Search This Blog


Tuesday, January 15, 2013

In Response to Tom Bridgeman's Artilce Entiled "Geocentrism Quiz: Is the moon gravitationally bound to the Earth"

Some Comments in response to Tom Bridgeman's Geocentrism Quiz: Is the moon gravitationally bound to the Earth

Tom - Giving up on your erroneous claims about the barycenter and multi-body problems (linked above)?

JM – Nope. If the calcs come out the way you seem to have demonstrated in your n-body program then the circular orbit of the earth appears with the following. According to Newtonian mechanics, there are a two barycenters for the Earths orbit around the sun –

1. The earth’s orbit barycenter is located very close to the center of the sun, according to the Sun-earth system

2. The earth’s orbit barycenter is located in different locations relative to the sun, according to the Sun- Jupiter/earth system as representative of the solar system. The different locations of the barycenter are shown here -

Lets say the Sun’s diameter is 1,392,684 km and the solar system barycenter moves to approximately up to 2 times the radius outside the sun. Then the solar system to sun/earth barcenter distance difference is about 1,392,684 km. So according to Newtonian mechanics the earth is orbiting around either the solar system barycenter or the sun/earth barycenter, with a difference of up to about 1,392,684 km between barycenters. This shows us that Newtonian mechanics is logically inconsistent concerning the notion of the barycenter at one of the foci of the elliptical orbit of the earth.

The earth is about 149,600,000 km from the sun’s center, which means there is about a 0.93% difference between the barcenters. This small difference seems insignificant, yet the illogic of the barycenter within Newtonian mechanics shows the model to be logcally invalid, even if you believe the approximate mathematical solutions are good enough.

So no Tom, I am not giving up my critiques of Newtonian mechanics because you believe the pragmatic outcomes of the numbers within the model are satisfactory, even though the logic of the barycenters within the model is invalid.

Tom - Relativity is the way the pros, and competent amateurs, do it.

JM – So Tom flips to Relativity which teaches gravity is modelled as the bending of a mathematical space-time continuum and not by the masses attracting with action at a distance assumed in the Newtonian mechanics. Evidently modern physics is very eclectic concerning what gravity is. Tom thinks this is satisfactory provided the maths concludes to pragmatic outcomes. Yet the void in these models is the illogic required to conclude to the maths formulas in the first place. No doubt Tom will retort that it doesn’t matter because modern science has been successful in modelling flight paths planetary motions and so on, so the geocentric complaints about the models are moot.

But the point is Tom, then even with these modern pragmatic outcomes, the theory behind those formulas is logically invalid and has also been invalidated by experimental evidence. Therefore both Newtonian physics and relativity only “work” to have pragmatic outcomes within specific circumstances and specific assumptions. Outside these specifics, both theories have little or nor explanatory power at all. In fact because the scientific community is so set on these theories, the reality of gravity and other forces within the universe are probably poorly understood, which continue to be manifested in models such as the big bang with its failed dark energy and dark matter.

Tom - Downside for Geocentrists is that it works to make the 'center' at Mars, Mercury, Saturn, or anywhere else we might want to send a spacecraft. There is no favoritism for the Earth other than our own human prejudices and convenience.

JM – Therefore when you request that geocentrists provide the calcs for flight paths and make the claim that if geocentrism was used by NASA and co. we would not have achieved the pragmatic outcomes in space, these statements are very shallow. The simple answer is that a stationary earth can be assumed within relativity theory to produce space flight trajectories, just as well as a moving earth. This is self evident within the relativity theory you so love.

Tom - But once you accept relativity, all your other claims about geocentrism become moot.

JM – you accept relativity, so it is within your world view that goecentrism is kinematically equivalent to any other point in space, so relativity may be used to model a geocentric universe.

I don’t not accept relativity theory for many reasons presented here –

The experimental evidence far better fits a stationary earth than the modern acentric model of the universe.

Tom - Are you admitting you were wrong on this issue, or just trolling?

