Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism

[Michael_Forrest]

 Regarding breast cancer and contraception:  ****It seems that because of the increased estrogen in contraceptives, there is an increased risk of breast cancer.  This also appears a likely explanation as to why abortions increase the risk of breast cancer.  Why aren’t we hearing all of these things shouted from the rooftops by the mainstream scientific community?   I propose the same reason we didn’t hear much from the scientific community during the heyday of eugenics in Nazi Germany. If the likely link had anything to do with smoking, you can bet we would have heard about it loud and clear.  Smoking is an acceptable target….politically correct.   But contraception?  You’re going to get into hot water if you take that one on....and don't expect much funding in the future.  ****

---

You can read the following article and comment if you like****:********

www.hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/abortion.html

 Finally, are you Catholic? (I’m serious….I don’t think you’ve ever said).   I have to hope you were not serious about your advice to use barrier methods of contraception.   All forms of contraception are forbidden to Catholics.   Do you agree with this prohibition or not?

Alec: "The reproduction of Haeckel’s drawings of embryos in textbooks is not a scientific but a historical and pedagogical issue. It has no bearing on the overwhelmingly strong evidence that homologies in ontogeny arise from common descent, and illuminate phylogenetic relationships - a concept that has been immensely reinforced by comparative gene expression data. There is very good correlation between physiological, genetic and developmental phylogenies.>>

Response: Haeckel’s drawings have been debunked as bogus the last I heard. Yet they continue to appear in bedrock science texts, high school science texts, etc….with no disclaimer as to the fact that they were basically concocted by Haeckel. I contend that putting Haeckel’s drawings in texts as a “historical, pedagogical” device is somewhat akin to putting pictures of Piltdown man in biology texts as “historical/pedagogical” device. Both were concocted, even if to different extents.

It seems many scientists continue to refer to his “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” theory as fact, even though it appears to me that this has been discredited, and even by current evolutionists. Have you read Niles Eldredge’s “The Triumph of Evolution”? He refers explicitly to it, as though still factual, for example. Are you saying you believe Haeckel was actually correct?

Back a couple of years ago, even the New York Times wrote a story about the embarrassment caused when it was discovered that “Molecular Biology of the Cell”, a bedrock text of the field, still included Haeckel’s ideologically motivated, concocted drawings. Dr. Alberts, a biochemist who is president of the National Academy of Sciences (and also co-author of the text) admitted that Haeckel’s drawings were very inaccurate, and was quoted in the article. In fact, he was embarrassed into promising to remove the drawings in the next edition of the text….and that was not accomplished by the self-policing of the mainstream scientific community, Alec. It was brought to light by proponents of intelligent design. I called Dr. Alberts personally a few years ago when the story broke to confirm the accuracy the accuracy of the report and the quotes of him…after being goaded by a scientist who absolutely insisted that the reporting had to be bogus. In fact, it was accurate, and the scientist eventually gave way.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Alec: As for, Piltdown, it was a deliberate hoax, debunked by scientists not apologists. Most people who try to make hay with Piltdown, like you, fail to mention that its validity remained controversial throughout the entire period from its discovery to its debunking.

Response: Yes, eventually they caught this particular deception. But I do not believe the evidence illustrates it was nearly so clean and neat for the mainstream scientific community as you imply.

It seems even the Encyclopedia Brittanica was citing the “find” as authentic until at least 1946. The BBC writes: “On 21 November 1953, the fossils discovered 40 years earlier and acclaimed as the “missing link” between apes and humans were finally revealed to be forgeries. “ The BBC is surely not full of closet creationists.

[pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc08.htm#Protests%20Ignored](http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc08.htm#Protests Ignored)

news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/03/piltdown_man/html/default.stm

Additionally, Mr. Sungenis wrote a piece for the website recently on this issue, it follows:

In addition to evolutionists biased interpretation of the field evidence, we also have an inordinate amount of dishonesty taking place in the science community in order to fabricate evidence for evolutionary theory. Just one example will suffice. Allow me to quote from the book Betrayers of the Truth by William Broad and Nicholas Wade (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982) a book that will enlighten the reader to the inordinate amount of fraud and deception taking place in our esteemed world of “science.” The authors write: (continued)

 

[Michael_Forrest]

“The discovery of the Piltdown man was made by Charles Dawson, a lawyer who maintained a quiet practice in the south of England and dabbled in geology. A tireless amateur collector of fossils, Dawson noticed a promising-looking gravel pit on Piltdown Common, near Lewes in Sussex. He asked a laborer digging there to bring him and flints he might find. Several years later, in 1908, the laborer brought him a fragment of bone that Dawson recognized as part of a thick human skull. Over the next three years further bits of the skull appeared.

“In 1912 Dawson wrote to his old friend Arthur Smith Woodward, a world authority on fossil fishes at the geology department of the British Museum of Natural History, saying he had something that would top the German fossil found at Heidelberg. Woodward made several visits with Dawson to the Piltdown gravel pit. On one of these expeditions, Dawson’s digging tool struck at the bottom of the pit and out flew part of a lower jaw. Close examination led Woodward and Dawson to believe that it belonged to the skull they had already reconstructed.

“In great excitement, Smith Woodward took everything back to the British Museum, where he put the jaw and cranium together, filling in missing parts with modeling clay and his imagination. The result was truly remarkable. The assembled skull became the “dawn man” of Piltdown. Kept secret until December 1912, it was unveiled before a full house at the Geological Society in London, where it created a sensation. Some skeptics suggested that the human skull and apelike jaw did not belong together; others pointed out that two characteristically abraded molar teeth were not enough to prove the jaw was human. But these objections were ignored, and the find was accepted as a great and genuine discovery.

“The talk in clubs and pubs could note with satisfaction the new proof that the earliest man was indeed British. The Piltdown skull was also of scientific interest because it seemed to be the “missing link,” the transitional form between ape and man that was postulated by Darwin’s still controversial theory of evolution. Subsequent excavations at the gravel pit were not disappointing. A whole series of new fossils emerged. The clinching evidence came from a pit a few miles away – the discovery a few years later of a second Piltdown man.

“Yet some were troubled by the Piltdown finds, among them young zoologist at the British Museum, Martin A. C. Hinton. After a visit to the site in 1913, Hinton concluded that the whole thing was a hoax. He decided to smoke out the tricksters by planting clearly fraudulent fossils and watching the reactions. He took an ape tooth from the collection at the museum and filed it down to match the model canine tooth that Smith Woodward had fashioned out of clay. Hinton had the obvious forgery placed in the pit by an accomplice and sat back to wait for it to be discovered and the entire Piltdown collection to be exposed.

“The tooth was discovered, but nothing else went right with Hinton’s plan. All involved with the “discovery” seemed delighted and soon notified the nation about the new find. Hinton was astonished that his scientific colleagues could be taken in by so transparent a fake, and he suffered the additional mortification of seeing Charles Dawson , whom he suspected to be the culprit, acquiring kudos for his handiwork. He decided to try again, only this time with something so outrageous that the whole country would laugh the discoverers to scorn.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

“In a box in the British Museum he found a leg bone from an extinct species of elephant. He proceeded to carve it into an extremely appropriate tool for the earliest Englishman – a Pleistocene cricket bat. He took the bat to Piltdown, buried it, and waited for the laughter.

“It was a long wait. When the bat was unearthed, Smith Woodward was delighted. He pronounced it a supremely important example of the work of Paleolithic man, for nothing like it had ever been found before. Smith Woodward and Dawson published a detailed, serious description of the artifact in a professional journal but stopped short of calling it an actual cricket bat. Hinton was astonished that none of the scientists thought of trying to whittle a bit of bone, fossil or fresh, with a flint edge. If they had, they would have discovered it was impossible to imitate the cuts on the cricket bat. “The acceptance of this rubbish completely defeated the hoaxsters,” notes a historian of the Piltdown episode. “They just gave up, and abandoned all attempts to expose the whole business and get it demolished in laughter and ridicule.” Perhaps Hinton and friends should have considered planting a bone on which the name Smith Woodward had been carved.

