I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(07-01-2019, 04:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: By the way, cassini's plagiarism above (since he did not quote his source, but decided to modify the text as if it were his own) was from Chapter 3 of A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom  by Andrew Dickson White.

(I guess it's the dozen or so years of teaching that makes me suspicious when I find text that seems to be from somewhere but not attributed, and given the tools teachers have these days, it's easy to search for key phrases)

White is the co-founder of Cornell University. Raised an Episcopalian, he was a Freemason and when the Episcopalian preferences at Cornell caused the New York State governor who was meant to inaugurate the building of some new science buildings in 1869, White invited his fellow masons to perform the ceremony. In his autobiography he writes :

Quote:To honor to this occasion, it was decided to invite leading men from all parts of the State, and, above all, to request the governor, Mr. Fenton, to lay the corner-stone. But it was soon evident that his excellency's old fear of offending the sectarian schools still controlled him. He made excuse, and we then called on the Freemasons to take charge of the ceremony. They came in full regalia, bringing their own orators; and, on the appointed day, a great body of spectators was grouped about the foundations of the new building on the beautiful knoll in front of the upper quadrangle.

The book from which cassini has borrowed is White's attempt to promote the idea that science and religion must stay in separate spheres to avoid conflict, and science is essentially the superior. Of course, that's not the Catholic understanding of the truth, but neither is nominalist and later Fundamentalist Protestant view (Luther's view that our human reason is not trustworthy and God tricks us in order to humiliate us), or the polar extreme of White's, which says that science is not trustworthy and we just have to "believe".

The Truth, which the Catholic Church asserts is the higher point in the middle of the extremes. Infallibly defined by the First Vatican Council in Dei Filius is this notion that Faith and Reason can never truly conflict :

Quote:But, although faith is above reason, nevertheless, between faith and reason no true dissension can ever exist, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, has bestowed on the human soul the light of reason; moreover, God cannot deny Himself, nor ever contradict truth with truth. But, a vain appearance of such a contradiction arises chiefly from this, that either the dogmas of faith have not been understood and interpreted according to the mind of the Church, or deceitful opinions are considered as the determinations of reason.

If scientific study shows one thing, we cannot assert that Scripture says the contrary.

Geocentrists understand this in principle, and this is why they spend lots of words trying to show how the science is wrong and instead proves Geocentrism, but as David Palm and others have shown time and time again, every try is an utter failure in basic high-school level mathematics and science.

As Palm summarizes it :

Quote:The neo-geocentric explanation to those phenomena consists of after-the-fact, ad hoc special pleading and invocation of media and forces for which they do not have a shred of observational evidence.  Their only other recourse is to General Relativity, a theory they vociferously reject as hopelessly wrong, the product of moral degeneracy and possibly even syphilis-induced insanity (while still appealing to it themselves whenever they’re called to establish their case on its own grounds.)  Therefore neo-geocentrism is neither philosophically nor scientifically robust – it’s correctly labelled junk science.

So the fall-back is just what Adventist "scientist" George McCready Price did with "Flood Geology". He could not make an argument against Darwinian Evolution (of which there are many good scientific arguments), so he decided to short cut this by asserting as dogmatic the literal reading of a 24-hour day in Genesis 1, based on the "revelations" of the Adventist "prophetess" Ellen White (not Scripture). If the Flood produced what looked like a very old world then evolution would never have enough time, so he ipse dixit re-wrote his geology to suggest a young earth, and that we could never know what the world was really like before the Flood, thus evolution could not be true.

(Side note to avoid being accused of being pro-evolution : I think Darwinian evolution (beyond the level of genus) is certainly false, but not because of revelation, rather because good science and philosophy show it's a problem.)

The neo-Geocentrists like cassini, don't want to have to make the scientific arguments, because they don't work. So they oppose science to their dogma, and thus reject it. The consequence is that whenever even Magisterial or Scriptural proofs are asserted against their dogma, they must maintain it, like Fundamentalist Protestants do.

I have tried to get out of this debate but each time I find readers are being subjected to propaganda and the ad hominem ploy rather than try to address the CONTENTS the quotes I put up. I simply cannot leave other Fisheaters following this thread in Ignorance.

