Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: IndultCat on May 22, 2025, 03:39:13 AM
-
As a "Globe-Tard", can any flat-earther explain to me how he can look up into the sky with a telescope, see all of the other planets as being "ROUND" and yet still believe that the Earth, for some reason, is "FLAT"???? :facepalm:
Yes, there are many twisted agendas and nefarious plots being conducted on a "global scale" :laugh1: (including lies by NASA --- Never A Straight Answer :laugh1:) but, why do flat-earthers believe that lying about the shape of the Earth is one of those twisted agendas/nefarious plots? I don't understand the motive for scientists to lie for centuries and centuries to convince most humans that the Earth is a different shape from what it really is (is it because flat-earthers believe that the Bible says the Earth is flat and that we live in a geocentric solar system?).
When a flat-earther looks at all of the other round planets in space, does he think things such as: "space is fake" or "those aren't real planets up there"? If so, then they must explain how anyone and everyone who uses a telescope to see the other planets ALL SEE ROUND PLANETS. Why would Earth be any different shape-wise?
Someone wise said a long time ago the following: "The Bible tells you how to get to heaven...it DOES NOT tell you how the heavens go. That's why we have science."
Instead of calling people like me "Globe-Tards", why not just answer these simple questions???:smirk:
-
1. Regarding calling names. In my experience, "Flat Earthers" are more interested in facts, experimentation and logic. Simply put, they don't need to resort to name calling.
FEs don't usually call names, except occasionally when they lose patience; as they are constantly attacked.
Let me put it this way:
If I told you, "I was talking to John this morning, and I called him a brain dead simple moron who should be sterilized for the good of society." You'd be like "OUCH! Did you have to be so brutal?" but then if I had added, "after he tried to convince me the earth was flat". You'd laugh and high-five me. ADMIT IT.
In other words, it's like punching nαzιs. If you said you punched just about ANYONE ELSE, people would be critical, unsupportive of your violent behavior, and wouldn't get behind you for it. But if you said your assault victim was a nαzι, you could punch him all you like and people would high-five you. It's part of the programming everyone receives today.
Seriously, there are few other things that are so "open season" according to the modern world, as being Flat Earth. Why?
As a corollary to this, it means that a FE calling a Globe-believer a name is NOT the same thing as a Globe-believer calling a FE a name. Ever heard of "punching down"? AND YET -- 99 times out of 100, the verbal violence is FROM Globers TOWARDS FEs.
How can this be, when they have the full support of the mainstream scientific establishment, the whole world, the entire media, etc.? They should be more secure psychologically -- they shouldn't feel so defensive and scared, where they have to lash out and tear down FEs personally all the time. BUT THEY DO. In fact, some of them are quite vile (attacking spouses, children, making slanderous accusations, etc. -- being quite degenerate).
If the earth were truly a globe, then people would be mildly amused at best at "those weird few" who believe the earth is flat. Why would they waste their time creating a Youtube channel dedicated to bashing flat earthers?
Does anyone create a channel dedicated to the fact that Elvis is dead, or that politicians ARE NOT space aliens? Of course not. It would be a waste of time.
In conclusion -- I consider this a pretty serious argument for Flat Earth in itself, even though it doesn't even begin to address the myriad physical evidence. Unfortunately for globe lovers, the physical evidence is MUCH more immediately relevant, convincing, and powerful. So my point, addressed in this post, seldom gets brought up.
-
2. Regarding "There are apparent spheres in the sky, therefore we're standing on one of them."
That is not logical. You don't think the earth is different or special than the contents of "the heavens"?
Don't tell me you believe the hell-bound atheists that "planets" all formed from accretion disks of dust around stars 4.5 billions years ago (at least in our "solar system"), and that earth is just another "planet" albeit a slightly-special one more amenable to life.
Don't tell me you believe in Theistic evolution! (Basically that evolution is true, but that God created the Big Bang, and later stepped in and created the first Man).
A lot of what people believe comes from NASA deception, including thousands of CGI-generated images.
Ever notice that "artist's renditions" of exoplanets they claim to discover -- which are too far away for any real observation -- look suspiciously like the "photos" of the "real planets" of our own solar system -- including earth?
A lot of what we see is pre-guided by such propaganda. You see a fuzzy circle in your telescope, and believe it to be the thing NASA and Hollywood shows you constantly.
Let's play a game -- which of these are real photos, and which are artists renditions (CGI) of an exoplanet?
Also, I note that even the "photos" of earth are admitted to be CGI composites. Mr. Blue Marble admitted it himself. "Yes it's photoshopped. But it has to be."
I learned that ONLY AFTER I STARTED INVESTIGATING Flat Earth.
-
Someone wise said a long time ago the following: "The Bible tells you how to get to heaven...it DOES NOT tell you how the heavens go. That's why we have science."