JM – Newtonian mechanics is logically invalid, even if you think the approximate calcs are close enough.


Friday, January 11, 2013

In response to Tom Bridgeman's G4G: Religion, Science, and the Kobayashi Maru Scenario

The following are a series of comments in response to Tom Bridgemans article entitled - G4G: Religion, Science, and the Kobayashi Maru Scenario 

Tom - All the physical evidence says that when you die, that is it.  Even while we are alive, no invisible being will rescue us if we do something stupid.  While flukes may rescue us from bad decisions, no divine entity will.

JM - the proofs for the existence of the soul are given in philosophical psychology. Both plants and animals have materials souls and men have spiritual souls.

A discussion on the soul can be found here -

The spirituality of the soul -

As the soul is spiritual, it cannot have been brought into existence by merely material causes. Therefore the spiritual soul was created by God.

On divine causation in the world. A divine entity does act within the universe according to the arguments presented here -

See part III, 14-17.

Tom also stated others ave been seen alive after death and yet Christ is different for the following reasons -

1. Christ's death was predicted by the prophets and even the manner of his death and resurrection was predicted by himself.

2. Christ had a glorified body after the resurrection which allowed him disappear and re-appear and pass through walls.

3. Christ instituted a church with the priesthood and the Eucharistic sacrifice.

4. Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father interceding for us.

5. Christ will come again as judge at the end of time.

6. Christ is the Word incarnate.

7. Christ and the Father sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

No other person has done these things in association with a death and resurrection.

You are welcome to embrace these truths as your own.


In Response to Tom Bridgeman's Geocentrism and Cosmological Redshift

The following are comments , questions and problems associated with Tom Bridgeman's Geocentrism and Cosmological Redshift.

In short, Tom believes redhsift is better accounted for in the expanding universe theory than geocentrism. Geocentrists such as myself disagree and find the expanding universe theory to be problematic.

So according to Tom's understanding of the universe, redshift is an indicator that the entire universe is expanding in all directions. This means that according to the uniform universal expansion theory that we would see the same redshift effect no matter where the observer is located in the universe. Some questions/problems concerning this approach are as follows - 

1. The expanding universe is in conformity with general relativity's requirements for the universe to be expanding without any cosmic dipole, as demonstrated by Prof Yukio Tomazawa here -, where he concludes -  

A. "1) In a B-type universe, nobody observes a cmb dipole. Not even a peculiar velocity yields a cmb dipole." 

B. "II) If the observed cmb dipole and the peculiar velocity of the solar system coincide, as is assumed among some physicists, the solar system must reside at the center of the universe." 
Both of which destroy the expanding universe theory. 

2. the Sloan digital survey shows specific periodicities of galaxies which would show up only when viewed from earth. In any other place in the universe, the concentric circle pattern would disappear. This is not in conformity with the requirements of the acentric expanding universe theory. 
Both points 1 and 2 the conclude that the relativity based, expanding universe theory is invalid, for observation of a CMB dipole and the periodicities of galaxies excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the Friedman universe. 

 3. We also have this absurdity with the expanding universe theory - 

According to modern cosmological expanding universe theory, the universe is full of virtual particles which pop in and out of existence in our universe. This means particles at any time disappear and reappear, contrary to the principle of contradiction. 

Alternatively these virtual particles are said to indicate multiple universes from which these particles go to and from, and thereby effecting the virtual particles in our universe. Of course this is not science, for multiple universes cannot be observed. Therefore the expanding universe and its virtual particles rests upon a non scientific, anti reasonable assumption. Therefore the expanding universe theory is a mindless superstition concerning the existence of things that do not exist and do not act as required by a theory. 

 4. If redshift is evidence for an expanding universe, then what is blueshift evidence for . . . a local contracting universe? Or do we just ignore this contradiction in Tom's assumptions concerning redshift?

 5. According to Laurence Kraus the big bang began with nothing, which means there was zero energy. Where then did the energy come from to make the universe and then then make it expand.

