Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 103191 times)

cassini · « **Reply #525 on:** November 13, 2014, 01:45:31 PM »

The Michelson-Gale experiment

‘The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925) is a modified version of the Michelson–Morley experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer. It measured the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation, and thus tests the theories of special relativity and luminiferous ether along the rotating frame of Earth.’ Wikipedia.

‘The aim, as it was first proposed by Albert A. Michelson in 1904 and then executed in 1925, was to find out whether the rotation of the Earth has an effect on the propagation of light in the vicinity of the Earth. The Michelson-Gale experiment was a very large ring interferometer, (a perimeter of 1.9 kilometer), large enough to detect the angular velocity of the Earth. Like the original Michelson-Morley experiment, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson version compared the light from a single source (carbon arc) after travelling in two directions. The major change was to replace the two “arms” of the original M&M version with two rectangles, one much larger than the other. Light was sent into the rectangles, reflecting off mirrors at the corners, and returned to the starting point. Light exiting the two rectangles was compared on a screen just as the light returning from the two arms would be in a standard M&M experiment.
Result: The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000. According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity.’ - Wikipedia.

‘This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morley experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.’ - Malcolm Bowden: The Basic Scientific Arguments for Geocentricity.

Of course it does, for you cannot have the heliocentric goose without the heliocentric gander. With geocentrism however, all you want is the gander without the goose. And that is what you get with the 1887 M&M test and the 1923 M&G test, the gander without the goose.

The Big Bang Theory Arrives

With the unholy grail of an earth included heliocentric solar-system then established in the collective minds of humanity, a holy grail in which it is possible for twins to be older and younger than each other, that 20-foot poles can fit into 10-foot square rooms provided matter shrinks at the speed of light, and that if cosmologists cross a road they could end up in Mars [quantum theory], who can deny that man had been programmed to accept anything so long as the ‘most scientists accept’ tag is attached to it. There is however one further addition to their ‘science’ that is of interest to us. In 1922, the Russian Alexander Friedmann (1888-1925) ‘made the simplifying assumption that the universe was uniformly filled with a thin soup of matter.’ He ‘found a mistake in 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 cosmology, including the Jesuit priest Monsignor Abbé Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) who ‘was the first to use Friedmann-type solutions to formulate a model for the beginning of the universe that he called the Primordial Atom or Cosmic Egg.’ With the groundwork done all that was needed now was for someone to come up with evidence for such an exploding atom and expanding universe. Such a ‘proof’ would ensure immortality of name and achievement similar to all the Earthmovers that preceded them. And so it was when the American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) in 1929, using a newly built 100-inch telescope, saw for the first time faraway galaxies. Examining the spectral-light emitted by these stars he found a lengthening of the red end with many of them. On the basis of this alone, Hubble held that the galaxies were flying out at enormous speed thus indicating an initial beginning from a central point, just as Lemaître had already speculated. Since then however many studies undertaken by other astronomers have produced conflicting versions of Hubble’s interpretation of red-shifts. ( See for example Robert V. Gentry’s Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004.)

Missed by all of course was the fact that a rotating universe would also produce the light colour shifts equally well.

If however it is true that the universe is expanding, hadn’t Copernicus pointed out in his De revolutionibus in 1543 no less, that it would be an effect of geocentric rotating universe? He wrote that if the universe was spinning as the biblical model necessitates, then this inertia - like an amusement park swing whose attached chairs move out when rotating - could result in cosmic bodies moving outwards. Nevertheless, this Big Bang tale of a ‘natural’ scientific origin for an expanding world is now embraced by most with intellectual relish.
So, where did their first magic atom come from? Where did the space of space come from? Unlike Almighty God, science cannot get something from nothing, can it? That’s the unchallengeable First Law of Thermodynamics isn’t it? It is of course, but when did that stop the Earthmovers? Even this problem can be overcome if the solution comes from a ‘genius’ groomed to produce those ‘eureka’ moments; a scientist able to work out the equations necessary, solutions that get the approval of the scientific establishment. And as they found Einstein, in Stephen Hawking they found another:

‘Then in the sixties [Hawking’s] work on “black holes” proved that, contrary to all received scientific wisdom, matter could go from something to nothing. But if matter could disappear, it was only a short step to theories that the opposite was true, and that the universe as we know it, in all its beauty and complexity, had emerged not from the mind of a Creator God, but from nothing.’ --- The Universe (Catholic newspaper), September 16, 2001.

On July 2004, at a conference in Dublin city, 600 cosmologists met to hear Hawking - under pressure from his peers – reject one of his own theories on ‘black holes as, yes, ‘unscientific,’ but only after making a fortune on his worthless book Black Holes of course. ‘Before an array of TV cameras and hundreds of colleagues at the ordinarily obscure International Conference of General Relativity and Gravitation, Hawking declared that he had solved what he called ‘a major problem in theoretical physics.’ Black holes, he said, do not forever annihilate all traces of what falls into them. In making that announcement, Hawking recanted a position he had held for nearly 30 years. He also pulled the rug out from under a generation of science-fiction fans, declaring dead a favourite plot device: ‘There is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes,’ he said, with evident regret.
Surely one sees we are now in the fairyland of modern cosmology in which anything can happen - if enough gullible people are willing to believe what all these ‘scientific geniuses’ tell us that is.

‘One point to note is that there is no problem in principle with creating matter from a vacuum. Matter is just another form of energy, and can be produced if the energy input is balanced by something else. For the universe that “something else” could be negative energy in the gravitational field. If this were the case creating the universe would be like digging a hole – you’d have a pile of dirt (visible matter) balanced by a hole (gravitational field). The progress is miraculous only if you ignore the hole and insist the matter appeared “from nothing.” ’--- R.M. Hazen & J. Trefil: Science Matters, Cassel, 1993, p.155.

On 15th December 2013, the Discovery TV channel gave us a demonstration of the above in their one hour programme, Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design. In this programme, Hawking actually tells us that not only did the Big Bang create matter, but it also created the space that is necessary to contain this matter.

cassini · « **Reply #526 on:** November 13, 2014, 01:57:04 PM »

The Cosmological Principle

Hubble’s ‘red shift’ theory that the universe is expanding in every direction as seen from earth led to the logical conclusion that the earth must be at the centre of the universe. But note how Hubble, no different to the rest of them, reacted to this geocentric view:

‘Such a position would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe… This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome… the unwelcome position of a favoured position of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs…such a favoured position is intolerable.’ ---Edwin Hubble: The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1937, pp,50, 51, and 58

Here is another version of the same story, but read it carefully:

‘For instance, if the universe were finite and had a centre, and if the Milky Way were not near that centre, then the total brightness of all the rest of the matter in the universe should be slightly greater on one side of the earth than the other. But the night sky beyond the Milky Way is not noticeably brighter in one direction than the other; therefore astronomers are forced to conclude that the universe extends indefinitely far in all directions. The only other possibility is that the earth is the centre of everything – one planet serving as a focal point for thousands and millions of galaxies and millions of millions of other probable planets. This alternative is so preposterous that cosmologists have ruled it out from the beginning. In fact, they have made it a fundamental tenet of their creed that the Milky Way’s position in the universe is not peculiar or untypical in any way. From this idea they derive a basic axiom known as the cosmological principle: namely, that the universe must be the same on average everywhere and in all directions.’ ---- ‘Space, Time and the Universe,’ The Universe, Time-Life Books, 1962, p.170.