That sounds like something a science-worshiper would say. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It isn't a religion or an identity. When you wear a T-shirt that says, "I f*cking love science!" that is not a love of exploring and gaining knowledge of the natural world -- that is an emotional "team mentality" adherence to Scientism, the religion of science.
I'm excited and proud to be a Catholic as well. Several of my kids have Catholic T-shirts, and I wouldn't hesitate to wear one myself. But Catholicism is an identity and a religion. Is "science" such a religion as well?
So you're putting lots of limitations and boundaries around the Bible, similar to the concepts of geofencing, timeboxing, or "limiting the damage". Putting the Bible in a spiwitual playpen of sorts. As the kids say nowadays, "Oof!"
So you admit that the Bible teaches, or at least leans, Flat Earth? And yet you aren't giving Flat Earth more serious consideration?
-
why do flat-earthers believe that lying about the shape of the Earth is one of those twisted agendas/nefarious plots? I don't understand the motive for scientists to lie for centuries and centuries to convince most humans that the Earth is a different shape from what it really is
Because we actually believe in God who is infinite goodness, and the devil (and evil) which are opposed to God.
You can't properly believe in or appreciate true evil until and unless you fully, intuitively accept DEEP DOWN the existence of an infinitely good God.
If the earth is a globe and just another heavenly body -- and everything is in orbit of something else -- then maybe the evolutionists are right that a big bang happened, stars formed, then exploded one by one creating the elements, and then billions of years later eventually our own Sun formed, and all the planets formed from the accretion disk of dust, which orbited the primitive Sun -- which is why things spin around the Sun to this day. In short, godless evolution is POSSIBLE. (albeit still quite crazy, if you think about it). When I say it's possible I mean "if you blow out people's minds with ridiculously large distances, ridiculously long unfathomable periods of time, such that you overwhelm them until they suspend disbelief." But just look around you -- it works with most people.
But if Earth is the realm we live in, and there are heavens above us, and we are all under some kind of Firmament or dome -- then it's obvious we were created (by Whom?) and there is NO OTHER explanation.
Why indeed! Do I really need to spell it out for you? They're trying to hide God.
-
And no, it wasn't "all scientists" who taught the Globe for centuries. That's another lie.
There were many Flat Earth books written in the 1800's, and they were the resources that got the current Flat Earth "movement" started around 2015 (the one that had to get smashed with the help of Google/Youtube, various personalities, an extra dollop of propaganda, etc.)
I saw a video of a 100+ year old lady, and she said that she was taught, in school, that the earth was flat. Just 100 years ago!
-
As a "Globe-Tard", can any flat-earther explain to me how he can look up into the sky with a telescope, see all of the other planets as being "ROUND" and yet still believe that the Earth, for some reason, is "FLAT"???? :facepalm:
Yes, there are many twisted agendas and nefarious plots being conducted on a "global scale" :laugh1: (including lies by NASA --- Never A Straight Answer :laugh1:) but, why do flat-earthers believe that lying about the shape of the Earth is one of those twisted agendas/nefarious plots? I don't understand the motive for scientists to lie for centuries and centuries to convince most humans that the Earth is a different shape from what it really is (is it because flat-earthers believe that the Bible says the Earth is flat and that we live in a geocentric solar system?).
When a flat-earther looks at all of the other round planets in space, does he think things such as: "space is fake" or "those aren't real planets up there"? If so, then they must explain how anyone and everyone who uses a telescope to see the other planets ALL SEE ROUND PLANETS. Why would Earth be any different shape-wise?
Someone wise said a long time ago the following: "The Bible tells you how to get to heaven...it DOES NOT tell you how the heavens go. That's why we have science."
Instead of calling people like me "Globe-Tards", why not just answer these simple questions???:smirk:
As a global-Earth geocentrist allow me to answer you Indultcat. The answer lies in your question
'(is it because flat-earthers believe that the Bible says the Earth is flat and that we live in a geocentric solar system?'
First there is no such-thing as a 'geocentric solar system.' A solar-system is a heliocentric belief.
A geocentric universe is a dogma held by the Church, one held by all the Fathers because it is revealed in Scripture and has been defined and declared as such. Evidence for geocentrism was found in 1870 and 1887 which eliminates heliocentrism as ever capable of being proven.
There are also revelations in the Bible that could be read as revealing a flat Earth, and it is based on this that most flat-earthers base their beliefs. They can also claim some important Fathers believed in a flat-earth. Now whereas a geocentric Earth had been dogmatised, a flat-Earth has never been.
In other words belief in a biblical flat-earth is not compulsory for Catholics nor is it not a truth. So the debate goes on.
For me insisting on a flat Earth undermines the 'miracle' called gravity wherein the lord made it possible for man to live on a global Earth, with the ground under all feet on it and the sky above. There is also the science of geodesy practiced for hundreds of years that measures the curve of the Earth over long distances.
