologists and cosmologists telling us that all organised matter, including life, arose from a big bang in a state of chaos and evolved into the order of the whole universe, and is still evolving. In other words, they are telling us the universe is like a clock winding itself up. And how, we ask, do they know it has been evolving upwards for billions and millions of years? Because of the supposed evidence the decay rates reveals to them. Not, mind you, ‘generation rates’, as one might have expected, but decay rates. Now isn’t that a laugh? They measure the duration of upward evolution by the very means of entropy that falsifies it. Such a curriculum, teaching students to believe in the cosmos as a clock winding itself up while accepting at the same time the fact that it is a clock winding down, is an insult to human intelligence, but instead it is used to prepare each generation to go out into the world as psychologically prepared Copernicans and evolutionists.

‘If your pet theory is…found to be contradicted by observation – well these experimentalists do bungle at times. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.’ --- Sir Arthur Eddington: Nature of the Physical World, Dent, 1964, p.74.

Now you must also see that any theory of evolutionary transformation has to be contrary to Catholic faith as indicated by the dogma cited in our opening quote. One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if the universe was once particles of atoms or if a man was once a monkey, a horse was once a fish or a fish once a mere single cell. The ‘substance’ is we know from classic philosophy, ‘what something is’ not what something can become. Theologically then, God had to create things according ‘to their kind’, the sun as the sun, the earth as the earth, a fish as a fish, a mammal as a mammal, and finally a human as a human. So, who were the churchmen that first encouraged the flock to accept absurdity and natural nonsense as God’s creative act?

‘When Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, it came as no surprise to Henry Newman. His idea of history, with change and development implicit in it, enabled him to comprehend Darwin’s claims, which shocked so many well-educated men whose minds were dominated by a static view of history. They believed in a literal exposition of the Book of Genesis. Newman’s view of history was dynamic and he found no difficulty in reconciling his views to Darwin’s.’ --- Brian Martin, J.H. Newman, His Life and Work, Challo & Windus, London, 1982, p.76.

It was however, the proposed evolution of man from primate that challenged the very fundamentals of Catholic belief. The whole concept and nature of man would have to be abandoned or reviewed if such a theory were to be tolerated. In the first place we would have to accept man has a transient nature, that is, it must have a temporary state in the progress of evolution. True man, they say, did not exist in the beginning, neither in type or nature, and if their theory is taken in its entirety, neither will he exist, either in type or nature, at the end, which evolutionists tell us will occur when the sun burns out in a few billion years. According to Catholic dogma, man was created intelligent, speaking a full language from the beginning. Every civilisation, no matter how primitive, living or gone, was found to have a language, perfect and complete, as grammatical as Greek, as fluent as French. No human-type animal ever existed. Such creatures, depicted endlessly in ‘scientific’ journals, are pure fiction; evolutionary art forms, intended to programme the readers with such ideas.
Now there may be some that would accuse us of making connections where there are none; from Galileo to Darwin in the same breath: ‘Darwin only completed the revolution begun by Copernicus.’ (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, Grosset &Dunlop, 1963, p.192) If this is the case let us take you further to hear Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard University, author of many books pushing his theory of evolution by giant leaps (Punctuated Equilibria):

‘I am an unrepentant Galilean. I work in a tradition extending from the Master himself to Thomas Huxley [Darwin’s bulldog] in the last century. The eponymous hero of my literary bloodline is Galileo himself. But my essay talks about the power of the sun . . . But a man does not attain the status of Galileo because he was persecuted, he must also be right.’ ---S.J. Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack, Jonathan Cape, 1996.

‘Right’ for whom, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? The fruits of neo-Pythagorean evolutionism are now clear. It is a fact that the first line of communist indoctrination was not their kind of socialism as one might have expected, but in evolutionism. Rather than evolution giving more glory to God as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church claims, ‘scholars and researchers’ gave succour to atheistic propaganda. As to the potency of this poisonous fruit begun by the Copernican heresy, we need look no further than to Darwin himself, who, although having studied Protestant theology, lost all faith completely before he died. (N. Barlow, Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Collins, 1958 edition)
Today, this supposed evolution of creatures is used extensively to blot out all recognition that it is God who is the supreme and only Creator of nature. No more can we exercise our inherent natural philosophy. If we look at a creature and wonder on its exquisite design, ability and purpose within the whole of nature, which should lead us to recognise an Intelligent Designer, we now fail to find Him because we are programmed to believe it was ‘evolution’ that bred, shaped, designed and found a niche for whatever is under our observation. Thus the new ‘science’ has prevented God getting the glory for His own creation, removing all philosophical thought on Him as our Creator also.

