Monday, November 15, 2010

My Refusal to Wrangle With Robert Sungenis Over Geocentrism and a Supposedly 10,000-Year-Old, Non-Rotating Earth


[Hulton Archive/Getty Images ]
Astronaut James Irwin salutes in front of the landing module of Apollo 15 in August 1971.
Asked what he believed about the lunar landings, Robert Sungenis stated on my site: "I do not know whether they were real or fake."

[Robert Sungenis' words will be in blue]

I'm one of the few Catholic apologists who has always tried to stay out of all the continual controversies that seem to surround Robert Sungenis, whether regarding his beliefs about Jews or his eccentric views on cosmology (and also issues such as anthropomorphism and whether God can change and whether He has emotions, and so forth).

Bob can believe whatever he likes about the earth and whether it rotates; how old it is, etc. Others will disagree with him as well, and this ought not be the cause for personal attacks or disparagement of someone's Catholicism. That is the line that ought not be crossed. I haven't questioned his Catholicism, and he shouldn't question my commitment to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, Sungenis wants to make a matter of infallibility a thing that is assuredly not (geocentrism). That's why he feels so strongly about the issue, because he believes it is the infallible teaching of the Church; therefore, that individual Catholics are required to accept the view, and that apologists should defend it alongside transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Geocentrism is not something I wish to devote any time to. I am accountable for how I spend my time under God (i.e., stewardship). It's my life and my abilities that I am trying to devote to what I feel is most important at any given time. That is between myself and God (and those I am directly accountable to, such as my publishers), not between myself and Bob Sungenis, or any other apologist or critic of mine, who want to dictate to me how I ought to spend my time. But Bob doesn't buy that.

I am under no obligation to debate at extreme length (which is what any debate with Bob involves) anything and everything I may make a passing comment about. I have referred people to other exchanges where this was done (particularly my friend Gary Hoge's replies to him on these matters -- Bob has stated that Gary was a complete gentleman in his replies). See:

Scientific Disproof of Geocentrism
(Ken Cole, with four replies by Sungenis and four counter-replies from Cole) [2nd alternate URL]
As the Universe Turns: Is it physically possible for the whole universe to orbit the earth? (Gary Hoge)
Why the earth can't be the center of mass of the universe (+ Part II) (Gary Hoge vs. Robert Sungenis)

Debate between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis on Geocentrism

One James B. Phillips came onto a combox of mine, announcing the new paper Bob was writing: critiquing my stated positions on the Galileo affair: setting the stage for the latest hoped-for pseudo-controversy and tempest-in-a-teapot. I replied:

I have neither time nor desire to interact with this. I know Bob's position, and disagree with it. My own position regarding Galileo has been laid out in several papers and in my new book on science.

If Bob wants to start critiquing me now, let him do it if he must. I've deliberately stayed out of all the internal conflicts between him and other apologists / Catholics, and he knows this. I don't think it is wise or prudent for him to start writing against my positions now, but I also believe in free speech, so he is free to do as he wishes.

I am also free to decide how to spend my time, and I choose to do so in defending Christianity and Catholicism in particular against the charges of atheists, not misguided accusations of fellow Catholics that I have inaccurately presented things.
Bob is disturbed that I am inclined to accept what NASA tells me about science. This makes perfect sense, I reckon, since in one exchange the following skepticism regarding the authenticity of the moon landings is documented:

Jordanes had stated earlier in the combox thread that he didn't think you asserted that the moon landings were faked. Someone ("Pete") produced "documentation" that you did believe this. I find this to be insufficiently documented, as it was based on "gossipy"-type hearsay from a former associate, and from a post on a hostile website. So if you think the lunar landings actually happened, I'd be happy to hear you clarify that, so that it can be stated as a matter of record on my blog that this is an unjust charge against you.

I do not know whether they were real or fake.
He expanded his "lunar skepticism" to 9-11 as well in his piece, "Response to Jared Olar":

As for my right to be an agnostic about the moon landings, I’m certainly not the first and won’t be the last. Any intelligent person who has studied the issue is going to have doubts as to whether the United States had the capability to put a man on the moon in 1969 when, for example, the processing power of a 1969 computer was less than one-tenth of that in a typical cell phone of today, especially when the U.S. was at the height of the Cold War and was still stinging from the Russian launch of Sputnik in 1957, and especially when the ability to fake a moon landing in a hidden studio was well within the talents of Hollywood technicians. My suspicions are only heightened when I see Neil Armstrong holding an American flag on the moon and suddenly a gust of wind forces the lower part of the flag to move up to the upper part of the flag. Any fool knows there is no wind on the moon. You can see this video on the Internet and in the documentaries made of the moon landings. [see one lengthy critique of this theory] Yes, and I might as well tell you so I can beat Mr. Olar to the punch: I also believe 9-11 was an inside job and that the Muslims had nothing to do with it, and I maintain this belief along with several thousand other intelligent scientists, engineers, military personnel, airline pilots, firemen and the like who, from their expertise in this area, are thoroughly convinced that we have been sold a bill of goods by our government.

I'm obviously part of this nefarious conspiracy, myself, being named Armstrong . . .

On his own site, Bob wrote:

Accordingly, an earth of approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years old agrees with much current scientific evidence on a number of fronts.

He also states in another article:

. . . our model holds that the universe rotates around the earth once per day, hence the aether also rotates around the earth once per day, and thus, all the objects we see from earth are rotating with the aether. [and he believes that the earth doesn't rotate]

And (I confess this is my favorite) in a recent article (7-21-10) Bob presented a lengthy section entitled "Dinosaurs Co-Exited With Humans."


The image “http://mulibraries.missouri.edu/specialcollections/images/hamlinii1.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

And again, he has also stated (9-14-10):

If the earth is motionless in the center of the universe then the Big Bang is not possible. . . . The point in fact remains that a central and immobile Earth was, and is, the simplest and best answer to account for the equi-distribution of all objects, energies and forces we see surrounding us in the universe, everything from gamma rays, X-rays, the cosmic microwave background radiation, quasars, galaxy distribution, etc.

As I said, I have no interest in debating what I consider to be an altogether ludicrous position: held by virtually no scientists of any repute.

I must say that I don't feel so badly about disagreeing with Robert Sungenis, concerning geocentrism and the permissibility of belief in theistic evolution, since I'm in very good company. He feels perfectly entitled to disagree with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, (as well as Pope John Paul II) on the question of the supposed young earth and evolution, and on whether the latter was condemned by the Church "de fide." The pope says no; Bob says yes, and he is fool enough to think that we ought to accept his word simply because he says it, rather than believe that the pope knows better than he about what the Church teaches and doesn't teach, and permits as a belief and doesn't permit:

I stand by what I said, and I will even make it clearer and stronger in my follow up: Evolution is a heretical view of cosmogony due to the de fide statements from the magisterium given to us over 650 years that deny evolution and affirm ex nihilo creation. Those de fide statements are found in Lateran Council IV and Vatican Council I. . . .