Unfortunately this debate can bring out the worst in people of both sides, a reason to keep clear of it.
-
Unfortunately this debate can bring out the worst in people of both sides, a reason to keep clear of it.
I couldn't disagree more.
Yes the debate gets messy, mostly because of cognitive dissonance and visceral reaction against decades of programming. It is natural to be uncomfortable at first, to the idea that "your whole world is a lie". The powerful emotions that get involved is not a big surprise.
But it's absolutely worth it. Having a grasp of the REALITY or true nature of our realm is about as foundational as truth gets!
One should *definitely* look into it, get to the bottom of it, and resolve the question definitively, insofar as it lies within your power.
-
For me insisting on a flat Earth undermines the 'miracle' called gravity wherein the lord made it possible for man to live on a global Earth, with the ground under all feet on it and the sky above.
You don't need the 'miracle' of gravity in flat earth. Density and buoyancy explains what we observe perfectly well
-
1. Regarding calling names. In my experience, "Flat Earthers" are more interested in facts, experimentation and logic. Simply put, they don't need to resort to name calling.
FEs don't usually call names, except occasionally when they lose patience; as they are constantly attacked.
Let me put it this way:
If I told you, "I was talking to John this morning, and I called him a brain dead simple moron who should be sterilized for the good of society." You'd be like "OUCH! Did you have to be so brutal?" but then if I had added, "after he tried to convince me the earth was flat". You'd laugh and high-five me. ADMIT IT.
In other words, it's like punching nαzιs. If you said you punched just about ANYONE ELSE, people would be critical, unsupportive of your violent behavior, and wouldn't get behind you for it. But if you said your assault victim was a nαzι, you could punch him all you like and people would high-five you. It's part of the programming everyone receives today.
Seriously, there are few other things that are so "open season" according to the modern world, as being Flat Earth. Why?
As a corollary to this, it means that a FE calling a Globe-believer a name is NOT the same thing as a Globe-believer calling a FE a name. Ever heard of "punching down"? AND YET -- 99 times out of 100, the verbal violence is FROM Globers TOWARDS FEs.
How can this be, when they have the full support of the mainstream scientific establishment, the whole world, the entire media, etc.? They should be more secure psychologically -- they shouldn't feel so defensive and scared, where they have to lash out and tear down FEs personally all the time. BUT THEY DO. In fact, some of them are quite vile (attacking spouses, children, making slanderous accusations, etc. -- being quite degenerate).
If the earth were truly a globe, then people would be mildly amused at best at "those weird few" who believe the earth is flat. Why would they waste their time creating a Youtube channel dedicated to bashing flat earthers?
Does anyone create a channel dedicated to the fact that Elvis is dead, or that politicians ARE NOT space aliens? Of course not. It would be a waste of time.
In conclusion -- I consider this a pretty serious argument for Flat Earth in itself, even though it doesn't even begin to address the myriad physical evidence. Unfortunately for globe lovers, the physical evidence is MUCH more immediately relevant, convincing, and powerful. So my point, addressed in this post, seldom gets brought up.
I would like proof that the "globe-tards" (which is a derogatory term that the flat earther's use to talk about globe earthers) on CathInfo are calling flat earthers names.
-
I would like proof that the "globe-tards" (which is a derogatory term that the flat earther's use to talk about globe earthers) on CathInfo are calling flat earthers names.
If you were given proof 1000x over, you'd still reply with something like you just did above..
And you and I both know derogatory terms are thrown at those who profess truth 1 million times more than the other way around...
Matthew, give us proof Gray isn't a plant. :laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
-
But it's absolutely worth it. Having a grasp of the REALITY or true nature of our realm is about as foundational as truth gets!
It helps with the truth of God's creation and God being front and center. That's for sure!
-
If you were given proof 1000x over, you'd still reply with something like you just did above..
And you and I both know derogatory terms are thrown at those who profess truth 1 million times more than the other way around...
Matthew, give us proof Gray isn't a plant. :laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
You just changed the direction of the conversation to me personally. Matthew said that the "glob-tards" constantly name call and stuff and that the "flat earthers" do not do such things. I have been reading these conversations for about two years and I don't believe that St Giles or myself have really resorted to name calling, so I just wanted Matthew to show proof of "globe-tards" on CathInfo doing what he just talked about.
This particular statement had nothing to do with actual sphere vs flat discussion.
-
Matthew, give us proof Gray isn't a plant. :laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
What kind of plant do you think I might be? ::)
-
You just changed the direction of the conversation to me personally. Matthew said that the "glob-tards" constantly name call and stuff and that the "flat earthers" do not do such things. I have been reading these conversations for about two years and I don't believe that St Giles or myself have really resorted to name calling, so I just wanted Matthew to show proof of "globe-tards" on CathInfo doing what he just talked about.