‘It has been said by someone that 9Cardinal Henry] Newman was not a man of action, was not in the ordinary sense an orator, but that when he took the pen into his hand, then he was a match for the whole world. The power with which he is thus credited is surely nowhere more strikingly shown than in the Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
It meant the application – many years before Darwin published his Origins of Species – of the evolutionary idea to religious dogma. Henceforth dogma, instead of being regarded as static, as something motionless, inert, incapable of expansion, became a thing [in possession of] the principle of growth and development.’ --- J. Lewis May: Cardinal Newman, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp.71-72.[/size][/font]

glaston · « **Reply #521 on:** November 08, 2014, 10:47:16 PM »

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: glaston
Possibly for another thread but

"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service."

If Earth wobbles
- when you apply the three, "water spin direction down sink" tests, all year round, over years,
- why doesn't the neutralised, 'non' spin of water test, never move off the equator line (due to "variation of latitude")?
(re Newton's Coriolis effect)

Because the earth does not wobble in any way glaston, no perturbation wobble no precession wobble.

I for one am not familiar with the 'direction down sink' tests' so cannot comment.

I agree, I was confused, thought I had missed something but fast coming to same conclusion.

I enjoy watching eccentric stuff like this as I was pushed out of physics/chemistry learning by a wicked school.

On his third water test/demo - the African would be constantly having to move his water basin every month to cope with any equator line/"earth wobble" adjustments to keep him on the null line
ie water goes straight down.

- this test proves visually, it's absolute lies we are being told & mislead with!

glaston · « **Reply #522 on:** November 08, 2014, 11:21:45 PM »

Quote from: cassini

1859 Darwinism

‘All that exists outside of God was, in its whole substance produced out of nothing by God.’ (De. Fide.)

Darwin’s theory came about through observation. He concluded certain species were formed by their environment or change in surroundings brought about by many different causes. For example, finches evolved certain shapes of bills to adjust to the food found in certain areas, and animals evolved white coats in the arctic to blend with the snow. The most famous evolutionary example of them all was the change in moths from white to dark during an era wherein the emissions from coal fires darkened the environment. The brighter the moth the more likely it was seen by predators and devoured. Accordingly the darker ones tended to survive and breed. Thus over time the species went from white to dark. Science has long confirmed the genetic make-up of any creature has the ability to allow micro-adjustments to survive changing situations.

‘Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact.' --- Wikipedia.

We see however, that Darwin and like-minded men went further, much further in their interpretation of evolution. They claimed if species can do this micro-evolution, why not a macro-evolution, mutate from one kind to another, a theory that grew from gas into a single cell ending up as a sponge, then a fish, a mammal, a monkey and finally a man. Now there is a very simple way of discerning the real value of the ‘scientific’ worldview on offer then and now, the evolution of the universe and all in it. It lies in the law on entropy or energy decay; especially that called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law can be observed in action by anyone, and examples are everywhere. We see it in a supernova, a star disintegrating, or seeing an old building fall to bits over time, or observing metal rust into dust. The whole universe, our senses, physicists and chemists assure us, is like a gigantic clock winding down, all order in a process of decay into disorder.
(The evolutionists respond by saying the introduction of solar power can thwart the second law of thermodynamics by providing the energy needed to build up the various order of things. The fact is however, that solar radiation will accelerate the second law unless there is present the ability for photosynthesis, that is, the ability to convert and utilise solar radiation to other forms of energy. The evolutionists’ problem, of course, is to explain how inanimate matter obtained this incomprehensible formula of photosynthesis that supposedly enabled solar energy to assist its theoretical evolution from chemicals into plants, animal-forms and intelligent man.)

If we move on into the next faculty in the Open University we find biologists, geologists and cosmologists telling us that all organised matter, including life, arose from a big bang in a state of chaos and evolved into the order of the whole universe, and is still evolving. In other words, they are telling us the universe is like a clock winding itself up. And how, we ask, do they know it has been evolving upwards for billions and millions of years? Because of the supposed evidence the decay rates reveals to them. Not, mind you, ‘generation rates’, as one might have expected, but decay rates. Now isn’t that a laugh? They measure the duration of upward evolution by the very means of entropy that falsifies it. Such a curriculum, teaching students to believe in the cosmos as a clock winding itself up while accepting at the same time the fact that it is a clock winding down, is an insult to human intelligence, but instead it is used to prepare each generation to go out into the world as psychologically prepared Copernicans and evolutionists.