“Piltdown man retained its scientific luster until the mid-1920s and the discovery of humanlike fossils in Africa. These indicated a very different pattern of human evolution to that suggested by the Piltdown skull. Instead of a human cranium with an apelike jaw, the African fossils were just the reverse – they had humanlike jaws with apelike skulls. Piltdown became first an anomaly, then an embarrassment. It slipped from sight until modern techniques of dating showed in the early 1950s that the skull and its famous jaw were fakes: an ape jaw, with filed-down molars, and a human skull had each been suitably stained to give the appearance of great age.

“Circumstantial evidence pointed to the skull’s discoverer, Dawson, as the culprit. But many have doubted that he could have been the instigator; although he was best placed to salt the gravel pit, he probably lacked access to the necessary fossil collections as well as the scientific expertise to assemble fossils of the right age for the Piltdown gravel. Indeed, the real mystery is not who did it but how a whole generation of scientists could have been taken in by so transparent a prank. The fakery was not expert. The tools were poorly carved and the teeth crudely filed. “The evidence of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked – how was it that they had escaped notice before,” remarked anthropologist Le Gros Clark.” (Pages 119-122).

 

[Michael_Forrest]

There are many more such cases in anthropology, archeology, radiometrics and geology, but this one example will suffice for the present. It wouldn’t be so bad, except that the evolutionists have admitted their presuppositions and that they will not change their tactics or their minds when confronted with contrary evidence to their theory of evolution. Here are a few example of their hubris:

In 1929, evolutionist D. M. S. Watson, stated: “The theory of evolution is universally accepted not because it can be proven true, but because the only alternative is special creation by God, which is clearly incredible” (Nature, Vol. 123, 1929).

Similarly, geneticist Richard Lewontin stated:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concept that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31).

The only absolute certainty we have in this world is what comes from the mouth of God. In His word it states that He created the universe in six days, not six billion years or sixteen billion years. As for science, the facts are plain: we have found no irrefutable scientific evidence to deny this divine revelation, including that from Brent Dalrymple. END

Here are quite a number of other apparent frauds that the scientific community either perpetrated or went right along with because it fit their views……

guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1083411,00.html

Have you read any of these books listed at this link on dishonesty within the mainstream scientific community? Any comment on them?

isbndb.com/d/subject/fraud_in_science/books.html

Some of the stuff I quoted had things in them I am not well versed in, but they were mixed in with things I did intend to address.

How are we to trust that many other, less easily detectable deceptions have all been caught? Yes, I admit I don’t have that much faith in modern dogmas of science, in particular, on matters relating to our origins and the creation (and many things to do with sexuality…abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc). I’ve seen what modern science has done to the children (and adults) I teach at retreats and CCD….somehow they all seem to easily perceive that modern mainstream science is saying that we don’t need God to explain anything anymore……science has seated itself on His throne.

If I am mistaken, somehow I don’t think Christ is going to care. But if my misgivings are well founded, I think He will care indeed.

Again, pardon the format…just didn’t have time to really pare it down. Also, again…I may not be around for a bit for obvious reasons.

Well…at least this got me tired enough to sleep…I hope.

In Christ,

Michael Forrest

 

[PhilVaz]

Getting a little off topic, Piltdown was debunked as a hoax by evolutionists in the 1950s, no thanks to the ICR, AnswersInGenesis or other creationist groups which didn’t exist yet. No need to copy and paste all that, you can just summarize.