As for whether we can criticize Pope Benedict for listening to the “vast majority of (expert) scientists,” we can do so if Pope Benedict has made a concerted effort to ignore the other scientists in the world who have shown that evolution is impossible. Unfortunately, Pope Benedict has decided to ignore the alternative evidence and give more credence to evolution, just as John Paul II did. I know from various colleagues who talked with Cardinal Ratzinger, face to face at the Vatican. The Cardinal was presented with scientific evidence on stratigraphy showing that the geologic column was not created over millions of years but was made over a matter of months, but he simply rejected the evidence and sided with the status quo of evolution, and he did so by his own private judgment, even though he has no scientific credentials. That is what I am talking about, David. I don’t make my accusations lightly.

(Question 296: "Are you being too harsh on Pope Benedict regarding evolution?")

This is, of course, a Protestant-like private judgment to a remarkable degree (a thing sadly common among many radical Catholic reactionaries, and is its own refutation. In acting in this fashion, Bob shows himself quite similar in approach to Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms in 1521: standing there defying the Church and thinking he knew better than Holy Mother Church.

446 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 446 of 446
johnmartin said...

J- But as I've said already, John is manifestly unequipped to address these matters -- and I deem it's a waste of time and energy to devote any further efforts toward countering his errors and illogic.

JM- That’s right you did say that before. I’ve made several statements concerning the ineptitude of the church and then backed those statements with clear examples. Frank attempted to clear the church on the matters of the Papal infallibility and inerrancy. His attempts were orthodox but inadequate. If you think I am not equipped to address these matters under consideration, then answer the many questions posed to you and also answer the clear testimony of history that shows the church has taught several doctrines in one century and then following those teachings, there is widespread and well known tolerance from the church magesterium of catholic theologians who teach heterodox doctrines.

You can answer the historical cases of Raymond Brown and the PBC statements made early last century. Both cases involve clear breaches of orthodox doctrines. The historical case is undeniable.

It will take some time to answer the other parts of this dialogue concerning the “Church's actions in the 1700s and 1800s granting liberty in this matter” because I am tied up with other studies at the moment. However I assure you I will answer this objection as it is probably one of the stronger objections to the geo position and is worthy of consideration.

I believe the church has identified a stationary earth as part of the faith from the Papacy itself and that statement has not been overturned by any change in the books listed on the index.

I believe you have repeatedly made statements aimed directly at my character and Rick has correctly highlighted some of those comments.

I am not Robert Sungenis and I don’t even live in the same country as he does. I’ve never met him and only spoken to him on the odd occasion via the internet regarding apologetics and the matter of geocentrism. I would like to meet him and personally thank him for his work. I guess in the end you will have to trust me.

JM

James said...

From what I know of it everyone who posts a comment on this thread sets a new record for the number of comments placed under a single article on this blogsite so it looks like I will be the new record holder, but presumably not for long!

My little two cents may seem somewhat mundane in comparison to many of the quite learned comments already placed on this thread. Nevertheless, I thought I'd toss it out as my small contribution to this worthwhile discussion.

By your fruits you shall know them. Many would say that the Church Militant reached its apex in the 13th Century and ever since has experienced a continual decline interrupted by some relatively brief intervals of Church glory. Along the way we had a major breach, and the first real one at that, in the universal perception by Christians of Biblical inerrancy. As the breach widened it served to undermine not only the authority of Sacred Scripture, but with it the Catholic Church Herself. The implications of this have been truly devastating. The fruits of this breach have, without a doubt, been profoundly and stupendously rotten.

What caused the breach which did not come onto the scene like a sudden major dam burst? It was a new view of the earth in relation to the sun. It was planted by Copernicus and watered by Galileo. The Church applied strong weed killer, but God allowed this weed to continue to grow alongside His flower of geocentrism. Then finally, the weed sprung up into full bloom in the 20th Century. Modern science, divorced from any Church guidance, over the centuries had continually nurtured and, of course, continues to care for and protect it till this day.

I submit that the effects of the take over of heliocentrism as the established world view by the vast majority of Christians and most of the rest of the world at large has been of absolutely catastrophic dimensions. I believe that the effects of this view have so influenced and permeated science and the Church in particular, and mankind in general, as to have brought about (or at least significantly contributed to) the loss of countless souls in perhaps almost a countless number and combination of ways. The fact that almost no one thinks of this, let alone dares to admit it, doesn't make it any less true, but it certainly makes it immensely more difficult to come to grips with.

It could well take a book, and a big one at that, to really do justice to a full discussion of the dire consequences of the introduction of the "dogma" of heliocentrism into the world. Therefore, I would simply ask the reader to contemplate what I say here. By their fruits you shall know them.

The searching out for, recognizing, and acceptance of truth helps us get to heaven if it is subordinated to knowing, loving, and serving God. We were created for one sole reason: to know, love, and serve the Truth now and forever. Holy Mother Church via tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium is our guide. When any of these three holy pillars come under serious attack our souls may well hang in the eternal balance. By their fruits you shall know them!

James B. Phillips

johnmartin said...

I agree with your comment James. The Catholic world has embraced helio and the biblical consequences have been enormous. Watching the explanations of Catholic theologians twist and contort their way through church history and hermeneutics is intellectual torture. Only geo does justice to the biblical text and no doubt, it highly probable that's what the fathers thought as well. Geo fits the text just so well. So if she aint broke, why fix it? Geo aint broke, even thought science myth says it is. The restoration of geocentrism in theology and science is a big step towards restoring Christendom.

JM

Frank said...

Delano said "I believe Bob's criticism was specifically directed toward your treatment of the *facts* in the Galileo case, Dave. "

Wrong. Go read what Bob said again. You may say that Sungenis and you agree that this is a matter that Catholics can disagree on but that is not at all what he says when he goes after Dave and others. Try again.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Rick,

I believe Bob's criticism was specifically directed toward your treatment of the *facts* in the Galileo case, Dave.

The facts and logic remain what they are, and the English language what it is. You can spin this as much as you like and put your head in the sand and refuse to see the insults, but they are there, and they do not help Bob's case.

Probably 90% of Bob's critique of me was about the arguments, but the insults are also there, and they are sweeping and slanderous. And there are more in a second paper as well: both of which I have now documented twice: in my initial reply and in replies to Bob's response that I just put up.

Dave Armstrong said...

I have catalogued with convenient links an additional 23 comments by David Palm in this combox, and also 38 by Jordanes, in the previously posted paper:

Geocentrism: Not at All an Infallible Dogma of the Catholic Church (David Palm and "Jordanes")

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/geocentrism-not-at-all-infallible-dogma.html

Thanks again for your superb and eloquent defense of historical and magisterial truth, guys! I appreciate all your hard work and perseverance in the face of relentless noncomprehension.

Hats off also to S, Frank, and Adomnan. I certainly didn't have to devote further time to these issues, with all of this excellent analysis going down in my combox.

I also will take this chance to reiterate to the geocentrists, that y'all are welcome to speak freely here, and I have nothing personally against you. Like the men above, I continue to have very profound disagreements with you. Period. I have no need to make it a personal issue beyond the dramatic and stark intellectual disagreement.

Dave Armstrong said...

It's interesting to me how this "Bible and Science" subject matter generates the most comments on my blog. This combox is probably the all-time record for my blog (405 and counting).

The previous "big comments" post was about YEC and its prevalence among anti-Catholic Protestants (Sep. 2010):

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/09/young-earth-creationism-among-leading.html

That generated 150 comments.

Before that, it was a paper about Galileo's errors, which garnered 109 comments in July:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/07/no-ones-perfect-scientific-errors-of.html

ThePalmHQ said...

