I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
[quote pid='1398976' dateline='1560369621']
Now, I'm not saying he might not get something right along the way (a broken clock is right twice a day), but if he cannot do even basic physics and math, then the rest of what he does say cannot be relied upon without careful sifting, yet you just throw out the blanket statement, "Sungenis has proven it, and he can't be refuted."

He can. He has.
[/quote]

Not to dogpile on Sungenis, but doesn't he have a degree from some diploma mill in the Polynesian Islands?

The man just seems discredited beyond belief. It astounds me how much press he gets within Catholic circles.
Reply
(06-12-2019, 06:19 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
(06-12-2019, 04:00 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Now, I'm not saying he might not get something right along the way (a broken clock is right twice a day), but if he cannot do even basic physics and math, then the rest of what he does say cannot be relied upon without careful sifting, yet you just throw out the blanket statement, "Sungenis has proven it, and he can't be refuted."

He can. He has.

Not to dogpile on Sungenis, but doesn't he have a degree from some diploma mill in the Polynesian Islands?

The man just seems discredited beyond belief. It astounds me how much press he gets within Catholic circles.

He has a PhD from Calamus Internation University (a campus-less) online university which was based in Vanuatu has since closed down, it seems.

They offer PhD study in such wonderful fields as (to quote from a 2017 archive of the site) : Buddhist Studies, Business Management, Change Agent Studies, Counselling (Counseling) Psychology, Contemporary Spirituality, Complementary Health/Wellness Studies, C Energy Therapies, Esoteric Studies,  Hypnotherapy, Holistic Studies, Homeopathy, Hospitality Management, Independent /Interdisciplinary Studies,  Indian Philosophy, Law, Life Coaching, Metaphysics,  New Age Studies, Parapsychology, Personal Development,  Regression & Reincarnation Studies, Religious Studies, Shamanistic Studies, Social Studies, South African History, Stress Management, Thanatology, Tourism, Transpersonal Psychology.

With that list of topics (e.g. Reincarnation, New Age and Shamanistic Studies), I wonder how a Catholic could ever stomach associating himself with such a place.

Said doctorate would have cost him £995 or about $1,250. That was about the cost for a single credit of my university degree back in the day.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
(06-12-2019, 03:31 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-12-2019, 08:19 AM)cassini Wrote:
(06-11-2019, 04:08 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-11-2019, 06:58 AM)cassini Wrote: Magister states:

Speculatores does not mention Copernicanism anywhere in its text

Cassini answered: 

[Wall of text that does not address the original statement, and just parrots someone else's text.]

Same pattern again. Failure to actually address what you've been asked to but plenty of distractions to try to make yourself look scholarly (none of which is your own thinking, but is just taken from someone else).

All I want is primary source proof that the 1616 Decree you claimed was infallible even qualifies as a Papal decree by showing it was approved in forma specifica. One small request, that now approaching 15 requests, you've never been able to provide. But lots of quotes from this mysterious Fr Roberts, you've provided.

To paraphrase Jeeter "round and round we go".

What you are looking for Magister, does not exist within the Catholic Church. 'Proofs' of infallibility are not shouted out the window of some building in St Peter's Square. That has never happened. If so maybe you can give readers of Fisheaters an example of what you are looking for in the 1616 decree. Proof for infallibility comes in different ways and these exist in the history of the 1616 decree.

What we are dealing with here is RECORDED HISTORY. If I quote recorded history you infer I made it up or its not relevant. Galileo's trial of 1633 records Pope Urban VIII treated the 1616 as absolute. In 1664 Pope Alexander VII inserted the decree in a bull, another case demonstrating the infallibility of the 1616 decree. A Fr Roberts put this 'proof' forward in his book, a proof you totally ignore as though the bull does not include what he said was in it. Then Fr Olivieri, head man in the Holy Office, adviser to the Pope, in 1820 is recorded in his own documents admitting the 1616 decree defining formal heresy was safe and irreformable.
The final proof of an infallible irtreformable papal decree is if it has divine protection. That is evident in that no matter what happened in the 400 years of the Galileo case no pope EVER CHALLENGED THAT DECREE.

Again, perhaps you and your fans will demonstrate the kind of 'proof' of infallibility you are all looking for by giving us a few examples of such proofs for other papal decrees or dogmas.

Who's ignorant of recorded history?

It is quite easy to demonstrate that a decree of a Congregation is approved by the Pope in forma specifica, making it his own decree, and thus qualifying as a use of the Papal authority, and therefore possibly infallible.

An example of this is with St Pius X's decree against Modernism. He issued an encyclical, Pascendi, but this was followed up by a Decree of the Holy Office listing condemned Modernistic propositions, that document is universally attributed to Pius X and not the Holy Office, because he made it his own, and thus they are infallible condemnations (if the matter defined qualifies for infallibility).

