Thursday, December 09, 2010

Critiques of Geocentrism (Links Page)

Geo What? (David Palm)

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

Geocentrism: Was Galileo Wrong? (Dr. Ethan Siegel)

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

Why Geocentrism is Wrong (Matthew Miller)

Geo-xcentricities; you too can be Galileo with just a pair of binoculars (and gaffer tape) (Ian Musgrave)

Geo-xcentricities part 2; the view from Mars (Ian Musgrave)

Against Scientific Geocentrism (Arnold Sikkema)

The Galileo Legend (Thomas Lessl)

Series from Mary Daly and "ScienceMom":

The New Geocentrism
Up-to Date Cosmology
Relative Claims to Absolute Truth
Geocentrism -- where's the physics?
A final note on geocentrism

Updated on 28 December 2010.

23 comments:

johnmartin said...

http://unityoftruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/new-geocentrism.html
Newton built on this specific passage from Galileo. When he said an apple fell on his head, he was sitting under a tree reading Galileo. This is almost literally true. He read Galileo and he made the equations that describe both the spoon and the Moon, and they describe a jillion other things.
So here's the point.

Once Galileo made that statement, and once Newton made those equations for gravity, we were no longer engaged in relativity: there was a reason for the sun to be in the center. It's bigger. Or, I should say, it's heavier. It's pulling us in and the balance between it pulling us in and us traveling in a straight line East through space is the curve of our orbit.

If the Sun goes around the earth, then gravity is not the reason for our relative motions; indeed gravity does not function at all between us. Nor does gravity function in the relative motions of any of the planets. It functions on my spoon, but not on our Moon, which operates according to another set of physical laws.

This disorderly notion is the reason that a serious physicist will find the position of Sungenis hilarious or horrible, but will not take it seriously for a moment because he can't do a jot of celestial physics if he drops gravity.

Then why did Einstein say any perspective was as good as any other?

JM- If this is the level of argumentation Dave finds convincing against geocentrism, then geocentrism doesn’t have much intellectually do fight against. The author merely assumes the mechanism for gravity is the attraction of the masses. Yet this is only an assumption placed into equations, which produce predictable results. However, if this assumption is challenged and a new mechanism is developed, which also uses Newton’s equations, then this mechanism is also a viable alternative to Newton’s assumed gravity mechanism. As geocentrism has a different mechanism to that of Newton, by using a combination of a rotating universe and aether flow around a stationary Earth, then geocentrism cannot be dismissed as it has been by the above author. For geocentrism uses Newton’s equations as well to produce predicable results. Mark Wyatt has mentioned this point in the combox found in the link above.

JM

johnmartin said...

http://blog.matthewmiller.net/2010/09/why-geocentrism-is-wrong.html

Starting Points [against geocentrism]

None of the probes we've sent into space would have reached another planet, as all the navigation calculations done assume a massive sun in the center of the solar system and planets that orbit it. The current calculations of satellite orbits would simply not work. Instead of the Moon as our main satellite, we'd also have the Sun and all the planets to contend with.

JM – This is simply not true. Equations work based upon any reference frame. This is standard procedure in relativity.

The orbits of the planets would look more like that of the moon and would be far easier to predict. The machinations needed to predict the positions of the planets with an Earth centered solar system are maddening.

JM- The orbits of the planets would look like what they look like now, because the universe is geocentric. The “machinations needed to predict the positions of the planets with an Earth centered solar system are maddening” are easily explained by the planets orbiting the sun and the sun and planets orbiting the earth. The geocentris system easily accounts for all the planetary motions we see in the planetary system.

We'd see no parallax when observing stars during different seasons. While the parallax is small and requires sensitive instruments to detect, it is very, very consistent.

JM- This is simply not true. We see parallax, because the universe has been designed by God to have the stars centered on the motion of the sun. As the sun changes position throughout the year, then the stars move relative to the stationary earth, causing the stars to have parallax.

