Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[excubitor]

So you’re in a car with blacked out windows. The car is traveling at some speed. How fast is it going? 10 mph? 50 mph? 100 mph? 1000 mph? The fact is that unless it accelerates or decelerates, you can’t tell. To use your word you would feel “not a breath of movement” even if the car was travelling at 10,000 or 100,000 mph.

Beautifully put David. You have to be in blacked out windows to even concede the possibility that we are wizzing through space at thousands of miles per hour. And indeed that is what modern science has put us plebs. Into a deceived state of ignorance, thickness and darkness. But God teaches us from the scripture that his revealed truth is CLEARLY SEEN from the creation.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So if the creation is not clearly seen then how can it show invisible things of God?

So you would have us believe that in fact the things of creation are not clearly seen at all, that you have to be in a darkened blacked out state to understand the truth, that God deceived the writers of scripture, deceived the early church fathers, deceived the mediaeval church, and that he actually revealed the truth through Giordano Bruno, who is without doubt one of the most outrageous and rankest heretics who ever walked the earth.

Modern science long since scrapped Galileo’s fond ideas which lacked evidence. They now believe and teach almost identical to Bruno, that the sun is just another star, that the earth is just another planet which wanders aimlessly through a infinitely huge universe. To which scientists have now added that man is just another species of animal in a universe potentially brimming with alien lifeforms.

To think that Giordano Bruno was right all along is an outrage which any clear thinking Catholic should be well placed to reject. Shall we build a monument to Bruno? Here’s a photo of Bruno that the freemasons built shortly after Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Humanum Genus. They erected it on the very site where he was quite properly burnt at the stake for his hideous heresies.

Similarly, consider that you’re standing on the moon or on Mars, which I think you would agree rotate on their axes and revolve around the Earth/Sun. Do you believe your sense experience would be any different there than on the Earth? Because they rotate on their axes, the whole universe would appear to be revolting around you. And even though they are indeed speeding through space at tens of thousands of mph (as you would have to admit) you would “feel not a breath of movement”.
I have seen neo-geocentrists deny that we’ve sent men to the moon and landers to Mars just to avoid these very obvious problems for their view. How about you?

Please provide evidence that any neo-geocentrist denies these landings in order to avoid this point. You are just making up a nonsense made-up statement in order to discredit geocentrism. Neo-geocentrists acknowledge, as do I, the theoretical possibility that an object could be moving through space at astonishing speed without stripping off the atmosphere etc. All I said was that it was counter-intuitive and opposed to the natural senses. When presented with counter-intuitive theories which assault our natural senses we would have to have incontrovertible truth to cause us to abandon what would naturally seem to be utterly absurd. Just as if you were in a car with blackened windows which you could not feel any movement. What would it take to convince you that the car was moving? First of all you would need to take off the black plastic so that you could see outside the car. You would then look for an object which you knew was fixed. You would then conclude that the car was moving because of your certainty that the object such as a tree or mountain was not moving. In the case of our moving earth scenario, we look out into space and find that nothing is fixed, everything is moving. Therefore we have no logical basis on which to conclude that we are moving when all of our natural senses tell us that we are not moving.

This is the great problem. It is not possible to know the absolute motion of any object in the universe because everything is moving. We can only know for certainty what our position is in space relative to other objects which are moving. The only way we can be sure which, if any, object in the universe is static and central is if we are outside the moving frame of reference. And the only person who has ever been outside the universe is God himself, and he has revealed in his scriptures, and through his church, that the earth is in the centre of the universe and is not moving. That being true, we can then know the absolute position of every other object in the universe. Whereas the acentrist does not acknowledge that anything has any absolute position.

 

[excubitor]

As you have alluded to, it’s not sufficient for neo-geocentrists to glom onto the matter of relativity and say, “Oh, relativity says it doesn’t matter which center we pick, so we can just pick the earth”. No, you’re making a very specific claim, that the Earth and only the Earth is motionless. It’s no good pointing to a bunch of things that would be true for any point in the universe. Neo-geos have to point to things that would only be true for the Earth and no other body in the universe. And that is where all the special pleading and conspiracy theories kick in.

So what? Of course that is the whole point. Geocentrists are arguing that the earth is special and favoured in the universe and has attributes which set it utterly apart from all other objects in the universe. Surely the earth is the jewel of the creation. The angels sang for joy when the earth was created. They did not sing for joy at the creation of Mars and Saturn or Venus.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast [2] understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations [3] thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
And where were you David? You deny that God laid foundations for the earth? What kind of foundation moves about at 64,000 mph?

