I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(06-19-2019, 06:16 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-19-2019, 04:34 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: A new religion? There is no god but geocentrism and Sugenis is its prophet.

Four more pillars needed ...

1) the earth is indisputably flat. 
2) pilgrimage to the Republic of Vanuatu
3) compulsory giving to the flat earth society 
4) mandatory use of RANDOM large TEXT and colored font to out shout NON BELIEving heretics ONLINE.

Anyone who violates the above will be forcibly turned into the Queen of Hearts.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
[-] The following 2 users Like Jeeter's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
(06-19-2019, 06:29 PM)Jeeter Wrote:
(06-19-2019, 06:16 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-19-2019, 04:34 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: A new religion? There is no god but geocentrism and Sugenis is its prophet.

Four more pillars needed ...

1) the earth is indisputably flat. 
2) pilgrimage to the Republic of Vanuatu
3) compulsory giving to the flat earth society 
4) mandatory use of RANDOM large TEXT and colored font to out shout NON BELIEving heretics ONLINE.

Anyone who violates the above will be forcibly turned into the Queen of Hearts.

There. Fixed it for you.
Reply
(06-18-2019, 06:16 AM)cassini Wrote:
During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Richard Delano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, interpretation of the data shows the Earth sits at the centre of the universe.
...
Such were the accolades from the scientific community for the CMR/CMB and its Nobel prizes that Robert Sungenis and Rick Delano felt confident in the discoveries involved. Accordingly they decided to make a movie and a CD out of it they called The Principle

If they really believed "the data shows" that, they could have submitted their findings to a peer reviewed journal. 

You might think no scientific journal would publish it, but in fact journals do regularly publish alternative interpretations. Petit successfully published several papers on a variable-speed-of-light alternative to inflation theories that appeared to be consistent with existing data.

So, if their work could really stand up to scholarly review, it would likely be featured in a top level publication like Nature or Science.

Instead, they make a film, and they had to mislead several of the people to get the interviews for the film. Is that what a scholar would do? Or is that more consistent with what a huckster would do?
[-] The following 2 users Like Stanis's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
(06-19-2019, 10:06 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(06-18-2019, 06:16 AM)cassini Wrote:
During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Richard Delano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, interpretation of the data shows the Earth sits at the centre of the universe.
...
Such were the accolades from the scientific community for the CMR/CMB and its Nobel prizes that Robert Sungenis and Rick Delano felt confident in the discoveries involved. Accordingly they decided to make a movie and a CD out of it they called The Principle

If they really believed "the data shows" that, they could have submitted their findings to a peer reviewed journal. 

You might think no scientific journal would publish it, but in fact journals do regularly publish alternative interpretations. Petit successfully published several papers on a variable-speed-of-light alternative to inflation theories that appeared to be consistent with existing data.

So, if their work could really stand up to scholarly review, it would likely be featured in a top level publication like Nature or Science.

Instead, they make a film, and they had to mislead several of the people to get the interviews for the film. Is that what a scholar would do? Or is that more consistent with what a huckster would do?

IS THAT A FACT NOW. LET US THEN SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FOLLOWING STORY.

Let us bring ourselves up to date on this subject of uniformitarianism (long-ages) based on the research by the French geologist-sedimentologist Guy Berthault. Long-ages on Earth are based on the theory that sediments are separate deposits built upon one another at intervils of millions of years. Experiments conducted by this man at the University of Colorado between 1985 and 1990 have shattered all conceived ideas that sediments were laid down one layer on top of another throughout the ages.[1] In fact he found sediments are laid down in a sideways motion, thus in fact the bottom strata of deposits, always considered the oldest according to Lyell, can well be younger than the top strata further back along the path of any deposit. This evidence, after confirmed and valid tests, means animal fossils in one stratum at or near the surface can well be buried longer than fossils in the lower strata, thus shattering the whole ‘fossil-column’ assertions of the evolutionists. This means fossils found at the bottom of a ravine may well be younger than a fossil found further up the cliff-face. And not only does this falsify Lyell’s ‘scientific’ postulation that the ages of fossils can be classified according to their depth in the rock, but it shows that the radioactive dating used to confirm this false theory is itself manipulated to suit the evolutionists. Other discoveries, such as radioactive halos left behind by decaying radioactive elements in the ‘Precambrian granites’ and coal, showing fossil fuels like coal and oil, as well as granite formed very quickly and not over millions of years,[2] provide empirical evidence that challenge theories of long-ages.
     Guy Berthault’s work[3] we must admit, totally falsified Hutton’s and Lyell’s nineteenth century theories of the Earth’s sediments and the fossils in them that they claimed proved all were laid down and formed successively over millions of years. Berthault offered scientific evidence that showed the long-age sedimentation geology used by Darwin for his evolution is no longer feasible. The geologist’s findings were published in the French scientific review Fusion. Peter Wilders tells us how the scientific world reacted.
 