The Sun, the Moon and Solar Eclipses

MM- The sun would have to be much, much smaller for the Earth to keep it in orbit, well below the lower threshold for it to contain enough gas to ignite into an active star. As a result it would need a very different fuel source than what we believe it has now.

JM- This is a mixed bag of truth claims not backed up with any facts. The statement “The sun would have to be much, much smaller for the Earth to keep it in orbit” is a jumble of confusion, simply because in geocentrism, the earth is NOT in orbit.

MM- Solar eclipses would be a different beast. We have a near perfect fit now because of how the size and distance of the sun gives it the appearance of being the same size as the moon. The moon is already about 1/4 the Earth's diameter. Unless the sun were in the same orbit as the moon it would have to be either further away and larger, or closer and smaller. Being the same distance would mean there were no solar eclipses. The further away it gets the larger it has to be to maintain the illusion of identical sizing so vital to a solar eclipse.

JM- There is no problem in solar eclipses in geocentrism. The distances already known to the moon and sun are used in the geo model. MM is woefully ignorant of the basic physics of the geo model.

MM- Either way, the sun would have to stay pretty close to lunar size to not escape Earth orbit. This would put it close enough to the moon to keep it pretty much molten, at least during close passes. The moon would not be the unchanging venue we see today but a, active, volcanic place constantly heated by close proximity to the sun.

JM- MM is merely using wild logical dancing to arrive at conclusions that are not needed in the geo model. The distances from the earth to the moon and the sun in the helio and geo models are identical.

johnmartin said...

MM- The sun would cause tides as well. In a sun centered solar system, the Sun is so far away that it's gravitational pull doesn't cause localized tides the way the moon does. A sun small enough to stay in Earth orbit and yet appear the same form Earth's surface would cause tides. This would mean tidal forces would not be determined by the moon's orbit alone, but by a combination of lunar and solar orbits. Daytime would ALWAYS be high tide and days when you could see the moon and the sun would have particularly high tides. Tidal pool ecosystems would either not exist or be adapted to a highly irregular high / low tide pattern.

JM- The same Newtonian equations are used in the geo model as in the helio model, therefore the same forces caused by the sun and moon are found in both models. MM is again, ignorant of fundamental physics in the geo model.

MM- We'd See Differently, if we Were Here at all

None of that really matters as we'd probably be bathed in lethal radiation. A sun small enough to be kept in Earth orbit yet bright enough to produce as much light as the one we see would probably need a nuclear power source involving metal, not a plasma miasma. This means the Earth would probably be a sterile wasteland devoid of life, as it would be bathed in enough nuclear radiation to rip apart most life forms.

The visible spectrum of light would be different. A plutonium reactor for example emits a pale blue light, not the white light we see from our sun. The sun has the wrong color spectrum for self sustaining nuclear reactions in a body small enough to be kept in Earth orbit.

MM – assumes the attraction of the masses causes gravity is used in the geo model. It is not, so his above argument is based upon a false premise.

MM- The Outer Solar System

Jupiter would not exist as we've seen it. The super-massive gas giants we've seen with our telescopes and probes would have too much gravity to be kept in orbit by tiny little Earth. They'd have to be much, much smaller, which means our calculations on how to get probes to them would have been so massively incorrect as to prevent the probes from getting there.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. One could easily spend months or years compiling a list of ways an Earth centered solar system would be different from the one we have now. It takes quite a bit of ignorance to try and assert that the Earth is the center of the solar system.

JM – same false premise concerning the mechanism for gravity.

MM- Update: Venus

If the Earth was the center of the solar system the current calculations for predicting a Transit of Venus simply wouldn't work, if transits still happened at all. Remember we're dealing with a sun slightly larger than the moon, orbiting a distance not that far beyond it. Venus would either be a large planet far beyond the sun's orbit, or a much smaller satellite inside that orbit. If Venus were further away then a Transit of Venus would NEVER HAPPEN. If it were inside the orbit of the sun then Transits would happen with far greater frequency than they do now. If the orbit of Venus were irregular enough to account for the rarity of a Transit of Venus then we would be seeing it as frequently as we see a comet, not regularly enough for ancient cultures to have dubbed it the "Morning Star."