 6. The expanding universe requires energy and lots of it, which has not been found. So why adhere to an expanding universe theory that has little or no evidence for the required energy to make it expand?

7. Modern science has rejected the aether of space. However the expanding universe theory requires the space between galaxies to expand, which is apparently only a partial explanation for galaxy redshift. So if the space between the galaxies is expanding, how does this cause light to redshift if space itself has no properties? Wouldn't an expanding space only cause light from galaxies to be delayed due to the greater distances required to be traveled? As soon as you say expanding space causes redshift, then you must affirm space has properties, which is to affirm space is similar too or the equivalent of the ethereal space, which was previously denied.


Thursday, August 18, 2011

Some arguments against evolution

A series of horses, dogs, or any series of biological life presented by the evolutionists are always composed of individual organisms lined up in a series. Each member of the series has individuals with fully functional organs arranged as a whole to allow the whole to exist as required by the principle of fitness. As such, each member of an evolutionary series is really only an organism which has fully functional organs organized within a system. Therefore according to evolutionary examples, transitionals are only metaphors used within an evolutionary paradigm. But as metaphors cannot be used as evidence for a theory, then such examples are not evidence for evolutionary theory.

Transitionals are so few and far between, as presented by evolutionists that these transitionals –

1. Are all or largely extinct and therefore not the fittest. Therefore the notion of transitional contradicts evolutionary theory, which requires the fittest to be the fittest according to the organisms propensity to reproduce and therefore populate and remain in existence.

2. Never existed and as such are merely a myth, therefore the notion of transitional contradicts evolutionary theory.

3. Existed en mass, but such organisms have not been found. As such the theory has not been established in the field, which alone is the solid evidence required for the theory to be established. Therefore the notion of transitional contradicts evolutionary theory.

As such, the lack of evidence for transitionals is clear evidence against the theory of evolution.

The evolutionary theory uses the classification system of ranks as – species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain and life. Yet nowhere in this classification system is there any room for transitionals between ranks. Also nowhere within each rank is there any room made for determining what a transitional is. As such, evolutionary theory, with its rank system, has no room whatsoever to classify what is and what is not a transitional. As such, the theory is invalid.

Examples of natural selection are only ever given whereby existing organisms, with fully functional organs are presented and any small change, such as shape, or color or skin are then concluded as being solid evidence for natural selection, without the need for a designer. But this is clearly fallacious, for a small change does not conclude to evidence of the evolution of an organism, but only concludes to existing organisms have the ability to undergo small changes. No more and no less. Any grand conclusion, as required by evolution, requires much more data and much more solid reasoning to provide a grand case. As the data and reasoning are missing, and the grand case does not exist, then the evolutionary conclusion is therefore false.

Evolutionists substitute design and even brilliant design with the hand waving of natural selection, which is said to be a process without purpose, foresight or design. But what does this mean? If natural selection is without purpose, then natural selection acts neither for the good of the organism or for the evil of the organism. As such, natural selection does not have an end for which it acts and as such, does not have sufficient reason for any action within the natural selection process. As such, evolution is invalid.

If natural selection is without design, why then do we observe so many biological systems that look like they have been designed? How does an evolutionist ignore the design inference as observed and then conclude, what looks like design is actually not design at all? Can the evolutionists appeal to any principles of reason, or any solid evidence from the fossil record, or any powerful cause within biology? No, the evolutionists, who denies the design inference, must make ad hoc appeals to imagination and vague references to inferences that do not have any solid evidence in the real. As such, the immediate and rather obvious evidence of design, found everywhere, is ignored and replaced by the rather counter intuitive and non evidenced theory that has no foundation in reason or any evidence in the real. As such, evolution is invalid.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

In response to "Apparently, creationists love me"

The following is a series of comment made on the article “Apparently, creationistslove me” on the subject of evolution and the age of the universe.