Here are the full details on that hoax from TalkOrigins

What folks who deny human evolution need to deal with are the legitimate hominid fossils, see here

Hominid Species

And the genetic evidence, especially plagiarism of DNA errors or “pseudo-genes”

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

And a good article on Haeckel’s drawings in response to Jonathan Wells here

And Kenneth Miller’s explanation on same and correction of the drawings in his textbook

As for Lewontin, Sungenis tried that quote on me as well. There is a difference however between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. When Lewontin and Dawkins promote or imply metaphysical naturalism they are indeed doing philosophy not science, and Phillip Johnson and others are right to critique that. But methodological naturalism is simply how scientists do science today, whether they be Christian scientists or atheist scientists. Science doesn’t assume “God did it” at every turn, we look for natural causes. Here is something from Keith Miller, the evangelical geologist of Kansas State:

“Methodological naturalism is simply a recognition that scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause and effect and confines itself to the investigation of natural entities and forces. Science does not ‘assume away’ a creator – it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Methodological naturalism places boundaries around what science can and cannot say, or what explanations or descriptions can be accepted as part of the scientific enterprise. Science is self-limiting, and that is its strength and power as a methodology. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our most profound questions about the nature of reality, while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers lie beyond the reach of science.” (Keith Miller, Evangelical geologist from Kansas State, in “Design and Purpose Within an Evolving Creation,” page 112-113, from Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins, 1999)

Keith Miller is correct, and so is Lewontin if he means methodological naturalism. There – not a single insult or spiritual poison contained in my note.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, Alec is either agnostic or atheist, so he is not Catholic. But from what I can tell his science is good, which is all that matters in this particular thread.

And Orogeny is Tim and he is a geologist. So he would be ready and willing to debate the merits of a “young-earth” with Sungenis.

But Neophyte, Wanerius, and others that usually participate in these science threads are all separate people, they are not all Tim.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Keating << So this star travels in 24 hours the distance that light travels in 26.5 years. This means the star is moving almost 10,000 times faster than light. Stars further away from the Earth will be moving even faster. >>

Our geocentrism calculation for the day…

NGC 4603 is 108 million light years from earth.

speed of light = 186,000 miles/sec x 60 secs/min x 60 min/hour x 24 hours/day x 365 days/year

miles that light travels in one year = 5,865,696,000,000 miles or 5.9 trillion miles approx

distance that NGC 4603 must travel around the earth in geocentrism view

circumference or total distance = 2 x PI x radius
PI = 3.1416 approx
radius = distance from earth to NGC 4603 = miles that light travels in one year x number of light-years

Therefore,

distance = 2 x PI x (miles that light travels in one year x number of light-years)
distance = 2 x PI x (5.9 trillion x 108 million)
distance = 3,980,376,839,577,600,000,000 miles

distance = rate x time
or rate = distance / time

rate = 3,980,376,839,577,600,000,000 miles / 24 hours

rate at which NGC 4603 travels around the earth in geocentrism view =

165,849,034,982,400,000,000 miles per hour or

46,069,176,384,000,000 miles per second or (dividing by 186,000 miles/sec)

247,683,744,000 times the speed of light

So NGC 4603 is travelling every day around the earth at
247 BILLION TIMES the speed of light.

End of the Geocentrism Calculation for the Day, I think I got that right

 

[Orogeny]

Michael Forrest:

Dear Tim,

Actually, you are mistaken, I don’t consider your statements (directly above) out of line, insulting, etc. I do consider them to be incorrect, though. You also don’t give actual detailed evidence. I have given many specific examples of what I am objecting to, rather than only making blanket statements like the one you made above. I have also received numerous private kind remarks for being patient in the midst of this forum (and no, not from geocentrists only).

Honestly, I have to wonder if you have read every post. Do you have any idea how many posts I have been responding to? Hve you read them all in sequence, putting yourself in my place? Go back to the beginning and see my tone, see if I insult anyone or respond in any sort of strong way before the insults start from the other direction. If you can find such cases, I would be open to reviewing it. I certainly never want to unfairly or uncharitably deal with people and always try to set things straight if I do.