JM- transits of Venus are easily handled within the geo model. And the sun is the same size and distance in both the helio and geo models. MM is again ignorant of the basics o the geo model.

MM- Indeed, explaining a Transit of Venus AND the frequency with which we see Venus now would require one to conclude that there are actually multiple objects in the solar system that just HAPPEN to have appearances and orbits aligned in JUST the right way as to make them LOOK like they're all the same planet.

JM- This is mere assertion without any demonstration. Therefore the geo model has nothing to answer.

johnmartin said...

MM- Update: Planetary Orbits

The web site jgiesen.de has a model showing side by side comparisons the Heliocentric and geocentric motion of the bright planets. It illustrates how absurdly convoluted the orbits of the planets would be in a geocentric model, if they were to fit the positions of the planets as observed from Earth.

JM – MM is merely asserting the motions are absurdly convoluted. Geocentrism says the planets orbit the sun, which means the planets and the sun orbit the earth daily, centered on the sun in the modified Tycho Brehe model. The model uses celestial winds as the physical mechanism by which the planets move through space relative to a stationary earth.

MM- As you can see from the animation the geocentric model necessitates the planets not only revolve around the Earth, but move in an additional circle as well. Geocentrism requires additional orbits around unseen objects. Venus, for example, simply can't orbit the Earth directly, but would have to be orbiting something invisible and transparent which was in turn orbiting the Earth. A sun centered solar system actually FITS the observed data using the known laws of physics. Geocentrism on the other hand requires an invisible gravity well for each planet that we can neither see nor detect.

JM- MM merely assumes the same physical cause for gravity used in geo as in helio. This assumption is false, therefore his conclusion concerning the invisible gravity well for each planet is also false.

JM

johnmartin said...

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/09/geo-xcentriciti.html

IM- The Phases of Venus demolished the Ptolemaic Geocentric system, but the Tychonian- Geo-heliocentric system had Venus phases just like a pure heliocentric system (which is not surprising, as Tycho’s system is an inverted Copernican system). To eliminate the Tychonian system, we need to observe sunspots.

JM- The phases of Venus are easily accounted for in the modified tycho Brehe model. This is discussed in GWW. Actually the Venus dichotomy is a problem well known in astronomy, which has been resolved by Dr Neville Jones using a geo model. This problem has not been resolved by a helio model. Therefore the phases of Venus fit better in a geo model than in a helio model.

So far the objections against geocentrism are based upon the standard garden variety misunderstandings of the updated geo model. If you think this is not true, have a look at the pictures posted on Dave’s thread which show the planets moving in epicycles. The epicycles are not required in the modified Tycho Brehe model. The planets orbit and follow the sun within celestial winds which drive the planets motions. This is very different from the implied absurdities of the epicycles causing the planets to orbit nothing.

More to come later.

JM

johnmartin said...

AS- In astronomy, one does indeed usually employ an earth-based coordinate system for reasons of history and convenience. But there are plenty of good observations which indicate that geocentrism is not the true state of affairs in the cosmos. Maintaining scientific geocentrism is possible only if we dispense with nearly every well-established physical principle: gravitation, force, mass, dynamics, energy, not to mention the other basic observations which validate heliocentrism (within the solar system) such as rotational dynamics, centre of mass, stellar parallax, Coriolis force (with its Foucault pendulum, counter-clockwise rotation of storms in the Northern hemisphere), nuclear fusion, neutrino oscillation, extra-solar planetary systems, seasonal anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background, etc., etc.

JM – This is merely a list of notions within science that are claimed to be dispensed with in geocentrism. Actually when we look at these notions, all of which are incorporated into the geo model we see the following are very problematic for the helio model.