‘If your pet theory is…found to be contradicted by observation – well these experimentalists do bungle at times. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.’ --- Sir Arthur Eddington: Nature of the Physical World, Dent, 1964, p.74.

Now you must also see that any theory of evolutionary transformation has to be contrary to Catholic faith as indicated by the dogma cited in our opening quote. One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if the universe was once particles of atoms or if a man was once a monkey, a horse was once a fish or a fish once a mere single cell. The ‘substance’ is we know from classic philosophy, ‘what something is’ not what something can become. Theologically then, God had to create things according ‘to their kind’, the sun as the sun, the earth as the earth, a fish as a fish, a mammal as a mammal, and finally a human as a human. So, who were the churchmen that first encouraged the flock to accept absurdity and natural nonsense as God’s creative act?

‘When Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, it came as no surprise to Henry Newman. His idea of history, with change and development implicit in it, enabled him to comprehend Darwin’s claims, which shocked so many well-educated men whose minds were dominated by a static view of history. They believed in a literal exposition of the Book of Genesis. Newman’s view of history was dynamic and he found no difficulty in reconciling his views to Darwin’s.’ --- Brian Martin, J.H. Newman, His Life and Work, Challo & Windus, London, 1982, p.76.

It was however, the proposed evolution of man from primate that challenged the very fundamentals of Catholic belief. The whole concept and nature of man would have to be abandoned or reviewed if such a theory were to be tolerated. In the first place we would have to accept man has a transient nature, that is, it must have a temporary state in the progress of evolution. True man, they say, did not exist in the beginning, neither in type or nature, and if their theory is taken in its entirety, neither will he exist, either in type or nature, at the end, which evolutionists tell us will occur when the sun burns out in a few billion years. According to Catholic dogma, man was created intelligent, speaking a full language from the beginning. Every civilisation, no matter how primitive, living or gone, was found to have a language, perfect and complete, as grammatical as Greek, as fluent as French. No human-type animal ever existed. Such creatures, depicted endlessly in ‘scientific’ journals, are pure fiction; evolutionary art forms, intended to programme the readers with such ideas.
Now there may be some that would accuse us of making connections where there are none; from Galileo to Darwin in the same breath: ‘Darwin only completed the revolution begun by Copernicus.’ (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, Grosset &Dunlop, 1963, p.192) If this is the case let us take you further to hear Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard University, author of many books pushing his theory of evolution by giant leaps (Punctuated Equilibria):

‘I am an unrepentant Galilean. I work in a tradition extending from the Master himself to Thomas Huxley [Darwin’s bulldog] in the last century. The eponymous hero of my literary bloodline is Galileo himself. But my essay talks about the power of the sun . . . But a man does not attain the status of Galileo because he was persecuted, he must also be right.’ ---S.J. Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack, Jonathan Cape, 1996.

‘Right’ for whom, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? The fruits of neo-Pythagorean evolutionism are now clear. It is a fact that the first line of communist indoctrination was not their kind of socialism as one might have expected, but in evolutionism. Rather than evolution giving more glory to God as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church claims, ‘scholars and researchers’ gave succour to atheistic propaganda. As to the potency of this poisonous fruit begun by the Copernican heresy, we need look no further than to Darwin himself, who, although having studied Protestant theology, lost all faith completely before he died. (N. Barlow, Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Collins, 1958 edition)
Today, this supposed evolution of creatures is used extensively to blot out all recognition that it is God who is the supreme and only Creator of nature. No more can we exercise our inherent natural philosophy. If we look at a creature and wonder on its exquisite design, ability and purpose within the whole of nature, which should lead us to recognise an Intelligent Designer, we now fail to find Him because we are programmed to believe it was ‘evolution’ that bred, shaped, designed and found a niche for whatever is under our observation. Thus the new ‘science’ has prevented God getting the glory for His own creation, removing all philosophical thought on Him as our Creator also.