"It's interesting to me how this 'Bible and Science' subject matter generates the most comments on my blog."

It is interesting indeed. One thing that johnmartin has definitely proven to my satisfaction is that he has a lot more discretionary time than I do ;o). I don't find geocentrism itself very interesting, since I consider it monumentally implausible on multiple fronts. But this discussion of faith, science, and the Magisterium is what keeps me engaged.

So on that point, I am trying to pull together my thoughts on that broader topic, with this latest discussion about geocentrism as a springboard. But I am slated to go on vacation soon and have a lot of other matters to which I must attend. I do hope to contribute at least one last piece to this discussion, however. Suffice for now to say that I remain steadfast in my contention that matters of science do not fall into the realm of faith and morals and therefore, not geocentrism or a literal six day creation or a young earth or a wholesale rejection of every facet of evolution was never taught by the ordinary Magisterium. I am unconvinced that the unanimous consent of the Fathers can be invoked on any matter that does not pertain to faith and morals, equally unconvinced that claiming that they were in consensus on something magically transforms it into a matter of faith, further unconvinced that the evidence even supports such a claim of consensus in this specific instance (as I have argued above), and indeed unconvinced that even those Fathers who did touch on this matter viewed it as a matter of faith.

Rick DeLano certainly thinks that a lot of things are "beyond dispute", but unfortunately it is precisely those "beyond disputed" matters that are under dispute here. Let's leave it there for now and I will ponder how to present the broader issue and hope to post at least one more time here.

With that, wishing all a happy Thanksgiving (even you JM, even though you probably won't be celebrating it Down Under ;o)

johnmartin said...

D- It is interesting indeed. One thing that johnmartin has definitely proven to my satisfaction is that he has a lot more discretionary time than I do ;o). I don't find geocentrism itself very interesting, since I consider it monumentally implausible on multiple fronts. But this discussion of faith, science, and the Magisterium is what keeps me engaged.

JM- The implausibility of geo has not been demonstrated by Mr Palm, Mr Hoge or Mr Cole. Why then is it implausible? It’s probably only implausible for Mr Palm because of a psychological conditioning common to man in the age of science. We shall see. Yet again, I’m beginning to see a pattern in Mr Palms writings. He is consistently evasive and pads out his posts with irrelevant details to the matter of geo. Even still I’m willing to engage him if and when he is ready to directly discuss the subject of geo.

D- So on that point, I am trying to pull together my thoughts on that broader topic,

JM- So I take it Mr Palm has no abandoned any defense of his previous arguments against geo and will only discuss a broader topic. Mr Palms arguments which conclude to geo not being part of the faith have been answered in substance and Mr. Palm refuses to engage those rebuttals to his arguments.

D- with this latest discussion about geocentrism as a springboard. But I am slated to go on vacation soon and have a lot of other matters to which I must attend. I do hope to contribute at least one last piece to this discussion, however. Suffice for now to say that I remain steadfast in my contention that matters of science do not fall into the realm of faith and morals and therefore, not geocentrism or a literal six day creation or a young earth or a wholesale rejection of every facet of evolution was never taught by the ordinary Magisterium.

JM- Here is yet another problematic statement by Mr Palm. He says “matters of science do not fall into the realm of faith”, yet I have shown on this combox that geo is a matter for both science and faith. Reasons were given against Jordanes and other statements were made as well. And again Mr Palm is a no show on this matter either. So too with the subject of the days of creation. How can the creation week be studied by empirical science when empirical science uses the inductive method? The inductive method requires experimental evidence to verify a theory. As the creation event is a one time only event, no experimental evidence can be used to verify a theory against a six day creation week. Therefore the six day creation week is essentially a matter of faith. An objector may say we have circumstantial evidence against the creation week, therefore the creation week is merely a theory proposed that must be subject to the evidence at hand. The answer – this falls into the category of inconsistency. The six day creation week is a supernatural event and the measure of this event cannot be the lowly naturalist empirical science theory. Why? A supernatural event involves the action of an agent acting above nature and as such, the statements made by God who revealed this truth fall into a different science with a different formal object. As the object of the science of sacred theology and dogmatic theology is different to that of natural science, then natural science cannot overturn the truths known to that science. It would be like saying trees don’t exist because the science of maths has a theory whereby it proves trees don’t exist. The science of maths has a different object (quantity in the abstract) to that of botany with its object as (vegetative life in the concrete).
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- I am unconvinced that the unanimous consent of the Fathers can be invoked on any matter that does not pertain to faith and morals,

JM- Dave is only stating a truism here. There is solid evidence from the fathers that they got their geo doctrine from scripture. Yes some Greeks held to a form of geo, but some held to helio. So if Dave wants to pin the fathers to the Greeks he must tell us why they all went against the helio Greeks. The obvious anser is the Greek were split on the matter because they didn’t follow revelation. The fathers were united on the matter because hey did follow revelation. The fathers were unanimous on geo from scripture and because they taught geo, geo is apostolic.

D- equally unconvinced that claiming that they were in consensus on something magically transforms it into a matter of faith,

JM- It’s unconvincing when David refuses to answer my statements and questions concerning geo as a matter of faith. David’s avoidance of these questions means nothing to him. He thinks he can merely assert a problem, ignore the answer and then reassert the answered position once again.

D- further unconvinced that the evidence even supports such a claim of consensus in this specific instance (as I have argued above),

JM – Again David ignores my answers to his arguments, which were again -previously ignored! Does David think nobody is reading the combox and nobody has noticed you systematically ignore rebuttals to your arguments. Do you really think readers are that stupid David?

D- and indeed unconvinced that even those Fathers who did touch on this matter viewed it as a matter of faith.

JM- Sure David, you are unconvinced. But then again I’m not convinced you have the nouse to answer the rebuttals and questions against your position. It means nothing to me that you are unconvinced, it means everything that you have chosen not to answer my statements. It’s like the man who repeatedly goes to the doctor and never takes his pills. The only solution to the problem is to listen to what the other side is saying and take the pills. So be a man and take the pills Dave. Re-read those many statements against your arguments and then be a man and rebut them or at least act with integrity and acknowledge you cannot rebut my statements.

D- Rick DeLano certainly thinks that a lot of things are "beyond dispute", but unfortunately it is precisely those "beyond disputed" matters that are under dispute here. Let's leave it there for now and I will ponder how to present the broader issue and hope to post at least one more time here.

With that, wishing all a happy Thanksgiving (even you JM, even though you probably won't be celebrating it Down Under ;o)

JM- There is plenty in dispute. But one thing is for sure – I have repeatedly noticed Mr Palms evasion on many matters directly related to the matter of geo as discussed on this combox.

JM

James said...

If I am not mistaken Mr. Armstrong somewhere on his blogsite refers to geocentrism as "ludicrous." Strong language!

I refer back to my comment at Sat Nov 20, 04:38:00 AM EST as regards the issue of "By your fruits you shall know them." The salvation of souls is quite understandably the supreme law of the Church. (Section 1752 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law)

Has the acceptance of heliocentrism by Churchmen (as distinguished from the Church Magisterium) and countless Catholics been a good thing in terms of the salvation of souls or an evil thing? Has it been a positive factor in the history of the Church or a negative factor? Has it helped to strengthen men in their faith or has it contributed to the diminution of their faith? Why do atheists and people who hate the Catholic Church promote heliocentrism and ridicule those who would promote geocentrism? Can there be any doubt in the words of one Catholic commentator as to "heliocentricity's potential for destroying the Faith by attacking the inerrancy of Scripture?" Are these questions not worth serious discussion in the heliocentrism vs geocentrism debate?

