.

This spring sees a new assault of hate mail, innuendo, detraction and calumny against the yet-unreleased movie "The Principle" as well as its producers, Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis.  The enemies of this film are going public with criticisms of it without having seen the movie they're criticizing, and without having met the persons they calumniate.  

This OP references THIS thread in General Discussion.

Posting any of this info on the other thread(s) on CI that deal with the movie would only serve to undermine any intelligent discussion of the film, but it seemed to me that it's rather likely that these blogs and discussion boards are going to wipe out this content before long because it is overtly self-incriminating.  I have seen the movie and they have not, so I can say with confidence that these web pages are laughable for their ignorance and pride.

Obviously, not everyone who is quoted here in this OP is an Enemy, however, a lot of them are, and the source site, npr, is hostile to the producers, as you might well imagine, since National Public Radio is a bunch of card-carrying libs who know which side their bread is buttered on.  It's bread is buttered on the side of the twin A's of Atheism and Antichrist.

Therefore, perhaps keeping commentary and updates on the ridiculous heckling from mind-numbed minions of the Enemies here on this thread, will help to distinguish this insanity from "the meat of the issue," which is after all, the truth.  Because the truth is always the meat of the issue, whatever the issue is.


Here is a typical example, linked in Magisterial Fundies (--I went ahead and patched in some of the links inside various comments below the article -- Notice how there are very few links, and most of them were at the beginning of these comments (bottom) and the more recent ones (top) are off-topic, nonsensical, and lacking any references.  More on this in the next post--) via this post :

MattMay 6, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Oh really? Both Mulgrew and Krauss have called you out:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/08/300609595/why-physicists-are-in-a-film-promoting-an-earth-centered-universe
Reply

Source  -- npr  . .  The Two-Way  . .  breaking news from NPR -- america

Why Physicists Are In A Film Promoting An Earth-Centered Universe

by SCOTT NEUMANN
April 08, 2014 4:17 PM ET

It has the look and feel of a fast-paced and riveting science docuмentary.

The trailer opens with actress (who starred as Capt. Janeway in Star Trek: Voyager) intoning, "Everything we think we know about our universe is wrong." That's followed by heavyweight clips of physicists and .

Kaku tells us, "There is a crisis in cosmology," and Krauss says, "All of these things are rather strange, and we don't know why they are occurring right now."

And then, about 1:17 into the trailer, comes the bombshell: The film's maker, Robert Sungenis, tells us, "You can go on some websites of NASA and see that they've started to take down stuff that might hint to a geocentric [Earth-centered] universe."

The film, which the trailer promises will be out sometime this spring, is called . Besides promoting the filmmaker's geocentric point of view, it seems to be aimed at making a broader point about man's special place in a divinely created universe.

(Sungenis, who writes the blog , also has a history of anti-Semitic writings and h0Ɩ0cαųst denial, according to the .)

None of this sits well with Krauss, who is well-known for his writings and lectures. He tweeted early Tuesday: "For all who asked: Some clips of me apparently were mined for movie on geocentricism. So stupid does disservice to word nonsense. Ignore it."

In a post later in blog, titled "I Have No Idea How I Ended Up In That Stupid Geocentrism Docuмentary," the physicist elaborates:

    "The notion that anyone in the 21st century could take seriously the notion that the sun orbits the Earth, or that the Earth is the center of the universe, is almost unbelievable. I say almost, because one of the trials and tribulations of being a scientist with some element of popular celebrity is that I get bombarded regularly by all sorts of claims, and have become painfully aware that ideas as old as the notion that the Earth is flat never seem to die out completely."

Kaku, who is a perennial in science docuмentaries, has not commented.

And, as for actress Mulgrew, , also writing for Slate, wonders aloud:

    "About the trailer, yes, it's narrated by Kate Mulgrew, aka Captain Janeway from Star Trek: Voyager. Some people are lamenting this, wondering if she's a geocentrist. I doubt it, and you can't necessarily judge an actor for the work they do. Mitch Pileggi (from The X-Files) narrated an episode of debunking the Apollo Moon hoax, yet he also narrated So you can't jump to any conclusions here."

But, really, an Earth-centered universe?

If you thought , 15th century mathematician and (a century later) put an end to all that, you'd be wrong. Still, it's hard to tell just how many people we're talking about.

What we do know is that when asked whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the other way around, in a recent survey compiled by the National Science Foundation.

Update at 5:50 p.m. ET: Mulgrew: 'I Am Not A Geocentrist'

Actress Mulgrew writes on her Tuesday afternoon:

    "I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a docuмentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this docuмentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew"

    250

April 8, 2014 April 8, 2014
You must be signed in to leave a comment.

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the and , and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the , and .

The Two-Way is the place to come for breaking news, analysis and for stories that are just too interesting – or too entertaining – to pass up. It's hosted by and , who invite you to .

Comments for this thread are now closed.     X    

250 COMMENTS:

     NPR's The Two Way

    Sort by Best
    Favorite
    Share

    Avatar
    Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

    Good grief. Next thing you know someone will build a Noah's Ark theme park.
    121
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Roger Perrone Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

        You can already buy a plastic "scale model" of the Ark at Hobby Lobby. And, no, I'm not kidding.
        22
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            David L Roger Perrone • a month ago

            Mass manufactured by genuine child labor, courtesy of China, the place where abortions are mandatory after the first kid... Good going Hobby Lobby: you're funding the abortions you claim to abhor.
            34
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                ColtKale David L • a month ago

                Ah but they profit off those so it's okay. Letting their employees make their own sɛҳuąƖ decisions doesn't help their bottom line.
                9
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    David L ColtKale • a month ago

                    I... agree(?!) Just when I thought I understood the world I live in, you go and say something that makes sense to me...
                    1
                    •
                    Share ›
                Avatar
                PBSisBest Org David L • a month ago

                Wrong room
                2
                •
                Share ›
                Avatar
                texascy David L • a month ago

                And you know for a fact that the toys are made there? Or are you just making up unproven practices for a company you disagree with?
                4
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Robert Little texascy • a month ago

                    The Noah's Ark kit is distributed by Minicraft Models, and the bulk of their kits are manufactured in either South Korea or China. This is the kit that Hobby Lobby carries. Not all of Hobby Lobby's items are manufactured abroad, however. Just an FYI from someone who used to be in the business.
                    6
                    •
                    Share ›
                    Avatar
                    thomas adams texascy • a month ago

                    Oh please. I quit going to HL a long time ago but I can assure you 99% of the junk there there comes from China and you know it.
                    1
                    •
                    Share ›
                    Avatar
                    David L texascy • a month ago

                    Have you been to Hobby Lobby? They don't sell toys, first of all. And second of all, they sell "God loves the USA" signs with shiny gold "Made In China" stickers on them. Go see for yourself, it is no secret.
                    1
                    •
                    Share ›
                        Avatar
                        James C David L • a month ago