This particular statement had nothing to do with actual sphere vs flat discussion.
Nobody cares you haven't resorted to name calling... Who cares? Boy, you take things personally. I would say thicken your skin up, but you're a woman.
What proof would you like that the earth is not a globe? Do you personally think it's a globe with planets and space we have not discovered yet?
-
What kind of plant do you think I might be? ::)
That depends, do plants tell the group they are infiltrating they are plants? :laugh1:
-
Nobody cares you haven't resorted to name calling... Who cares? Boy, you take things personally. I would say thicken your skin up, but you're a woman.
What proof would you like that the earth is not a globe? Do you personally think it's a globe with planets and space we have not discovered yet?
I can see Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes. If I use a telescope I can see each of these planets are distinct and different. I want to know "what flat earthers think about these planets?" The Bible doesn't talk about them at all, yet man has discovered them.
-
I can see Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes. If I use a telescope I can see each of these planets are distinct and different. I want to know "what flat earthers think about these planets?" The Bible doesn't talk about them at all, yet man has discovered them.
Sure, no one is denying there isn't things like the moon/planets/illuminations or ("stars") in God's firmament. It's vast for sure.
(https://i.imgur.com/ifqWbpP.png)
-
I can see Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes. If I use a telescope I can see each of these planets are distinct and different. I want to know "what flat earthers think about these planets?" The Bible doesn't talk about them at all, yet man has discovered them.
9:00 minutes into this video. Eric Dubay answers that question https://youtu.be/KNXKpnybzVU? (https://youtu.be/KNXKpnybzVU?)
-
Sure, no one is denying there isn't things like the moon/planets/illuminations or ("stars") in God's firmament. It's vast for sure.
(https://i.imgur.com/ifqWbpP.png)
So "flat earthers" believe that the space is vast in one direction up from a flat earth and "globe tards" believe that space is vast in multiple directions from a spherical earth. We know God is limitless, so which one makes more sense?
-
Yes, there are many twisted agendas and nefarious plots being conducted on a "global scale" :laugh1: (including lies by NASA --- Never A Straight Answer :laugh1:) but, why do flat-earthers believe that lying about the shape of the Earth is one of those twisted agendas/nefarious plots?
If it could be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) that globe earth had flat land, then it would be 'game over' for the following heresies:
a. Evolution
b. Aliens
c. Atheism
All of these 3 major heresies rely on the narrative that the earth isn't special, we're just another random, floating ball in an infinite space...created by a random, big-bang event which happened trillions of years ago, a quadrillion light-years away. There isn't anything special about humanity, act like the animals that you are and when you die, turn back into the "dust in the wind" that you came from. This is how the devil traps billions of souls into a sinful "you only live once" life and then they are damned.
In fact, here is the truth, which the globe shaped, flat land TRUTH reveals:
a. Scripture is true, which means God is real and Adam/Eve is the human origin. Ergo, evolution is a damned lie.
b. A firmament surrounding the earth's atmosphere means that we can't leave earth, planets aren't inhabitable and there can be no aliens.
c. The earth is NOT like other planets, as the main purpose of earth is humanity and our battle for salvation. God and heaven/hell are real and the purpose of life.
(https://i.imgur.com/eStSXwu.png)
-
What kind of plant do you think I might be? ::)
:laugh1::laugh1:
-
So "flat earthers" believe that the space is vast in one direction up from a flat earth and "globe tards" believe that space is vast in multiple directions from a spherical earth. We know God is limitless, so which one makes more sense?
Ugh.
Because God is distinct from His creation. Duh!
I know you didn't mean to, but confusing God with His creation is literally a heresy that the Church has dealt with and condemned in the past.
Those who believe the false religion of Scientism don't believe in God (infinite goodness, truth, power, etc.) so they replace God with an infinite (or near-infinite) universe, infinite realities/universes, and mind-boggling amounts of time which is OMNIPOTENT or can do anything, even creating life from inert matter. Scientism adherents have FAITH in Science, they HOPE in Science, and they LOVE Science. They are obedient to the holy dogmas and teachings of the Scientism high priests, and carefully avoid committing any sins of heresy. They even go out into the world and spread the "Scientism gospel" to those who don't yet believe. They are quite fervent with their apologetics and their rhetoric! They are more fervent than many Catholics, sad to say. See how it has replaced God for them?
So what are these Scientism cultists really worshipping? The Universe. that is, God's creation. They are literally "worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator" which is an error as old as time. The devil has outsmarted these modern high-IQ fools, and he is laughing his black, hairy, smelly ass off at them. This classic error was actually addressed by St. Paul in Acts of the Apostles.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[Romans 1:25]
How do I say this politely, you really need to do less teaching and more learning.
-
Ugh.