A complete scientific method should consider all possible explanations for any evidence or phenomenon under consideration. Only if and when science empirically falsifies a logical possibility can that theory be eliminated as worthless. Note however that the whole ‘cosmological principle’ is built upon a philosophical or ideological consensus, not empirical, and that even their own ‘evidence’ indicating a geocentric earth cannot be considered because: ‘such a favoured position is intolerable’ and ‘this alternative is so preposterous that cosmologists have ruled it out from the beginning.’ Today of course, with the Cosmic Microwave Radiation indicators showing the earth is at the centre of the universe, it seems cosmologists will have to face the facts to be credible.

‘[We] assume that our observations give us information that applies to the whole universe, not just to our part of it. In other words, we must assume that the part of the universe that we actually observe is representative of the entire cosmos, and that we are not located in some very unusual place, fundamentally different from the rest of the universe.’ ----George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, p.651.

Walter van der Kamp brilliantly sums up the kind of thinking. He said it had about the same logical status as an Eskimo who believes all homes are made of ice: or an Indian in the Amazon jungle who concluded that, since he sees parrots in the palms, there must be parrots everywhere, or because an Arab can find no lakes in the Sahara then there are no lakes anywhere. These analogies, if we are honest about it, are not exaggerations. The idea that we can apply assumptions about the earth, sun, and planets to those pinpricks of light we call stars and to the depths of space we can never hope to observe or understand properly, is conjecture on a preposterous scale. Now we could go on with this endless farce that calls itself modern cosmology but enough is enough. (Such as that because there is life on earth in a solar system then there ‘must be’ life on other ‘earths’ in many other solar systems out there among the stars.)

Let us finish with the following prophesy by Chet Raymo, a well-known author and populariser who teaches physics and astronomy in Massachusetts. This extract was adopted from one of his ‘Science Musings’ that first appeared in the Boston Globe and then in the magazine Sky & Telescope of March 1993, eleven years before Hawking admitted his 30 year cosmology was impossible:

‘The Big-Bang theory is only a provisional way-stop in a continuing inquiry into origins. It is possible to imagine a universe that had no beginning in time, and Hawking has been instrumental in investigating just such a possibility placing the so-called moment of creation off-limits for rational inquiry suggests that the lesson of Galileo has not been learned. Modern biology and neuroscience are other areas of potential conflict between the church and science. Biologists of the next century will almost certainly create living organisms from inanimate materials. Computers of the next century may become fully conscious by any practical test of consciousness. Human consciousness and memory may also yield to scientific analysis. All these developments will present problems for a theology of the soul grounded in mind-body dualism.’

Note well the ubiquitous assertion that science will ‘almost certainly create living organisms from inanimate materials’ in the next century. This is absolute fantasy, and is based on his belief that it actually occurred in the past. There is trickery at work here. When Remo and his kind assert that such-and-such a thing will happen in the future, what they want is for us to admit the principle of life from inanimate matter as an established fact now because there isn’t an empirical chance in hell of their ever producing such life in the future. Raymo then tells us that ‘computers of the next century may become fully conscious by any practical test of consciousness.’ Note his reliance on ‘may,’ ‘the next century’ and ‘practical test.’ Another case of his wanting us to believe in the principle now, in our lifetime, even though we will never see it demonstrated. His next delusion, that the human soul will be fully understood by reason, is introduced in a similar way, for it too ‘may also yield to scientific analysis.’
These presumptions, we must see, are worthless rhetoric and nothing else. Nevertheless, this is how modern science works; how their ideology becomes the accepted ‘scientific’ paradigm, the consensus, accept now that ‘all these developments’ will occur in the future, after we are all dead and gone of course. This is Cabbalistic magic, a religion, a faith, not real science. Today, 400 years after Copernicus, there is not, nor ever has been, in the world of Church or State, a philosopher; physicist, astronomer, or logician of worth who has ever demonstrated within the limits of mechanical or physical science that the earth moves, that life evolved, or that there is life out there in space. And that dear reader is all that is necessary in order to trash the standard history of the Copernican revolution. And what now can we say of generations of Catholic ‘scientists,’ many Jesuit priests, who have gone along with the ‘Holy Grail’ accepting assumption after assumption, upholding endless consensus and perversions of interpretations with biased ‘science,’ bringing their profession down to the level of fiction writers and at times no less than fraudsters?

‘Yes, such men, venerated pillars of society that they are, are dangerous, bringing about the same result, but on a vastly more extensive scale, as the pushers of mind-destroying drugs. Perhaps we should not try to excuse them by saying, as is certainly true, that they are the tools of powerful conspirators whose control of the academic world is such that they can organise praise, preferment, accolades on the one hand, or as Professor Dingle’s experience showed, almost total exclusion from being able to publish, whether in national newspapers or specialized scientific journals, on the other hand. Every human being must take ultimate responsibilities for his own actions.’ ---- N. M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, Briton’s Library, 1985, p.52.

cassini · « **Reply #527 on:** November 13, 2014, 02:18:29 PM »

Here is a better understanding of the Mitchelson and Gale test as described in T.E. above:

Of course it does, for you cannot have the heliocentric goose without the heliocentric gander (Orbital movement and rotational movement). With geocentrism however, all you want is the gander without the goose (no orbital movement, but universal rotational movement). And that is what you get with the 1887 M&M test and the 1923 M&G test, the gander without the goose.

glaston · « **Reply #528 on:** November 14, 2014, 09:55:17 AM »

Aliens MUST exist, says Stephen Hawking

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-561252/Aliens-MUST-exist-says-Stephen-Hawking--probably-dumber-us.html

Say no more!

Dawkins (& his 'Pearls of wisdom' - Darwinisms)

Quote

25 April 2013 11:15 AM
Professor Dawkins and Aliens

One or two readers noticed that I asked Professor Richard Dawkins(on Twitter) where he stood on the subject of aliens. This is why I asked.

I am told ( and my source is here ) http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/transcript-of-interview-of-richard.html

that the Professor said the following : ‘Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.’

(Note that Professor Dawkins, in a passage around five minutes into the interview (during a rejection of belief in the existence of any deity) says the existence of the Biblical God would be a ‘very unpleasant prospect’ which seems to me to introduce the question of desire and wish into the question of belief, where I think it is always to be found)

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/professor-dawkins-and-aliens.html

A misleading Snake-oil salesman if I ever saw one! All cleverly 'KRAFTED' suppositions & probabilities neither of which have any basis (except in his warped mind!)

These are the false christs/misleaders warned about in BIBLE! Pretty easy for us to spot and suss them.