Here is a perfect example of your tone that I personally find insulting. I HAVE read every single post. I have read several multiple times to make sure I am following (and to be honest, this physics stuff is not my cup of tea). Any time someone questions you, you seem to make the assumption that your post hasn’t been read. We are capable of doing that and I am willing to bet that most of the posters who have been involved with the thread from the beginning have read your posts. Maybe you aren’t as clear to others as you think you are.

Well, we simply disagree Tim. First, I would LOVE to leave the personal stuff out. But, I am a human being, and I refuse to allow people to run over me…or other people. I also do not consider it a charity to continually allow people to behave in such ways…someone has to object. As it seems that everyone on this forum is avidly in the anti-geocentrism camp, it is not likely anyone else is going to.

Then I suggest that forums may not be the best place for you. I don’t mean that in an insulting way, but what you are percieving to be insults and ad hominems don’t strike me that way in the least.
You write: Why are you acting as a buffer for him? Can’t he just join the forum and participate directly?>>

I explained this several times, to several people, Tim. You will forgive me if I am not going to do it again. If you like, go back and reread the forums.
I have read your posts. They don’t answer the question. If you don’t want to debate, fine. Sungenis seems to be willing because he keeps responding when you pass along posts. It would be easier if he just responded himself.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Michael Forrest:

“As far as Alec refering to Sungenis as a crank, well, quite frankly, anyone who genuinely holds to geocentrism will be considered a crank because the idea is scientifically preposterous.”

Does this mean that you are personally prepared to debate the issue in depth? I would think so.

Nope. Physics is beyond my expertise. But my (name removed by moderator)ut is just as valid as yours, since, as you have admitted, you don’t understand it either.

P.S. I may not be available for a while as I have to attend the wake of a dear friend this evening…funeral tomorrow. Please pray for his soul: William Gauthier.

He has my prayers and you have my sympathies.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

PhilVaz:

BTW, Alec is either agnostic or atheist, so he is not Catholic. But from what I can tell his science is good, which is all that matters in this particular thread.

And Orogeny is Tim and he is a geologist. So he would be ready and willing to debate the merits of a “young-earth” with Sungenis.

But Neophyte, Wanerius, and others that usually participate in these science threads are all separate people, they are not all Tim.

Phil P

Thanks, Phil.

Peace

Tim

 

[oriel36]

PhilVaz:

Earth’s Rotation by Polaris Project

Phil P

Wrong,wrong wrong,what is the matter with you lot,you can’t go running around citing the wrong rate for axial rotation through 360 degrees!.

A location on Earth rotates through 360 deg in 24 hours AFTER,I repeat AFTER the Equation of Time is applied.

homepage.ntlworld.com/michael.j.harley/eoftime.htm

Do you understand the wisdom of our ancestors who assumed axial rotation to be constant even though that rotation is mixed together with variable orbital motion hence an natural variation wrt the Sun with each 360 deg rotation and subsequently the equalisation by the Equation of Time.

Do you understand where the early 20th century numbskulls got themselves and everyone else in an awful mess because they could’nt understand that basic fact.

“Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee…itions.htm#time

I really, really wish Catholics would get their act together.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

The earth revolves around SocaliCatholic.

 

[neophyte]

Michael Forrest:

I am inclined to just move along. But there are a few things I think I should respond to:…

I’m quite willing to let it go and move on at this point, too, Neophyte (Tim? I’m sorry…early senility setting in). Shall we?

God bless,

MichaelSure, the horse is about dead. I still think that a dispassionate observer would think that everyone gave as good as he got, but in the interests of moving on I’ll try not to bring up the past (unless you ask again).
In the future I’ll try to be more delicate in my assessments of Bob’s understanding of the issue. Let me try this:

Back in post #82, Bob says

“Boundary condition at infinity”?? Sounds like an oxymoron to me."