When I place apostrophes before and after a paragraph it means I am quoting another's research. That is how one finds history. One does not make it up like the Galileans, one records it as it was. Nowhere is any Catholic publication since 1835 will a Catholic find this traditional doctrine of geocentrism. The reason of course is because the Catholic Church is every bit as good at hiding the truth as the Masons who invaded it during the twentieth century. 
Now note Mr Magister had nothing to say about the doctrine itself or its development by Dionysius the Areopagite (ist century AD), St Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), Peter Lombard (12th century), St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) to which we can add Cardinal Robert Bellarmine in his De Ascensione Mentis in Deum, the Minds Assent to God (by the Ladder of Created things.)  

In his book Andrew White has references for every one of these above and the sourse of their geocentrism. If you want I will find the book and give them to you. But you write as though White INVENTED this doctrine.  

The irony of it all is that White, the anti-Christ, held THE VERY SAME ANTI CATHOLIC GEOCENTRIC POSITION AS MAGISTER AND HIS FRIENDS DO. White went on to give the history of the Galilean reformation suppoeted on this Forum.  

‘Within two centuries…the world was led into a new realm of thought in which an evolution theory of the visible universe was sure to be rapidly developed. For there came, one after the other, five of the greatest men our race has produced, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, and when their work was done the old theological conception of the universe was gone.… the Almighty enthroned upon “the circle of the heavens,” and with his own hands, or with angels as his agents, keeping sun, moon, and planets in motion for the benefit of the Earth, opening and closing the “windows of heaven,”… all this had disappeared. These five men had given a new divine revelation to the world; and through the last, Newton, had come a vast new conception, destined to be fatal to the old theory of creation, for he had shown throughout the universe, in place of almighty caprice, all-pervading law… The bitter opposition of theology to the first four of these men is well known; but the fact is not so widely known that Newton, in spite of his deeply religious spirit, was also strongly opposed. It was vigorously urged against him that by his statement of the law of gravitation he “took from God that direct action on his works so constantly ascribed to him in Scripture and transferred it to material mechanism,” and that he “substituted gravitation for Providence.” But more than this, these men gave a new basis for the theory of evolution as distinguished from the theory of creation…. By the middle of the nineteenth century the whole theological theory of creation – though still preached everywhere as a matter of form – was clearly seen by all thinking men to be hopelessly lost.’[1]

[1] Andrew White: A History…, p.15.

Once churchmen discarded the Fathers’ geocentric interpretation and tradition, the adopted inductive exegesis virus began to eat into every area of Catholic faith, especially scholastic theology, philosophy and metaphysics. Moreover, once the Scriptures could no longer be read as the Fathers read them, with their interpretations and meanings now subjected to the dictates of ever-changing godless ‘science,’ this heresy, as it did with the Book of Job, rendered much biblical revelation redundant, leading the flock into all kinds of Modernism.


Faith and reason any Catholic should know cannot contradict each other, but false-science and Faith can and do as the Galileo case demonstrates. So, let us now see why the Catholic Church chose to give an imprimatur to heliocentrism and ABANDON THE DOCTRINE OF GEOCENTRISM.

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were discovered.…Cardinal Poupard says the 1633 sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the Earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Pope John Paul II Commission report: L’Osservatore Romano, November 4th, 1992.

‘In 1820, Canon Settele lodged an appeal [to obtain an imprimatur for his heliocentric book] with Pope Pius VII (1800-1823)… In 1822 a favourable decision was given [by way of two decrees forbidding the censorship of ‘modern’ heliocentric books]. This papal decision was to receive its practical application in 1835 [under Pope Gregory XVI] with the publication of a new and updated index [emptied of all banned heliocentric books].’ --- Galileo Commission, 1981-1992.

NOW OBSERVE ABOVE FOR IT RECORDS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM 1741 WAS BASED ON 'the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth' 

There were no optical proofs. In other words, Churchmen abandoned the doctrine, the 1616 and 1633 decrees, on an illusion and nothing else. And I will take on any so-called 'proof for heliocentrism' anyone likes to throw up.

Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by cassini - 07-02-2019, 12:41 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)