Check this video out (esp the last half hour) as some bits intertwine with stuff on this thread

http://davidickedebunked.com/

cassini · « **Reply #529 on:** November 18, 2014, 05:06:30 AM »

1936: The Pontifical Academy of Sciences

The next episode associated with the Galileo case occurred in 1936 when Pope Pius XI (1922-39) restructured the Lincean Academy, calling it the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS). The goals and the hopes of the Academy, within the context of the dialogue between faith and science, were aired by Pius XI in his Motu Proprio which brought about its re-foundation:

‘Amongst the many consolations with which divine Goodness has wished to make happy the years of our Pontificate, I am happy to place that of our having being able to see not a few of those who dedicate themselves to the studies of the sciences mature their attitude and their intellectual approach towards religion. Science, when it is real cognition, is never in contrast with the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, as is well known to those who study the history of science, it must be recognised on the one hand that the Roman Pontiffs and the Catholic Church have always fostered the research of the learned in the experimental field as well, and on the other hand that such research has opened up the way to the defence of the deposit of supernatural truths entrusted to the Church. [...] We promise again, and it is our strongly-held intention, that the “Pontifical Academicians,” through their work and our Institution, work ever more and ever more effectively for the progress of the sciences. Of them we do not ask anything else, since in this praiseworthy intent and this noble work is that service in favour of the truth that we expect of them.’ ---Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science.

Founded originally in 1603 in Rome by a Dutch prince and several Italians, they named it the ‘Lynceorum philosophorum Ordo seu Congressus seu Academia.’ The Linceans had as their motto Sagacius isia. The standard reason given for their choosing a lynx in their title was that their keen interest in the study of nature was well represented by the cat. In fact the real reason why they called themselves ‘Lynxes’ was because they believed, like the lynx that could see better in the dark, the learned of their academy could see what others could not (like a fixed sun and moving earth?). This peculiar title, for those with a sense of esotericism, is Gnostic, with its doctrine of secret knowledge, privy only to the select few of course. It was the Lynxes that elected Galileo as their sixth member, assisting him in his heliocentric quest in any way they could especially by publishing his book Letters on Sunspots in 1613, a work in which Galileo first portrayed heliocentrism as a scientific truth, one that led to the Church’s worst nightmare as many would see it.
In the wake of the 1820-35 U-turn to the prevailing ‘science’ of the day, Pope Pius VII wanted to resurrect the Academy as did Pope Leo XII (1823-29) and Gregory XVI, presumably thinking that if they had a group of scientists to advise the Church they would not make another terrible mistake they believed happened in regard to heliocentrism and Galileo in 1616 and 1633. It was not however until 1847, under Pope Pius IX, that they got their academy going again, calling it the ‘Pontifical Academy of the New Lynxes’ if you don’t mind, as recommended by Gregory XVI, the pope who finally emptied the Index of Copernican books ‘without explicit comment.’ In 1870 however, with the merging of the Papal States into the Kingdom of Italy, the academy split into two different groups and Rome lost its gathering of Copernican scientists.

Pope Pius XI’s 1936 reintroduction of the scientific academy had a lot more science to interest it. As we saw, cosmology had by then invented all sorts of theories including the Big Bang. Moreover, so important had this heliocentric universe become to the State that vast amounts of money were poured into promoting theoretical cosmology. The first assembly of the new Pontifical Academy of Sciences was inaugurated on June, 1st, 1937 by the then Cardinal Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII (1939-1958). On a plaque placed by him to commemorate his predecessor Pope Pius XI’s role in renewing the Academy, Cardinal Pacelli reminded all that Galileo was a leader of the original Accademia dei Lincei.

‘To Pius XII, science and religion were heavenly sisters, different manifestations of divine exactness that could not possibly contradict each other over the long term. Regarding their relation, his advisor Professor Robert Leiber wrote: “Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo.” Anticipating similar praises from Pope John Paul II in 1992, Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1939), included Galileo among the “most audacious heroes of research… not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments.”’ (Wikipedia)

Pope Pius XII was again present at the inaugural meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) for the academic year 1941-42, a meeting held on 30th November 1941. By then of course, all scientific institutions worldwide were made up of Copernicans, relativists and evolutionists, and therefore it was men with such beliefs who were called on to fill all the seats of academies and institutions such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Many were by then also atheists, for atheism depends on the three pseudo-sciences.
Getting down to the real business for which the PAS was formed, it was not long before they revisited the Galileo case, giving as the reason that 1942 was the tercentennial of Galileo’s death and that this day ought to be celebrated. At this meeting, the president, Father Agostino Gemelli (1878-1959), who was also president of the Catholic University of Milan, gave a speech reminding the audience that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a ‘direct heir and legitimate continuation’ of the Lincean Academy founded by Prince Frederico Cesi in Rome in 1603, one devoted to the advance of scientific truth, as well as ‘living righteously and piously.’ (In fact the Lyncean Academy was steadfastly opposed by Cesi's father and other Roman aristocrats who accused its members of black magic, opposition to Church doctrine, and living scandalous lives. (The Galileo Project) It was investigated by the Holy Office and continued to support Galileo after he was silenced by Pope Paul V.) Fr Gemelli announced a new book on the Galileo case had been commissioned by the PAS to be written by the scholar Fr Pio Paschini (1878-1962), president of the Lateran University at the time. He spoke of ‘a historical and scholarly study of the docuмents’ that would ‘be an effective proof that the Church did not persecute Galileo but helped him considerably in his studies.’ He then went on to give the audience a modernist view of the Galileo case, presenting him as a kind of saint whose only motive was to save the Catholic Church’s hermeneutics and exegesis from the ignorance pertaining in the hierarchy of the Church at the time. He proposed Galileo’s agreement to abjure in 1633 was not based on fear of being burned at the stake, but on his total loyalty to his faith and obedience to the Catholic Church. Galilean revisionism it seems has no limits. In his book, Finocchiaro relates a lesser-known speech on the matter given by the same Fr Gemelli at Milan University later in 1942.

‘So, Gemelli had no hesitation in admitting that the condemnation of Galileo was a theological error…. However Gemelli was also claiming that Galileo’s tragedy embodied a great positive lesson; that faith and religion are harmonious with reason and science. He went on to argue that although Galileo did not provide a decisive demonstration of Copernicanism, neither did Newton, Bradley or Foucault; on the other hand, Galileo did provide “the convergence of probabilities that were increasingly more and more numerous in favour of the Copernican system; and in any case, the Ptolemaic arguments were weaker.”’--- M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.278.

The significance of this ‘argument’ by the president of the PAS in 1942 is fundamental to the 1741-1835 U-turn, yet it passed away unnoticed.

‘Exeunt Copernicus, Galileo and Newton as trustworthy prophets of the way the heavens really go. The only trouble is that theologians in particular and Christians in general are still blind to the tragedy behind this momentous turnabout after A.D. 1905. For the consequences of the choice between the above-mentioned alternatives have been, and are, far-reaching. The geocentric position virtually compels a man at least to believe in a metaphysical Designer, especially interested in mankind and our dwelling place in the heavens. It engenders worldviews of the Genesis type. The ruling model today, gradually and unavoidably developed as a result of the Copernican revolution, suggests that we are no more than a freak accident out of many, evolved somewhere in the universe about which we can say nothing with any measure of certitude or probability.’ ----Walter van der Kamp: Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, p.22.