‘First was the classical and normally most effective tactic of silence. By not replying to the documentation sent to them, the Geological Society, in this case that of France, blocked all dialogue on it. The author of the experiments countered their tactics by sending a copy of the scientific journal to all the 1,200 or so active members of the society. In this way, everyone in the geological community in France was made aware of the experimental results. The society retaliated by attacking the experimenter from authority, i.e., they claimed that all the geologists for three centuries could not be wrong; therefore the experimental evidence could be safely ignored. The success of such a method depended upon the geologists being united. To a large extent they were, but a few responded independently of the society saying they were interested… Supportive geologists fearing for their credibility and, therefore livelihood, wait in the wings.’[4]
 
Wilders goes on to say that the final rejection of Berthault’s evidence came from the now Galilean Catholic hierarchy as might be expected. They placed a letter in the Geological Society’s half-yearly newsletter and, giving no heed at all to the empirical evidence supplied by Berthault, they accused the scientist of ‘pseudo-science and creationism.’ ‘By attacking his personal credibility they knew that most geologists would not take his work seriously’ wrote Wilders.              
    
Finally, there is the Mount St Helens volcano eruption in Washington State in 1980. In a matter of hours and days layer after layer of sedimentation formed before the very eyes of the scientists studying the explosion. This demonstrated that the supposed thousands, if not millions of years of uniformitarian sediment building, could in fact be created in hours or days. In other words a catastrophic six-month long flooding, revealed in Genesis, together with Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that bent some sediments, which then receded, could well have formed in those six months most of the sedimentary and igneous deposits as well as the great canyons and other land formations found on Earth today.

[1] Geological Society of France’s Journal, October 1993.
[2] R. V. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Sciences Association, Tennessee, 1986.
[3] Guy Berthault: Principles of geologic dating in question, Fusion, May-June, 2000 pp.32-39.
[4] P. Wilders: David and Goliath, Christian Order, May 2001, p.335.

Note it was the Catholic hierarchy, not the Protestant hierarchy who DISMISSED Berthault's findings. Here once again when it comes to the origins of Genesis it was the Protestants who kept to the literal while Rome went with the long-age evolutionists.
Reply
(06-19-2019, 03:30 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-19-2019, 06:20 AM)cassini Wrote: On February 24, 1616, the findings of Catholic teaching were as follows ...

The question is, by whom. It was not a "finding" or "decree" by the Pope or any magisterial body. It was a report given to the Pope by theologians.

Plenty of reports from even high-ranking theologians given to the Pope are not "Catholic teaching". Those reports do not establish the Faith. The Magisterium does.

Guess what? It has, and it does not agree with that report.

I would note in passing as well, no one asserts that the Sun is the center of the universe.

When I read nonsense like the above it is very difficult to walk away keeping in mind Matthew 7:6 where Christ tells his Apostles not to cast your pearls before swine.

How can someone, on a supposedly traditional Catholic forum deny the history of the Catholic Church?