                        Sadly your comment David holds true for about 90% of all the magnets, key chains, T-Shirts, junk that is sold in EVERY National Park store across America. Ninety Percent is sadly probably very low. Check it out at any national park. Doesn't make sense to me. As for a Geocentric Earth, leave it to the "True Believers" to push this craziness.
                        2
                        •
                        Share ›
                Avatar
                Art Aficionado David L • a month ago

                If you require contraception from your employer work elsewhere.
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    cittadina Art Aficionado • a month ago

                    Do you mean to say avoid employers who hold your healthcare hostage (and contraception is healthcare)? Wouldn't it be better if corporations didn't meddle in our basic human rights? How about an employer that wouldn't sell sugar-drink products because they think obesity is a sin?
                    20
                    •
                    Share ›
                        Avatar
                        Ryan Karl cittadina • a month ago

                        Oh you must mean federal governments who force their citizens to have a specific healthcare plan regardless of age or sex? Works really well when a single man with no kids is forced to pay for maternity care, contraception, mammograms etc. That's the biggest intrusion on one's healthcare decisions here so your point is moot and baseless.
                        •
                        Share ›
                            Avatar
                            cittadina Ryan Karl • a month ago

                            Oh, so you'd rather pay for prisons, exorbitant taxes to support emergency room care, instead of preventative care, and and and? Think ahead, friend, think ahead and be a citizen
                            2
                            •
                            Share ›
                    Avatar
                    skyarizonadreamer Art Aficionado • a month ago

                    If employers are allowed to not pay for certain medical services, most employers will cut as much as they can to cut costs and boost profits. So no matter where people work, they will not be able to get a full range of medical insurance... By extension, the only viable solution is to have everybody sign up for Obamacare. That way all people can get complete medical coverage and businesses can cut costs and boost profits.
                    11
                    •
                    Share ›
                    Avatar
                    David L Art Aficionado • a month ago

                    That is an over simplification. We function in a society that has used employer-supplied healthcare for decades and to separate contraception from healthcare ignores the fact that some women require "the pill" for hormonal regulation that is unrelated to the desire to have children (or not). The situation is just too slippery a slope to be a one-liner.
                    3
                    •
                    Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Bruce Higgins Art Aficionado • a month ago

                    For me, this means "shop elsewhere." And I do.
                    2
                    •
                    Share ›
            Avatar
            Hector Cepeda Roger Perrone • a month ago

            Would those share shelf space with movie-monster characters and fantasy figures?
            3
            •
            Share ›
        Avatar
        Kayt Rivermoon Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

        Hasn't someone done this already ? There's already a Christian theme park--Around Branson MO I think...Makes me think aobut praying...for a moment of SCIENCE.....
        14
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            c g Kayt Rivermoon • a month ago

            "that's the joke" - Ranier Wolfcastle
            14
            •
            Share ›
            Avatar
            PiersCarrigan Kayt Rivermoon • a month ago

            ...Whoosh.
            8
            •
            Share ›
            Avatar
            dan mcferr Kayt Rivermoon • a month ago

            Nope. I'm pretty sure that,s Ken Hamm and his nonsense land, but if there is a new one I don't know it will only convince me that the the enlightenment is OVER
            2
            •
            Share ›
        Avatar
        mjafla Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

        There is a taxpayer funded one going up in Kentucky as I type for about $73 million. ..As part of the creation museum.
        3
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

        Where they can show the movie in 3D!
        1
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Jeffrey Kelley Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

        Numerous ancient civilizations, and scientific investigations tell of a great flood, which occurred around the time described in the Bible. They are all quite similar and involve some sort of water vessel with human and animal inhabitants. One must be close-minded to not consider events that are still beyond our comprehension or current understanding. Science has stagnated for centuries due to the brutal efforts of pessimistic naysayers.
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Sick of the BS • a month ago

    My 17 year-old daughter believes she is the center of the universe, or at least that's how she often acts. However, I am pretty sure if asked, she would know the earth revolves around the sun.
    71
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        notsofast Sick of the BS • a month ago

        Yes, most teenagers -- and,unfortunately, many adults as well -- suffer from this delusion.
        9
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Matt Lynch Sick of the BS • a month ago

        well, in a relative sense, isn't everyone the center of their own universe?
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Rosa Eveningstar Sick of the BS • a month ago

        Comment of the week. And it's only Wednesday.
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Charles Gato • a month ago

    "You can go on some websites of NASA and see that they've started to take down stuff that might hint to a geocentric [Earth-centered] universe."
    So not seeing something when you visit a website indicates that it used to be there. That would explain the missing cat videos on the IRS.gov site.
    61
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Craig Rheinheimer Charles Gato • a month ago

        You must be new to the conspiracy theorists' definition of evidence. The absence of evidence is just proof you're hiding something.
        18
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        FLCPA Charles Gato • a month ago

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

        Heres the star trek video that they pulled from the irs site
        4
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            ColtKale FLCPA • a month ago

            Sounds exactly like what I would expect from the IRS.
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                FLCPA ColtKale • a month ago

                They spent something like 100k on its production. Government waste at its finest.
                •
                Share ›
        Avatar
        Guy Western Charles Gato • a month ago

        I KNEW it! Just try applying for 501(c)(4) status for a non-profit PAC that lobbies for stray cats! Uh-huh, red-tape runaround all the way.
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Kelly Cox • a month ago

    What a hoot! I actually ran into a geocentrist regularly in one of the old Yahoo chat rooms. For all I know, it was the guy who made this movie. I would bring up Foucalt's pendulum, and he would say that they snuck a little motor into the pendulum that made it rotate. The only thing that made him pause was geostationary orbiting satellites. He would admit that they couldn't stay up if the Earth was stationary, then the next day he would be back to saying "The Earth doesn't rotate, because I can't feel myself moving!" Pretty funny but also rather sad.
    27
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Andrew Magallanes Kelly Cox • a month ago

        It's really hard to reason with people with small minds.
        8
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            p w Andrew Magallanes • a month ago

            Your use of the word "small" is remarkably charitable, I think: I would have chosen something more along the lines of "no" or "nonexistent."
            12
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Andrew Magallanes p w • a month ago

                Haha. If they can function properly then I have to assume there is at least a little mind. I just wish the little minds wouldn't be so loud about their nonsense.
                7
                •
                Share ›
                Avatar
                Rob Ware p w • a month ago

                As Krauss himself said, "Whole universes can come from nothing. It turns out that nothing is almost everything." Never underestimate the power of nothing.
                1
                •
                Share ›
        Avatar
        ColtKale Kelly Cox • a month ago

        The earth rotates around its center - the center of the universe, obviously!
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Lurk Skywalker • a month ago

    Oh great, I hope none of those geocentrists are Texans, or else it will probably turn up in my kids' science textbooks as a valid scientific theory, alongside intelligent design!
    39
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Lurk Skywalker • a month ago

        Well, you could always move to at least a 19th century state!!!
        4
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Kayt Rivermoon Truth Seeker • a month ago

            Been there. Done that. It was called, Arizona, during Ev Mecham's reign as Governor !
            9
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Matt Lynch Kayt Rivermoon • a month ago

                Arizona does not count as a 19th century state.
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Drake Bradley Matt Lynch • a month ago

                    S/he said that it was, during Ev Mecham's governorship, not that it currently is. I mean, we've advanced pretty far, as a state! Not a whole lot of air conditioning back in the 19th century, I would imagine. Progress and whatnot.
                    •
                    Share ›
    Avatar
    Running Dog • a month ago

    The comment mined from Lawrence Krauss was quite interesting. "We don't understand nothing." I thought he had mistakenly used a double negative. He then went on to state, "Whole universes can come from nothing."