And if someone like me points to solid, physical, repeatable observations like three separate measuring methods all confirming the motion of the earth (rather than the entire universe), excubitor starts complaining about mumbo-jumbo and hansgeorg deploys legions of angels to tamper with the instruments and/or the heavenly bodies. I’m sorry gentlemen, but this is precisely that scenario that St. Augustine described in which Catholics make a totally unnecessary laughingstock out of the Christian faith.

St. Augustine believed that the earth was stationery. With all due respect to the venerable Saint, Catholics are a laughing stock in the world anyway for their teachings on birth control, homosexuality, virgin birth, the resurrection, blood and body of Christ in the Eucharist etc, etc. As soon as we start compromising our beliefs on account of the world might laugh at us, is the day that the faith inexorably dies. Catholics shall and must stand up to the scorn and ridicule of the world. Noah was mocked and the entire world was destroyed. Let that be a parable. The scripture teaches that scoffers and mockers shall abound in the last days just like as in the days of Noah. Any Catholic who is not prepared to be mocked and scorned for his faith is just not worthy to stand before God on the last day.

I echo what grannymh quite rightly pointed out above. There are no dogmatic declarations by the Catholic Church concerning geocentrism. See Neo-Geo Double Standards and Exaggerations on Magisterial Documents.

We had a fellow here called Cassini. He and I both repeatedly gave scores of the most incontrovertible and dogmatic statements by a great multitude of Popes, church fathers, Offices of the Holy See which explicitly state that Heliocentrism is a blatant heresy, absurd and philosophically false, and injurious to the faith. And yet it does not matter how many such statements are produced, the Grannymh’s of the world still say that there is no declarative statement of the church of this fact. Sungenis has produced an entire volume of 400 pages which lists all of these statements. In fact if the church has not dogmatically declared the heresy of heliocentrism then she has not dogmatically declared anything.

 

[rossum]

Needs no working.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the obvious and complete scientific failure of Geocentrism.

No working, no science.

rossum

 

[excubitor]

As I pointed out in a previous post, I have not seen one single citation from any of the Fathers in which they indicate these these matters were for them a matter of faith, as opposed to natural philosophy. And as I think I demonstrated, there are but a handful who say anything about the earth as the immovable center of the universe, there is exactly one Father who cites Scripture in any connection to this question, whereas there are several who cite the various pagan natural philosophers of their day. The indication is that this was for them, as for St. Thomas, a matter of natural philosophy and not of faith. It is an exaggeration to speak of “sacred traditions of the church [sic]” or, as others have, a unanimous consent of the Fathers in this regard.

But you have touched on an interesting wrinkle of this whole discussion. It’s hard for us to get our heads around it, but in fact Galileo had not presented an overwhelming case with regard to the physical evidence and he had not answered some of the very objections you raised, such as how the movement of the Earth would not result in a “devastating motion” that would lay waste its surface and spin off its atmosphere. Thus for those initially confronted with his views it remained, in my opinion, understandable that they were regarded as “absurd and false philosophically” (by which is meant, of course, natural philosophy, i.e. scientifically). And to insist that Scripture teaches something “absurd and false philosophically” is indeed a theological error.

Heliocentrism is absurd because it goes against our natural senses, but it is philosophicall false because it is directly opposite to the teachings of the scriptures and the teachings of the church. Science proposes absurd and philosophically false theories all the time, like evolution, global warming caused by humanity. You have said it yourself. The natural, obvious and reasonable Catholic man and woman 500 years ago would have regarded it as absurd to think that the earth might be spinning like a top and travelling at 64,000 mph through the universe. That’s because it is absurd. Whereas the natural and reasonable man would not at all regard the notion that planets are rotating to be absurd.

But today even neo-geocentrists have to admit that there is nothing “absurd and false philosophically” about the earth revolving around the sun or rotating on its axis.

Any Catholic geo-centrist who is worth is salt will most certainly regard heliocentrism as absurd and philosophically false because that is what the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office said in its papal condemnation of Galileo, signed by at least seven Cardinals.
It is also what our natural senses and logic tells us. Conceding that physics can help to explain how planets can rotate without losing everything that’s not tied down in no way diminishes the sensible geocentrists sense of incredulity at the notion of a rotating and orbiting earth.