Because God is distinct from His creation. Duh!
Yeah, that's like saying that because God is limitless, so are the oceans on the earth, or that a dog in my back yard is limitless.
It's similar to the OP ... where IF there are spheres above the earth, it must mean we live on a sphere too. That's a complete non-sequitur, and its merely assumes the very cosmology it's trying to adduce this as evidence for ... aka it's begging the question.
Similar to Eratosthenes. He had to assume a distant and gigantic sun in order to "prove" curvature, i.e. where you assume things about cosmology to prove your cosmology. If you had a smaller / closer sun, it could product the same outcome for the experiment.
-
Ugh.
Because God is distinct from His creation. Duh!
I know you didn't mean to, but confusing God with His creation is literally a heresy that the Church has dealt with and condemned in the past.
I did not mean anything heretical. But when I said God is limitless, I meant omnipotent.
-
Those who believe the false religion of Scientism don't believe in God (infinite goodness, truth, power, etc.) so they replace God with an infinite (or near-infinite) universe, infinite realities/universes, and mind-boggling amounts of time which is OMNIPOTENT or can do anything, even creating life from inert matter. Scientism adherents have FAITH in Science, they HOPE in Science, and they LOVE Science. They are obedient to the holy dogmas and teachings of the Scientism high priests, and carefully avoid committing any sins of heresy. They even go out into the world and spread the "Scientism gospel" to those who don't yet believe. They are quite fervent with their apologetics and their rhetoric! They are more fervent than many Catholics, sad to say. See how it has replaced God for them?
So what are these Scientism cultists really worshipping? The Universe. that is, God's creation. They are literally "worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator" which is an error as old as time. The devil has outsmarted these modern high-IQ fools, and he is laughing his black, hairy, smelly ass off at them. This classic error was actually addressed by St. Paul in Acts of the Apostles.
I am not sure that this had anything to do with what I was trying to express. I do think that the modern day "science" has been bought and paid for, so those who do real science have not received the funding to find Truth.
I would also go out on a limb and say that once science (the study of the creature (human, plants, earth, society, etc)) was separated from religion (the study of the creator), we lost a natural system of checks and balances.
-
How do I say this politely, you really need to do less teaching and more learning.
I have been asking questions to improve my understanding. This is the way I learn. I am not very good at just reading to understand things. Please bare with me.
-
I have been asking questions to improve my understanding. This is the way I learn. I am not very good at just reading to understand things. Please bare with me.
:laugh1: Most of your questions are argumentative, not of curiosity. Then you ignore what Scripture says and act like it's optional. You're very biased. Until you accept this, you won't be open to learning anything new.
-
:laugh1: Most of your questions are argumentative, not of curiosity. Then you ignore what Scripture says and act like it's optional. You're very biased. Until you accept this, you won't be open to learning anything new.
I am not trying to be argumentative (you are just going to have to take my word for it :cowboy:). Every time I ask a question, I get a response that deflects away from the question I am asking.
You are not trying to teach anything, because you already have a biased of me being argumentative. :laugh1:
-
So "flat earthers" believe that the space is vast in one direction up from a flat earth and "globe tards" believe that space is vast in multiple directions from a spherical earth. We know God is limitless, so which one makes more sense?
You seem to have confused fittingness with necessity.
-
You seem to have confused fittingness with necessity.
Please explain. Your message makes no sense to me.
-
Please explain. Your message makes no sense to me.
While it may be fitting that since God is infinite the universe be expansive. It is not a necessity, if you wish for me to further clarify what I mean I can.
-
While it may be fitting that since God is infinite the universe be expansive. It is not a necessity, if you wish for me to further clarify what I mean I can.
That made it more clear. Thanks.
-
That sounds like something a science-worshiper would say. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It isn't a religion or an identity. When you wear a T-shirt that says, "I f*cking love science!" that is not a love of exploring and gaining knowledge of the natural world -- that is an emotional "team mentality" adherence to Scientism, the religion of science.
I thank you for your detailed responses to my post. I agree wholeheartedly that there are too many "science worshippers" who adhere to "Scienism" - the religion of science instead of just "doing science" because "Science" itself is just an activity/process.
I am neither a "science-worshipper" of Scientism or a "nature/environment/earth worshipper" of Environmentalism - which, I believe, is also a religion.
I also believe that we should always "question" Science instead of merely "trusting" or "accepting" science since it is an on-going process. That's why I was vehemently against the "death jab" when most people became either brainless sheep or gutless cowards 5 years ago.
-
So you admit that the Bible teaches, or at least leans, Flat Earth? And yet you aren't giving Flat Earth more serious consideration?
It seems to lean toward a Flat Earth, yes. And I have listened to several debates involving proponents of a Flat Earth like Eric Dubay and Dave Weiss. They seemed to raise a few interesting pointsat first, however, I then watched videos of those who either attempted to debunk or claimed to have debunked the FE position and their points seemed valid also.