Another example would be the decree of the Holy office from 7 Dec 1690 against the Jansenists. The condemned propositions were approved in forma specifica by the Pope, meaning they are condemnations of Alexander VIII and not merely the auditors of the Holy Office. This means they are Papally-defined, thus infallible, condemnations provided they meet the other criteria for infallibility (e.g. they do not only deal with disciplinary matters).

We have similar examples from the Popes around the time of the Gallileo affair, so it is not a modern thing. In 1647, the Holy Office declared heretical the idea of Martino de Barcos that there were actually two supreme heads of the Church, St Peter and St Paul. This condemnations was also approved in forma specifica as can be seen from the documents itself.

To be clear you have not cited primary sources, but the second- or third-hand opinion of one person (Fr Roberts). You continue to insist that this is correct and continually quote the same source, and never have recourse to the documentation yourself, and seem unwilling to do even the most basic research demanded of a beginning theologian. And yet without any training in theology, and without effort to look at original source documents apparently, and making basic historical errors (like claiming that the Congregation for the Index was part of the Holy Office in 1616, which is false), you are willing to make theological claims and you have only one secondary or tertiary source to back this up : Fr Robert's book which you just copy and paste out of a Word file, even when it does not actually respond to your opponent.

‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)

One of the most important of these ‘helps’ we can say was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up by Pope Paul III in 1542 and later, in 1588, and given more explicit powers by Pope Sixtus V. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.

On the 22nd of June 1633, Galileo was summoned to the Convent of Minerva, and there, in the presence of Cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office, the sentence dictated by Pope Urban VIII included the followeing words:

"Since in no manner can an opinion be probable [NOT IRREVERSABLE (INFALLIBILITY)]that has already been declared AND DEFINED to be contrary to the ddivine Scriptures."

This Magister has to be my last word on the irreversibility of the 1616 decree. Here Rome acknowledges heliocentrism has ALREADY BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED AS CONTRARY TO DIVINE SCRIPTURE. This is the judgement of the Church.

Now go and contradict the Church as you like Magister and your pals. What you try to do is nothing new, it has been going on within Catholicism ever sice they fell for the lie that the subject matter was proven false.
Reply
(06-12-2019, 04:00 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-12-2019, 08:58 AM)cassini Wrote: The evidence shows the Earth is at the centre of the universe.
What has all that stuff you quote got to do with the CMB?

No one said anything about the CMB. It is typical of your argumentation style, however, to bring such red herrings up when your argument hits a wall. Typical Protestant-style argumentation.

You wrote in post #87 that Bob had proven that "science" shows the Earth is at the center of the universe, and that his science could not be disproven.

I show you one example where a physicist demonstrates how Bob cannot to basic math, and gets a calculation off by a factor of 1,000,000, and gets a simple physics equation horribly incorrect, so incorrect that it does not even produce the correct units. In order to do that I show you an article that was done by an expert physicist.

Dimensional analysis is a critical step in physics, which will show if the equation used even resolves to the correct units. If I want Newtons, I'd better have Mass in kilograms and some measure of distance in meters on the top of a fraction and the square of time in seconds on the bottom. If I end up with that messed up, whatever number I get is not in Newtons. Sungenis fails to do this in the problem cited, which is why he makes at least one of his errors.

Many other examples could be cited where he gets the physics and math badly wrong. His science is easily shown wrong, repeatedly, but that's because he has zero background in physics. He took a non-calculus physics course in the first year of university, and that is the extent of his exposure to physics. Thank goodness, or I'd suggest he be demanding his money back!

Now, I'm not saying he might not get something right along the way (a broken clock is right twice a day), but if he cannot do even basic physics and math, then the rest of what he does say cannot be relied upon without careful sifting, yet you just throw out the blanket statement, "Sungenis has proven it, and he can't be refuted."

He can. He has.

And such things undermine your credibility, as well, because you continue to rely on these bad arguments, and when the holes are pointed out, you just double down and lecture the more, rather than re-evaluating your position, or at least re-evaluating your arguments and coming back with a better one.

The evidence that the Earth lies at the centre of the universe can be know by way of the COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND (CMB). This Sungenis has shown.

In answer to this you put up a load of codswallop from a professor and Sungenis based on a THEORY of Isaac Newton used to 'prove' the credibility or not of a solar-system. Now anything based on a theory is WORTHLESS as true science and two can argue until the cows come home.

But Sungenis has not been 'proven' wrong in his CMB evidence. So why not give that a go Magister.
Reply
(06-13-2019, 07:11 AM)cassini Wrote: In answer to this you put up a load of codswallop from a professor and Sungenis based on a THEORY of Isaac Newton used to 'prove' the credibility or not of a solar-system. Now anything based on a theory is WORTHLESS as true science and two can argue until the cows come home.