Noted Catholic author Solange Hertz in her very insightful article "Recanting Galileo" (http://www.lewisdt.com/research/Geocentrism/recanting%20.pdf) states that "both heliocentricity and geocentricity are naturally unprovable. Geocentricity, however, can be proved theologically, whereas heliocentricity cannot." In considering this let us keep uppermost in our mind that theology is a science and it being the study of God is by far and away the highest and most important of all sciences. (Needless to say, scientism that idol and breeding ground of free thinkers, agnostics, and atheists of all stripes rejects this notion out of hand.)

Allow me to finish this comment with the words of Solange Hertz taken from the above referenced article. "The divine Son Jesus , Who lived a human life on Earth, continues to abide there mystically but really in the Blessed Sacrament, body, soul, blood, and divinity. With the institution of the Mass after the Last Supper, Earth became the constant theater of the Holy Sacrifice about to be offered on Calvary and the home of the Sacramental Christ. The Sacred Heart of the God-man throbbing even now on Earth, is the true spiritual and physical center of the universe. Those who have the temerity to displace the Blessed Sacrament from the main altars of churches to side chapels or remote corners, betray [I think she meant to say "display." JBP] the same perversity as those who wish to displace the Son of Man from His central position in Creation by making of Earth, His predestined seat, some obscure outpost in a second rate galaxy. Woe to them when He returns as He promised! Thus is clear that the structure of the universe is properly an object of faith. God had to reveal that He made Earth its center, because although, like Aristotle, we might believe so from observation, on purely human faith, we could never be certain in view of the impossibility of scientific proof."

James B. Phillips

johnmartin said...

D- It is interesting indeed. One thing that johnmartin has definitely proven to my satisfaction is that he has a lot more discretionary time than I do ;o). I don't find geocentrism itself very interesting, since I consider it monumentally implausible on multiple fronts. But this discussion of faith, science, and the Magisterium is what keeps me engaged.

JM- The implausibility of geo has not been demonstrated by Mr Palm, Mr Hoge or Mr Cole. Why then is it implausible? It’s probably only implausible for Mr Palm because of a psychological conditioning common to man in the age of science. We shall see. Yet again, I’m beginning to see a pattern in Mr Palms writings. He is consistently evasive and pads out his posts with irrelevant details to the matter of geo. Even still I’m willing to engage him if and when he is ready to directly discuss the subject of geo.

D- So on that point, I am trying to pull together my thoughts on that broader topic,

JM- So I take it Mr Palm has no abandoned any defense of his previous arguments against geo and will only discuss a broader topic. Mr Palms arguments which conclude to geo not being part of the faith have been answered in substance and Mr. Palm refuses to engage those rebuttals to his arguments.

D- with this latest discussion about geocentrism as a springboard. But I am slated to go on vacation soon and have a lot of other matters to which I must attend. I do hope to contribute at least one last piece to this discussion, however. Suffice for now to say that I remain steadfast in my contention that matters of science do not fall into the realm of faith and morals and therefore, not geocentrism or a literal six day creation or a young earth or a wholesale rejection of every facet of evolution was never taught by the ordinary Magisterium.
. . .

johnmartin said...

JM- Here is yet another problematic statement by Mr Palm. He says “matters of science do not fall into the realm of faith”, yet I have shown on this combox that geo is a matter for both science and faith. Reasons were given against Jordanes and other statements were made as well. And again Mr Palm is a no show on this matter either. So too with the subject of the days of creation. How can the creation week be studied by empirical science when empirical science uses the inductive method? The inductive method requires experimental evidence to verify a theory. As the creation event is a one time only event, no experimental evidence can be used to verify a theory against a six day creation week. Therefore the six day creation week is essentially a matter of faith. An objector may say we have circumstantial evidence against the creation week, therefore the creation week is merely a theory proposed that must be subject to the evidence at hand. The answer – this falls into the category of inconsistency. The six day creation week is a supernatural event and the measure of this event cannot be the lowly naturalist empirical science theory. Why? A supernatural event involves the action of an agent acting above nature and as such, the statements made by God who revealed this truth fall into a different science with a different formal object. As the object of the science of sacred theology and dogmatic theology is different to that of natural science, then natural science cannot overturn the truths known to that science. It would be like saying trees don’t exist because the science of maths has a theory whereby it proves trees don’t exist. The science of maths has a different object (quantity in the abstract) to that of botany with its object as (vegetative life in the concrete).

D- I am unconvinced that the unanimous consent of the Fathers can be invoked on any matter that does not pertain to faith and morals,

JM- Dave is only stating a truism here. There is solid evidence from the fathers that they got their geo doctrine from scripture. Yes some Greeks held to a form of geo, but some held to helio. So if Dave wants to pin the fathers to the Greeks he must tell us why they all went against the helio Greeks. The obvious anser is the Greek were split on the matter because they didn’t follow revelation. The fathers were united on the matter because hey did follow revelation. The fathers were unanimous on geo from scripture and because they taught geo, geo is apostolic.

D- equally unconvinced that claiming that they were in consensus on something magically transforms it into a matter of faith,

JM- It’s unconvincing when David refuses to answer my statements and questions concerning geo as a matter of faith. David’s avoidance of these questions means nothing to him. He thinks he can merely assert a problem, ignore the answer and then reassert the answered position once again.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- further unconvinced that the evidence even supports such a claim of consensus in this specific instance (as I have argued above),

JM – Again David ignores my answers to his arguments, which were again -previously ignored! Does David think nobody is reading the combox and nobody has noticed you systematically ignore rebuttals to your arguments. Do you really think readers are that stupid David?

D- and indeed unconvinced that even those Fathers who did touch on this matter viewed it as a matter of faith.

JM- Sure David, you are unconvinced. But then again I’m not convinced you have the nouse to answer the rebuttals and questions against your position. It means nothing to me that you are unconvinced, it means everything that you have chosen not to answer my statements. It’s like the man who repeatedly goes to the doctor and never takes his pills. The only solution to the problem is to listen to what the other side is saying and take the pills. So be a man and take the pills Dave. Re-read those many statements against your arguments and then be a man and rebut them or at least act with integrity and acknowledge you cannot rebut my statements.

D- Rick DeLano certainly thinks that a lot of things are "beyond dispute", but unfortunately it is precisely those "beyond disputed" matters that are under dispute here. Let's leave it there for now and I will ponder how to present the broader issue and hope to post at least one more time here.


With that, wishing all a happy Thanksgiving (even you JM, even though you probably won't be celebrating it Down Under ;o)
JM- There is plenty in dispute. But one thing is for sure – I have repeatedly noticed Mr Palms evasion on many matters directly related to the matter of geo as discussed on this combox.

JM

Mark said...

Evasion, johnmartin? Or whoever you are?

Personally, I find geocentrist folderol amusing for the most part and it doesn't matter a whit to me who proposes it. But you're a different case, johnmartin. Unlike the others here and at the theologyweb forum (whether "geocentrist" or no), your identity matters because whoever is using that name roaming the internet far and wide has behaved rudely and dishonestly while attacking honest and decent people over a period of several years. And you do this to advance your agenda.