It remains a mystery why nobody in Catholicism saw what the astronomer Domenico Cassini (1625-1712) and many philosophers like Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) knew before and after the U-turn; a fact confirmed by Fr Gemelli of the PAS here above; that science proved nothing, never falsified the geocentric revelations of the Bible. Indeed, the question that could be asked now is did churchmen of 1741-1835 ever really believe there was proof for Copernicanism or did they too ignore the 1616 anti-Copernican decree based on probabilities and choose pragmatism over faith in order to put an end to the ridicule from academia, philosophers, astronomers, teachers, writers etc., that the Church was subjected to at the time? Yes, the victory of this Hermetic heliocentric fraud over the intellectual world was so complete that had churchmen even considered retention of a geocentric faith at any time after Isaac Newton and Cardinal Newman they would have been laughed out of it by the so-called intelligentsia. What churchmen, under such circuмstances, would put faith before science then or now, and risk the inevitable mockery from academics and the media publicity that would result from it? Just picture it, headlines beaming: ‘Rome reverts to biblical myth, the earth no longer moves.’ Martyrdom would have been a more preferable choice than such intellectual derision and embarrassment; and that is why churchmen ignored and, even if aware that the earth was never proven to move, will continue to ignore the truth for the preferred ‘scientific’ view then and even now, no matter the truth. Had they done the right thing in 1905 the internal damage might have been contained somewhat, for it could be shown that the popes of the U-turn, who, unlike their successors, uttered no personal criticism of their predecessors, were supplied with spurious information and were practically coerced into dropping the ban on books advocating Copernicanism while granting imprimaturs to others. Given there is Christian faith in so many other scientifically impossible and non-provable things, a return to the interpretation of a stable earth would simply have been one more item of Catholic belief based on Revelation.

cassini · « **Reply #530 on:** November 18, 2014, 05:11:19 AM »

1943: Divino Afflante Spiritu

Insert: [‘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

Prior to this there were only two interpretations of the Genesis six days of creation by the Fathers, an immediate creation of all and six literal days. In the wake of the Galileo U-turn however, churchmen of the Commission were not going to open up another Galileo case by defending such an interpretation at a time when ‘science’ was telling all the earth evolved over billions of years. So, given six literal days was not the unanimous reading of Genesis by the Fathers they could leave it an open question, open to the suggestion that maybe the Fathers got it wrong here too, just like their predecessors from 1741 accepted they got it wrong with their geocentric cosmology in Scripture. ]

‘This freeze [by the Biblical Commission] endured until in 1943 Pius XII’s great encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu reopened the door to the use of modern methods of biblical study and established scholarship in the scientific investigation of the scriptures. The Pontifical Biblical Commission was quick to follow this initiative with a letter to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris… taking this [encyclical] as an encouragement to revisit areas which had been blocked off by earlier decisions [of the Commission]… stressing that in the context of the times it would have been unwise to teach a particular doctrine, but not that a particular doctrine was untrue or incorrect. …No responsible biblical scholar would today agree with any of these [earlier] directives of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.’ ---- Henry Wanabrough OSB (current member of the PBC: The Centenary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Ampleforth Journal, autumn 2003.

Recall Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri when he argued the heliocentrism of 1820 was different to the heliocentrism of 1616. Here above the same modernist tactics are invoked. The Church’s Biblical Commission expected to change protected traditional readings of the Sacred Scriptures because of the new findings of science. The Earthmovers are now in control. Pope Paul V’s and Urban VIII’s worst nightmare for the Catholic faith had come to be.
In 1943, the fiftieth anniversary of Providentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII published this, the third encyclical on biblical studies. He described Pope Leo XIII’s docuмent as ‘the supreme guide of biblical studies.’ He noted how it had borne great fruit, so that ‘confidence in the authority and historical value of the Bible… today, among Catholics, is completely restored.’
That said let us now apply this praise to the greatest conflict in Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics ever known in the history of the Catholic Church, that interpretation that acted as a catalyst for biblical studies thereafter, changing the literal geocentric reading of all the Fathers to a heliocentric one, an interpretation defined in 1616 as contrary to Scripture and thus heretical. Certainly, as we have seen, Providentissimus Deus restated the dogma that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers could not be changed. But then it compromised this teaching by adding a rather confusing paragraph that was taken to allow such a change by way of new scientific findings, which we know were no more than modernistic interpretations and theories of origins. Proof of this was that thereafter all took it for granted Leo XIII meant a heliocentric reading of the geocentric passages was legal and permissible. Catholics now accepted that wherever a conflict between the traditional literal understandings of Scripture and science arose, it was legal to alter these understandings if science indicated a change was needed. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII so worded his encyclical that it also seemed to clash with the previous understanding of Cardinal Bellarmine and what constituted matters of faith:

‘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 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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.’--- Letter to Foscarini 1615.

It seems to us here is Bellarmine teaching that everything in Scripture is to be believed as of faith, from the order of the cosmos to the fact that there was a donkey waiting for the lord on Palm Sunday. Given Providentissimus Deus led all to believe a heliocentric interpretation of Scripture was the correct way to read the Scriptures when in fact we now know it did no such thing, how could it be the supreme vehicle of clarity in biblical understanding? Such was this illusion that that is why the very first reference to Pope Leo XIII in Divino Afflante Spiritu had to be implicitly related to the Galileo interpretation:

‘The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order “went by what sensibly appeared” as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either “in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.” For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation;” which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,” that is, by refuting, “in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.”’ --- Divino afflante Spiritu.

Given the above advice no doubt was written to cover the Galileo U-turn, and that U-turn we have shown was the blunder, what now is to be said of such advice? Again we ask; what ‘things of the physical order’ are all three popes talking about? Since the first Catholics began to interpret the Bible ‘heliocentrically’ they keep emphasising that the Bible only meant to teach us things that are necessary for our salvation. What then did Jesus mean when he said ‘If I have spoken earthly things to you, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak to you of heavenly things’ (John 3:12)? It seems to us that everything in the Scriptures is important as a secondary means to salvation. Take for example the star that the Bible tells us led the wise men to the birthplace of Jesus. Can we dismiss this star without harming the account and credibility of the most important time in the history of the world?
Apart from the Galileo case we can think of no erroneous interpretation of any importance related to the above. St Augustine also said ‘If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets it does not understand it correctly?’ Well in 1943 it was known there was no clear and certain reasoning to dismiss the geocentric interpretation, let alone that it was the unanimous reading of the Fathers. So why was it necessary to continue the illusion in Letters of advice from popes to interpreters? The trouble is no pope since the U-turn seems to have been aware that no evidence ever existed that necessitated a heliocentric reading, a reading contrary to that of all the Fathers.

cassini · « **Reply #531 on:** November 18, 2014, 05:19:10 AM »