In 1867, the French scholar Henri de L’Epinois gained access to many of the documents of the secret Church archives and published several of the most important ones in his Revue des Questions Historiques and again in his Les Piéces du Procés de Galilée. It was however, not until Pope Leo XIII finally opened the secret (private) Vatican’s archives and those of the Holy Office that the most comprehensive transcriptions of the affair were made. The first of these was by Antonio Favaro in his Works of Galileo Galilei (national edition 1890-1909 and 1929-1939). Further books edited by Domenico Berti (1876), the Protestant Karl von Gebler (1879), and others, all amounted to a vast compilation of facts pertaining to Galileo’s clash with the Church. Since then other documents pertaining to the Galileo case were unearthed, including records of the arguments made by the Holy Office when dropping the ban on heliocentric books from 1741 to 1835, details crucial to any accurate synthesis. The actual events of the Galileo case then, as distinct from their interpretation by many authors, and from the legends and myths, are now available to all'

These records show us Pope Paul V decreed a fixed sun biblical interpretation as formal heresy. They show in 1633 why the Church under Pope Urban VIII put Galileo on trial for that same heresy decreed by Pope Paul V. Word for word the record shows us the 1616 decree was absolute, binding and not reformable. They record the abjuration Galileo was made say and how he was found guilty of 'suspicion of heresy' that is the heresy defined as heresy in 1616. They also tell us the arguments used to allow the publication of Settele's book in 1820 and that the 1616 decree was held as absolute and non-reformable.

‘Someone once estimated,’ wrote the philosopher Ernan McMullin, ‘that more than two thousand books and long articles had been written about Galileo before 1900. Since then, that number has perhaps doubled.’ Millions of websites repeat this history.

But here on fisheaters forum a guy calling himself MagisterMusicae calls into doubt the facts of Church history and he has a bunch of followers who blindly support his nonsense.
You couldn't make it up, could you?


Reply
Quote:How can someone, on a supposedly traditional Catholic forum deny the history of the Catholic Church?

Quote:Note it was the Catholic hierarchy, not the Protestant hierarchy who DISMISSED Berthault's findings. Here once again when it comes to the origins of Genesis it was the Protestants who kept to the literal while Rome went with the long-age evolutionists.


First, by my reckoning, that leaves 45 more random splices from obscure books before I can even begin to seriously consider your case. C'mon, Cassini, you're better than this.

Second, you ask us how can anyone on a traditional Catholic forum deny Church history? I ask how a "traditional Catholic" can accuse the Church of heresy while suggesting that faithless Protestants preserved the Truth on a traditional Catholic forum? Seems to be a bit of a contradiction there, no?
Reply
Quote:4) mandatory use of RANDOM large TEXT and colored font to out shout NON BELIEving heretics ONLINE.

Alright, can we seriously talk about this one? Why do people do this so much? Is there some kind of "How to Argue so People Think Your Insane" for Dummies book out there?
Reply
(06-19-2019, 06:29 PM)Jeeter Wrote: 1) the earth is indisputably flat. 
2) pilgrimage to the Republic of Vanuatu
3) compulsory giving to the flat earth society 
4) mandatory use of RANDOM large TEXT and colored font to out shout NON BELIEving heretics ONLINE.

Anyone who violates the above will be forcibly turned into the Queen of Hearts.

I'm sensing a....perhaps obsession is too strong a word....but...?
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melkite's post:
  • Jeeter
Reply
(06-20-2019, 09:45 AM)Melkite Wrote: I'm sensing a....perhaps obsession is too strong a word....but...?

Good point, LOL.  That's the kind of drivel I post after I've had a 2d bourbon, which is pretty rare. :D
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply
(06-20-2019, 05:59 AM)cassini Wrote:
     Guy Berthault’s work[3] we must admit, totally falsified Hutton’s and Lyell’s nineteenth century theories of the Earth’s sediments and the fossils in them that they claimed proved all were laid down and formed successively over millions of years. Berthault offered scientific evidence that showed the long-age sedimentation geology used by Darwin for his evolution is no longer feasible. The geologist’s findings were published in the French scientific review Fusion.

According to you, he got his work published. So your example supports that if geocentrist CMB ideas had any validity, they could get published too.

As for the claim Berthault "falsified" 19th century "uniformitarianism" - wouldn't you expect that science might have developed a little in a century? Long before Berthault, geologists were using an approach that included short-term events including floods, earthquakes, volcanoes and meteor strikes.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)