As it turns out Heliocentrism is absurd and false. Everybody now rejects Galileo’s heliocentrism. Every scientists understands and admit that his work was shoddy and completely lacking any kind of evidence for his theory. Today nobody believes Galileo, they all believe that there is no centre of the universe, and no object holds a special position in the universe.

Thus even they would have to admit that the theological qualifiers erred in 1616, in fact if not in their specific historical context, in their assessment of this proposition.

But in the Catholic Church condemnations are always interpreted strictly, that is, “restrictive laws must be narrowly applied. . . . Strict interpretation means that the sense of the words of the canon and the scope of its application are limited as much as reasonably possible” (James A. Coriden, An Introduction to Canon Law, p. 202-3.) Thus if those matters of natural philosophy/science are addressed, if it is no longer a matter that is “absurd and false” that is being ascribed to sacred Scripture, then the view is no longer theological incorrect either and may be held by Catholics (this is admitted, at least hypothetically, even by Cardinal Bellarmine.) That is how the Congregation of the Holy Office ruled in 1820 and this received the approval of the Pope. Then, of course, Leo XIII and later Pius XII ruled officially in favor of St. Augustine’s and St. Thomas’ view that no such details of the nature of the physical universe were put into sacred Scripture by the Holy Spirit at all. Thus these are not matters of “sacred tradition” or doctrines of faith and as Catholics we have freedom.

I’m tired of Cardinal Bellarmine being misrepresented. No more ardent and outspoken critic of heliocentrism ever lived. The passage to which you refer states that the Cardinal was certain that no argument had presented itself to him that would cause him to question the scriptures. It was also clear from the context that he was convinced that none ever would. And the truth of his conclusion is with us to this day 400 years later where we are still no closer to proving the theory of acentrism than Galileo was. If anything we are further away from it, with science having erected an army of theories and fictions to prop up the original false theory of Geocentrism. So that is what modern cosmology and astronomy is. A gigantic web of lies used to prop up and cover up the first big lie which was first spun 400 years ago.

 

[rossum]

Heliocentrism is absurd because it goes against our natural senses

Yesterday I spent five whole minutes looking at a blade of grass. It didn’t grow at all. How dare biologists tell us that grass grows; it is absurd because it goes against our natural senses.

rossum

 

[excubitor]

Yesterday I spent five whole minutes looking at a blade of grass. It didn’t grow at all. How dare biologists tell us that grass grows; it is absurd because it goes against our natural senses.

rossum

Maybe you were at one with the blade of grass.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Maybe you were at one with the blade of grass.

oh snap!!!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Not to mention the conspiracy by which atheists have fed the world with a prejudice of mind being a by-product of either a brain or - “somewhat less complex and not self-conscious” - of a computer working correctly. Duh!

I have seen no “scientific theory” that the mind is synonymous in nature to the brain, although that is what some scientists believe and often write about. What science shows is that there is a correlation between the functions of the brain and the mind. This much is true, regardless of what you think the mind is.

Conspiracies to keep a prejudice going include:

• compulsory schooling (if not in formal law in US at least in application for most, and in many European countries in formal law too)

What is wrong with compulsory schooling?

• compulsory science in the schools of secondary level prepared even on primary level

What is wrong with compulsory science in the schools of secondary level prepared even on primary level?

• compulsory exclusion of theology and theological explanations from science teachers and scientific academies

what’s wrong with the compulsory exclusion of theology and theological explanations from science teachers and scientific academies. Those organisations are paid to teach science, not theology.

• = same as previous = compulsory training of scientists in certain prejudices

Prejudice is word that can have positive connotations; although its popular usage is usually expressed in negative light. It is not the goal or responsibility of the scientific community to come up with or include theological explanations in their work. They do science, not theology.

• compulsory (by now) ridiculing of conspiracy theories including classifying above as anything other than healthy pruning of kooks and detours from scientific debate with healthy information of fact to the general public

The only facts you are giving is the following… “I interpret the bible as being a science book as well as a theological expression of the faith, thus any evidence presented by science which doesn’t favour my interpretation is wrong. However I like that microwave oven and all the other valuable products of science, just don’t bother me with theories about evolution, heliocentrism, and an old earth”

 

[DavidPalm]

Yesterday I spent five whole minutes looking at a blade of grass. It didn’t grow at all. How dare biologists tell us that grass grows; it is absurd because it goes against our natural senses.

rossum

LOL! E pur si cresce! (Hope that Italian isn’t too mangled.)

rossum raises a serious point in a humorous way. There seems to be a great insistence on the part of hansgeorg and excubitor that what one sees with one’s unaided eye should not be interpreted in light of information that is gleaned using various devices/techniques which can enhance our “sight”. Think of how the germ theory of disease fares under such a restriction. It would not have been established without the microscope and one could indeed come up with all sorts of far-fetched alternative theories that do not require such sight enhancement. But the fact that germs cause disease will remain a fact nonetheless and the person who refuses to inform his bare sight with the information gleaned from additional devices will remain foolish.