    "It turns out that nothing is almost everything."
    21
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        MrDeadly Running Dog • a month ago

        And Nothing is precisely what this film seems to be worth.
        4
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Dave Leppo Running Dog • a month ago

        Jerry Seinfeld had a show about Nothing!
        1
        •
        Share ›

Load more comments

.
.
.


        Avatar
        Deb Dedon Running Dog • a month ago

        And if nothing is almost everything, then there is no such thing as 'nothing'. One more construct in need of retooling.
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Gary Way Running Dog • a month ago

        Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Only mass can't. That's why the universe is larger than we can measure it and why there is no center.
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Ray Roth Running Dog • a month ago

        WOW! That's a real s-t-r-e-t-c-h!
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Running Dog Ray Roth • a month ago

            Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.
            2
            •
            Share ›
    Avatar
    Truth Seeker • a month ago

    Next thing you know, someone will make a "bio-pic" about a guy named Noah and all his animals!
    21
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    cubistguy • a month ago

    Our little Robert Sungenis is simply an opportunist. He knows the time is ripe for producing a film about an Earth-centered Universe. He'll make his money back by pandering to the those who are wired to believe anything (dis)organized religion tells them.
    19
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    TheUnPossible • a month ago

    But Earth is the center of the universe. As is Mars, Proxima Centuri, Andromeda and everywhere else in the universe. So I guess, in that respect, geo-centerism is correct.
    15
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Luc S TheUnPossible • a month ago

        Actually, for clarity, I am the center of the universe. Everything else is questionable as to it's existence, and clearly exists on the periphery.
        49
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Bill G. Luc S • a month ago

            Actually, I am the center of the universe. Further, you are all figments of my imagination (yeah, I did dream up Art Aficianado and colt call, sorry...) who will go "poof" when my universe ends.
            25
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                TheUnPossible Bill G. • a month ago

                So, you're the lathe of Heaven?
                4
                •
                Share ›
                Avatar
                General Specific Bill G. • a month ago

                It's okay, you needed an Abbott to your Costello.
                3
                •
                Share ›
                Avatar
                Matt Lynch Bill G. • a month ago

                please un-imagine them. Your universe would be much happier without them.
                1
                •
                Share ›
                Avatar
                Johnny Zhang Bill G. • a month ago

                I think you're describing solipsism
                •
                Share ›
            Avatar
            TheUnPossible Luc S • a month ago

            Sorry, but my daughter is. Just ask her.
            16
            •
            Share ›
            Avatar
            Gaius Marcius Coriolanus Luc S • a month ago

            Colt Call is but a tumor in your mind.
            4
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Luc S Gaius Marcius Coriolanus • a month ago

                Wrong end.
                5
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Gaius Marcius Coriolanus Luc S • a month ago

                    Hahaha. Also Discourse tells me the title of this article is "sdfdfsdf"
                    •
                    Share ›
                        Avatar
                        Luc S Gaius Marcius Coriolanus • a month ago

                        Yeah it does come up with some weird ones.
                        •
                        Share ›
            Avatar
            Running Dog Luc S • a month ago

            No, I am!
            4
            •
            Share ›
            Avatar
            Matt Lynch Luc S • a month ago

            thank you for the bjerkely shout out
            •
            Share ›
    Avatar
    Ryan Frazier • a month ago

    I hope she got paid a lot, because I don't see Mulgrew being invited to to many more sci-fi conventions now that she's anti-science.
    21
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Guest Ryan Frazier • a month ago

        On her social media profile it has an apology stating she disagrees with the message of the movie and the director's views and that she didn't know that her voice over was going to be used in such a movie. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't that long ago some other person was acted for "movie" and later found out it was used in an anti-muslim film. Con artists seem to be trying to trick reputable folks into acting for films they misrepresent to the actor.
        28
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Truth Seeker Guest • a month ago

            That person won a copyright infringement suit which prevents the movie from being shown. It was basically considered as being a fraud perpetrated on the actress.
            8
            •
            Share ›
            Avatar
            Nicholas 123 Guest • a month ago

            But she still read the nonsense script. You can do nutjob narrations stuff (as NPR pointed out with Peleggi) as an actor, but then don't squawk when people call you an ignorant hack because you did it for a check. Getting paid is no defense for promoting ignorance.
            1
            •
            Share ›
        Avatar
        TheUnPossible Ryan Frazier • a month ago

        She's already issues a statement that references Kraus' statement and somewhat mirrors it. The was unaware of who was behind the docuмentary and what was contained in it. Captain Janeway's gotta eat.
        17
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Truth Seeker TheUnPossible • a month ago

            She and others might be able to sue.
            2
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                TheUnPossible Truth Seeker • a month ago

                They might have a case, but they are aware of the "Streisand Effect" and don't wish to give this charlatan any more publicity than they have to.
                3
                •
                Share ›
    Avatar
    The Original DB • a month ago

    I cannot believe that Michio Kaku or Lawrence Krauss would knowingly associate themselves with such a ludicrous anti-science movie venture. Without question, there will be at least one lawsuit filed to prevent that movie from ever being shown.
    10
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker The Original DB • a month ago

        Yeah, there's now one good legal ruling about such "bait and switch" movie making.
        2
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Melissa Jansen • a month ago

    I would like to say that as a Christian, I believe that God created the universe. AND, as someone who believes in science, the universe is not geocentric. Please, please no one mistake the guy who made this video as the Spokesperson of All Religious People (not that anyone has yet, but I just know someone will). *shudder*
    13
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Melissa Jansen • a month ago

        Religion and science are simply not compatible. One does not require evidence and proof, the other does. One can make testable predictions, the other can't. One can tolerate ideas and theories that can be falsified, the other can't!
        13
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Melissa Jansen Truth Seeker • a month ago

            The two pursuits are not identical, and not meant to be interchangeable. But they have this in common: they're both about looking for truth. As your name implies, that is something you value. I have always loved science, ever since I was a little girl, because it helps me understand the world around me. I love God because he helps me grow as a person. The two are not the same, but they're complementary; religion helps me cope with the realities of the physical universe, and science helps me appreciate the majesty and genius of the Maker.
            11
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Matt Lynch Melissa Jansen • a month ago

                As long as you don't refuse to believe in the Big Bang or Evolution, that is a perfectly reasonable view to have, IMO Truth is just being militant.
                1
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Melissa Jansen Matt Lynch • a month ago

                    Well, that's good. I was hoping to get your permission. What a relief.
                    •
                    Share ›
                    Avatar
                    The_Truth_Seeker Matt Lynch • a month ago

                    Oh, I'll definitely refuse to believe any of those things, if the evidence doesn't support those concepts and even more evidence can't be produced over time and/or the "evidence" is not consistent, or becomes contradictory. Hell, yes I will refuse to believe it then!