Newtonian mechanics has no explanation for the rotational effect of planets upon each other. Yet Newtonian mechanics is said to be used and confirm the helio model.

Gravitation – the cause of gravity in Newtonian mechanics is only assumed. There are studies which have shown Newtonian mechanics to be deficient – eg gravity action in wells and gravity action on differently shaped falling objects do no match Newtonian mechanics. Also the rotation of galaxies do not match Newtonian mechanics – hence a modified Newtonian mechanics has been invented to account for these observations.

Stellar parallax – involves both positive and negative parallax, which is not conformable to the helio model and is conformable to the geo model.

Centre of mass – merely a Newtonian notion, whereby a point in space is said to have unique properties, but in reality is only another point in space. This is one of several problems with Newtonian mechanics.

Coriolis force is explained in a geo rotating universe.

Seasonal anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background – explained in GWW. In fact the modern cosmology is hard pressed to explain it at all according to GWW.
http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/06/against-scientific-geocentrism.html

johnmartin said...

AS- Also, let me briefly unveil the Copernican myth to which van der Kamp and nearly everyone else has succumbed. This is the idea that Copernicus in proposing a heliocentric system dethroned the earth from its position at the Centre of the cosmos, and that this is a threat to the Scriptural idea that humanity is central in God’s plan of salvation. Having once been considered at the Centre, the earth is now relegated to being just one planet among many, and further developments put us orbiting around just one star out of many, in one galaxy among many, etc. However, it is important to note that according to the Greeks, the earth is evil, with hell being at its centre and the heavens being the place of perfection. Thus, far from demoting the earth, Copernicus actually exalted it to join the heavenly realms! This is discussed in Dennis Danielson, “The Great Copernican Cliché”, American Journal of Physics, v. 69, n. 10 (Oct. 2001), pp. 1029-35. Danielson is a member of a Reformed church, and an English professor at UBC studying historical literature on the cosmos, writing here in a physics journal, and so if you can obtain the article via your university or college library, all readers of this blog should find it accessible. In fact, modern astronomy suggests that not only is the earth not at the center, but that there is no centre, much like how there is no location on the surface of the earth which could rightfully claim such an honour; I consider this to be a superb poetical analogy of how once Jews claimed they had to worship in Jerusalem, but now God’s people worship anywhere in spirit and truth (see John 4:20-24).

JM- Appealing to the Greek understanding of the earth and thereby demoting the earth in the old view, hardly answers Van der Kamp’s position that the biblical notion of the centrality of the earth has been demoted through the use of the Copernican myth.

AS- My conclusion is that scientific geocentrism is neither taught in nor implied by Scripture, and there is every reason for the Christian to acknowledge the weight of evidence against it while no reason to suppose that this means earth and humanity is any less special in God’s eyes. After all, we are created in God’s image, and the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection took place on our home planet. And we can say with even more depth of understanding, in humility and awe, with David, “When I consider your heavens, …what is man that you are mindful of him…?” (Psalm 8.3-4, NIV)

JM- There is nothing here in this article to arrive at the conclusion that “geocentrism is neither taught in nor implied by Scripture”.

http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/06/against-scientific-geocentrism.html

The standard of argumentation used in this and other articles cited by Dave against geocentrism is quite ordinary.

JM

Dave Armstrong said...

We're not gonna start another huge geocentric text dump here. I can always close the comments if it gets ridiculous like before.

Jordanes said...

Oh now Dave, you know John Martin was just waiting for you to post something else on geocentrism so he could blather for another 400 comments about his favorite subject . . . .

Rick DeLano said...

Nice job, John Martin.

It is truly sad that Dave Armstrong chooses to post previously refuted folderol, embarrassing to all who understand the implications of Einstein's statement, which has been shared over and over again with Dave:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

The intelligent reader will see that every single argument advanced in every single one of Dave's links is based upon a catastrophic blunder: a failure to understand Relativity, and especially the implications of the Michelson Morley experiments which necessitated the invention of Relativity in the first place.