1945: Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei

Two years later, in 1945, Fr Paschini finished his book Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei. Pio Paschini was a seminary professor of the highest integrity, well used to researching docuмents in the various Vatican libraries. Working through the war years 1942 to 1944 he completed his thesis and submitted his book to the Vatican authorities for their attention prior to its publication. The first hurdle to achieving this was the Vatican Secretariat of State where Deputy Secretary Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Pope Paul VI) was in favour of publication. He in turn however had to put the matter in the hands of the Holy Office which would make the final decision whether the book could be published or not. Pope Pius XII, who it seems was also in favour of publication at first, sought the collective opinion of the Holy Office. The assessor of the time was Monsignor Alfredo Ottaviani (1890-1979), and it was he who decided the book was ‘unsuitable for publication.’ In 1979, a group of Italian scholars researching the history of this book in Paschini’s extensive correspondence on the matter, uncovered the reason why Rome censored the thesis. It turned out that while all agreed the book was factual, it was not considered ‘politically correct’ as far as the now Copernican Rome was concerned. Paschini it seems; simply wrote down the Galileo case as it happened. The problem then was that once churchmen accepted Galileo was proven correct in faith and science, the Church just could not come out of recorded history in any way other than ‘guilty as charged.’ The last thing Rome wanted then was a book confirming and reminding a Copernican world of exactly what occurred in 1616 and the Church’s condemnation of Galileo in 1633. Paschini was asked to tone down certain aspects of his book. He was willing to do so in certain unimportant places but not with regard to its details as he read them from the archives. A year later, in 1946, the Holy Office told him his book was not going to be published and offered him money as compensation. Paschini was rightly devastated. He immediately shelved his book and returned to his career as before. Fr Pio Paschini died in 1962 never having edited his book.

cassini · « **Reply #532 on:** November 22, 2014, 02:02:01 PM »

1950: Humani Generis

‘It has been said by someone that [Cardinal 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.

On August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII issued his encyclical Humani Generis intended to address the false opinions distorting Catholic doctrine at the time. In fact it was an encyclical similar to Pope Leo XIII’s 1879 Aeterni Patris, ‘On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy’ and to Pope St Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane Exitu of 1907, both aimed at stemming the false philosophies of the Enlightenment that were spreading modernism throughout the Church. Pius XII’ wrote on the matter of faith and science.

‘23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.' --- Humani Generis.

Would that the same caution was shown in exegesis when popes accepted that heliocentric interpretation and dismissed a literal geocentric reading as metaphorical. Had they done so the attack from evolutionism would not have succeeded? But the precedent had been set, for having accepted scientific Copernicanism, scientific evolutionism had to be similarly tolerated.

‘35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.’
‘36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God…..
‘37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the docuмents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.’ --- Humani Generis.

Note the crucial words ‘in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology.’ Well we have seen what happened in one such case when one places the literal reading of Scripture into the hands of human sciences.

‘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 that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” 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, however, 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.”’ --- Doug Linder; Essay The Vatican's View of Evolution, 2004.

cassini · « **Reply #533 on:** November 22, 2014, 02:06:00 PM »

Evolutionism

At this point let us see the position Rome had had taken in the matter of Darwin’s theory of evolution since the turn of the twentieth century. In a review of the book Negotiating Darwin, the appraiser tells us:

‘Negotiating Darwin is, firstly, a series of case studies on how six Catholic apologists were able to exploit the disputes and uncertainties of these ‘eclipse of Darwinism’ years in attempts to reconcile, or, rather, to ‘harmonize’ evolution with Catholic theology. Secondly, but more importantly, it is a detailed account of the reaction of Vatican bureaucracy to these reconciliatory attempts…
They are able to produce this fine-grained study as a result of the opening up (on 22 January 1998) of the archives of the Congregations of the Holy Office and of the Index. For the first time, this allowed scholars free access to the docuмentation recording the actions taken by the Vatican with respect to the reconciliatory writings of these six [Catholic apologists] authors. The period covered is from 1877 to 1902, with all but two of the six cases taking place in the 1890s during the pontificate of Leo XIII. Of these six, two are Italian, two English, one American, and one Frenchman. All are clerics, save the English anatomist St. George Mivart, but all, without exception, are Catholics. It is important to note that the subtitle of this work is ‘the Vatican confronts evolution’ and not ‘the Vatican confronts Darwin’ for, unlike that other paradigmatic case of ‘Church versus Science,’ that of Galileo and Urban VIII, there was no clash of personalities here. The authors of Negotiating Darwin are, however, at pains to demonstrate how the ‘long shadow of Galileo’s condemnation’ had a moderating influence on the way the Vatican approached the perceived threat of evolutionary theory, and, indeed, the echoes of Galileo’s philosophy appear time and time again throughout the book. Of course, the two situations were very different but, taking an overview of these case studies, it is apparent that all six authors, while accepting, more or less, that evolution, sensu lato, had taken place, were unhappy about natural selection as being its sole driving force and about the fact that there was no obvious experimentum cruces to test it. At least the Copernican theory had been amenable to such a test, if only stellar parallax could have been measured with the requisite accuracy. This lack of evidence, and the fierce debates that it engendered within the scientific community itself, provided our apologists with the opportunity they needed to propose a series of non-materialistic alternatives to natural selection; alternatives which involved secondary, but law-abiding, causes and thereby retained Divine Providence which the Darwinian ‘Russian roulette’ was seen to threaten. Such strategies did less violence both to scriptural exegesis and the consensus fidelium of the Catholic Church. Conversely, this lack of proof also enabled the anti-evolutionists smugly to dismiss the whole idea as ‘unscientific.’ What irony that Karl Popper, some ninety years later, controversially came to the same conclusion because, he said, the theory of evolution was not falsifiable!...
The final chapter, ‘The Church and Evolution,’ puts the question, ‘Was there a policy?’ We will not spoil it for the reader by giving the authors’ answer, but, suffice it to say that, in the 1890s there were no inquisitorial witch hunts of yesteryear, no threats of torture, house arrest, or burnings at the stake. The word ‘heresy’ is hardly mentioned, in fact, nothing to laugh at at all.’ Instead, lack-luster admonitions such as ‘rash’, ‘unsafe’, or ‘erroneous in the Faith’ replaced the more muscular responses. However, it is clear that the Vatican still wished to restrain any loose cannon that might be directed at that sacred Leonine wall, the last physical bastion of the pope’s erstwhile secular domain. Evolution did, however, remain a problem for the Catholic Church for some time afterwards. For example La Civilta Cattolica devoted a series of articles by Jesuit Father Gaia to the question of ‘Evolution or the Stability of Species?’ in 1919 and 1920, which, after presenting scientific evidence both for and against, came out against evolution.’ --- Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, Rafael A. Martínez: Negotiating Darwin: Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, by Dr John F. Pollard University of Cambridge

Evolutionism is the belief that today’s world, both its inanimate and animate content, evolved from stardust originating in a ‘Big Bang.’ This belief is upheld and promulgated as a truth by practically all Catholic ‘educational’ institutions on earth today. Thus the scene was set for the most ambitious and hopeless quest of them all for evolutionists, be they atheists or theistic-evolutionists, how to explain the existence of life on earth, flora and fauna.
The Greeks, even before Aristotle, were the first to propose that living things came into existence by ‘spontaneous generation,’ that is, ‘the formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.’ They were convinced that living things like insects simply formed in mud, slime and vegetation. They believed maggots generated themselves from rotting meat and incredibly, thought that fish like pike generated from decomposing weeds. This theory was shown for what it is when in 1859 Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) demonstrated one can only get life from pre-existing life. But all theories of evolution depend on spontaneous generation, don’t they, and this is why the evolutionist and Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) of Jena University said in 1866 that spontaneous generation must be a fact otherwise it would necessitate an original Creator. According to Haeckel, spontaneous generation was ‘the start of evolution.’