                    You just don't get it do you? You just don't understand how this whole science thing works, do you? The way the Romans thought 2000 years ago (and their standard of evidence), is still just fine by you, right? Glad some us have evolved since then at least.
                    •
                    Share ›
                        Avatar
                        Matt Lynch The_Truth_Seeker • a month ago

                        I'm was not talking to you. I was attempting to talk to a seemingly logical and rational person. Not a militant. Please stop talking to me. If you truly believe the evidence does not support the claims put forward regarding evolution or the big bang, we have no common basis on which to have a conversation. I don't care to change you mind.
                        •
                        Share ›
                            Avatar
                            Truth Seeker Matt Lynch • a month ago

                            Religion is NOT evidence, or proof based - therefore your reply to Melissa, that you are OK with her "hybrid philosophy" of the world, is NOT enough if you claim to really abide by the scientific method of seeking the " truth" (I prefer reproducible facts). You either follow the scientific method, all the time - or you don't follow it at all! Science is NOT something that you accept "al a carte", depending on your mood, inclination, instincts, "gut feelings", "inspirations" or "visions" that you might have on any particular day (especially Sunday). Unlike science, religion "always rewards you" for holding onto whatever beliefs you may desire (regardless of how whacked out they might be - like 'Scientology").

                            Can't have it both ways, Matt, since that is a pure cop-out (whatever "reality" may turn out to be)! It's not enough to accept 1-2 out of 100,000+ scientific observations, conclusions and principles (like evolution and/or climate change). You have to be willing to accept most of them, until any one is overturned by "convincing new evidence". When it comes to seeking the "truth", you can't have your cake and eat it too.
                            see more
                            •
                            Share ›
                                Avatar
                                Matt Lynch Truth Seeker • a month ago

                                I've made my point. If you truly believe that one cannot believe in science without spending all of their time focused on it, You are making the case to fund scientific research even harder to make, because by your definition, science only helps a small group of people. The belief in scientific theories is not contradictory to the metaphysical belief in a deity. I'm done talking about this. there is now consensus to be reached here. I don't negotiate with extremists, religious or otherwise
                                •
                                Share ›
                Avatar
                Truth Seeker Melissa Jansen • a month ago

                What "Maker"??!!! Where did you get this "very weird" notion about some kind of imaginary human benefactor? Why is this concept necessary for anything having to do with experiencing the universe and trying to understand how it works and came about? How does this ancient concept even make any sense at all, anymore? What NEW evidence is there for anything like this even being possible? Where did this (just one) "Maker" come from? Why would there only be ONE, why not thousands of "Makers"? If you accept that "A Maker" can exist, then why is there just one? What if I "believe" there are at least 100 "Makers" ( just to pick some other completely arbitrary number), all specializing in some particular type of "Making"? Who's to say I would be wrong?

                Show me how you came to this conclusion for the existence of "A Maker" (or do you just believe what others tell you?). Show me the logic, or just send me a picture of this "Maker". What, is the "Maker" camera shy, or something? I'll settle for an MP3.

                Also, where was this "Maker" of yours, on 9/11, and what was this Maker so busy doing that they couldn't take time to save even one person that day? The concept of an all-powerful "Maker" that, in the end, is completely impotent to prevent really bad things from happening, is really kind of a useless concept, isn't it? Indeed, it's kind of evil isn't it? Now if I believed in a "magical Maker" (that just somehow always existed), then at least I wouldn't make endless excuses as to why bad things keep happening at completely random times and places (and to really good people). My Maker would never allow a young child, or any animal to EVER die, before their time! So, "God" is a totally archaic and very useless concept/myth that was created by people who didn't know much more than your average ant. Such a complete waste of people's time and lives!
                see more
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Melissa Jansen Truth Seeker • a month ago

                    Clearly this is not a matter of evidence to you. You hate religion, and have taken refuge in science and logic. You have had negative experiences regarding religion, and now you want to destroy it for everyone else. Who are you to judge that my faith is a waste? Rage at people about their beliefs all you want- trying to take away the meaning people ascribe to their lives won't add any to yours.
                    •
                    Share ›
            Avatar
            Matt Lynch Truth Seeker • a month ago

            Of course they're compatible! I'm agnostic, but science does NOT preclude the existence of god. Science makes no metaphysical claims, and religion should make no physical ones. They don't even touch the same realm. Of course they're compatible.
            2
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Truth Seeker Matt Lynch • a month ago

                Makes NO sense at all! Science absolutely precludes the "acceptance" of anything which cannot be backed up with evidence. Science doesn't preclude "imagining things", but it does preclude equating imagined things and speculations, which can never be proven, with things which can be proven, explained, or at the very least observed. What? Are you expecting this - forever mysterious - forever unknowable - infinitely powerful and all-knowing "entity" (who's origin, composition, behavior and means of existing and functioning can never be known) to show up some time in the near future? Of what possible USE is this "very weird concept", anyway? Can your belief (or that of others) predict anything at all? Anything?

                What a cop-out, Matt! Call me when your (or someone else's) "God" shows up, OK? Would love to be proven wrong (about no such "magical entity" existing). It would be the greatest day of my life (even better than meeting Santa Claus again)!
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Matt Lynch Truth Seeker • a month ago

                    dude, did you read my post at all? I'm agnostic, I don't believe in making metaphysical claims, but my point is that that is a philosophical choice. There is not a single tennet of science that precludes the existence of God. Science shows us what is out there and how it interacts, but not how it came to be. There is a veil of ignorance into the metaphysical nature of the universe, and those who claim they know what is on the other side make no sense to me. You seem to know that there is no being, and that's great for you, but you can't know any more than a religious person can't know their god exists. That being said, I won't tell them (or you) they're wrong, because I don't know. I wasn't there when the universe was created, so I can't say it wasn't a God or was one. A metaphysical claim doesn't need to make predictions to be true or false.