But Dave in a way is doing us a service, in that more and more Catholics are beginning to get the gist that some incredibly important work has been done by Bob Sungenis on what we thought was an old-hat issue, but is instead very much on the front burner of modern cosmological controversies.

For the truly adventurous, here is an interesting new paper out of Stanford University, June 2010, entitled "Geocentric cosmology: a new look at the measure problem".

Excerpt:

"In the emerging picture an infinite multiverse is replaced with a finite geocentric region, and the search for the correct measure is replaced by a search for a 3D Lagrangian yet to be discovered. There are two ways to look for the correct Lagrangian. One could either try to perform direct phenomenological searches or one could try to derive it from first principles. For the phenomenological approach one has to reinterpret the existing cosmological data from the geocentric view point."

Clearly Dave Armstrong is not providing a reliable viewpoint toward what is actually occurring in cosmology.

But Bob Sungenis is.

Date the Fossils Not the Rocks said...

What I will suggest is a bit tangential to the geocentricism debate but I point it out as a word of caution to those who would denigrate the concept of geocentricism: There is much evidence to show that the 65 million years between dinosaur and man is non-existent. Viz: Concordant C-14 dating ages of dinosaur bone collagen and calcium carbonate fractions in the range of 23,000-33,000 years from TX to AK; and good scientific evidence to show that even these C-14 ages are way too old.



My point is that John Martin et al. arguments for geocentricism may not be "folly" after all. With dinosaur bones being at least 2000 times younger than claimed by main stream science just maybe there is something to say for the geocentricism model and its base in scripture and science.



If you deny the validity of the gold standard of dating bones (C-14) for dinosaurs than you must deny that the C-14 ages of mega-fauna are valid for many are of the same age as dinosaurs or even older like in Russia.



There are a whole slue of evidence that refutes macroevolution other than C-14 - from sedimentology to genetics - so much so that I must suggest that perhaps science is catching up with Christ, sacred scripture and the church fathers. The uniformitarian principles used by Lyell and Darwin are under vigorous challenge and catastrophism is again in vogue.



Perhaps we have not evolved from bacteria over eons of time and I think it well to deep the debate over geocentricism going. I think it is very interesting and productive

James said...

The hardest thing for me in coming to accept geocentrism was the extreme difficulty I had in conceptualizing how the whole universe could actually rotate around the earth every 24 hours. (I had always remembered the incredible fact that if the earth was an inch away from the sun on a gigantic map drawn to scale the very next nearest star would be about one and a half miles away!) It seemed so totally beyond my capacity to even imagine (much less believe) short of reminding myself that with God all things are possible and that if God had wanted the universe to go around the earth every nanosecond then go around the earth every nanosecond it would.

I suspect that the vast majority of people who reject geocentrism do so out of a root belief -- although they may present all kinds of other reasons -- in what they regard as the utter physical impossibility of our entire universe circumventing our globe every day. It is that simple. In a way I certainly can't blame them. After all, I used to be one of them.

It wasn't until I started to really get a solid understanding of the "glue" that appears to hold the universe together that I was able to feel fully comfortable with the natural science aspect of geocentrism. You could have told me just about anything, but until I figured out how those heavenly bodies could actually travel the incredibly immense distance they did in the time they did then I would remain a quasi-heliocentrist at heart.

Then one day I ran straight into the firmament, the firmament of Sacred Scripture -- the same firmament that would make any card carrying atheist astrophysicist blanch. In the words of Dr. Robert Sungenis in his book on Geocentrism: "What Einstein could not find the biblical geocentric universe possesses. The 'rigid body' is its foundation. The firmament of Genesis 1:6-9, by the very definition of the Hebrew word is 'rigid.' Its rigidity is necessary to form and maintain anything as large as our universe and that is precisely why it was created as early as the Second Day. All of the above [in the book] discoveries of modern science concerning the infinitesimal world of Planck particles and its attending phenomena can be synthesized into an ingenious and fascinating model of geocentrism."