The text of the article is given below in green -

I don’t know whether I should be flattered that I appear to be that notable, or offended that my points seem to be so categorically missed. First the wrath of the geocentrists, now this.

So, way back this spring we took a gander on down to Winnipeg’s Creation Museum – yes, it exists, and yes, it is in a church basement, and yes, the church is full of people who believe in a literal Genesis story (which one, it’s still not quite clear), replete with Adam and Eve and plant-eating T-Rexes. There was a question and answer period after the tour of the “museum” (room). John Feakes, the pastor of the church, was an amiable, genuinely nice guy, but he was espousing some very odd interpretations of reality, including those which even Answers in Genesis has distanced itself (like the “human” tracks along side dinosaurs at the Paluxy River, which are pretty much irrefutably also the tracks of dinosaurs. Or you could go with giant humans with feet that look remarkably dinosaur-like in nature. Sure.)

In any case, in the question period, I asked him something along the lines of how he could refute the molecular evidence for evolution – that evolution predicts structural homology, that was used to create trees of life, and molecular biology has been used to confirm those exact same trees of life (with a few surprises which now explain a lot more about how life evolved). His response… well, I’ll let him tell the story in a lecture that he gave to the faithful. (This comes in at about the 51 minute mark)

    Now I locked horns with a couple of atheist groups now, uh, last… year? They came out to see me. We talked for five hours on evolution and creation and all that kinda stuff. And one girl, she stood up at Q&A time, and she was very adamant, she said “I’m a scientist, and evolution has been proven, and now we can draw family trees based on the molecular data, and it’s just so scientific.”

    And I said “Okay, just a minute here. Umm you’re telling me now, did whales evolve from galloping terrestrial mammals like cows, or something else? Right? Okay now, and we got into this whole thing where now the new molecular data shows they actually evolved from hippo-like creatures. [Sarcastic] Right.

    I said “Okay, so are you saying that your family tree based on how these things look got replaced by a tree based on the molecular data?”

    She said “Yes, that’s true.”

    I said, “Okay, now, I want to tell you what Dr. Klassen said, because he is a flag-waving evolutionist. He was out debating creationists; he debated Duane Gish, back in the 80′s.” I said, “he said ‘If these things don’t line up, evolution’s been falsified.’”

    [mimicking me with incredulous sputtering] Well that’s just his opinion and… [trails off]

Well, I’m not going to say he misrepresented me because I think he is more honest than most creationists – notice the “cow-like” and “hippo-like” animal references, rather than crocoduck accusations. He also prefaces this reference to me by talking about how the morphological tree of life based on morphology is rubbish, that it’s been thrown out and taken back to square one with the evolutionary tree. This is of course, completely false. Here’s a 2009 paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that looked at just that – comparing molecular to morphological data in mammals and molluscs. It turns out, in the overwhelming majority of genus, we were spot on with our homology data, or a single branch got bumped to another genus. Keep in mind that this is specific stuff here, it’s distinguishing between Homo sapiens, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis, etc. Of our entire genus, one branch would be booted out and go, no, that’s really not as closely related to those as we thought, they’re better suited to say, Australopithecus.

The Tyrrell Museum is my favourite museum ever. Seriously, if you've not been, go. There's a great exhibit on evolution right now. (Plus lots of other fantastic things)

Of course, this is not a perfect analogy as from my understanding of the paper it was referring to only living species – however, consider that there are 20 species of common house mouse in the Mus genus presently, and any movement of those branch points to a different genus (say, a field mouse) counts as a hit. 65.8% of the time, molecular biology confirms exactly what we had figured out by phylogeny. 65.8% of the time! And this is being extraordinarily stringent, allowing for no minor corrections. If you include these minor corrections (a single species being moved from field mouse to house mouse origins, or inclusion of other branches which were thought to have diverged earlier), we were now right 87.3% of the time. What are the odds of a random, incorrect theory based on wild assertion getting two completely separate, independently verified pieces of data to agree 87.3% of the time. The other 12.7% of the time where we were wrong? Well these are the surprises that John Feakes points out. Look at this 12.7%, he says, and please ignore the 87.3% of the time that they got it right. Keep in mind, also, that this is from within Classes – certainly no mammals were being shown to be more genetically similar to molluscs or vice versa.