                    Example: I made the choice to get up and go to work today. Once I got to work, I trusted in the determinant nature of natural laws to create a medical device that will reliably work in every situation without magically breaking and killing someone. I trust that those laws remain constant. Many people use this argument to claim that the universe is deterministic. The thing is I made a choice to get up, I had the option to stay in bed (yes I know of the paradox of the illusion of choice, let me finish) There are plenty of instances in which the science you know and love points to a non-deterministic universe. The deeper we delve into quantum mechanics, the more the micro universe seems random. The fact of the matter is that we have lots of scientific observations, and some people will look at that and say the universe must be deterministic, but others will look at the same evidence and say that it is not. The fact is, they are both metaphysical claims, and neither can be proven either true or false. The same goes with the creation of the universe. The observations we have made so far in no way preclude the existence of an external being.

                    I am not arguing that God exists. I'm arguing that you have no idea whether he does and that scientific theory does not inherently make claims on the metaphysical. You attach that meaning to it because you have FAITH that the lack of observation means it doesn't exist.
                    see more
                    •
                    Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Melissa Jansen • a month ago

        You need to listen (or read) this then:

        http://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/...
        3
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Matt Lynch Truth Seeker • a month ago

            That in no way disproves the existance of God. Please stop making us non-believers look bad.
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Truth Seeker Matt Lynch • a month ago

                It completely explains how this "myth" came about - so, yes, it does prove that Jesus was NOT "God", or born of a god. He was born from a Jєωιѕн woman, who got pregnant in the traditional way, just like the rest of us (or at least some of us). The fact that millions of people just got all confused about this, for all these years, shows that you can't believe what people made up two thousand years ago. Q.E.D.

                Which reminds me - I have a nice bridge for sale - and it's cheap too!
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Matt Lynch Truth Seeker • a month ago

                    Start an argument with The_Truth_Seeker if you want to fight with someone. That's the kind of religious blindness you should be militant against.
                    •
                    Share ›
        Avatar
        dan mcferr Melissa Jansen • a month ago

        Thank you for your input. My impression is that most Christians have similar views. It's been the loud mouth bigots, political grifters and such ilk that cause so much trouble
        1
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Matt Lynch Melissa Jansen • a month ago

        The Catholic church has even taken to accepting scientific theorys as the answer to how God created the universe. Religion and science can work together, because science makes no inherent metaphysical claim, and no religion *should* make a physical one.
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Mark Novak • a month ago

    Good reason to ban all homeschooling. It is only with home schooling that this form of ignorance can persist.
    8
    •
    Share ›

Load more comments

.
.
.


    Avatar
    Tiny Hands • a month ago

    May I just say, the API-mined title for this story, as displayed in the Disqus app, perfectly describes its subject:

    "sdfsfsf"
    8
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    thomas adams • a month ago

    I had the hots for Kate Mulgrew when she played Capt. Janeway; a smart, strong woman. Now she plays a geocentric moron. What a big turnoff!
    10
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Don McLeod thomas adams • a month ago

        She's still a goddess.
        2
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    dave frasier • a month ago

    The socially accepted insanity of religion has too long influenced humanity.
    6
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    K P • a month ago

    Wow, what a load of crap that trailer is. The one guy toward then end claims we are the only life in the universe; quite a claim! More creationist garbage, poorly cloaked in scientific language. At the risk of making the loony creator lots of money, we should all see this, as a reminder of why we all must oppose this type of stultifying nonsense at every turn.
    6
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Andrew Magallanes K P • a month ago

        So true. I am often asked why I am so vocal about my opposition to religion. Stuff like this is why.
        3
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        mjafla K P • a month ago

        Just stream it for free on the net and he not make a nickel. I personally don't have that much time to waste.
        1
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    James Crissman • a month ago

    Not only does the sun revolve around the earth, the earth revolves around Mr. Sungenis, and he revolves around his solid excretory pore.
    6
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Rosa Eveningstar • a month ago

    "So stupid does disservice to the word nonsense. Ignore it."

    That's all the review I need. Thank you, Michio Kaku.
    5
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Chenda Duong • a month ago

    Arrgg. This is just like when Animal Planet decided to show that stupid fake docuмentary on mermaids. As a teacher, this kind of thing makes me so angry. It's already hard enough to get my students to understand what logic and the scientific method is and how it works...But to have films like this that are purposely made to be glossy and seem real in the hopes that it will fool people who aren't able to see the film for the propaganda that it is...these filmakers should be ashamed. Completely reprehensible.
    4
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        rlj1 Chenda Duong • a month ago

        Use this film to teach the difference between the scientific method and pseudo scientific method and point out to them how a small false premise or illogical step can be manipulated to lead to way off conclusions - it'll give your students the skills to differentiate between these that so many adults don't seem to have.
        2
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    anonemoose • a month ago

    I don't want to live on this planet anymore
    4
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Stephen Mooney • a month ago

    Film production: so simple a geocentrist can do it!
    4
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Andrew Magallanes • a month ago

    Yet another attack on science, logic and reason by the religious loons. I wish they would go hide under a rock and stay there and let the rest of us progress without their hindering ways.
    4
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Andrew Magallanes • a month ago

        A few of those "rocks" are called Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas.
        3
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Truth Seeker • a month ago

    This is a work of satire and comic genius, right? Was it written by Mel Brooks? Will it also feature Piccard and other Star Trek characters? This should get an Academy Award nomination (for best and most creative screenplay) in 2015.
    4
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    skyarizonadreamer • a month ago

    It is a free country. So, people can believe what they want...However, from a public policy standpoint, the really sad thing about all of this is that these earth-centered-universe people consistently vote for dogma-based public policy, which hinders the ability of our nation to quickly and effectively adapt to changing social, political and environmental conditions.
    6
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Ray Roth • a month ago

    When the idiot invasion occurred, apparently it affected the U.S. Midwest and South disproportionately. Funny how people with a limited education think they know everything. They actually love broadcasting their ignorance.
    7
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Mungo Munro • a month ago

    My God! It's full of knuckle heads.
    3
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Hector Cepeda Mungo Munro • a month ago

        So many people. Too few monoliths to benefit from.
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Curious Fella • a month ago

    Some religious people feel genuinely threatened by science, reason, and questioning authority.

    Truly religious people can not win an honest debate on cosmology. By definition.

    So they often employ sleazy tactics to promote their agendas.

    And sleazy tactics often succeed where reason fails.
    3
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    John Stuckey • a month ago

    First Creationism and now this? Will the TeaPubs require the public schools to teach this too?
    3
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Leaf Derekson • a month ago

    Further more... The Earth is flat. This can be proven by holding a coin up in front of a light. Observe, the coin casts a round shadow, just as the Earth casts a round shadow on the Moon. Its A Fact!
    5
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Tiny Hands Leaf Derekson • a month ago

        Also, bananas are the perfect fruit! Look at how it fits our hands, and how easy it is to peel it open. And have you ever dropped a banana? No, certainly not, thanks to its no-slip skin!