-
I can see Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes. If I use a telescope I can see each of these planets are distinct and different. I want to know "what flat earthers think about these planets?" The Bible doesn't talk about them at all, yet man has discovered them.
I want to know too and I am trying to find someone who believes in a flat earth to explain these common observances.
-
A lot of what people believe comes from NASA deception, including thousands of CGI-generated images.
Ever notice that "artist's renditions" of exoplanets they claim to discover -- which are too far away for any real observation -- look suspiciously like the "photos" of the "real planets" of our own solar system
I stopped believing NASA lies when I visited their Space Center in Houston years ago and attended a Space Talk there when one person asked why the American Flag on the moon seemed to be blowing and a NASA employee said that famous image actually shows the "wrinkles" in the flag because the flag had to be tightly folded to take with them. Then a few years later I heard a different explanation from a different NASA employee somewhere else. That was it for me.
-
Don't tell me you believe in Theistic evolution! (Basically that evolution is true, but that God created the Big Bang, and later stepped in...)
I watched several debates between Evolutionists and Creationists and during one debate, there was one prominent Catholic Scientist (a NO Catholic apparently) named Kenneth R. Miller who subscribed to Theistic Evolution and wrote a book on it called "Finding Darwin's God" which I purchased and carefully read.
During his debate among several creationists, Michael Behe in particular, it was obvious to me that Miller won the debate and Miller's arguments in his book appeared much more convincing than those found in Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box."
Next, I was concerned whether or not believing in Theistic Evolution would put me at odds with Catholicism. Then I saw Bishop Sheen saying on his program that he believed in evolution (he wrote about it as well and I also read the Church's neutral stand point on it using pre V2 sources) and then I figured it was okay for a simple Catholic layman to do so.
So, yes, I am a believer in Theistic Evolution especially since it is not prohibited by the Church.
-
So, yes, I am a believer in Theistic Evolution especially since it is not prohibited by the Church.
Sometimes I wish I wasn't right about everything all the time.
All I can say to you is, that "Theistic Evolution" was a fad of the 1950's that was understandable at the time. You have to understand that Evolution hit the scene like a ton of bricks, and scientists promoting it were gutsy and bold (as they are today) only people back then were more decent and humble as a whole. So they had respect for the scientists and deferred to their learning. People were more naive and trusting back then.
So when faced with the "apparent evidence" for Evolution, all Christians (including Catholics) could do was say, "Well, if things did evolve over millions of years, all I can tell you is that God must have sparked the Big Bang, and He also intervened to create Man, since the doctrine of Original Sin says that we all came from one first couple."
But talk to the Protestants at Answers in Genesis (Youtube channel) -- they will tell you the problems with Theistic Evolution. For one, DEATH IS DUE TO SIN. But in Evolution, you had eons of death, cancer, dog-eat-dog, law of the jungle BEFORE Man was even created. Death was a fact of life LONG before the first Man was created, nevermind when he ate the apple. So that goes directly against Scripture and Catholic teaching.
Plus Genesis teaches that God made everything in 6 days. There are various "theories" how to do mental somersaults and resolve the obvious conflict -- but they don't work. The Hebrew word used (yom), with the surrounding context/sentence, can ONLY MEAN A 24-HOUR DAY. The protties behind Answers in Genesis are 100% correct on this particular point.
Today there is no excuse for Theistic Evolution. Evolution is garbage. They haven't found ANY transitional fossils, there is NO evidence that it's even possible, much less that it happened. We now know about DNA and the inside of the cell -- no way that could have developed over millions of years by blind chance. And that is what evolution teaches, that blind chance + time can achieve anything. Saying God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang isn't enough. It simply isn't possible. New features or information -- designs -- never get created by chance and blind luck.
It would be like finding a fully functional CAR in the middle of the woods, and thinking that a man or men weren't involved in its creation. Or having a factory explosion that accidentally assembled a fully functional 747 jumbo jet.
Evolution is absolute madness.
-
Today there is no excuse for Theistic Evolution. Evolution is garbage. They haven't found ANY transitional fossils, there is NO evidence that it's even possible, much less that it happened. We now know about DNA and the inside of the cell -- no way that could have developed over millions of years by blind chance. And that is what evolution teaches, that blind chance + time can achieve anything. Saying God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang isn't enough. It simply isn't possible. New features or information -- designs -- never get created by chance and blind luck.
Exactly. The pope only allowed an exploration of theistic evolution IN CASE science had proved certain facts on evolution in general. The pope didn't want the Church to look anti-scientific.
But we're still waiting for modern science (i.e. anti-catholic masons) to prove evolution. It hasn't (and won't) happen.