This seems like a good time for a happy dinosaur break.

So yes, I did agree that the whale was a surprise. Yes, I should have been able to form a better argument than saying it’s an appeal to authority (but truly, it was the first time I’ve ever encountered the “so-and-so said” technique and was shocked by it.) None of that changes the fact that, the majority of the time, we were absolutely right. And the overwhelming majority of the time, we were very nearly right. No amount of personal incredulity will change the fact the odds of this happening by mere chance are extraordinarily low (p=0.029).

Which are, shockingly, still better odds than your family ever having taken a recreational slide down Apatosaurus' neck

In fact, the authors of this papers state that “These results likely represent a worst-case scenario for morphogenus monophyly. Much of the compiled molecular work focused on ‘problem taxa,’ those known to be resistant to morphological analysis (e.g., freshwater bivalves, oysters, bovids).” These data are merely a conservative estimate on how right we were, based on data with a bias towards areas of morphological contention, and further works under the assumption that our genotyping techniques are perfect – and of course, errors are always possible. And they still were completely right in 65.8% of mammals.

If that isn’t evidence, I don’t know what is.

This was not my ancestors' family pet 6000 years ago, this is a the sort of thing that ate my shrew-like ancestors 20 millions years ago.

Oh, and as a final note, I resent being referred to as a “girl.” It implies immaturity, it’s condescending and it’s dismissive. It makes me sound like I’m playing dress up with big-girl pants. No one would refer to the guys who stood up to ask questions as “boys.” I don’t think it’s too much to ask to request the same level of respect.

flora – Let me get this straight. You are attacking me for making assumptions based on observations, and support your position with assumptions based on supernatural conjecture? 

JM – I’m only saying the inductive method is deficient and when it is combined with naturalism and pantheism, then the inductive method can and does lead to false conclusions. Naturalism and pantheism are refuted below -

Naturalism says only natural causes account for all that exists
Or all that exists is only natural.
But God exists as the 1 first mover, 2 uncaused cause, 3 unordered orderer, 4 necessary being, 5 unperfected perfector.
But all things are distinct from other things because they have something proper to themselves.
But God as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is known by us through what he has in common with creatures.
God is therefore distinct not according to what is common with creatures, but what is proper to himself alone
What is common to creatures is natural
Therefore what is proper to God is either unnatural or super natural.
But what is unnatural is a lack of a due good
But God does not lack any good, for He is the cause of all good.
Therefore God must be supernatural to have a life proper to himself
Therefore the supernatural exists.

Alternatively – 

The natural is all things composed of essence plus existence
But to be composed means all things natural have diverse parts of essence and being found together
As diverse parts found together are not of themselves united, then all natural things are kept in existence by another cause, which does not have a diversity of essence and being.
This thing that has a unity of essence and being is God
As God is not contingent, but from His nature, necessary, then He is unlike natural things
What is not natural, but exists is supernatural
Therefore God is supernatural
Therefore naturalism is false.

Pantheism says the greatest being is the universe
therefore the universe is God
But the universe is composed of movement, causes, limited perfections, contingent beings and ordered things
But to account for these there must be a 1 first mover, 2 uncaused cause, 3 unordered orderer, 4 necessary being, 5 unperfected perfector, which is God, who is distinct from the universe
Therefore pantheism is false.

Flora – Sorry, but theory based on observation is how we know how the world works. 

JM – This is pure myth. Man only partly understands how the world works. Light is very much still a mystery to man and the existence of the universe is also a mystery as well. To pin your beliefs on modern science theory is fraught with danger. In fact, theories such as the big bang theory are pantheistic and therefore false. Also because we dont really understand what space is, then we cannot be sure about what is really going on in space, such as the speed of light and so on. Therefore to conclude the universe is x years old, based upon modern science theory, is merely conjecture.