        I'm not being paid to say this garbage, that's for sure!
        3
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Leaf Derekson Tiny Hands • a month ago

            Time fly's like an arrow.
            Fruit fly's like a banana.
            •
            Share ›
    Avatar
    Rosa Eveningstar • a month ago

    My parents are geocentrists. Thanksgiving dinners are awkward.
    2
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Tiny Hands Rosa Eveningstar • a month ago

        Is it because of the different gravity?
        5
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Rosa Eveningstar Tiny Hands • a month ago

            No, it's because of soundbytes like this:

            "They never went to the Moon! It's all a hoax! My astrologer told me so!"
            10
            •
            Share ›
            Avatar
            Miss Snarkypants Tiny Hands • a month ago

            Don't you mean 'gravy'?
            2
            •
            Share ›
    Avatar
    PugFid • a month ago

    "If you thought Aristarchus of Samos, 15th century mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus and (a century later)Galileo put an end to all that, you'd be wrong."

    Aye, you would. The honor of putting "an end to all that" belongs to James Bradley, who in 1728 discovered stellar parallax. To seal the deal, Giovanni Guglielmini in 1791 confirmed by experiment the existence of the Coriolis effect. While time eventually proved Galileo right, it ought to be remembered that the evidence was not, during his own lifetime, in favor of his hypothesis (phases of Venus notwithstanding).
    2
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Hector Cepeda • a month ago

    This movie might be worthwhile. With any luck it'll be just as ridiculously hilarious as What The Bleep Do I Know? A classic hoot!
    2
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Kelsey Schoenbaum • a month ago

    I wish this was some kind of meta-docuмentary (a la Joaquin Phoenix) illustrating how easy it is twist facts and take things out of context in order to give faux-credibility to an absurd theory.

    Sadly, unless this is a SUPER long-con, it looks like the filmmaker is serious.
    2
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Craig Rheinheimer • a month ago

    It seems the lessons of the slimy tactics employed by the makers of Expelled were forgotten too quickly.
    2
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Mark Kropf • a month ago

    I have found some center here: The Principle is the center of misrepresentation.
    2
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Kayt Rivermoon • a month ago

    and, I proclaim, officially and for the Record...You are all Wrong. CATS are the center of the Universe. Mine just told me so. Niiiice Kitty .

    Neil deGrasse Tyson comes in a close second.
    2
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    novenator • a month ago

    She didn't know she was promoting geocentrism when she was the freakin' narrator? Pretty lame excuse there Kate
    2
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Bob H novenator • a month ago

        Simple matter for her to return her pay and demand (backed up with a legal injunction) that they not use the trailer because of fraud.

        If she is serious, she should at least be considering this course of action. I certainly would if I were in her position.
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Frank Fiamengo Bob H • a month ago

            Why? Does she have an obligation to help the fools who bite at this hook? I say take the money .
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Bob H Frank Fiamengo • a month ago

                Obligation to fools? Clearly no. Returning the money would give her the moral/ethical high ground and be good PR, both for her and against the clowns. It would probably also be a good place to start from if she wanted to get an injunction against using her voice.
                1
                •
                Share ›
    Avatar
    Truth Seeker • a month ago

    If any of the people in this movie were duped into being in it and providing NEW quotes, then they can probably sue for fraudulent misrepresentation.
    2
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Clovis Sangrail • a month ago

    I'm sure that Lawrence Krauss is a crackerjack physicist, but he needs to work on his history. The idea that the earth is flat isn't old; in fact, it may never have existed. The popular error that he is groping for is the idea that people used to think that the earth is flat. It originates with Washington Irving's biography of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was published near the end of an era in which the purpose of biography was less to educate the reader about the subject's life than it was to provide an example of moral behavior. Columbus cooked the books to get funding for his voyage, shaving 8,000 miles off the circuмference of the earth and moving India 100° of longitude closer to Spain than it actually is; then he returned from his first voyage with captive Carib natives whom he sold into slavery in the mines, thus singlehandly beginning the transatlantic slave trade. Desperate to find something praiseworthy in his subject and coming up empty-handed, Irving fabricated the flat-earth story so that he could depict Columbus as a hero of science doing battle with the forces of ignorance and superstition. The list of those who taught that the earth is spherical includes Pythagoras, Aristotle, Eudoxos of Knidos, Eratosthenes, and Ptolemy. Dante Alighieri depicts the earth as a sphere in the Divine Comedy (1300 AD), and the last globe (spherical map of the earth) not showing the New World was made in Nuremberg in 1491 (the first was made in Alexandria ca. 200 BC).
    2
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Miss Snarkypants Clovis Sangrail • a month ago

        Ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?
        5
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            TheUnPossible Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

            The GOP?
            13
            •
            Share ›
            Avatar
            Clovis Sangrail Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

            Washington Irving created the flat-earth myth in 1828, and the Flat Earth Society was founded in 1956. I take issue with Krauss for referring to flatearthism as an "old idea" when it in fact is quite new when compared with, let's say, Pythagoras, who taught the sphericity of the earth 2500 years ago.
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Miss Snarkypants Clovis Sangrail • a month ago

                The Flat Earth Society originated with the Bedford Level experiments in early 19th century. I think that is the greatest source of any modern misconceptions, and not Irving. Still, as to your point, not an old idea.

                I give Krauss the benefit of the doubt that when he says "ideas as old as the notion that the Earth is flat", that he's referring to beliefs held prior to the Ancient Greeks.
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Clovis Sangrail Miss Snarkypants • a month ago

                    Modern expressions of ancient flatearthism invariably relate the misconception to conditions existing prior to Columbus, and for that, Irving is to blame. But I am gratified to see that you are capable of posting a thoughtful and fact-based comment rather than one evidencing nothing more than compulsive flippancy, like your previous effort.
                    •
                    Share ›
                        Avatar
                        Miss Snarkypants Clovis Sangrail • a month ago

                        You're confusing flippancy with brevity. I was honestly puzzled that your polemic lacked any reference to Rowbotham and FES.
                        •
                        Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Clovis Sangrail • a month ago

        Ever hear of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition?
        1
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            Miss Snarkypants Truth Seeker • a month ago

            I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.
            8
            •
            Share ›
            Avatar
            Kelly Cox Truth Seeker • a month ago

            Nobody was ever sent to the Inquisition for claiming the Earth is not flat.
            •
            Share ›

Load more comments

.
.
.