If Sungenis or any of his conference confreres are involved, there may also be a financial motivation. In reading through these comments I note that one of Sungenis' geocentric confreres admitted that their goal is indeed to sell geocentrism -- and subsequently Sungenis' books, of course. Perhaps you are simply a groupie (or groupies) trying to curry favor with your geocentrist idol without a financial interest, but perhaps not.

Stating that "I am not Robert Sungenis" here is almost as evasive as when you wrote "you must have been drunk when you wrote this" in answer to questions as to whether you were Sungenis at the theologyweb forum.

As was pointed out then, if there are two or more people using the name Johnmartin, John Martin et al or if you have ever basically taken Sungenis' information and reposted it for him, then you could still truthfully say that "you" are not Sungenis. But, as Jon already mentioned, you admitted that you were running back and forth to Sungenis about 4 years ago after everyone noticed that your answers varied strangely and markedly in style and that you took criticism of Sungenis quite personally. And you're still advancing the same geocentric folderol now.

So claims about barely communicating with Sungenis are patent nonsense. Why should anyone watching your latest attempts to sell geocentrism and Sungenis' nutty book think you've changed your ways? We saw the games that you played over at the theologyweb. You and your confreres who push goecentric folderol had a sock puppet account shut down (matmark).

Another thread was shut down because of your rudeness. And so, I don't think it matters what you say here about your identity because you've already proven in the past that you will use words to deceive, just as you do with your geocentrist folderol.

Mark said...

To Johnmartin, whoever you are.

Personally, I find geocentrist folderol amusing for the most part and it doesn't matter a whit to me who advances it. But you're a different case. Unlike the others here and at the theologyweb forum (whether "geocentrist" or no), your identity matters because whoever is using that name roaming the internet far and wide has behaved rudely and dishonestly while attacking honest and decent people over a period of several years. And you do this to advance your agenda.

If Sungenis or any of his conference confreres are involved, there may also be a financial motivation. In reading through these comments I note that one of Sungenis' geocentric confreres stated straight out that their goal is indeed to sell geocentrism -- and subsequently Sungenis' books, of course. Perhaps you are simply a groupie (or groupies) trying to curry favor with your geocentrist idol without a financial interest, but perhaps not.

Stating that "I am not Robert Sungenis" here is as evasive as when you you said exactly the same thing at the theologyweb forum and also when you wrote "you must have been drunk when you wrote this."

As was pointed out then, if there are two or more people using the name Johnmartin, John Martin et al or if you have ever basically taken Sungenis' information and reposted it for him, then you could still truthfully say that "you" are not Sungenis. But, as Jon already mentioned, you admitted that you were running back and forth to Sungenis about 4 years ago after everyone noticed that your answers varied strangely and markedly in style and that you took criticism of Sungenis quite personally. And you're still advancing the same geocentric folderol now.

(continues on below)

Mark said...

So claims about barely communicating with Sungenis are patent nonsense. Why should anyone watching your latest attempts to sell geocentrism and Sungenis' nutty book think you've changed your ways? We saw the games that you played over at the theologyweb. You and your confreres who push goecentric folderol had a sock puppet account shut down (matmark).

Another thread was shut down because of your rudeness. And so, I don't think it matters what you say here about your identity because you've already proven in the past that you will use words to deceive, just as you do with your geocentrist folderol.

You wrote to James Phillips, "I agree with your comment James."

Not surprising that Sungenis groupies think alike. But I wonder, Johnmartin (whoever and however many you are): do you also share in James' other extracurricular interests? After searching his name and geocentrism I encountered this at the Discover blog:

Oh, good heavens. Now I find out that you’re a fan of Michael Hoffman, Mr. Phillips. That explains your affinity for Sungenis
.
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-catholic-shoah-theology-newsletter.html?showComment=1240938120000#c3228893315301159821

Enough said, I won’t waste my time any further on this kind of putrescent idiocy.

Michael Hoffman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Michael%20A.%20Hoffman%20II

Mark said...

To Johnmartin, whoever you are.

Personally, I find geocentrist folderol amusing for the most part and it doesn't matter a whit to me who advances it. But you're a different case. Unlike the others here and at the theologyweb forum (whether "geocentrist" or no), your identity matters because whoever is using that name roaming the internet far and wide has behaved rudely and dishonestly while attacking honest and decent people over a period of several years. And you do this to advance your agenda.

If Sungenis or any of his conference confreres are involved, there may also be a financial motivation. In reading through these comments I note that one of Sungenis' geocentric confreres stated straight out that their goal is indeed to sell geocentrism -- and subsequently Sungenis' books, of course. Perhaps you are simply a groupie (or groupies) trying to curry favor with your geocentrist idol without a financial interest, but perhaps not.

Stating that "I am not Robert Sungenis" here is as evasive as when you you said exactly the same thing at the theologyweb forum and also when you wrote "you must have been drunk when you wrote this."

(continues on below)

Mark said...

As was pointed out then, if there are two or more people using the name Johnmartin, John Martin et al or if you have ever basically taken Sungenis' information and reposted it for him, then you could still truthfully say that "you" are not Sungenis.

But, as has already been noted, you admitted that you were running back and forth to Sungenis about 4 years ago after everyone saw that your answers varied strangely and markedly in style and that you took criticism of Sungenis so personally. And you're still advancing the same geocentric folderol now.

So claims about barely communicating with Sungenis are patent nonsense. Why should anyone watching your latest attempts to sell geocentrism and Sungenis' book think you've changed your ways? We saw the games that you played over at the theologyweb. You and your confreres who push goecentric folderol had a sock puppet account shut down (matmark).

Another thread was shut down because of your rudeness. And so, I don't think it matters what you say here about your identity because you've already proven in the past that you will use words to deceive, just as you do with your geocentrist folderol.

Mark said...

As was pointed out then, if there are two or more people using the name Johnmartin, John Martin et al or if you have ever basically taken Sungenis' information and reposted it for him, then you could still truthfully say that "you" are not Sungenis.

But, as has already been noted, you admitted that you were running back and forth to Sungenis about 4 years ago after everyone saw that your answers varied strangely and markedly in style and that you took criticism of Sungenis so personally. And you're still advancing the same geocentric folderol now.

(continues on below)

Mark said...

So claims about barely communicating with Sungenis are patent nonsense. Why should anyone watching your latest attempts to sell geocentrism and Sungenis' book think you've changed your ways? We saw the games that you played over at the theologyweb. You and your confreres who push goecentric folderol had a sock puppet account shut down (matmark).

Another thread was shut down because of your rudeness. And so, I don't think it matters what you say here about your identity because you've already proven in the past that you will use words to deceive, just as you do with your geocentrist folderol.

Mark said...

You wrote to James Phillips, "I agree with your comment James." Not surprising that Sungenis groupies think alike. But I wonder, Johnmartin (whoever and however many you are): do you also share in James' other extracurricular interests? i I thought I recognized his name and indeed I did. After searching his name and geocentrism I encountered this comment by a disgusted poster at the Discover blog:

Quote:

Oh, good heavens. Now I find out that you’re a fan of Michael Hoffman, Mr. Phillips. That explains your affinity for Sungenis.

