Galileo Was Wrong, Volume II released

  • Thread starter Thread starter trth_skr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Flat earth never was a Catholic issue. Even the ancient Greeks knew the earth was spherical. I am sure other cultures did too.

CA is not the magesterium. Let us know what they say.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Last I heard they were not in denial of the earth going around the sun either. Failure to lift a papal bull does not prove they still believe the opposite. They recognize now that not everything is completely contained in the Bible and it is no longer heresy to accept scientific discoveries.
 
Is the earth still flat? They used to believe that at one time until it was proven otherwise. Why live in the past on this issue? The eart goes around the sun. I contacted the CA office myself this afternoon and they confirmed that Sungenis is a little strange in his beliefs. So I do question why this thread continues to go on. I am awaiting an official call from one of the apologists to go into more detail.
Oy Yoy Yoy Yoy Yoy - Anyone standing on the shore could see it was curved - even primitives.

The Myth of the Flat Earth
 
Last I heard they [CA- Mark] were not in denial of the earth going around the sun either. Failure to lift a papal bull does not prove they still believe the opposite. They recognize now that not everything is completely contained in the Bible and it is no longer heresy to accept scientific discoveries.
  1. CA staff, and you, are free to believe what they may on this issue. I am trying to show that there is much more to the issue than most people know.
  2. I never implied a papal bull somehow magically changed anyone’s mind.
  3. No one ever claimed that "everything is completely contained in the Bible ".
  4. No one ever claimed it is a heresy to accept scientific discoveries.
Heliocentrism is not a scientific discovery. It is one view of the solar system / cosmos. It was around long before Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, etc.

If you want to consult with CA apologists, be my guest. Get as many views as you can. Stick with the arguments. All these strange charges you level are not making the issues any more clear. Why are you getting so emotional over this issue? Why not even give a chance to the mere possibility that the Church was right?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
{snip}

rpp: Read the book. All these misconceptions are covered in great detail.
I will not read such utterly ridiculous material. I would rather spend my extremely precious and limited time doing something much more important. Which would include just about anything else.
 
goofyjim << I contacted the CA office myself this afternoon and they confirmed that Sungenis is a little strange in his beliefs. >>

I’ve been waiting for the Lawrence Krauss vs. Sungenis debate, or perhaps better, the Stephen Barr (who is Catholic and been on CA Live) vs. Sungenis debate on geocentrism, now that would be a hoot. Sungenis normally prepares well for debates, he will probably give the physicists a run.

It was said the same of the flat earthers of the 19th century. :banghead:

“Many flat-earthers were also effective debaters. George Bernard Shaw described a public forum in which a flat-earther laid waste to the spherical opposition (Gardner 1957). Rowbotham was a tiger on the platform, and he was seldom bested. The good citizens of Leeds, England, once ran him out of town, being unable to make a more effective reply to his flat-earth arguments (Parallax 1873b). In Brockport, New York, in March 1887, two scientific gentlemen defended the sphericity of the earth against flat-earther M.C. Flanders on three consecutive nights. When the “great debate” was over, five townsmen chosen to judge the matter issued a unanimous verdict. Their report, published in the Brockport Democrat, stated clearly and emphatically their opinion that the balance of the evidence pointed to a flat-earth (Hampden 1887).”

Gardner, Martin. 1957. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. NY: Dover.
Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham), 1873b. Zetetic Astronomy: a description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane and that the earth is not a globe! Birm, England. The Zetetic. vol 2, no 2, p. 39.
Hampden, John. 1887. The Earth: Scripturally, rationally, and practically described. A geographical, philosophical, and educational review, nautical guide, and general student’s manual, #17, 1 November.

Phil P
 
I will not read such utterly ridiculous material. I would rather spend my extremely precious and limited time doing something much more important. Which would include just about anything else.
Comments like these are very similar to what I hear today from atheists, and similar to what I used to say when I was an atheist… Notice I didn’t say you are an atheist, so don’t go that route in your response; so sarcasm is probably not the best case for your position, you are better off saying nothing, or actually saying something which refutes the position. But that would be impossible since you refuse to read any of it.

-Laurence
 
Is the earth still flat? They used to believe that at one time until it was proven otherwise. Why live in the past on this issue? The eart goes around the sun. I contacted the CA office myself this afternoon and they confirmed that Sungenis is a little strange in his beliefs. So I do question why this thread continues to go on. I am awaiting an official call from one of the apologists to go into more detail.
“Official call” from CA… That will solve everything, won’t it?

I just got an email that they may shut down CA Forums… so send those checks in guys…

By “they” do you mean the Church taught the Earth is flat at some time. Ever seen the Church’s depictions of Christ the King, isn’t it amazing that he held in one hand a scepter, and in the other a sphere.

Are you saying in older depictions Christ held a flat sheet?

-Laurence
 
“Official call” from CA… That will solve everything, won’t it?

I just got an email that they may shut down CA Forums… so send those checks in guys…

By “they” do you mean the Church taught the Earth is flat at some time. Ever seen the Church’s depictions of Christ the King, isn’t it amazing that he held in one hand a scepter, and in the other a sphere.

Are you saying in older depictions Christ held a flat sheet?

-Laurence
You seem to hear only what you want to hear. Science has plenty of evidence of the earth going around the sun. Is this an attempt to debunk the Bible? No. It is probably God revealing things that he didn’t necessarily feel the need to do for those who wrote the Bible. Even the Church is not at odds with science. They are not against biologist finding out what makes people tick or space exploration or anything like that. You seem to believe as though they are.
 