He steps back, ready to rend his garments when one of his interlocutors pipes up with, “Oh, I don’t believe that germs cause disease–that hasn’t been proven ya know. It’s just a plot by the atheistic pharmaceutical cabal to sell us stuff…” ]

Thanks to hansgeorg and excubitor for lots of feedback. I will be back to reply, but I’m trying to put the finishing touches on an essay that will cover the canonical trial canard thrown out regularly by neo-geos. Indirectly it will actually address some of what excubitor has raised concerning the doctrinal level of geocentrism in the Catholic Church. And I’m working on another essay that goes into the allegation that geocentrism is a matter supported by a unanimous consent of the Fathers. So that too will touch upon some of the discussion here. I hope to get both up on my blog Real Soon Now.

So please excuse me if it runs until sometime next week before I can reply here. Not trying to dodge you

If I don’t get back to you before then, have a great weekend and Memorial Day.

 

[excubitor]

LOL! E pur si cresce! (Hope that Italian isn’t too mangled.)

rossum raises a serious point in a humorous way.

David, his argument was poor and ludicrous. You are obviously latching onto whatever support you can to prop up your flagging arguments. It is not ludicrous or absurd to the natural and reasonable man to believe that grass grows. It is a simple matter of observation that it does.

There seems to be a great insistence on the part of hansgeorg and excubitor that what one sees with one’s unaided eye should not be interpreted in light of information that is gleaned using various devices/techniques which can enhance our “sight”. Think of how the germ theory of disease fares under such a restriction. It would not have been established without the microscope and one could indeed come up with all sorts of far-fetched alternative theories that do not require such sight enhancement. But the fact that germs cause disease will remain a fact nonetheless and the person who refuses to inform his bare sight with the information gleaned from additional devices will remain foolish.

Well I certainly agree that your germ theory is a better analogy that rossum’s grass scenario. It is an objective and proven fact that grass grows whis is accepted by every reasonable man. But your germ theory is another example whereby many reasonable men are able to refute the germ theory for the simple reason that it, as with acentrism, is not proven and remains just a theory. You should know that basically all of modern science is not proven. It is merely a measure of probability. So as in your case of three measurements (lasers in caves, bouncing lasers off the moon etc) all seem to you to correlate with the theory that the earth is rotating; all this tells us is that the probability that the earth is rotating is higher than if those measurements were not made. But a higher probability does not constitute proof. Many innocent men have been put in jail because the evidence against them provided a high probability of their guilt. But sometimes the evidence is that of a lying witness. Sometimes it is an erroneus interpretation of the evidence by investigators. Modern scientific theory is no different because they are not dealing with pure science. Pure science can be proven with mathematical certainty. But what passes for science in this modern world (with respect to origins) is not science at all, but is philosophy. Philosophy is basically any theory which cannot be proven because it is impossible to verify mathematically. The reason acentrism, evolution, germ theory, global warming and so many other theories have not been proven after years, decades, centuries is for the plain and simple reason that they are not in the domain of science, but are in the domain of philosophy. In these cases we have been deceived into thinking they are science because they use scientific techniques to lend support to their philosophies. Here is the classical scientific method.

1.Make a set of observations regarding the phenomenon being studied.
2.Form a hypothesis that might explain the observations. (Inductive Step)
3.Identify the implications and outcomes that must follow, if the theory is to be true.
4.Perform other experiments or observations to see if any of the predicted outcomes fail.
5.If any predicted outcomes do fail, the theory is proven false since it is true that if A implies B, then not B implies not A. (Deductive Step) It is then necessary to change the hypothesis and go back to step 3.