The good news which has come out of the pope's allowance, is that good-will, God-fearing catholic and protestant scientists have studied the matter of evolution and the facts concerning Biblical Creation are stronger than ever before. The Truth has won out, again.
The bad news is that "headline browsing" lukewarm catholics have come to believe that evolution in general is "allowed by the Church". But these types of people were going to be swayed by the atheist scientists anyways, regardless of if the Church spoke on the matter or not. Because their Faith is weak and they don't put in the effort to learn or study.
So, in the end, the pope's choice was a good one, in the face of an attack on the Church by atheistic science. Those who lost their faith due to "theistic evolution" were destined to lose it by the various other modernist heresies anyways. Their collateral damage was unavoidable.
-
I watched several debates between Evolutionists and Creationists and during one debate, there was one prominent Catholic Scientist (a NO Catholic apparently) named Kenneth R. Miller who subscribed to Theistic Evolution and wrote a book on it called "Finding Darwin's God" which I purchased and carefully read.
During his debate among several creationists, Michael Behe in particular, it was obvious to me that Miller won the debate and Miller's arguments in his book appeared much more convincing than those found in Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box."
Next, I was concerned whether or not believing in Theistic Evolution would put me at odds with Catholicism. Then I saw Bishop Sheen saying on his program that he believed in evolution (he wrote about it as well and I also read the Church's neutral stand point on it using pre V2 sources) and then I figured it was okay for a simple Catholic layman to do so.
So, yes, I am a believer in Theistic Evolution especially since it is not prohibited by the Church.
Before we even begin to lay out the origin of the evolution heresy, there is a thing call human intelligence given to us by God.
Evolution states that cells came to life and evolved into living creatures. Now, how in God's name did a cell evolve and grow all it parts when a living creature needs all its parts to survive in the first place? Not one such evolving fossil has ever been found, only billions of complete creatures.
Evolution has been condemned by the early Church. Around 260AD Pope Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a tract against the Epicureans mainly to criticize their theory of natural evolution, that all things evolved atoms without divine Providence. Pope Dionysus (259-268AD) wrote a booklet directed against the theory that atoms clash and combine by chance ‘and thus gradually form this world and all objects in it.
Now remember in 1835 churchmen submitted the Bible to the heresy of heliocentrism. 24 years later, In 1859, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) finally had his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published, his theory of evolution, whereby living flora and fauna, including humans, evolved naturally over ages from inorganic matter, that is from single cells to elephants. Churchmen, compromised by their belief that the Church got its faith and science all wrong in 1616, and again in fear of another such ‘mistake’ if they officially condemned any other ‘scientific’ theory or book, made no such ruling against Darwin’s evolution theory as regards animals or the body of humans, only that the eternal souls of mankind are created directly by God. Consequently, Darwin’s book on evolution never ended up on the Index. Pope Pius IX, in a letter of commendation for a book dismissing Darwinism, wrote that evolution was so unscientific that it would ‘need no refutation,’ hoping common sense would see it off as the absurd nonsense that it is. Cardinal Henry Newman (1801-1890) however, asserted that his Catholicism had no problem with heliocentrism, evolution, hominoids, aliens or anything else.
Now because churchmen were conned into accepting so many old heresies, the absurdity of Evolution could be solved by getting God to create things that could creating themselves, as Teilhard de Chardin wrote for the Modernists. This makes an absurdity of God's Creation as held by the post 18th century Church.
What is the first most important Catholic doctrine to be eliminated by Satan’s deceit, ‘Who made the world?’ By supporting atheists with their theistic evolution, churchmen from 1859 actually assisted atheism in their belief that all evolved and is still evolving.
The supernatural answer, ‘God made the world,’ an act of faith both dogmatised by Councils and inserted in prayer:
‘God…Creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ (Lateran Council IV, 1215).
‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) (Vatican Council I, 1870)
Day 7: So the heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.--- The Book of Genesis.
Sure its no wonder the Lord asked if there would be faith on Earth when He returns to judge all.
-
Saying God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang isn't enough. It simply isn't possible. New features or information -- designs -- never get created by chance and blind luck.
The Big Bang fraud is such nonsense it deserves to be exposed. That I will do on another post
-
Evolution is utterly absurd and is based on nothing other than a similarity between different species.
Therefore they conclude that one must have derived from the other because, well, why? ... because even they ironically (though implicitly) admit that the odds of these species developing at all is so infinitesimally small that they can't even convince themselves that more than one could have evolved independently from another. Therefore, one must have come from the other. That's the underlying assumption which ironically undercuts theri own rationale for the entire thing in the first place.
Well, the similarity in design could just mean, duh, that they had the same Designer. But that's their other premise ... there is no God, and no Designer.
So if you combine the two unproven (and unprovable) assumptions that there is no Designer and the chances are basically zero ... that's why they are able to confused peole's brains into accepting it (without of course explicitly articulating these premises).