‘In attempting a refutation of the evolutionary hypothesis, no more satisfactory or effective method presents itself than a critical examination of the writing of the highest representative authorities on the subject. Such authorities – acknowledged universally to stand pre-eminently foremost – are the three great scientists Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel – chosen for special review in this work. If their positions can be shown to be untenable, and their arguments fallacious and self-contradictory, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution as advocated by any other and all other writers must fall to the ground.’ ---A Willford Hall: The Problem of Human Life Here and Hereafter, 1880, p 351.

In his book Willford Hall showed that evolutionism lay outside science and could only be sustained by faith that spontaneous generation actually happened. As it turned out it was the advance in chemistry that gave the fraudsters another line to pursue in their propaganda. In the 19th century chemists, who had already discovered the chemical components of non-living matter, finally broke down organic elements to their component chemicals. Then they discovered that they could produce some biochemicals from simple laboratory chemicals. This led the naturalists to believe that they were on the right track to produce life; all they needed was the right ingredients and the right conditions to spontaneously create life. And so it was that they mixed, boiled, shocked, bombarded, radiated, heated, froze and whatever else one can do with biochemicals in order to try to generate the combination into life. For tens of years they tried, fools believing they were/are gods. After the initial failure they resorted to the usual ploy, getting the public to believe it will be done some day, when we are all in our graves of course. They then began to suggest that life came from outer space by way of a comet or suchlike, and they couldn’t wait to get to the Moon, Mars or even a comet, to find something, anything, they could use to indoctrinate the gullible public into believing life evolved from inanimate matter, beginning with a single cell.
Now if Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel had knowledge as to what constitutes a living cell this whole farce could never have appeared under the banner of science and would have remained in the realm of fiction just like the electrical generation of life in Frankenstein. Study the following make-up of a cell and then tell us if such a living mechanism could possibly be the result of a natural chance happening.

cassini · « **Reply #534 on:** November 22, 2014, 02:16:35 PM »

A Living Cell

First a NUCLEUS has to evolve in the ‘pre-bionic soup,’ that is the pot-puree of matter and chemicals. This is the control centre in the heart of the organism and operates the cell through complex molecules of NUCLEIC ACID (DNA) and the GENES that make up those molecules and act as the units of heredity. Each of these carries the code for some characteristic of its natural form. This code is spelled out by hundreds of smaller units called NUCLEOTIDES that are arranged in highly specific sequences within the gene. Now these genes are constructed in strings called CHROMOSOMES, and are strung in precise and specific sequences. In the human cell there are 46 chromosomes arranged in paired arms, twin arms. In the nucleus of any cell the chromosomes contain the coded blueprint for structuring the body. A MEMBRAIN encloses the cell, structured so as to allow certain chemicals only to pass through it. Inside this is a fluid called CYTOPLASM in which countless bodies carry on the life lasting business of the cell. An OUTER-MEMBRANE encloses and protects the cell; it in turn again allowing only certain materials to enter or leave by a method unknown to science. Inside the cell there is an ongoing production building new PROTEINS. Each type of protein is determined by a code in the gene. An ENZYME is triggered which examines the gene and builds an RNA-MOLECULE in the image of the blueprint, When this is completed it receives a signal to stop. This RNA brings this message into the CYTOPLASM where it is captured by one of thousands of RIBOSOMES, so complex as to defy understanding so far. These build up the protein by linking various AMINO ACIDS in the specific sequence of the blueprint. To do this, TRANSFER-RNA catches amino-acids, each using special enzymes. Each of the mechanisms of the cell would need a computer to regulate, and even the simplest cell contains several thousand kinds of proteins and many billions, yes billions, of each of those kinds. The information contained within any first cell at its emergence from the stew-pot would have to be equivalent to 1000 volumes of 500 pages, or the amount of information needed to monitor a city the size of New York.
Now it is one thing proposing such a unit as a cell evolved into existence from a mixture of biochemical matter, another to get it to operate itself, that is, acquire ‘vitalism’ or life. The source and cause of animation; be it of flora or fauna, lies outside the realm of human science. Try as they did, do and will, they will never breath life into anything for that ability belongs solely to God. As Pasteur showed, you can only get vitalism in something already living.
Now real science has long established that a cell does not have the ability to do more than it is designed to do. It cannot add to its function, becoming something more than itself. In other words, it cannot evolve into a more complicated cell structure as Darwinian evolution requires it to do. That is impossible. Nevertheless they proposed ‘mutation’ to achieve this ‘miracle’ and belief in evolution carried on. We are asked to believe a living cell evolved, multiplied itself at random and ended up as a functioning beautiful flower, insect, fish, animal, even a human being.
Now we can ask what stages of any creature evolved first? Can one essential part of a living creature exist without the other? By this we ask which evolved first in the evolution of animals and man? Was it the body, the head, the legs, or what? Which system evolved first, the circulatory system, the digestive system, the endocrine system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, the immune system, the lymphatic system, the muscular system, the skeletal system, the urinary system, the reproductive system or the senses. Could any creature function with an evolving endocrine system, an evolving digestive system, evolving senses etc? The answer is no, it is all or nothing.
Now let us consider design. First let us start with the Big Bang. If evolution had a beginning with the Big Bang and that a human being ended up by chance, we now have to give ‘chance’ ability on par with the almighty thinking God. Take for example an animal’s eye or a human eye, the ability of anything that sees to see. What an amazing organ, structured to take in images, light and darkness, pass on such images to the brain whereupon the creature can ‘see it.’ Did an eye evolve by chance? Did eyesight evolve by chance or by design? If anybody believes the ability of a creature to see came about by chance then they believe in natural magic. And that is what debating the subject of natural evolution is; absolute nonsense, an insult to human intelligence and reasoning. Yet, thanks to Copernicanism, they have managed to convince the vast bulk of the human race to believe it is all true, that science has evidence that it is true, that all evolved naturally. Then there are the theistic-evolutionists. To them the ‘theory’ meets a theological and philosophical brick-wall. Suffice to say that evolution never ends, which means that God never finished His Creation. This of course contradicts the Scriptures that clearly state God finished His creation ‘on the sixth day and rested on the seventh.’