But in the case of modern science we get a constant cycle of 2-5. Predicted outcomes fail constantly and instead of rejecting the hypothesis they go back and modify the hypothesis or build some fudge factor into the equation in order to avoid the political fallout of rejecting the hypothesis. Then after a long passage of time the hypothesis becomes the accepted norm, it becomes a belief of pop psychology and nothing at all to do with science. Then the entire credibility of science becomes at stake and if the original false hypothesis (which should have been rejected after multiple failures) were to be rejected the whole system of grants to universities and scientific institutions would utterly collapse.
So science becomes not the pursuit of pure objective fact, but a system of protecting itself and propping up its treasured biases and theories; the framework upon which it was built.

Just like any industry, the cosmology, biology, oil industry, pharmaceutical industry, astrophysics industry etc, will do whatever is necessary including lieing and cheating in order to prop up their interests. Anyone who denies that this is how the world works is just plain naive. We see it at every level of society, in every world system from education, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, medical, politics, judiciary etc. Why do we think that the scientific industry is any different. We see the quality of the scientific industry in all its anti-glory today in the fiasco of global warming, which again is an entire industry generated to fund scientists to go on junkets to conventions all over the world, a fear campaign to fund government grants to study global warming theory. Hear is a petition of 31,000 scientists with their phd’s rejecting global warming theory. The first scientists to sign this petition were brave men, many whose careers were ruined. We can expect a similar thing to happen in the future with geocentrism.
petitionproject.org/

 

[excubitor]

He steps back, ready to rend his garments when one of his interlocutors pipes up with, “Oh, I don’t believe that germs cause disease–that hasn’t been proven ya know. It’s just a plot by the atheistic pharmaceutical cabal to sell us stuff…” ]

If you don’t believe that the entire system of science which is behind the pharmaceutical system is utterly corrupted by big business and money interested then you must have been living under a rock. Whatever truth might have existed in the early days of the germ theory is long since so utterly corrupted as to be of no useful value and indeed is a wretched harm to mankind. It’s doubtful that the germ theory was ever an expression of truth. The experiments that Pasteur conducted on children were utterly immoral and have without doubt poisoned the chalice. Either way, Germ theory is still just that, a germ of a theory. It is no more proven than acentrism or evolution or global warming caused by man.

There are any numbers of doctors who will point out the fatal flaws in the germ theory. Here is one of them naturopathicresources.com/images/FalseFoundation.pdf
The problem is that benign versions of pathogens occur in healthy bodies. In disease however, for some unknown reason they change their behaviour in what we might regard as an unhealthy person. They multiply in number and become dangerous to the system whereas in the healthy person they remain in low numbers in their benign state. So what is the trigger which prompts this change? This is where science utter fails because of its false foundation. As Pasteur said himself on his deathbed as he denied medical treatment. "“It is the soil, not the seed.” A truth of a wise old man denying the follys of his youth.

For medical science to progress it needs to cast off the folly of its youth and heed the tenet of the wise old man on his death bed. We already see this trend occurring in many fields of medical science. webmm.ahrq.gov/perspective.aspx?perspectiveID=62

Again. I anticipate similar changes in trends to accelerate in the future with many scientists challenging the status quo (as all good scientists should) and having another look at geocentrism. After 400 years of complete neglect, this field of study with some decent funding could generate some incredible results. We also have plasma cosmology gathering steam making a real challenge against the conventional gravitation/mass theories of the cosmos.

Exciting times in science for those with an open mind.

So please excuse me if it runs until sometime next week before I can reply here. Not trying to dodge you

If I don’t get back to you before then, have a great weekend and Memorial Day.

Looking forward to your report. Have a good weekend.

 

[Rick09]

Exciting times in science for those with an open mind.

Absolutely. And next up for those with mind open to genuine, scientific inquiry should be the scientific theory of spontaneous generation. You will not believe how modern science has been conspiring to keep all the evidence in its favor away from the world. What few people know is that Redi and Spallanzani (the two who claimed to disprove spontaneous generation) were Jewish-Italian Masons.

People will look at you like you’re crazy for bringing it up, the fact is that it was the Satanic-Masonic-Evolutionists (SME) and other perverse forces of darkness who convinced the world that God does not spontaneously generate life. Suffice it to say, real science will prove the case for Spontaneous Generation - at least for those not demon-possessed or owned by the Satanic-Masonic-Science of Modernity.

I don’t expect most of the closed-minded people here to consider it honestly because they’ve been brainwashed by the modern scientific establishment. But thankfully, truth is not subject to a democratic vote.