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-catholic-shoah-theology-newsletter.html?showComment=1240938120000#c3228893315301159821

Enough said, I won’t waste my time any further on this kind of putrescent idiocy.

Michael Hoffman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Michael%20A.%20Hoffman%20II

(End of Quote)

Mark said...

Here are just a few comments from the theologyweb forum that show what "johnmartin" has been up to and what we all noticed there. Unlike his goecentric folderol, it's worth your time.

Oxmixmud: “John - you are acting like YOU are Robert Sungenis or Bennet, and his assessment of their education is a personal insult.”

Mark Little: "Why John Martin, you have changed your theory yet again. Not only that your mannerisms and content has changed remarkably."

Jim: "John Martin: ARE YOU ROBERT SUNGENIS. Remember: lying is a sin."

Jim: "BTW: are you or are you not Robert Sungenis. "

johnmartin: "You were drunk when you wrote this weren’t you."

Oxmixmud : "You were drunk when you wrote this weren’t you. John Martin"

Oh no, I am quite serious. I think it is very likely you are Mr. Sungenis. And the more you evade the question, the more I become convinced. So make a clear statement. If you say you are not him, I will accept it. It is you who will have to live with the fact you lied if you are in fact him, not me."

johnmartin: "I'm not Robert Sungenis."

Mark Little: "I think we understand that there is a [John Martin] who is not Robert Sungenis. The question was whether you were the only person using the account. I'm sure your religion would not allow you to lie by omission by saying something that would mislead us into believing one thing when you know this is not true, so I'll take that statement as meaning that no one else has been using your account or telling/giving you what to say."

continues on below

Mark said...

Here are just a few comments from the theologyweb forum that show what "johnmartin" has been up to and what we all noticed there. Unlike his goecentric folderol, it's worth your time.

Oxmixmud: “John - you are acting like YOU are Robert Sungenis or Bennet, and his assessment of their education is a personal insult.”

Mark Little: "Why John Martin, you have changed your theory yet again. Not only that your mannerisms and content has changed remarkably."

Jim: "John Martin: ARE YOU ROBERT SUNGENIS. Remember: lying is a sin."

Jim: "BTW: are you or are you not Robert Sungenis. "

johnmartin: "You were drunk when you wrote this weren’t you."

Oxmixmud : "You were drunk when you wrote this weren’t you. John Martin"

Oh no, I am quite serious. I think it is very likely you are Mr. Sungenis. And the more you evade the question, the more I become convinced. So make a clear statement. If you say you are not him, I will accept it. It is you who will have to live with the fact you lied if you are in fact him, not me.

continues on below

Mark said...

johnmartin: "I'm not Robert Sungenis."

Mark Little: "I think we understand that there is a [John Martin] who is not Robert Sungenis. The question was whether you were the only person using the account. I'm sure your religion would not allow you to lie by omission by saying something that would mislead us into believing one thing when you know this is not true, so I'll take that statement as meaning that no one else has been using your account or telling/giving you what to say."

SteveF. "It is interesting that [John Martin] has not commented on this matter. Personally, I would be outraged if someone claimed that I was using a sock-puppet (and I wasn't) and tell everyone in no uncertain terms that it was all rubbish. Of course if I did get caught using a sock puppet and the messages could be traced back to my internet address, I guess I would keep quiet and hope it goes away. Hopefully, [John Martin] has not gone down "the slippery slope" as another poster likes to to tell everyone else. Even though I think his ideas are definately wierd, I wouldn't think that he openly lie about such as thing if asked, so to sort it out, at least in my mind: JohnMartin, did you use a sock-puppet account (matmark)?

continues on below

Mark said...

johnmartin: "Ok lets see if it ends now. Here’s the apology – I apologise for any breach of Tweb rules I have committed in the past, such as any plagiarism and the use of sockpuppet accounts. There you go, I’m now clean as clean."

Roy: "No, John, you aren't clean. For one thing, your above apology is non-specific - it doesn't actually confirm whether or not you wrote the 'matmark' posts. Since you complained about someone else's answers being 'evasive and vague' in the same post there is a moral onus - a burden - on you to be precise and straightforward, lest you be seen as a hypocrite - and the above apology does not meet the standard you set. For another, sockpuppetry and plagiarism aren't the only issues. There is also your constant use of double-standards - insisting that others behave better than you do; your apparent inability to ever admit when you don't understand something; and more recently, the appearance of dishonesty. But the main reason you aren't clean is that you've only just realised that you're dirty. You don't yet know how dirty. You're still at the stage of admitting that you have a problem, and as yet you don't know how serious that problem is. You're like someone standing up for the first time at a recovery meeting and saying "My name is John and I am a sock-puppeteer". And like an addict, the initial admittance of failure doesn't get you clean - it's the months of hard work after that, of adopting different behaviours, of making recompense to those you've offended, and generally trying to become a different person that make you clean."

Mark said...

johnmartin: "Ok lets see if it ends now. Here’s the apology – I apologise for any breach of Tweb rules I have committed in the past, such as any plagiarism and the use of sockpuppet accounts. There you go, I’m now clean as clean."

continues on below

Mark said...

Roy: "No, John, you aren't clean. For one thing, your above apology is non-specific - it doesn't actually confirm whether or not you wrote the 'matmark' posts. Since you complained about someone else's answers being 'evasive and vague' in the same post there is a moral onus - a burden - on you to be precise and straightforward, lest you be seen as a hypocrite - and the above apology does not meet the standard you set. For another, sockpuppetry and plagiarism aren't the only issues. There is also your constant use of double-standards - insisting that others behave better than you do; your apparent inability to ever admit when you don't understand something; and more recently, the appearance of dishonesty. But the main reason you aren't clean is that you've only just realised that you're dirty. You don't yet know how dirty. You're still at the stage of admitting that you have a problem, and as yet you don't know how serious that problem is. You're like someone standing up for the first time at a recovery meeting and saying "My name is John and I am a sock-puppeteer". And like an addict, the initial admittance of failure doesn't get you clean - it's the months of hard work after that, of adopting different behaviours, of making recompense to those you've offended, and generally trying to become a different person that make you clean."

Mark said...

Sylas:

Johnmartin posted this same article back in msg #126 of this thread. However, the previous time the formatting was all wrong, and it still included footnotes from the original source he was plainly cut and pasting. I have reported the post.

Sylas:

I decided some months ago that john was just not worth debating for various reasons. I don't think he has any credibility at all in this forum, so I've just been ignoring the floods of nonsense.

A couple of posts in the last day or two moved me to comment. John's behaviour is destructive. It's possible that he did write the material he has been cutting and pasting ... In my report I just said that I could not find the source, but that it was repeated in the thread and a plain bad cut and paste job. (If we want to get into outright intellectual theft, there are better examples where johnmartin has stolen the work of others.)

For the record... if you have written other essays that are relevant, the best thing is to give an abstract or summary, with a cite or link to the original. It's very poor practice to pad out threads by dumping lots of text you've kept on hand from other contexts. Doing it twice is not a minor infraction at all. Doing it twice in the same thread, without comment or warning, and you're very bad news indeed.

Mark said...

Sylas:

Johnmartin posted this same article back in msg #126 of this thread. However, the previous time the formatting was all wrong, and it still included footnotes from the original source he was plainly cut and pasting. I have reported the post.