In the 650 pages of Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I: The Scientific Case for Geocentrism that Robert Sungenis addresses this purported evidence.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Without even wasting my time reading such nonsense, he probably addressed it from a fundamentalist approach towards scripture. We as Catholics, while depending on the Church to guide us in interpretation of scripture, have been cautioned time and time again not to take the fudnamentalist view. For example, the lie of sola scriptura. That has already been proven. You cannot rely on scripture alone. God reveals things over the course of time, whether it be Church doctrines that were not explicitly in scripture or scientific knowledge.
 
I can, with clever rhetoric, show that some people are hatched from eggs laid by alligators or that spaghetti is harvested from the spaghetti tree. That does not make it true. Should someone else present my statements as fact, they are either being intellectually dishonest or they are engaging in folly.

The stupid, brainless and thoroughly debunked ideas presented as fact on this thread have, at best, embarrassed at least one person terribly.

I will no longer waste my time looking at this thread. Just as I would not waste my time reading the profoundly ridiculous work of fiction by Sungenis and Bennett. I would not reward the authors by purchasing the book or asking a library to stock it.
 
Without even wasting my time reading such nonsense, he probably addressed it from a fundamentalist approach towards scripture. We as Catholics, while depending on the Church to guide us in interpretation of scripture, have been cautioned time and time again not to take the fudnamentalist view. For example, the lie of sola scriptura. That has already been proven. You cannot rely on scripture alone. God reveals things over the course of time, whether it be Church doctrines that were not explicitly in scripture or scientific knowledge.
No, gooyjim, you are the one with the fundamentalist attitude. You are prejudging something you know nothing aboutt. The Volume I am talking about deals with the cosmological, astronomical, and physial aspects of geocentrism.

As to the “lie of sola scriptura”, Robert Sungenis made his fame (including on EWTN) for showing the protestants their errors in sola scriptura.

For your own good, I would reccomend either opening your mind or closing your mouth. Stick to the issues and stop assuming what books you have not read say.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
I can, with clever rhetoric, show that some people are hatched from eggs laid by alligators or that spaghetti is harvested from the spaghetti tree. That does not make it true. Should someone else present my statements as fact, they are either being intellectually dishonest or they are engaging in folly.

The stupid, brainless and thoroughly debunked ideas presented as fact on this thread have, at best, embarrassed at least one person terribly.

I will no longer waste my time looking at this thread. Just as I would not waste my time reading the profoundly ridiculous work of fiction by Sungenis and Bennett. I would not reward the authors by purchasing the book or asking a library to stock it.
Amazing.

When you see reactions like this from people who have no knowledge of what the book says nor any reasonable arguments against the topic, (other than I was told since knee high that the earth goes around the sun, etc.), you know that the topic [Copernicism in this case] represents sacrosanct secular dogma. It is reactions like this that tell me that I need to keep presenting this subject.

God Bless St.Bellarmine for having the resolve to stand up against the world 350 years ago. Too bad some Catholics today cannot even consider the mere possibility that the Curch was right!

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Mark,

I certainly have no interest in paying for some books like that. If I could get them at my library, I’d read them.

Maybe I’ll start w/ the dialog you just posted.
 
No, gooyjim, you are the one with the fundamentalist attitude. You are prejudging something you know nothing aboutt. The Volume I am talking about deals with the cosmological, astronomical, and physial aspects of geocentrism.

As to the “lie of sola scriptura”, Robert Sungenis made his fame (including on EWTN) for showing the protestants their errors in sola scriptura.

For your own good, I would reccomend either opening your mind or closing your mouth. Stick to the issues and stop assuming what books you have not read say.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
And stop accusing Catholic who accept the earth going around the sun as being bad Catholics who won’t stand up for the truth. I show no fear in accepting science as long as it is not attempting to disprove faith.
 
<< (See Dialogue 2) Barr vs. Sungenis >>

Ah ha thanks. I haven’t been paying much attention. I guess a formal oral debate is out of the question then! 😃

Come to think of it, I do remember this discussion! I forgot it was with Stephen Barr! He was on CA Live Jan 2007.

BTW, you should re-do those PDFs, pushing the words to the edge make some of the lines have two or three words in them. You should just use regular paragraphs and let the sentences and paragraphs space normally. Anyway, just a formatting problem that is annoying to me.

So I guess the best thing online against geocentrism is still the article by Alec (HECD2) I put on my site:

Geocentrism: Robert Sungenis and Flogging a Pink Unicorn

Phil P
 
And stop accusing Catholic who accept the earth going around the sun as being bad Catholics who won’t stand up for the truth. I show no fear in accepting science as long as it is not attempting to disprove faith.
  1. I did not call you a bad Catholic, I only questioned why you seem unwillingy to consider the mere possibilty that the Church was right [in this situation].
  2. I did not object to your rejection of geocentrism specifically, but rather your making statements aganist a book you have not read, referring to those who are open to such a possibilty as fundamentalists (do you remember what you said?), etc…
In any case, as I stated before (not sure if it was to you or rpp) you are free to believe what you want on this issue. If you want to discuss the reasons why you feel the way you do, go ahead- this is a discussion forum after all, but I would suggest you stick to factual considerations, not name calling.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
  1. I did not call you a bad Catholic, I only questioned why you seem unwillingy to consider the mere possibilty that the Church was right [in this situation].
  2. I did not object to your rejection of geocentrism specifically, but rather your making statements aganist a book you have not read, referring to those who are open to such a possibilty as fundamentalists (do you remember what you said?), etc…
In any case, as I stated before (not sure if it was to you or rpp) you are free to believe what you want on this issue. If you want to discuss the reasons why you feel the way you do, go ahead- this is a discussion forum after all, but I would suggest you stick to factual considerations, not name calling.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
And I and many others in this thread have provide ample evidence for heliocentrism. You overlook this and don’t respond to it. I’m comfortable with the facts of science I was taught in school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top