 

[Rick09]

Exciting times in science for those with an open mind.

Absolutely. And next up for those with mind open to genuine, scientific inquiry should be the scientific theory of spontaneous generation. You will not believe how modern science has been conspiring to keep all the evidence in its favor away from the world. What few people know is that Redi and Spallanzani (the two who claimed to disprove spontaneous generation) were Jewish-Italian Masons.

People will look at you like you’re crazy for bringing it up, the fact is that it was the Satanic-Masonic-Evolutionists (SME) and other perverse forces of darkness who convinced the world that God does not spontaneously generate life. Suffice it to say, real science will prove the case for Spontaneous Generation - at least for those not demon-possessed or owned by the Satanic-Masonic-Science of Modernity.

I don’t expect most of the closed-minded people here to consider it honestly because they’ve been brainwashed by the modern scientific establishment. But thankfully, truth is not subject to a democratic vote.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Absolutely. And next up for those with mind open to genuine, scientific inquiry should be the scientific theory of spontaneous generation. You will not believe how modern science has been conspiring to keep all the evidence in its favor away from the world. What few people know is that Redi and Spallanzani (the two who claimed to disprove spontaneous generation) were Jewish-Italian Masons.

People will look at you like you’re crazy for bringing it up, the fact is that it was the Satanic-Masonic-Evolutionists (SME) and other perverse forces of darkness who convinced the world that God does not spontaneously generate life. Suffice it to say, real science will prove the case for Spontaneous Generation - at least for those not demon-possessed or owned by the Satanic-Masonic-Science of Modernity.

I don’t expect most of the closed-minded people here to consider it honestly because they’ve been brainwashed by the modern scientific establishment. But thankfully, truth is not subject to a democratic vote.

I believe I have demonstrated spontaneous generation with a simple microscope and Paramecium. What I did was boil a glass of water and I placed a dried-out seed into the glass. Within a few days there were millions and millions of Paramecium! Note that Paramecium survives only in water and multiply by sexual and asexual reproduction. The riddle is in knowing that Paramecium lives only in water and that my water boiled to remove any trace of Paramecium. The seed was over a few years old and did not contain any moisture whatsoever.

Looking more closely at the process, I could see bacteria forming from the seed. I also suspect that the Paramecium quickly evolved from the bacteria. If anybody can explain my finding, I would be glad to hear it!

 

[excubitor]

Absolutely. And next up for those with mind open to genuine, scientific inquiry should be the scientific theory of spontaneous generation. You will not believe how modern science has been conspiring to keep all the evidence in its favor away from the world. What few people know is that Redi and Spallanzani (the two who claimed to disprove spontaneous generation) were Jewish-Italian Masons.

People will look at you like you’re crazy for bringing it up, the fact is that it was the Satanic-Masonic-Evolutionists (SME) and other perverse forces of darkness who convinced the world that God does not spontaneously generate life. Suffice it to say, real science will prove the case for Spontaneous Generation - at least for those not demon-possessed or owned by the Satanic-Masonic-Science of Modernity.

I don’t expect most of the closed-minded people here to consider it honestly because they’ve been brainwashed by the modern scientific establishment. But thankfully, truth is not subject to a democratic vote.

Tantalising isn’t it? Modern science set against itself. On the one hand classical thinking is overthrown by the advancement of germ theory, but in so doing it shoots future modern science in the foot because how else can modern science account for primordial life emerging from the non-organic soup?

Honestly it’s an absolute farce. Can we have some clear thinking here? Just because I am saying that modern germ theory is foundationally at error, does not mean that I believe that spontaneous generation of life is true. Logic allows that a third or many other theories could be advanced to account for why disease occurs. Certainly with the complexity and variety of diseases there may be scores of valid models to account for disease in the organism.

 

[excubitor]

As I pointed out in a previous post, I have not seen one single citation from any of the Fathers in which they indicate these these matters were for them a matter of faith, as opposed to natural philosophy. .

I want everyone to notice the crafty tactic that David is using here. He wants to discount what the early church fathers stated in their writings by expecting them to preface everything that they stated with “Now I am speaking about a matter of de fide” or “Now i am talking about natural philosophy”

In doing so he completely ignores the fact that the church fathers clearly wrote what they believed to be TRUE. TRUTH is truth. All truth is to be believed. Now were the church fathers infallibly true? No, not individually. But when you consistently find that across the board, the Saints and patristic fathers believed in one accord a certain thing, then it forms the deposit of Sacred Tradition. It is infallibly true by the very fact that it is a part of the Sacred Tradition. Just as everything which the Scripture states is infallibly true.