                Truth Seeker Kelly Cox • a month ago

                They were subject to the inquisition JUST FOR THINKING!
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    Kelly Cox Truth Seeker • a month ago

                    Then your response to Clovis had nothing at all to do with what he wrote, apparently.
                    •
                    Share ›
    Avatar
    Philip Sloat • a month ago

    It never ceases to amaze me how inane, misinformed and self-deluded people can make Christianity look silly and stupid. This is an extreme example of the misguided attempt to make the Bible into a scientific text book. These people are reading the Bible for all the wrong reasons. It is a book that explains what our purpose is and why God created the universe. It is not a book to read to find out the age of the universe or how the universe (or even our solar system) is aligned or arranged.
    Please do not judge all of us Christians by lunatics such as Dr. Sungenis! The vast majority of Christians find no conflict between the teachings of our faith and the facts of science.
    3
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Philip Sloat • a month ago

        You need to read or listen to this. It's the only way to accept the "story of religion" and also accept the scientific method. But then, you can't still believe the story as it has come down to modern society.

        http://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/...
        1
        •
        Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Philip Sloat • a month ago

        Are you schizophrenic then? How can that be?
        •
        Share ›
    Avatar
    Will Harper • a month ago

    If we are the center of the universe why isn't God sitting on someone's couch eating pizza pockets? Ya think he'd be living in the low rent non center of the universe? Was He chased out when Eve went off the menu? Is that the story? No wonder women get less pay.
    3
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    dee geejay • a month ago

    Well . . . technically it IS the center of the universe - but so is everywhere else if you believe cutting edge expansion theories - so . . . there's that.
    2
    •
    Share ›
    Avatar
    Matthew Fry • a month ago

    From a certain point of view it doesn't matter, but the math of orbital mechanics is much, much easier if you pick the sun as your "fixed" reference point.
    2
    •
    Share ›
        Avatar
        Truth Seeker Matthew Fry • a month ago

        It DOES matter if you are trying to compare magnitudes of motion, velocity and acceleration.
        6
        •
        Share ›
            Avatar
            General Specific Truth Seeker • a month ago

            No, it doesn't since all of those are based on your frame of reference and are all relative. There is no absolute motion or velocity or acceleration.
            1
            •
            Share ›
                Avatar
                Truth Seeker General Specific • a month ago

                You are pretty ignorant of how science works and the history of science, right? Where would Kepler have come in???
                4
                •
                Share ›
                    Avatar
                    General Specific Truth Seeker • a month ago

                    In reality Kepler was wrong. He was close but still wrong. Einstein may be wrong as well but it is current understanding.
                    •
                    Share ›
                        Avatar
                        Truth Seeker General Specific • a month ago

                        Are we talking about the same Kepler - that mathematically described the elliptical motion of the planets ???

                        Compared to being completely and consistently wrong - I'd say being "close" is pretty good! And, you and others that think like you (if you can call it that) sure aren't going to be the ones to prove Einstein wrong, especially since he will ALWAYS be considered to have been AT LEAST "close", very close. You should only wish to be close when it comes to anything.
                        •
                        Share ›
                            Avatar
                            General Specific Truth Seeker • a month ago

                            But still wrong.

                            And all motion is relative according to current understanding.

.


In the event that anyone is having trouble reading the COMMENTS in the OP, here is an example that might help:

                        •
                    Share ›
                        Avatar
                        Matt Lynch The_Truth_Seeker • a month ago

                        I'm was not talking to you. I was attempting to talk to a seemingly logical and rational person. Not a militant. Please stop talking to me. If you truly believe the evidence does not support the claims put forward regarding evolution or the big bang, we have no common basis on which to have a conversation. I don't care to change you mind.
                        •
                        Share ›
                            Avatar
                            Truth Seeker Matt Lynch • a month ago

After             "Share ›
                        Avatar" ---------you see the folowing:
                        "Matt Lynch The_Truth_Seeker"

This means that Matt Lynch is responding to The_Truth_Seeker from the post immediately above it, with the words, "I'm was not talking to you..."  You can tell, incidentally, that Lynch is likely upset because he misspelled "I" with "I'm." Therefore the response might be loaded with emotion, which can make for a revealing statement, something that isn't normally likely to come out.  At the end he also left off the "r" in "your,"  with "you mind" (instead of, " I don't care to change your mind").  

Notice that "evolution and the big bang" are non-negotiables for Matt Lynch, IOW they are infallible dogmas of his false religion.  They have been defined by his demigod Charlie, one of the two demigods Charlie (Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell) from 140 years ago, give or take.  This is from his Sacred Tradition of Evolutionism.  The so-called big bang is merely a fairy-tale afterthought of Evolutionism, like part of "...And they lived happily ever after."  

The next post has "Truth Seeker Matt Lynch," and that means that "Truth Seeker" is replying to "Matt Lynch" but this "Truth Seeker" is a different person from "The_Truth_Seeker."

Hope this helps.


.

.

Multiple typos!! ....  (in the previous post) ...............  The ink dried.


It's taken us what, 450 years to discover that "Copernicus provided evidence that the PLANETS [plural] revolved [past tense] around the sun..."  

This is great news.  MassGuy1 has discovered the Rosetta Stone of the Copernican Principle!  If only Albert Einstein could have seen it 100 years ago it would have saved everyone so much grief.  Possibly Our Lady wouldn't have had to show up in 1917, and there would have been no Communist Revolution in Russia, or WWI, II or III --- wait.  We haven't had WWIII yet.  


HEY!  Maybe MassGuy1 and his discovery will save us from WWIII!  AWESOME!   :jumping2:


.

.

While you're waiting for The Principle to come out, perhaps you would find time to see EXPELLED, that is, if you haven't already.  Ben Stein goes on a detective trail to make this docuмentary about the suppression of scientific inquiry in modern academia.  

During the first hour a lot of background is built up, including the roots of nαzιism in Darwinism.  Also, the way modern academia, by dragging a Christian into evolutionism causes him step-by-step to lose his faith, and the steps are identified word for word.

At minute 1:03+ it shows a Bell being thrown out of a bell tower, crashing to the stone floor outside a church.  I think this is important because I have met people who say when the Communists came into a village during and after WWII (probably before, as well, since they were so well practiced at it) the first thing they would do is remove the church Bell and destroy it by breaking it to pieces.  The reason they did this was because the church Bell was the heartbeat of God's truth in the city, and without it, the people would more easily lose their faith.  

Later in the film at minute 1:23+ they engage the subject of how the liberal colleges and universities most often refused to admit that they had EXPELLED anyone (professors, etc.) for having challenged "evolution" or the Copernican Principle (they don't use that term -- it's mostly Darwinism but we all know that without the challenge of Copernicanism, Darwinism would have never had a chance).  

Then, IMHO, the climax of the movie is when Stein sits down with Richard Dawkins and gets under his skin, in his own way.  He does a good job here.  I think a transcript is in order.  It would be good.  It begins full throttle and it does not let up.  Well done.  

This would be a way to prepare for viewing "The Principle," because a lot of the same themes are present here.  This movie is about 15 minutes longer than The Principle, and it was a more expensive to make, too.

I think Stein can get away with this because if anybody were to criticize him, he could sue them for anti-Semitism!  Let's hear it for honest Jєωs doing research!  Hoooray!  