Mark said...

Sylas:

I decided some months ago that john was just not worth debating for various reasons. I don't think he has any credibility at all in this forum, so I've just been ignoring the floods of nonsense.

A couple of posts in the last day or two moved me to comment. John's behaviour is destructive. It's possible that he did write the material he has been cutting and pasting ... In my report I just said that I could not find the source, but that it was repeated in the thread and a plain bad cut and paste job. (If we want to get into outright intellectual theft, there are better examples where johnmartin has stolen the work of others.)

For the record... if you have written other essays that are relevant, the best thing is to give an abstract or summary, with a cite or link to the original. It's very poor practice to pad out threads by dumping lots of text you've kept on hand from other contexts. Doing it twice is not a minor infraction at all. Doing it twice in the same thread, without comment or warning, and you're very bad news indeed.

Mark said...

Poor deluded little Moonbat [johnmartin]! Do you really think that your buddies Bennett and Sungenis will write anything different in their books that we haven't already seen? You just spent the last three months playing the ventriloquist's dummy (a perfect role for a blockhead IMHO) for them and they still couldn't answer the simplest criticism of their garbage.

Remember you were asked about how Geocentric believers calculate the distance to stars, and Bennet replied “We can’t tell?” Or how we asked the Geo explanation for stellar parallax and we got the idiotic “The aether moves?” Or how we asked you to provide backup for the density of the aether being 4x10e93 gm/cm3 but you couldn’t do it? The list goes on and on...

Here’s a thought – how about you invite those goofballs here and have them defend their nutcase ideas on an open board? Ask them, and see what excuses they give you.

- Tiggy

johnmartin said...

Whatever happened on another thread years ago is history. There's nothing that can be done about it.

It only shows me the anti geos have nothing to say on the topic so they attack the author.

In fact anyone who is interested in geo can read the geo threads over there. I put a lot of work into many posts and I believe I defended geo quite well over a long time period in a quite hostile environment.

Anyway this thread is not about me, it's about geo.

JM

Mark said...

Steve F: "Maybe you [johnmartin] should take the moral highground and explain your relationship with "matmark" and defend yourself against allegations of sockpuppetry."

Roy: "Still haven't seen any explanation of the matmark relationship"

johnmartin: "A family thing resolved with the mods and thats where it stays."

johnmartin said...

Dave Armstrong - I request you delete all of Marks posts. He is flooding the combox with the intent to attack me and has no intention of discussing the subject matter of geo. Please maintain the standards.

JM

Mark said...

John, you say, "Whatever happened on another thread years ago is history...Anyway this thread is not about me, it's about geo."

Oh, I very much disagree. By your choices, you have made this about you now.

As I already said, unlike the others here and at the theologyweb forum (whether "geocentrist" or no), your identity matters because whoever is using that name roaming the internet far and wide has behaved rudely and dishonestly while attacking honest and decent people over a period of several years. And you do this to advance your agenda.

If Sungenis or any of his conference confreres are involved, there may also be a financial motivation. In reading through these comments I note that one of Sungenis' geocentric confreres stated straight out that their goal is indeed to sell geocentrism -- and subsequently Sungenis' books, of course. Perhaps you are simply a groupie (or groupies) trying to curry favor with your geocentrist idol without a financial interest, but perhaps not.

If after knowing all this about you these people here want to continue to interact with someone like you, at least they'll know who they're dealing with.

As for me, I want nothing to do with you.

Goodbye.

johnmartin said...

M- As I already said, unlike the others here and at the theologyweb forum (whether "geocentrist" or no), your identity matters because whoever is using that name roaming the internet far and wide has behaved rudely and dishonestly while attacking honest and decent people over a period of several years. And you do this to advance your agenda.

JM- And Mark has only referenced one thread, yet JM, whoever he is has roamed far and wide and attacked honest people, whoever they are. I do believe Mark is very desperate to make me look very bad because he has no answer to the geo arguments.

They are dealing with Johnmartin and nobody else.

Goodbye.

JM

HUGH and PEGGY MILLER said...

Thank you Mr. Phillips for your most profound statement regarding the dire effects of removing the earth as the center of the Universe a la Copernicus and "watered by Galileo."

Just Saturday, Nov 20 at the end of an article entitled "Newfound planet challenges theories" an astronomer Alex Wolszczan of Penn State Un said, "he always welcomes reports indicating that planets are more common than previously believed. It keeps on making us less and less important in the universe, but I am not saddened by this [and in an attempt to laugh it off] --I think it's comforting," he said. "Do you like to be alone for long periods of time?"

But those long time periods do not exist as Geocentricism suggests and C-14 dating of fossils from dinosaurs to diamonds supports. Thus, when this realization that we are NOT random accidents of nature in a purposeless cosmos, God's laws will most assuredly be restored and respect for Him and our fellow humans from the unborn to the elderly will soar like an eagle.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi johnmartin,

Dave Armstrong - I request you delete all of Marks posts. He is flooding the combox with the intent to attack me and has no intention of discussing the subject matter of geo. Please maintain the standards.

You may be right and I may very well do that. This thread will soon come to an end one way or another. I believe in free speech, but not total domination of my blog by people with a very specific (and quite eccentric) agenda.

But before I would consider removing Mark's accusations, I want a clear, non-nonsense accounting from you:

1) Who exactly are you?

2) Do you have anything online where we can learn about you?

3) What happened at Theology Web?

4) Are you simply being fed info. from Bob Sungenis or anyone else?

I want straight and detailed answers, or else you may find your comments deleted as well. I take an extremely dim view of game-playing and identity-switching on the Internet.

Dave Armstrong said...

Mark,

Could you please provide me with some hard evidence and facts regarding your accusations toward johnmartin? I found the threads at Theology Web and they are monsters: 100 times larger than this monster combox. Can you give me some URLs where there is something objective that shows that johnmartin is just a puppet for someone else, as you contend?

johnmartin said...

I also have a small number of posts on another physics discussion board some time ago. I don’t remember the name of it though at this point in time. The discussion was on Newtonian physics and the tides. Each time I made posts under the name of Johnmartin. I have a tiny blog spot of only two posts in response to Turrentenfan here - http://johnmartin2010.blogspot.com/. You can tell I’m not Robert Sungenis and you know what . . . its very easy to work out from the difference in writing style. See for yourself. I’m me and I write like me wherever I go and Robert is not me and he writes very differently to me.

3) What happened at Theology Web? – I was in a discussion at Tweb and statements were made as expected with such a controversial topic. The persons involved were mostly atheists/agnostics who made several statements. I did have an agreement with another member of my family to create another account to bump some posts and keep the thread going. Tweb disciplined me for using two accounts and everything has been pretty sweet ever since and I’ve made several hundred posts since the incident. I’ve also since been involved in a number of threads on geo and other apologetic topics and Tweb is happy with my behavior. The geo threads have been popular with about 86,000 and 37,000 views in each. I’ve been posting on and off at Tweb since I joined in November 2004. My account has been largely inactive for about 2 months. The account is currently still open and I’m free to post there any time, just like any other member.