But people improperly apply Vatican 1 and say “Oh well its not a statement of faith and morals spoken ex cathedra therefore I don’t have to believe it”. No. You have got it all wrong David. Those rulings of Vatican 1 were specifically addressing the infallibility of the Pope. They were not bringing into question the truthfulness or otherwise of Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition is true at all times and does not depend on a pope proclaiming it dogmatically. It is true by its very sacred nature.

Quite frankly David, I know that you have solid knowledge of the work of Sungenis. You know and have probably read entirely all of those citations from church fathers which run into the hundreds of pages which all show that they clearly believed that the sun orbitted the earth and that the earth was stationary and set upon an immovable foundation. You want to ignore and sweep away all of these statements because you could not find one prefaced with “I am now speaking de fide”. That is really disgraceful David, but I know you are just portraying a disgraceful modernday Catholic attitude which pays lip service to Sacred Tradition, but when the chips are down and the going gets tough is quite happy to sweep away Sacred Tradition of hundreds of years to follow the fond innovations of scientists. I’m shocked, Sungenis is shocked, John Salza is shocked; and every clearly thinking person with a good catholic sense should be shocked also.

 

[hansgeorg]

what’s wrong with the compulsory exclusion of theology and theological explanations from science teachers and scientific academies. Those organisations are paid to teach science, not theology.

If theology is true, some of it is the true explanation of some things in science, because reality is one and not one universe for theology plus another for science.

If some theology is the true explanations of some science, and if scientists exclude that true explanation because it is theology, then they either do not make as much science, explaining less or they make bad science explaining wrong.

That is what is wrong with compulsory exclusion of theological and angelological explanations from scientific attemps of explaining phenomena.

 

[hansgeorg]

Yesterday I spent five whole minutes looking at a blade of grass. It didn’t grow at all. How dare biologists tell us that grass grows; it is absurd because it goes against our natural senses.

Plant a stick of dead wood in the ground as high as the blade of grass. Preferably a chop stick that has lied around in your kitchen for ages. One you are sure neither grows nor diminishes. Draw a line just above where chop stick comes out of earth.

Come back to chop stick and grass blade day after day. Make sure the stick stays at same height. Either earth helps the chop stick grow smaller (since not deeper), or it is the grass blade beside it that is growing. Which is the truth.

A truth that is confirmed for less sceptical people in a less round about way: a lawn is made of grass blades. Now and then its owner will want to cut the lawn because grass blades have grown “too long” - i e longer than he wants them.

Grass blades are close enough for us to know it is not because of perspective that they seem to change size, but because they really do over a few weeks or months.

 

[excubitor]

Plant a stick of dead wood in the ground as high as the blade of grass. Preferably a chop stick that has lied around in your kitchen for ages. One you are sure neither grows nor diminishes. Draw a line just above where chop stick comes out of earth.

Come back to chop stick and grass blade day after day. Make sure the stick stays at same height. Either earth helps the chop stick grow smaller (since not deeper), or it is the grass blade beside it that is growing. Which is the truth.

A truth that is confirmed for less sceptical people in a less round about way: a lawn is made of grass blades. Now and then its owner will want to cut the lawn because grass blades have grown “too long” - i e longer than he wants them.

Grass blades are close enough for us to know it is not because of perspective that they seem to change size, but because they really do over a few weeks or months.

In the current acentric model it is the chopstick which is shrinking, not the grass growing. It reminds me of the focault pendulum. The pendulum swings in a certain way and what do the scientists conclude? That the earth has moved underneath the pendulum. Go figure.
Surely the natural and most obvious conclusion is that attractive forces of the universe have caused the pendulum to move. (or a breath of fresh air).

 

[rossum]

Plant a stick of dead wood in the ground as high as the blade of grass. Preferably a chop stick that has lied around in your kitchen for ages. One you are sure neither grows nor diminishes. Draw a line just above where chop stick comes out of earth.

Come back to chop stick and grass blade day after day. Make sure the stick stays at same height. Either earth helps the chop stick grow smaller (since not deeper), or it is the grass blade beside it that is growing.

You are prepared to accept the results of this experiment over you immediate senses, yet you are not prepared to accept the evidence of other, equally valid, experiments over your senses. You are not being consistent.

rossum