Darwin claimed the fossil records would show billions of these evolving bit-things and that his theory would fall or be proven in time as they were found or not. As it has happened, contrary to propaganda that thousands of fossils giving evidence for evolution have been found, the truth is that apart from a coffin full of fraudulent transient fossils of would-be evolving bits, the billions of missing-links necessary for evolution to be a scientific plausibility are simply not in the fossil record. Our favourite ‘missing link’ is the humanoid skull on show in a museum that was recognised by a biologist as an elephant’s knee-cap. It quickly disappeared when exposed for the fraud it was. All fossils found are of complete kinds, just as God said He made them.
That men, without a single piece of confirming data, and in this we include those shams purporting to have created ‘the building blocks of life,’ could even postulate such a living mechanism evolved naturally from an inanimate pre-bionic soup of chemicals is beyond comprehension. That any intelligent human being could fall for such absurd nonsense is equally unbelievable, and that a compromise could be devised wherein God is supposed to have endowed nature with the ability to naturally evolve such working complexities is also to beggar belief, like stating God can give nature the ability to evolve square circles. Alas, many thousands of otherwise intelligent school and university professors, researchers, scientists, scholars, and theologians did believe, do believe, and indoctrinate millions of others with their nonsense.
Is this then the evolutionism Humani Generis stated could be discussed and taken seriously as though it had credibility within the Catholic Church? Alas, even to consider that evolution theory of macro-evolutionism worthy of discussion was a mistake in the light of the Pope’s duty to protect the flock from false-philosophy, let alone from the imbecilic heights of absurdity. But ever since the Galileo case, popes were compromised when it came to addressing matters of faith and science, faith and reason. No matter how absurd the ‘science,’ Rome has learned the lesson that it now has the same authority as the faith and cannot be dismissed lest another Galileo case arises from that dismissal. Accordingly, it could be said; this encyclical left as much confusion as it tried to avoid. Can Church teaching seriously be compatible with the idea Adam’s body came from monkeys as evolutionism teaches, as this encyclical seemed to be willing to accept for as long as men believe it did? Was Adam’s body a live body or a dead body? What about the body of Eve which doctrinally is derived from the body of Adam if he is to be the first parent of all? Where did her body come from in an evolutionary scenario? Surely one can see the chaos and contradictions to the Teaching Authority of the Church that Copernicanism had caused, and how it had driven so many theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Cardinal Mercier, Canon Henry de Dorlodot, the Jesuit Karl Rahner, Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger and of course the pantheist Teilhard de Chardin into evolutionary Modernism. Finally, what influence did Humani Generis have on the Modernists?

‘With the election of Karol Wojtyła as Pope John Paul II in 1978, there occurred an implicit re-evaluation of French Ressourcement Theology or the “new theology.” John Paul II, who had the highest esteem for Henri de Lubac, stopped during a major address in 1980 and acknowledged the presence of de Lubac, saying “I bow my head to Father Henri de Lubac.” When de Lubac became a cardinal in 1983, this elevation by itself rehabilitated his intellectual career, including, by implication, his spirited defense of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In 1993, John Paul II issued an encyclical which “corrected” Aeterni Patris and Humani Generis. Though the thought of St. Thomas took precedence, the encyclical indicated that other avenues could be explored for the good of the Church. A genuine competition replaced the Leonine strategy of Aeterni Patris and, later, Humani Generis. Paragraph #29 of Splendor Veritatis stated: “Certainly the Church’s Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one.” --- Homiletic & Pastoral Review.

The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a high point on November 22, 1951 when Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an endorsement of nearly every evolutionary theory on offer at the time, theories that (1) conflicted with the literal order of creation and the geocentric order of the universe held by the Church until 1741 at least, (2) Suggested theories that denied the biblical age of 6.000 years for the universe; theories that denied the global flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today, and God knows what else. Here is some of Pope Pius XII’s speech:

‘44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’
48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: “These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus.”
50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.’

Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, it all began with Copernicus. Not for the first time a pope has placed the creation act and order into the hands of science. But there are philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of science’s Big Bang theory.

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that [Big Bang] cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by [Big Bang] cosmology he should be at the mercy of [Big Bang] cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously” [Big Bang] cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’ ---Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.

On the other hand, the above cannot be applied to revelation, the cosmology of God as revealed in Scripture, that is, the doctrine of geocentrism. It is not subjected to theories of any kind, simply upheld by the senses, so can never be falsified or refuted by true science. Try as they did, each time the experimental method failed to falsify a cosmology that could only have been created by God.
My, haven’t we come a long way since St Thomas Aquinas spelled out theology is the Queen of sciences:

‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’

On the PAS website today we find the following:

‘On occasion of numerous addresses and messages directed towards the Academy by five pontiffs, the Church has been able to re-propose the meaning of the relationship between faith and reason, between science and wisdom, and between love for truth and the search for God.’

By this they mean that with Copernicanism at the helm and the popes now subservient to the ‘science’ of U-turn since 1741 that has led to the Big Bang, uniformitarianism and evolutionism, it was a time of great readjustment of the truths of faith and reason. A favourite pope of the academy was Pope John Paul II. Like Pope Pius XII, he also sat in on as many meetings and seminars as possible; fascinated no doubt with the intellectual stimulation of it all. Following him was Pope Benedict XVI, who as a cardinal took a place in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2003. Another professed evolutionist (See for example Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s: In the Beginning, 1986, a book that presents the Catholic faith based on man-evolving-from-monkeys-scenario), he gave support to the 86 academicians of his day, 30 of who are Nobel Prize winners, most of them not even Catholics, and all of who are Copernicans, evolutionists and relativists. If ever there was an institution that the Catholic Church did not need it was this collection of ‘experts,’ advising the hierarchy of the Church what the flock should believe and what it should not believe.

‘By confusing the mathematical outlook with the physical it is possible to arrive at all sorts of conclusions. It is not easy for an untrained mind to distinguish what is rightly proved from what is little more than speculation. Some of these conclusions are startling, and appeal to the popular imagination. It requires only a further step to apply them to the most obtrusive and sacred matters of philosophy and religion... They are not satisfied with expounding the facts of science, but they write them up so as to appeal to those who have received no scientific or critical training, conclusions which tend to undermine the great beliefs on which human life is founded, this is almost criminal.’ ---Fr Gill S.J.: Fact and Fiction in Modern Science, pp.70-71.

‘It is rather the second-class scientist, or vulgarisateur, who has the most frequent entrée into newspaper columns [publishing houses and television] and uses his opportunity to try to revive materialism. This is the greatest danger the popular mind has to face from these scientific symposia.’ ---Fr Henry V. Gill, S.J., M.A (Cantab.), M. Sc. (N.U.I.): Fact and Fiction in Modern Science, Gill and Son, Dublin, 1943, p.160.

Associated with the PAS now is the Templeton Foundation which provides it with money for meetings, seminars etc. In 1973, Wall Street investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton set up a fund to foster a ‘harmony and reconciliation between faith and science.’ This fund now provides financial assistance to both sides of the evolutionary debate that is ongoing mainly in America. This would be in keeping with the masonic equilibrium, ensuring that the truth never prevails, an endless debate that has to give credibility to Big Bang evolutionism as long as man lives on earth. It is famous especially for its huge prize of one million dollars given annually to the one ‘who has shown originality in advancing ideas and institutions that promote [an evolutionary] understanding of God’. One who has won the Templeton prize was the popular Benedictine monk, professor of astrophysics and prolific author, Stanley Jacki (1924-2009) who was awarded the money in 1987 for his books on theistic evolutionism.

glaston · « **Reply #535 on:** November 22, 2014, 07:22:06 PM »

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Karol+Wojty%C5%82a+mother+was+Jєωιѕн

When does your book come out?

cassini · « **Reply #536 on:** November 23, 2014, 08:40:12 AM »

Quote from: glaston

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Karol+Wojty%C5%82a+mother+was+Jєωιѕн

When does your book come out?