4) Are you simply being fed info. from Bob Sungenis or anyone else? – Definitely not. My posts on other various topics both inside Tweb and on other forums are my own writings based upon my own research, which includes information from GWW, other books and websites. I did consult Robert on some occasions early on in the original geocentrism discussion. Even when I was consulting Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennet, I was very open about it and everyone on the forum knew what was going on. It was common knowledge and only after one poster posed the question – “Are you Robert Sungenis?”, did I deny it. Actually at the time I found it offensive that someone should ask me the question and that’s why I originally reacted the way I did on the Tweb thread. Anyway the incident was a long time ago and I have continued in various dialogues with the same persons involved and we all get along just fine. It’s really water under the bridge.

D- I want straight and detailed answers, or else you may find your comments deleted as well. I take an extremely dim view of game-playing and identity-switching on the Internet.

JM- I’ve directly answered your questions. Now I request you consider my request and delete Marks posts, which are off topic. Marks posts are a clear example of character assassination.

JM

johnmartin said...

D- You may be right and I may very well do that. This thread will soon come to an end one way or another. I believe in free speech, but not total domination of my blog by people with a very specific (and quite eccentric) agenda.


But before I would consider removing Mark's accusations, I want a clear, non-nonsense accounting from you:

1) Who exactly are you? – I use my real baptismal and confirmation names - John Martin. It is my right to use such a name to be authentic and also retain some anonymity for privacy reasons.

2) Do you have anything online where we can learn about you? – Theologyweb is where I do just about all my posting. You can see a variety of thread I’ve started here –

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/search.php?searchid=33507

I’ve done some small number of posts on CARM, an example is given here –

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?10671-The-end-of-Calvinism-and-Penal-Substitution/page6&p=259683

There are some posts on Turrentenfan’s blog. One such example is here –

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21597890&postID=4299777104357587583

I also have a small number of posts on another physics discussion board some time ago. I don’t remember the name of it though at this point in time. The discussion was on Newtonian physics and the tides. Each time I made posts under the name of Johnmartin. I have a tiny blog spot of only two posts in response to Turrentenfan here - http://johnmartin2010.blogspot.com/. You can tell I’m not Robert Sungenis and you know what . . . its very easy to work out from the difference in writing style. See for yourself. I’m me and I write like me wherever I go and Robert is not me and he writes very differently to me.

Dave Armstrong said...

I am closing this thread because I'm sick of the hassle of the gigantic number of posts. I keep having to switch to the most recent page.

Whoever wants to keep commenting can do so under the "Sungenis Responds" post. But I don't want any more repetition or personal attacks from anyone.

Dave Armstrong said...

I am complying with a request from Bob Sungenis to post one last comment from him:

Dear Dave,

If you would do me one more kind favor and post this on your blog concerning the discussion on geocentrism that contains the 400+ entries, I would appreciate it. I think it will clear up a lot of confusion.

As you know, I have objected to you beginning your blog on geocentrism by showing a picture of a man on the moon and implying by that picture that I am to be considered as “absurd” and “eccentric” and not to be taken seriously when I speak on the subject of geocentrism because I doubt whether the United States sent a man to the moon. In the midst of this, one of your blog contributors made a big issue that we had included a paragraph in Galileo Was Wrong, page 440, in which Dr. Bennett states that there are lunar reflectors on the moon, and your contributor inferred by that reference that I am contradicting myself in saying that I doubt that the United States sent a man to the moon.

I have some new information that will vindicate both myself and Dr. Bennett from any contradiction.

In a National Geographic article dated December 1966, page 876, titled “The Lasers Bright Magic,” it is stated that the United States send pulses of lasers to the surface of the moon in 1962 and received back reflections of the laser light. The main paragraph states: “Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasonic equipment.”

In a November 5, 1963 article from the New York Times contained an article titled “Soviet Bounces Light Beam Off Moon in Laser Test.” The article states: “Moscow, November 4 – A concentrated beam of light has been bounced off the moon and detected on earth by a Soviet observatory in the Crimea. The feat, reported today by Tass, the Soviet press agency, duplicates an experiment done late last year by engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology….The Soviet announcement said a laser had been installed at the focal point of the 100-inch reflector telescope at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory.”

I have also discovered that the Russians placed laser reflectors on the moon by means of unmanned spacecraft in our recent decade, specifically 2005.

If you want to find out more about this, please consult the excellent documentary at:

http://www.moonmovie.com/faq.htm#reflectors

Sincerely,

Robert Sungenis

Dave Armstrong said...

Contributor "S" asked me to cross-post his reply to Bob Sungenis' latest remarks above:

I noticed that Sungenis is still trying to answer the contradiction between him and his Galileo Was Wrong co-author (Bennett) on the loooong thread.

IMO, all he’s done with his "new information" is to model the propagandist/conspiracy theorist mindset. As I previously told Johnmartin (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289532816869#c2770407935333708365), they're guilty of the very things that they accuse modern science of. They approach the evidence with an extreme bias that blinds them to the facts in front of their eyes or they fail to honestly seek out contrary evidence in the first place.

Sungenis first waved off the contradiction between Bennett and him with a non-answer that gave the appearance of being an answer. Then, after it was exposed that his answer didn't actually answer anything, he didn’t even acknowledge that fact and instead went off to find "new evidence" to "vindicate" himself (in his own words). And that's exactly what a propagandist/conspiracy theorist would do. His belief is dictating his "fact" search rather than allowing his fact search to dictate his belief. His recommendation of the “excellent documentary” video put out by other conspiracy theorists rather than information put out by reputable scientists also fits the propagandist/conspiracy theorist mold.

Another illustration of Sungenis' propagandist/conspiracy theorist mindset is that he knew about this contradiction several years ago, before his book was published (unless he wants to say that he never read Bennett’s chapter). But only now, after the contradiction was publicly exposed, did he make any effort to resolve it.

So, did Sungenis’ “new information” accomplished anything? Not really.

First, how does Sungenis' "new evidence" "vindicate" him and Bennett from "any contradiction", as he claims? Bennett says in Galileo Was Wrong that there are mirrors "placed on [the moon's] surface by astronauts" and Sungenis supports and promotes conspiracy theories that astronauts never went to the moon. Either Bennett is wrong or Sungenis is wrong. That contradiction remains.

Dave Armstrong said...

[continuation of "S"' comment:

Second, while it’s apparently possible to detect laser light that has bounced off the lunar surface, it’s clear that this is not what happened and continues to happen with the lunar laser experiments run by scientists around the world (the ones referenced and used by Bennett). Why? A few reasons.

As stated at the University of California at San Diego website:

“We measure to the retroreflector arrays left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts, and by an unmanned Soviet rover carrying a French-built reflector. These define very specific points of reference on the lunar surface. This is far better than measuring to the rough-and-tumble surface. We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors. We aim at one reflector at a time when performing the measurement.”
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html

Another factor to consider, as the article below states, is that the nature of the return signal indicates that it must be bouncing off something well under a meter in size vs. photons reflected from the lunar surface. Also, returns from other non-lunar landing areas are "featureless", meaning that there is no evidence of something unusually reflective anywhere other than where we and the Russians landed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Retroreflectors

I don’t see the relevance of the Russian mirrors placed on the moon in 2005 that Sungenis mentioned. Scientists around the world have been using these retro-reflectors - some for decades now - and they get their results by focusing where NASA landed and placed retro-reflectors.

So, he still needs to either remove this section of Galileo Was Wrong or stop promoting NASA lunar landing conspiracy theories.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 446 of 446   Newer› Newest»