‘It has been said by someone that 9Cardinal Henry] Newman was not a man of action, was not in the ordinary sense an orator, but that when he took the pen into his hand, then he was a match for the whole world. The power with which he is thus credited is surely nowhere more strikingly shown than in the Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
It meant the application – many years before Darwin published his Origins of Species – of the evolutionary idea to religious dogma. Henceforth dogma, instead of being regarded as static, as something motionless, inert, incapable of expansion, became a thing [in possession of] the principle of growth and development.’ --- J. Lewis May: Cardinal Newman, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp.71-72.[/size][/font]

I've checked out Dar-win myself
Hidden hebrew word "Dar" meaning
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
pearl

Apparently from the same as drowr; properly, a pearl (from its sheen as rapidly turned);
by analogy, pearl-stone, i.e. Mother-of-pearl or alabaster -- X white.

see HEBREW drowr

His Grandfather/Father were high up 'n'th degree Scottish Rite Satanists in Edinburgh.

Loads of words & names have hidden symbology meanings.

His ship (hull > cathedral) was the B-eagle (Bicepherous _ Eagle of double headed logo Scottish Rite)
Dog is God occultly reversed.

The Isles >>> Spanish galápago, meaning tortoise
Tortoise >>> tortoise etymology links to hades/hell

Etymology
tortoise (n.)
1550s, altered (perhaps by influence of porpoise) from Middle English tortuse (late 15c.), tortuce (mid-15c.), tortuge (late 14c.), from Medieval Latin tortuca (mid-13c.),
perhaps from Late Latin tartaruchus “of the underworld”
(Tortoise hide in burrows)

Tartarus (n.)
– in Homer and older Greek mythology, the sunless abyss below Hades, from Greek Tartaros, of uncertain origin; “prob. a word of imitative origin, suggestive of something ‘frightful'” [Klein].

Later in Greek almost synonymous with Hades. (HELL)

Belief in Darwin's theory is a one-way ticket to . . . . . .

Do your own research

cassini · « **Reply #523 on:** November 09, 2014, 01:50:37 PM »

Quote from: glaston

Quote from: cassini
1859 Darwinism

‘All that exists outside of God was, in its whole substance produced out of nothing by God.’ (De. Fide.)

‘When Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, it came as no surprise to Henry Newman. His idea of history, with change and development implicit in it, enabled him to comprehend Darwin’s claims, which shocked so many well-educated men whose minds were dominated by a static view of history. They believed in a literal exposition of the Book of Genesis. Newman’s view of history was dynamic and he found no difficulty in reconciling his views to Darwin’s.’ --- Brian Martin, J.H. Newman, His Life and Work, Challo & Windus, London, 1982, p.76.

‘It has been said by someone that 9Cardinal Henry] Newman was not a man of action, was not in the ordinary sense an orator, but that when he took the pen into his hand, then he was a match for the whole world. The power with which he is thus credited is surely nowhere more strikingly shown than in the Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
It meant the application – many years before Darwin published his Origins of Species – of the evolutionary idea to religious dogma. Henceforth dogma, instead of being regarded as static, as something motionless, inert, incapable of expansion, became a thing [in possession of] the principle of growth and development.’ --- J. Lewis May: Cardinal Newman, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp.71-72.[/size][/font]

I've checked out Dar-win myself

Later in Greek almost synonymous with Hades. (HELL)

Belief in Darwin's theory is a one-way ticket to . . . . . .

Do your own research

Again glaston, very, very interesting.

Note Cardinal Henry Newman, was a champion as a leader in 'the evolutionary idea to religious dogma otherwise known by THE SYSTHESIS OF ALL HERESY (Pope St Pius X.)

Isn't he on the way to sainthood?

cassini · « **Reply #524 on:** November 13, 2014, 01:35:41 PM »

1921: In Praeclara Summorum

‘Beloved Children,
Among the many celebrated geniuses of whom the Catholic faith can boast who have left undying fruits in literature and art especially, besides other fields of learning, and to whom civilization and religion are ever in debt, highest stands the name of Dante Alighieri [1265-1321], the sixth centenary of whose death will soon be recorded. Never perhaps has his supreme position been recognized as it is today. Not only Italy, justly proud of having given him birth, but all the civil nations are preparing with special committees of learned men to celebrate his memory that the whole world may pay honour to that noble figure, pride and glory of humanity.’ ---Encyclical on Dante. To Professors, Students of Literature and Learning in the Catholic World

Few today are even aware that Pope Benedict XV, on April 30th, 1921, just one year after his teaching encyclical on how the Scriptures reveal all truth, wrote a different kind of encyclical letter, praising the Catholic writings of Dante. Dante, we remind ourselves, is known for his vision of the geocentric world:

My desire and will were moved already
- like a wheel revolving uniformly -
by the love that moves the sun and the other stars. (Dante, par. 33.143-45)

Having written in Spiritus Paraclitus of the dangers ‘physical science’ can cause in interpreting Scripture, watch now as the Pope himself applies an ‘if’ of science to Dante’s most famous work The Divine Comedy, sometimes called ‘the Summa in verse,’ described earlier in our chapter four on geocentrism. Caught up in the universal belief that science has proven its Copernican cosmology, and unwilling to degrade the Catholicity of Dante’s description of a geocentric Heaven, Hell and Purgatory, he feels he has to rescue the same Catholicity ‘if’ science is correct. The balance between the Pope’s faith and the pressure from ‘science,’ in this encyclical, given the fact that no pope ever officially denied the 1616 decree, is not committing this Letter to endorsing Copernicanism, only to the scenario ‘If the progress of science showed later.’

‘And first of all, inasmuch as the divine poet throughout his whole life professed in exemplary manner the Catholic religion, he would surely desire that this solemn commemoration should take place, as indeed will be the case, under the auspices of religion, and if it is carried out in San Francesco in Ravenna it should begin in San Giovanni in Florence to which his thoughts turned during the last years of his life with the desire of being crowned poet at the very font where he had received Baptism. Dante lived in an age which inherited the most glorious fruits of philosophical and theological teaching and thought, and handed them on to the succeeding ages with the imprint of the strict scholastic method. Amid the various currents of thought diffused then too among learned men Dante ranged himself as disciple of that Prince of the school so distinguished for angelic temper of intellect, Saint Thomas Aquinas. From him he gained nearly all his philosophical and theological knowledge, and while he did not neglect any branch of human learning, at the same time he drank deeply at the founts of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Thus he learned almost all that could be known in his time, and nourished specially by Christian knowledge; it was on that field of religion he drew when he set himself to treat in verse of things so vast and deep. So that while we admire the greatness and keenness of his genius, we have to recognize, too, the measure in which he drew inspiration from the Divine Faith by means of which he could beautify his immortal poems with all the lights of revealed truths as well as with the splendours of art. Indeed, his Commedia, which deservedly earned the title of Divina, while it uses various symbolic images and records the lives of mortals on earth, has for its true aim the glorification of the justice and providence of God who rules the world through time and all eternity and punishes and rewards the actions of individuals and human society. It is thus that, according to the Divine Revelation, in this poem shines out the majesty of God One and Three, the Redemption of the human race operated by the Word of God made Man, the supreme loving-kindness and charity of Mary, Virgin and Mother, Queen of Heaven, and lastly the glory on high of Angels, Saints and men; then the terrible contrast to this, the pains of the impious in Hell; then the middle world, so to speak, between Heaven and Hell, Purgatory, the Ladder of souls destined after expiation to supreme beatitude. It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design. If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in such a way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.’

One of the many reasons alluded to by the Copernican apologists is to say that the 1616 decree was not a binding decree for all time because Pope Benedict XV in this encyclical did not uphold the anti-Copernican decree of a moving sun and fixed earth at the centre of the universe. In fact, the Pope takes a neutral stand on the matter while reflecting on the post-1905 position of science that holds there is no scientific proof for either geocentrism or heliocentrism, that is, Einstein’s relativity. The Pope says: ‘If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation,…’ followed by ‘this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought.’ We say let us be thankful the Pope wrote that the earth ‘may not’ be the centre of the universe rather than ‘is not the centre of the universe.’ The difference we can assure you is profound. Given the fact that in his time Copernicanism was still considered the truth of the two choices, one surely would have expected the Pope to say ‘is not the centre.’ Had he done so, he would have contradicted Pope Paul V's 1616 decree that had never been abrogated. One could equally say Pope Benedict XV did not accept the U-turn of 1741-1835. The words ‘may not be’ hardly endorse Copernicanism. Like all the popes since 1616, not one of then explicitly denied the 1616 decree officially, or abrogated the decree by way of the Magisterium.

A Catechism of the Bible.
More of an apology by Rev. John O'Brien, M.A., 1924.

4. So the Church cannot make mistakes in interpreting the Bible?
No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
5. How does that guidance manifest itself?
Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and of learned men.
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day, for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is turning around the Sun and not vice-versa.