But Sungenis has not been 'proven' wrong in his CMB evidence. So why not give that a go Magister.

Why on Earth should I trust anything this man (Sungenis) says. The man has a diploma that costs less than my truck from a phony university. It would seem he is a charlatan and a hack. You can through his "proofs" all day long, but he has no credibility.
Reply
(10-01-2018, 01:51 PM)cassini Wrote: Excellent scholarly rebuttal of evolution 1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont.
Evolution is nonsense, simple nonsense, unworthy of such a dismissal.

That Catholics would prefer this evolution nonsense to a simple act of faith in ex nihilo creation that God gave us in Genesis is hard to fathom.

Creation was a supernatural act of God, all done in six days. On the seventh day he rested, that is the supernatural creation was complete and from then on the natural order began.

Evolution was/is Satan's way to eliminate God's part in creation and replace the ex nihilo act of God with a story of natural evolution. Research has shown this worked and billions of souls were lost because of it.
Let's see...the King of the Universe came down to Earth so Earth must be the center of the Universe, but science declares Earth is not the center of the universe, (among other things), thus diminishing man to to being descendants of apes living on the third rock from the Sun. Yes I can see how science seems always to belittle while religion benobles, (but I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, why only last year someone finally convinced me the moon only revolves round the earth once a day not twice. My argument: then how come you can see the moon in the daytime?), so what do I know? I know this: in a thousand years today's science will leave them scratching their heads and chuckling about how quaint people used to be, (but still saying our prayers).
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
Reply
(07-22-2018, 01:38 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: When evolutionist have near full control of education [through courts and political activity] and media they are than allowed to get away with lying for their religion to indoctrinate youth into their system of beliefs. When evolution cannot be criticized, and when the teacher has the intellectual advantage over the student, they are than able to deceive students into believing “proofs” of evolution. Further when schools teach obedience to their higher authority [teachers/scientist the modern high priests of liberalism] uncritical thinking, but accepting and repeating what is told them to believe, the textbooks and when teachers have an aura of high priest or Pope like infallibility. Thus they can, and do lie, and get away with it. Student should be allowed both sides of an issue and be allowed the right to not be lied to. But the evolutionist wont allow this to happen...

Great post!   :w2go:


(But don't you think your post is a bit too long? Why not split into several messages?)
Reply
(06-13-2019, 06:42 AM)cassini Wrote: Now go and contradict the Church as you like Magister and your pals. What you try to do is nothing new, it has been going on within Catholicism ever sice they fell for the lie that the subject matter was proven false.

You're the one who earlier said that the Catholic Church fell into heresy and it was the Protestant heretics who preserved the Truth.

That you cannot see the inherent contradiction of trying to declare a Papal decree infallible while at the same time suggesting that a false sect preserved a truth that the true Church abandoned, you're helpless.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, jovan66102
Reply
(06-13-2019, 07:11 AM)cassini Wrote: The evidence that the Earth lies at the centre of the universe can be know by way of the COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND (CMB). This Sungenis has shown.

In answer to this you put up a load of codswallop from a professor and Sungenis based on a THEORY of Isaac Newton used to 'prove' the credibility or not of a solar-system. Now anything based on a theory is WORTHLESS as true science and two can argue until the cows come home.

But Sungenis has not been 'proven' wrong in his CMB evidence. So why not give that a go Magister.

I deny the premise, but for now, let's assume you're right and Bob did accurately show Geocentrism could be demonstrated through CMB radition.

How did Sungenis try to show that? Did he not employ those "worthless theories" of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics ...

If you reject the theories on which the science is based, then you can't then appeal to those same theories as proof of your case.

In summary, if Sungenis proved or even attempted to prove CMB showed Geocentrism, then the theories you deride are not so worthless. If they are worthless, then so are his attempts to show this. So either way, the theories are not useless.

You keep backing yourself into these corners, cassini, and I'm just amazed that you never think that maybe that's because your assumptions are off.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, jovan66102
Reply
(06-04-2019, 04:51 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: Not true at all.  uniformitarianism is the unbiblical belief that todays processes have always happened at the same rate.   

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 
2 Peter 3 

Uniformity of nature is that all things behave the same way in the same circumstances. Besides, those assumptions used by the uniformtanist, not only is based on faith, but can by observation, be shown false.


What does 2 Peter 3 have to do with "uniformitarianism" or "uniformity of nature"?

It looks to me to be about people saying the Second Coming hasn't happened yet - about people in the very early Church who expected the Second Coming within their lifetime.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)