It’s not an oxymoron at all. Curves can do any number of things as they approach infinity: they can achieve a stable value and stay there, they can approach a value and never quite get there, they can increase without limit. When curve fitting using observed data, you frequently have to make an assumption about what the curve is doing at the boundary of the data you have in order to do the calculations. Then, when you get the answer, you check it against your data to see how well it fits and if it’s not a good fit you try a different assumption. And yes, the boundary condition can be at infinity. So I find it surprising that someone who feels at ease discussing arcane issues of advanced theoretical physics is apparently unfamiliar with basic undergraduate level numerical methods.

BTW, my name is Tom. I live in SE Michigan, and I work for a major automobile manufacturer. I’ve been specializing in engine lubrication systems for a while, but I’ve done other things as well.

On a completely separate topic, can anyone tell me why I keep having this problem with the formatting of my posts? When I cut and paste from a Word document, I frequently find a section at the end with a different font than I selected, and no amount of work in the reply window will fix it. It’s annoying.

 

[PhilVaz]

Neophyte Tom << When I cut and paste from a Word document, I frequently find a section at the end with a different font than I selected >>

Not sure, to change fonts in here you use the FONT= surrounded by brackets so maybe that gets inserted from Word. If I copy/paste a response, I always use a plain text editor, either notepad or what I use for programming TextPad is very good.

Let’s see, so far I have the score at

modern science: 247 billion

16th century geocentrism: 2

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

versus

Our Planets, Orbits, Rotations, etc

Phil P

 

[oriel36]

PhilVaz:

Our Planets, Orbits, Rotations, etc

Phil P

If somebody’s stomach does’nt turn at the present intellectual holocaust based on a simple error which emerged a few centuries ago I suggest that they cannot be Christian much less Catholic.

The non-believers point to us as little more than indoctrinated fools who can and will believe anything and everything they are told without question and you know what,they may be right !.

Modern science suffered a catastrophic collapse in reasoning a long time ago based on a simple error in shifting the Earth’s axial rotation from the principles behind the 24 hour/360 deg equivalency in tandem with the Equation of Time correction to the stellar circumpolar equivalency of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm

360 deg = 24 hour
15 deg = 1 hour
1 deg = 4 min

.986 deg = 3 min 56 sec

24 hours minus 3 min 56 sec = 23 hours 56 min 04 sec

Basically,Flamsteed shoved the .986 deg difference into an orbital displacement in direct CONFLICT with Kepler’s second law consequently here is no justification for linking the Earth’s rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion.

I can’t speak for anyone else but the fact that my fellow Christians can’t work out how the principles of the rotation of the Earth on its axis and its connection to astronomy,geometry and clocks or worse still,that nobody objects or questions ‘modern’ science principles based on Flamsteed’s isochronos value based on the calendar system is almost too hard to bear.

Western civilisation is in big trouble and you are part of the problem,no offense intended.

 

[PhilVaz]

Oriel << I can’t speak for anyone else but the fact that my fellow Christians can’t work out how the principles of the rotation of the Earth on its axis and its connection to astronomy,geometry and clocks or worse still,that nobody objects or questions ‘modern’ science principles based on Flamsteed’s isochronos value based on the calendar system is almost too hard to bear. >>

Um I’m not sure what the gripe is here, but so long as you accept the earth rotation and revolution around the sun you’re in the modern science camp rather than the 16th century science camp. That’s all I care about. I guess the complaint is about the difference between “sidereal” vs. “solar” day. Had to look that up myself, no big deal. The earth moves. We can now close the thread.

Phil P

 

[All4lifetoo]

PhilVaz:

Oriel << I can’t speak for anyone else but the fact that my fellow Christians can’t work out how the principles of the rotation of the Earth on its axis and its connection to astronomy,geometry and clocks or worse still,that nobody objects or questions ‘modern’ science principles based on Flamsteed’s isochronos value based on the calendar system is almost too hard to bear. >>

Um I’m not sure what the gripe is here, but so long as you accept the earth rotation and revolution around the sun you’re in the modern science camp rather than the 16th century science camp. That’s all I care about. I guess the complaint is about the difference between “sidereal” vs. “solar” day. Had to look that up myself, no big deal. The earth moves. We can now close the thread.