It's like this. If I walk around on a beach and find a wristwatch. I'd pick it up and realize. Well, this was designed. It was made to tell time, etc. It did not just evolve here over millions of years. Odds are basically zero. But they tried to hide this from people when duping them regarding evolution.
Now I walk around and I find another wrist watch. This one is very similar (though not exatly the same). But it's also clearly made to tell time. Inead of saying that, yeah, this watch too was designed (by someone), they say, well, this watch must have evolved from that first one we found because ... what are the odds that two fo them would have evolved independently in such close proximity. Well, the odds are the same as if even one of them could have evolved independently. Zero. But they confused you with their nonsense.
Relatively recently, geneticists have found that with genetic mutations and random changes, information is always LOST, not gained. So it's not possible that a mutation would bring about some new feature, but only the corruption of an existing feature. That was the death knell for evolution, and in fact many geneticists (even non-believers) have rejected at least Darwinian evolution.
-
Cassini, you wrote:
Pope Pius IX, in a letter of commendation for a book dismissing Darwinism, wrote that evolution was so unscientific that it would ‘need no refutation,’ hoping common sense would see it off as the absurd nonsense that it is. Cardinal Henry Newman (1801-1890) however, asserted that his Catholicism had no problem with heliocentrism, evolution, hominoids, aliens or anything else.
Now because churchmen were conned into accepting so many old heresies, the absurdity of Evolution could be solved by getting God to create things that could creating themselves, as Teilhard de Chardin wrote for the Modernists. This makes an absurdity of God's Creation as held by the post 18th century Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If even Cardinal Henry Newman had no problem with heliocentrism and churchmen were conned into accepting old heresies like evolution and heliocentrism that absolutely depend on the earth being a globe, with all the proof the earth is not a globe discussed in these forums, why isn't it that they also abandoned the flat earth, the model that immediately negates even the possibility for evolution and heliocentrism?
-
Cassini, you wrote:
Pope Pius IX, in a letter of commendation for a book dismissing Darwinism, wrote that evolution was so unscientific that it would ‘need no refutation,’ hoping common sense would see it off as the absurd nonsense that it is. Cardinal Henry Newman (1801-1890) however, asserted that his Catholicism had no problem with heliocentrism, evolution, hominoids, aliens or anything else.
Now because churchmen were conned into accepting so many old heresies, the absurdity of Evolution could be solved by getting God to create things that could creating themselves, as Teilhard de Chardin wrote for the Modernists. This makes an absurdity of God's Creation as held by the post 18th century Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If even Cardinal Henry Newman had no problem with heliocentrism and churchmen were conned into accepting old heresies like evolution and heliocentrism that absolutely depend on the earth being a globe, with all the proof the earth is not a globe discussed in these forums, why isn't it that they also abandoned the flat earth, the model that immediately negates even the possibility for evolution and heliocentrism?
Yeah, Newman was an unmitigated disaster. Not only about this matter, but he was in fact a if not THE proto-Modernist with his notions regarding the development of doctrine. While such COULD be understood in an orthodox sense (though the term should be avoided due to the fact that it's almost always understood in a heretical way), Newman clearly meant it in the heretical way. Cardinal Manning (rightly) considered Newman to be a heretic, and several bishops from Great Britain denounced him to Rome as such.
Now, this is in fact one of the areas that proves that even a great St. like Pius X isn't infallible, since the latter defended Newman ... though undoubtedly based on a small sample size of his work that was presented to him selectively by someone favorable to Newman's position.
Newman basically told the Old Catholics who opposed VI that they should go underground until such as time as the dogma had "developed" long enough for them to come back out of the woodwork and re-interpret it (away).
-
Yeah, Newman was an unmitigated disaster. Not only about this matter, but he was in fact a if not THE proto-Modernist with his notions regarding the development of doctrine. While such COULD be understood in an orthodox sense (though the term should be avoided due to the fact that it's almost always understood in a heretical way), Newman clearly meant it in the heretical way. Cardinal Manning (rightly) considered Newman to be a heretic, and several bishops from Great Britain denounced him to Rome as such.
Now, this is in fact one of the areas that proves that even a great St. like Pius X isn't infallible, since the latter defended Newman ... though undoubtedly based on a small sample size of his work that was presented to him selectively by someone favorable to Newman's position.
Newman basically told the Old Catholics who opposed VI that they should go underground until such as time as the dogma had "developed" long enough for them to come back out of the woodwork and re-interpret it (away).
Absolutely right again Ladislaus.
John Henry Newman (1801-1890), often referred to as ‘a pioneer and prophet of Vatican Council II,’ a title few could disagree with.
-
Is the fall what is behind haploid drones and the murder of diploid drones? Is the fall what is behind matriarchal animals?
This is unrelated to the petition I posted. By the way.