Dr. Gerardus Bouw, very possibly the top geocentric scientist today, expounds on the scientific aspects of the firmament. I strongly encourage any hardened skeptic of geocentrism to take a good look at what Dr. Bouw says either in Dr. Sungenis' book Galileo Was Wrong and or at the "Firmament Presentation" link found at Dr. Bouw's website: http://www.geocentricity.com/.

To learn of the firmament and how it "works" in relation to the universe which it carries along is certainly an educational journey worth taking. To understand it all is perhaps to some small degree analogous to understanding how a person can comfortably walk back and forth in a jet airliner without any sensation of triple digit mph speed. Bon voyage!

JBP

Jordanes said...

Oh boy. Here we go again . . . .

Dave Armstrong said...

I warned about not doing a geocentric dump, so I will be deleting most of johnmartin's comments.

Free speech is one thing: taking over someone's blog with an opposed (and I think, quite absurd) viewpoint, with fanatical, obsessive amounts of comments is quite another.

Go make your own blog to do that or do it on one of the famous geocentric sites that are up.

Dave Armstrong said...

johnmartin is warned also to not try another dump here or I will delete what I left up of his remarks.

Rick DeLano said...

Dave is well advised to descend to the entirely predictable fallback position of selective deletion and censorship.

I think it is indeed time to move this discussion onto more visible ground, and up the ante quite considerably.

I would encourage everyone to keep an eye out for a forthcoming, very substantial response to the entire state of debate on geocentrism in the Catholic "conservative" blogosphere.

The links Dave Armstrong insists upon reposting after scientific refutation will form a major part of that examination.

John Martin- expect to hear from me after the New Year.

Merry Christmas to all!

Rocks for Brains said...

Fossil Man:

There was a show about this topic on the web:
http://tinyurl.com/35pgzhj

Rocks for Brains said...

I would encourage everyone to keep an eye out for a forthcoming, very substantial response to the entire state of debate on geocentrism in the Catholic "conservative" blogosphere.

Will this be on Master Shea's blogsite?

Dave Armstrong said...

It's not censorship at all. If someone wants to have an intelligent discussion, fine. It's far different to come to someone's blog where one is a guest, and blast a combox with scores or hundreds of posts. That is obsessive and extreme.

Everyone recognizes that. It's not even relevant what the subject matter is.

If you can't comprehend that simple concept, Rick, then it shows a serious flaw in your thinking.

Dave is well advised to descend to the entirely predictable fallback position of selective deletion and censorship.

You are well advised to stop lying about my actions and motives. If you would wrack your brain to the distant past of a month or two ago, you'd recall that I allowed 446 comments on this topic (the largest ever on my blog, by far), under a post about geocentrism: probably a good half of them from johnmartin and a good majority from geocentrists, including himself.

Meanwhile, Bob Sungenis doesn't post one word of my answers to him on his site (even while he was asking me repeatedly to post his replies on mine). Why don't you go blast him for his lack of belief in presenting both sides?

There is a sensible limit to these things. If he comes in here and posts 50 comments at a time, they will be deleted. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about that. It's my blog, and it is not going to be used for propagandistic purposes, for an agenda I do not agree with.

johnmartin said...

DA - Free speech is one thing: taking over someone's blog with an opposed (and I think, quite absurd) viewpoint, with fanatical, obsessive amounts of comments is quite another.

JM - You can do what you want on your blog Dave. Its ok by me.
All I was doing in the recent comments was answering one of the articles you made a link to.

Whinging about the other thread with over 400 comments doesn't mean anything to me other than you don't want anyone to make a substantive response to people like David Palm or Jordanes, probably because it shows how weak the anti geo position really is.