Phil P

No, let’s not close the thread now. I would like to hear some serious responses to the two proposed experiments to test the rotating universe theory. I am in the rotating Earth camp, but I would like empirical evidence that Michael Forrest would accept to end the “argument.”

 

[neophyte]

oriel36:

Modern science suffered a catastrophic collapse in reasoning a long time ago…Western civilisation is in big trouble and you are part of the problem,no offense intended.

The idea that western civilazation is in danger of collapse as a result of recognition of the fact that solar and sidereal days are of different length baffles me as much as some of the stuff Sungenis says. I really don’t understand what the problem is.

And I would like to see this thread continue as well, since I’ve got some substantive questions on the table for Bob to answer.

 

[ISABUS]

[color=blue:
[QUOTE]
Michael Forrest
[/QUOTE]
]message #110 : ISABUS writes: “Simple question, why doesn’t Mr. Sungenis want to join this message board ? Why? I think this is a valid question. I would appreciate an answer from Mr. Sungenis.”

Forrest writes: Does your computer work? Do you have email? Can you access websites? Do you have a phone? Mr. Sungenis is very, very easy to find and contact, unlike many Catholic apologists I know. Why doesn’t he want to join this message board? You’re serious? Well, I’ll assume you are. First, I never asked him to.

Well, I have. And you have failed to comply to my request. I would appreciate an answer from Mr. Sungenis why he doesn’t want to join this message board not an excuse from you. Please present me his statement not yours. Thank you.

Forrest writes: He is an extremely busy man who has devoted his life to the service of God. He has foregone a great deal of money to do what he does, and has a very large family to support.

Hum. Robert Sungenis has been replying to the messages presented to him all along through you. Is this a common practice which you and him have decided upon. I’ve noticed on his website he has dialogues with other individuals in the same format. As far as service, time, and money goes, he is no exception to the rule that its charity work for educational purposes. He doesn’t gain any money off of these dialogues and neither do the individuals contributing to this message board. Am I correct?

Forrest writes: And frankly, if, after reading all of these posts you cannot discern why I may not push him to personally take the time and energy to read and respond to everything that is posted here, then I doubt I could explain it to you.

You have explained it clearly to me but it fails to make logical sense. No member is forced to reply to messages posted on this board. You have made me curious. Has Mr. Sungenis been banned from becoming a member of Catholic Answers Forums? He is beginning to make feel like he thinks he is more important than us who are posting on this board. Is that the case?

Forrest writes: For goodness sake, it is painfully obvious YOU haven’t even read nearly everything from what you have written (I’ve already answered this before, for instance)…and the volume is quite aside from the issue of the spiritual poison present here.

I am quite aware of what I have written. You seem to be confused. So you believe there is “spiritual poison” here and that is the reason why Mr. Sungenis doesn’t want to join us. Why in Heavens name would he want to place an employee or friend of his named Michael Forrest here in the midst of such ‘spiritual poison’? Doesn’t he care about you as much as he cares about himself? What kind of friend is that? Wow!!! That gives me the creeps. Who would want to hang around a man like that? Seriously, Michael, you should consider asking yourself these questions for the sake of your salvation if you too think you are admist such “spiritual poison” !!! Yee gads, if that is what you think then why even entertain the thought indulging such EVIL!!! Of course, I do not agree with you so it is your opinion not mine.

Forrest: What I have done is simple and legitimate, and if you (and Alec and the others) had the energy and the charity to read it, you would know already. I will not waste more time trying to explain it to people who do not really want to hear, but only crave an opportunity to score points at another’s expense.

What does this have to do with legitimate? We aren’t in a lawsuit. Score points? What is this a game? A mind game? Ah, Mr. Sungenis has a MA in Greek . He is a philospher! Right? I’m a seasoned poet. Hum. He must like a good game of chess. The greatest of all mind games! I’m a keen chess player too! Of couse poets and philosphers rarely see eye to eye.

(continued 1 of 2)