So if you'd like some background, take a look here.  Stein is a LOT rougher on Dawkins than DeLano or Sungenis are on the weak likes of Lawrence Krauss or Michio Kaku.  You see, Dawkins is an OPENLY VIRULENT hater of God (he says so) and of all things religious (he says so), while the weak Krauss is a poor comparison.  I'd like to thank Richard Dawkins for being so honest.  I should explain that this is really "big" of me, because before seeing this film, I would never have imagined being thankful to the cruddy ilk of Dawkins for anything.  I'm sure it will mitigate his eternal destiny, unless, that is, someone else had prayed for his salvation more than I have.  Upon reflection, it seems that Ben Stein, a Jєω, is actually on OUR SIDE when up against this caustic acid of a pitiful soul, an enemy of science.  


Enemies of Scientific Inquiry EXPOSED by Ben Stein:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/V5EPymcWp-g[/youtube]


This penchant of the schools to deny their past actions of expelling good professors is first of all reminiscent of NovusOrdo seminaries expelling seminarians who are not sufficiently "pastorally sensitive" to the needs of those with "an alternative sɛҳuąƖity."  But it makes me wonder:  how long before the SSPX starts to deny that they have expelled priests because they were in opposition to the liberal slide in the Society under the Menzingen-denizens?


..

Neil Obstat: "I think Stein can get away with this because if anybody were to criticize him, he could sue them for anti-Semitism!  Let's hear it for honest Jєωs doing research!  Hoooray! "  Interesting how Stein will hold forth (as well he should) on academic freedom in science, but don't hold your breath on him ever attempting a movie on what happens to those who even question the alleged 6 million gas chamber thing.  People like that don't simply face a job loss, but can face years lost behind bars.

Check this story on all hell breaking loose when some eighth graders were given a little research assignment.  Jєωιѕн Zionist Smackdown

.

So, cassini, can you say for sure that the version of geocentrism that Sungenis is putting forward for discussion is not the same as the version that was commonly held before the 17th century among Church fathers?  

That is, Sungenis is describing a system with the earth motionless at the center of the universe, with the sun orbiting the earth on a daily basis (slightly less than 24 hours, perhaps changing very slightly for whatever reason, perhaps increasing and/or decreasing and perhaps with some manner of pattern but with a certain element of mystery), but it is the sun around which the other planets of our solar system orbit, not the earth.  

Therefore, he has proposed that this explains why the planets appear to have retrograde motion from our vantage point, and he does not need "epicycles" or any other artificial devices to explain that like they were using before the time of Copernicus.  Apparent retrograde planetary motion is only apparent, therefore, since due to the sun being in orbit around the earth, it "drags" the other planets with it, and when they "pass by" the earth visible in the night sky, they seem to be making a little backwards loop or some moment of pause when they slow down and then speed up again to quickly pass into the horizon.  

But is this not the same as what Tycho Brahe was proposing, when he diligently recorded accurate readings for the locations of the planets as seen in the night skies?

Thanks for The Criterion, cassini.  It would seem that particular things have risen above the law, like the h0Ɩ0h0αx and the Copernican Principle.  The former appears to be contending with the Crucifixion, to replace it, re-making the Jєωιѕн race into the Redeemer as it were, and the latter makes scientism a replacement for Scripture and the Church, with a Newcreed that can be revised daily, even on the Internet, as the needs arise.  

.

.

So, cassini, can you say for sure that the version of geocentrism that Sungenis is putting forward for discussion is not the same as the version that was commonly held before the 17th century among Church fathers?  

That is, Sungenis is describing a system with the earth motionless at the center of the universe, with the sun orbiting the earth on a daily basis (slightly less than 24 hours, perhaps changing very slightly for whatever reason, perhaps increasing and/or decreasing and perhaps with some manner of pattern but with a certain element of mystery), but it is the sun around which the other planets of our solar system orbit, not the earth.  

Therefore, he has proposed that this explains why the planets appear to have retrograde motion from our vantage point, and he does not need "epicycles" or any other artificial devices to explain that like they were using before the time of Copernicus.  Apparent retrograde planetary motion is only apparent, therefore, since due to the sun being in orbit around the earth, it "drags" the other planets with it, and when they "pass by" the earth visible in the night sky, they seem to be making a little backwards loop or some moment of pause when they slow down and then speed up again to quickly pass into the horizon.  

But is this not the same as what Tycho Brahe was proposing, when he diligently recorded accurate readings for the locations of the planets as seen in the night skies?

Thanks for The Criterion, cassini.  It would seem that particular things have risen above the law, like the h0Ɩ0h0αx and the Copernican Principle.  The former appears to be contending with the Crucifixion, to replace it, re-making the Jєωιѕн race into the Redeemer as it were, and the latter makes scientism a replacement for Scripture and the Church, with a Newcreed that can be revised daily, even on the Internet, as the needs arise.  

.

First of all Neil I really do not know what Robert Sungenis has written in his book. That said I have a fair idea based on articles and comments made from time to time. I did not read it for a good reason. My interest in the subject came long before Sungenis found the matter as fascinating as I did. I wanted to investigate the Galileo case on my own so as to come to conclusions not too influenced by others.  This was to prove to myself we were not all believing and repeating the same story without studying the records available and sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Now your first question above shows me the wisdom of my quest. The geocentrism of the 17th century in fact has nothing to do with the issue. All that the Church was trying to protect was the geocentric REFERENCES in the Bible. These came down to 'a moving sun' and 'an immobile earth at the centre of the universe.' That is all we need to know about the Fathers and their interpretation of the Bible. Their natural philosophy is not an issue at all.

As regards the order of the universe and its laws, the Bible had spoken too:

‘Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars of the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth? Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the earth?’ --- (Job. 38:31-33).

In other words, you guys are not God, so these things will remain unknown to mankind.

So, Sungenis can speculate for 1000 pages how the universe works, but only God knows. Tycho de Brahe kept his system loyal to Scripture so for anybody trying to convince others of the reasonableness of a geocentric universe this will do the job.

As regards precession of the equinoxes, well we can speculate all we like as to what causes this phenomenon but that is a side issue.

My own policy is that the only science that needs to be addressed are the so-called proofs that they claimed to show the Fathers, popes and theologians of the 17th century wrong. Once we show these are no proofs at all that is enough. Galileo challenged the Holy Office to prove the sun moves. The Church of course does not 'prove' its revelations, but accepts them on faith alone. If the faith is divinely revealed then as Bellarmine said, it cannot be proven wrong. If it can be proven right, then it is not of faith.

Sungenis however, spends a lot of effort trying to show Geocentrism is not unscientific as many had thought. Admittedly, there are many that have to undergo this 'scientific cleansing' before they start to believe. But as Christ told thomas, 'blessed are those who have (not touched the wounds- not gone through a science lesson) and believed on faith alone.