Flora – Assumption based on ancient texts (and how do you know which one is “true” since they all claim to be the one true account of reality?) is not evidence or theory. It is merely assertion.

JM – We know which texts are authored by God because God has given us a magesterium within the Catholic church, composed of the Popes and bishops, who meet at ecumenical councils and formulate doctrines based upon the sources of revelation. The power to bind and loose comes from Christ in Matt 16, and 18. As Christ is God, then the church has the powers and has used those powers within history to develop doctrines such as the canon of scripture.

The claim of mere assertion is based upon ignorance by you. Now you know better.

As the phylogenetic tree is still full of holes after so many fossils have been found and nobody knows what the common ancestor is, why would anyone not dedicated to evolution be convinced of the forced links within the tree?

As the many transitionals are missing within the phylogenetic tree and Stephen Gould had to invent punctuated equilibrium to account for the gaps in the fossil record, which has no foundation in biology, why would anyone not dedicated to evolution be convinced of the forced links within the phylogenetic tree?

Fossils cannot be used to determine where or when a new being has evolved, because a fossil only indicates where a thing has been deposited and not the mechanism through which it came into being. As such, any theory such as evolution that is dependent upon the fossil record to determine the origin of a biological organism must revert to historical speculation, which is not scientifically verifiable. As such evolution is not scientific through the inductive method.

Transitionals are things with parts in transit, but to be in transit is not to be at the end. Yet only a part at the end of its formation is the fittest, therefore a transitional is never the fittest and will never survive according to evolution. Therefore according to evolution, there should be no surviving transitionals and many buried transitionals. As there should be many transitionals, yet the fossil record indicates there are only possibly a scant number of transitionals, the fossil record is against evolutionary theory.

Evolution requires mutations as a cause of biological development, yet mutations are almost always detrimental to a biological organism and as such makes little or no contribution towards a biological organism being the fittest. As such, mutations are in opposition to the fundamental principle of survival of the fittest and therefore the theory is in opposition to itself. Therefore the theory is invalid.

Many organisms exist without being the fittest and many organisms exist without always striving to survive (eg dogs, cats, horses, bears and so on). Many organisms exist to thrive and enjoy existence, rather than to merely exist. As such evolutions principle of survival of the fittest is a false principle, therefore the theory is invalid.

Man has not always existed to merely survive, but has always sought to find meaning in life beyond survival in religion, art and politics. As such, human society does not conform to evolutionary theory, therefore the theory is invalid.

Small changes in biological organisms do not account for the existence of an organism. For the existence of any thing is ontologically prior to any change for a change requires an ongoing subject from the beginning to the end of the change process. For if there is no ongoing subject, then what exists at the beginning and end of the change process is not truly a process of change, but a process of annihilation and creation. But evolution requires the organism to come about only through continuous change, therefore evolution is invalid.

Flora - Mutations are not almost always detrimental, they are actually almost always non-players. For example, whether I have pale skin or dark doesn’t particularly affect my ability to survive, unless I happen to live in a climate in which there is a lot of UV radiation, and individuals with more pigment would be less likely to die of melanoma before reproducing (or after only reproducing a few times).

JM – Mutations are almost always detrimental to existing biological organisms. What the heck, how do evolutionists know what is and what is not a mutation anyway? Are they merely playing word games for the sake of an ad hoc theory? How do they know what is and what is not information? Is it based upon an ad hoc theory that reduces genetic material down to a numbers game? Probably, so why should the rest of us who are skeptical about the theory bow to the numbers when numbers are not a complete measure of information, biology, mutation, survival, or development?

The fact is that these concepts such as mutation, information, survival, micro evolution, macro evolution, natural selection and so on are largely easily manipulated terms used to fit into a world view. On the surface the theory looks solid, but when we have a close look, we note the many problems, with allows non evolutionists to sit back and conclude the theory is not nearly as powerful as we are told.