If you think the geo view point is absurd, then engage that view point directly and stop hiding behind links and other peoples comments such as Palm, Jordane and S, which have been substantially answered.

This is my position on your take on the geo matter.

I find your lack of direct action on the matter a serious flaw in your apologetic methodology. Let me give you an example - I have stated the geo diagram at the start of your article, which shows epicycles for the planetary motions is not representative of the modified tychonian model. And what is your response to this Dave? Do you go and check the model to see if you are correctly representing the model, or do you simply ignore the statement and continue to misrepresent the model? The latter, obviously. So your methodology is flawed and conveys a double standard, whereby you expect others, such as atheists and so on to correctly represent the position of Catholics, yet when Catholics promote a geo model, you fall into the atheists straw man methodology and falsely represent the geo model.

I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt that you may not have initially intended to do this. Yet now that you have been told of the problem, it is now a matter of integrity for you to directly address the matter an correct your error.

I will be posting all my recently deleted responses on my own blog here - http://johnmartin2010.blogspot.com/ when I am able.

I look forward to 2011 where hopefully, Robert Sungenis and possibly others, will take on any Catholic apologist who misrepresents the Catohlic position on geo, as you have cuurently done on this thread.

JM

john said...

Rick - I think it is indeed time to move this discussion onto more visible ground, and up the ante quite considerably.


JM - I'm all for that. Lets pull all these arguments apart and expose the anti geo camp as being anti historical, anti scientific and anti revelation. They have nothing to go on, so their position is one of prejudice.

Remember we should always act with charity, yet be clear in our own argumentation and admit when we have erred. But you know what, it really doesn't matter if we make mistakes from time to time, because the bottom line is, we have the truth and the opposition does not.

We can see this in the way the anti geos behave. The anti geo Catholic apologist (AGCA)is normally quite systematic in his assessment of others, who are against other Catholic doctrines, yet when it comes to the question of geo, the AGCA is anything but systematic. We have seen such examples with the behavior of others on the other recent geo thread. They make some poorly thought out arguments, then end up running away with excuses, or don't even bother to directly engage the geo arguments.

Apparently anything goes with the anti geos. They can make false claims, make excuses, run away and post links to websites with rubbish arguments and then delete geo comments. Yet this doesn't seem to bother them that their anti geo position and consequent behavior betrays an anti intellectualism which is antithetical to the Catholic faith.

JM

johnmartin said...

Dave - There is a sensible limit to these things. If he comes in here and posts 50 comments at a time, they will be deleted. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about that. It's my blog, and it is not going to be used for propagandistic purposes, for an agenda I do not agree with.

JM - My comments took up 6 A4 pages and half of that was a copy of Andrew's article. So my comments were in total only about 3 A4 pages. This is hardly 50 comments in a dump.

JM

Dave Armstrong said...

Lets pull all these arguments apart and expose the anti geo camp as being anti historical, anti scientific and anti revelation. They have nothing to go on, so their position is one of prejudice.

Remember we should always act with charity, . . . their anti geo position and consequent behavior betrays an anti intellectualism which is antithetical to the Catholic faith.


Very lovely, johnmartin. Thanks for exposing your bigoted mentality. Henceforth I will delete all of your comments, since this is the rank bigotry and idiotic first premises that they start with, and we engage in intelligent discussions here, not mere bigoted rantings and personal attacks.

You expressed it yourself and it is now documented on my blog. Thanks! Rarely have I seen such a transparent admission of the bigotry that underlies a person's position.

Usually it is covered up, but I guess my removal of your garbage made you angry enough to reveal your true stripes.

Let's summarize again for the record: to disagree with you, is to be:

1) "anti historical"

2) "anti scientific"

3) "anti revelation"

4) "nothing to go on, so their position is one of prejudice."

5) "anti intellectualism which is antithetical to the Catholic faith"

By the way, in proper English, one places a hyphen between "anti" and what follows it. Just for your information, so you don't look even more ridiculous in the future than you already do.