The book is now under its final review and the author is hoping it will be published next year. It was his hobby for 20 years, and with a few friends they kept adding and adding to what was at first to be a book about Galileo. He was told very few would want to read such a book and even less would believe what is in it. It was only when Catholic forums came on stream that they found there are others out there who were biblical and scientific geocentrists. Of interest is why he really wanted to write it:

'Now why was this book written? In the main it was written to retell the story of the Galileo case in the light of all we know today. It was written to vindicate and restore the good name of the Catholic Church and the churchmen of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture. In doing so we realise there is probably something herein to offend, disturb or appal many people – especially post Vatican II Catholics - so we can think of only a few that might welcome it. Nevertheless, for those who still have a love for truth and knowledge let us give the facts, the truth, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.'

glaston · « **Reply #537 on:** November 23, 2014, 09:05:55 AM »

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: glaston
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Karol+Wojty%C5%82a+mother+was+Jєωιѕн

When does your book come out?

The book is now under its final review and the author is hoping it will be published next year. It was his hobby for 20 years, and with a few friends they kept adding and adding to what was at first to be a book about Galileo. He was told very few would want to read such a book and even less would believe what is in it. It was only when Catholic forums came on stream that they found there are others out there who were biblical and scientific geocentrists. Of interest is why he really wanted to write it:

'Now why was this book written? In the main it was written to retell the story of the Galileo case in the light of all we know today. It was written to vindicate and restore the good name of the Catholic Church and the churchmen of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture. In doing so we realise there is probably something herein to offend, disturb or appal many people – especially post Vatican II Catholics - so we can think of only a few that might welcome it. Nevertheless, for those who still have a love for truth and knowledge let us give the facts, the truth, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.'

Thanks Cassini - honourable Hobby

It's called "Darwin's Theory" - The clue is in the title!

We are brainwashed/programmed into thinking "The Theory" is Truth
I don't really give it a second thought.

cassini · « **Reply #538 on:** November 23, 2014, 09:58:23 AM »

Quote from: glaston

Quote from: cassini
Quote from: glaston
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Karol+Wojty%C5%82a+mother+was+Jєωιѕн

When does your book come out?

The book is now under its final review and the author is hoping it will be published next year. It was his hobby for 20 years, and with a few friends they kept adding and adding to what was at first to be a book about Galileo. He was told very few would want to read such a book and even less would believe what is in it. It was only when Catholic forums came on stream that they found there are others out there who were biblical and scientific geocentrists. Of interest is why he really wanted to write it:

'Now why was this book written? In the main it was written to retell the story of the Galileo case in the light of all we know today. It was written to vindicate and restore the good name of the Catholic Church and the churchmen of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture. In doing so we realise there is probably something herein to offend, disturb or appal many people – especially post Vatican II Catholics - so we can think of only a few that might welcome it. Nevertheless, for those who still have a love for truth and knowledge let us give the facts, the truth, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.'

Thanks Cassini - honourable Hobby

It's called "Darwin's Theory" - The clue is in the title!

We are brainwashed/programmed into thinking "The Theory" is Truth
I don't really give it a second thought.

Yes Glaston, its like

Why do they call it the 'MISSING LINK?'

Answer: Because it is missing. If it was a true link it would be called a 'FOUND LINK.'

cassini · « **Reply #539 on:** November 27, 2014, 02:12:52 PM »

SPACE FLIGHT

‘But what about space flight’, we hear some ask. ‘These days, don’t the newspapers and journals show us diagrams of rockets blasting off from an earth rotating and orbiting the sun? How could they get probes, crafts and even men to land on the planets unless they know for certain where the earth is supposed to be at any time in its orbit relative to the other planets also in orbit? Surely all those astrophysicists and rocket-science whiz kids that fill the computer halls of NASA’s launch site have to keep ongoing calculations of this heliocentric circus of shifting bodies supposedly moving at 67,000mph, more than the speed of a bullet? And when aimed at a planet, then the planet too will have shifted some thousands of miles in one second. Now do not tell me, you say, they can do this if they do not KNOW the earth really spins and orbits the sun?’
The answer of course is that this concept too is fiction, as a letter to the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979 confirmed:

Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, Linclonshire, England.
‘Sir, ...One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.' --- Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’

Martin Gwynne completes our education:

‘Not the least interesting thing in the passage just quoted is the officer’s use of the term “confused dogma” when speaking of modern astronomy. For the sake of completeness I shall now fill in any gaps he left that might interest readers by giving the following summary of the principles of celestial navigation. (1) Celestial navigation is based on the premise of two concentric spheres – one (celestial) larger than the other – sharing a common pole, with the smaller and inner sphere remaining stationary while the outer revolves about it. (2) Calculations are based on the laws of spherical trigonometry. The measurements used to translate the computations into a position or “fix” on the earth are done in nautical miles (even in these days of almost universal metrication). Each of these 360 degrees of the circle is divided into 60 minutes. The nautical mile is defined as the length of one minute of longitude on the equator, or 6,080 feet. (3) The tables used to reduce or compute the resultant observations are based on 360 degrees. (4) All the navigators of the world use the same basic system, their calculations and charts being based on a fixed earth and the basic unit of the nautical mile.’ ---N. M. Gwynne, Galileo Versus the Geocentric Theory of the Universe, Britons Library, 1985, p.70.

Yes, most of the time they use the old geocentric system of navigation and it works for them. If any doubt this, go to the Encyclopedia Britannica and you will find the following:

‘For this purpose it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’ --- (Eclipse, p.869)

Of course it is, very convenient indeed. Now remember how they laughed at Aristotle presuming that if the earth were moving at great speed then things would get left behind? Recall then how empirical science showed that anything on a moving object takes up the same speed of that movement. In other words if a man jumped off a train doing 100mph then that man would leave the train at 100mph plus any extra speed of his jump. Let us now move on a few years to space flight. According to real physics, if a rocket leaves the earth that is supposed to be moving at 67,000mph, shouldn’t it leave the earth at its launch speed of 25,000mph plus its earth speed of 67,000mph, that is, at a true speed of 92,000mph? Now we have not bothered to check this out, but we bet NASA does not take this 67,000mph extra speed at initial take off of any spaceflight.

Impossible speeds for the stars

Let us finish here with the idea that the stars would have to travel at impossible speeds to rotate around the earth to be true. This is a philosophical illusion, for they would only have to travel at the same rate that the earth is supposed to rotate to bring about a day. In a geocentric scenario the universe is like a revolving-door. Now all parts of a revolving-door travel at the same time, no matter how big it is, irrespective of size. Thus the starry heavens, and indeed the sun, planets and moon move in unison around the earth as does a revolving door. And we can assure you, revolving doors are not an illusion. Here below a diagram of the universe acting like a revolving door with the earth as its centre.