Flora - Conversely if I live in a very northern climate which receives very little sunlight in the winter, individuals with a reduced capacity to absorb vitamin D (such as those with dark skin) would quickly succumb as children to Vitamin D deficiency (rickets). If I live somewhere in between, neither will benefit me one way or another and so you will see variations of skin colour in the population based only on random proliferation and not any sort of evolutionary selection. Some mutations are even sometimes bad and sometimes good – sickle cell anemia is a rather unpleasant recessive gene (needs two copies) that is commonly found in African populations, but a single copy of this gene confers protection against infection with malaria. This mutation would not be likely to propagate in a population that isn’t exposed to malaria, since 1/4 of the children of two people with this mutation would invariably die without medical treatment, but in a malaria infested area, the parents would survive as well as 1/2 of the children.

JM – great examples of complex biological systems that have small variations and these variation are meant to be compelling evidence for the evolutionary theory and its phylogenetic tree. We creationists see these sort of examples as special pleading or bait and switch type examples where the evolutionists gives us examples of small changes and then says see, if we imagine many, many small changes then we can come up with a phylogenetic tree! No thanks, just so stories, plus imagination with small example are simply not science. As such we have good reason to reject conjecture in favor of a far more reliable science of revelation.

Flora - This is the essence of natural selection – depending on the environment, your genetics will affect your ability to survive.

JM – This is hyper speculation based upon some observations and projection. Many animals have common genetic make ups in different environments and as such the genetic make up is not dependent upon the environment. If you think the environment causes the genetic make up then show us how an extrinsic (outside) cause of the environment, causes the intrinsic cause of genetic change. How does placing a biological substance in a hostile environment cause that biological substance to adapt, when it is not really the biological substance, but its offspring that must change in the environment.

This is the common fallacy in evolution. It is surmised that offspring is the measure of survival and as such the offspring must change to be the fittest in the environment. So if the offspring change, what is the mechanism that causes the offspring to be better than the parents and therefore make them the fittest? If it is mutations, then what is the cause of a mutation that allows the random mechanism to produce the fittest? If it is natural selection, then why is mutation evoked so much when mutation is random and as such, must cause populations to become extinct at least as much as survival, let alone become the fittest?

If evolutionists appeal to a mechanism of natural selection within an environment, then how do they account for an environment of multiple dependent biological systems that are all producing mutations? If for example, biological organism 1 is dependent upon 2 and so on and 1 has a change that is adverse for 2, or 3 or 4, but is good for itself, then why do we see that so often 2, 3 ad 4 continue with these adverse changes? Apparently natural selection is merely an appeal to what is needed for the system to survive, must happen and as such any change is for the good of the biological system.

Natural selection is really only a metaphor used to remove the need for an intelligence to account for all the biological systems that point directly to design and therefore a designer. As such, because a designer does exist, then natural selection is at best only a metaphor, with limited value within an inductive, empirical theory.

Natural selection is only ever associated with small changes. As such, the theory must restrict its applicability to small changes and go no further, to remain an empirical based theory. But as the theory is stretched way beyond what is observed, to construct the phylogenetic tree, then the theory has moved from observation, to speculation and faith based actions on the part of those who believe the theory accounts for all biological life. As such, natural selection is merely a bait tool used by evolutionists to sucker people into believing a naturalist and pantheistic, or even an atheistic world view, which goes way beyond the power of the observations made and the examples of evolutionary change given by evolutionists.

Flora - Punctuated equilibrium is merely one hypothesis within the theory – there are plenty of evolutionary biologists who do not think that such a thing exists and there is certainly evidence to the contrary (especially since punctuated equilibrium necessitates an identical environment over numerous generations for an entire population, which certainly could be argued does not exist.)

JM - Punctuated equilibrium is a desperate attempt for evolutionists to confront the lack of fossil evidence for gradual changes within a population. As such, Darwinian evolution is invalidated and as Punctuated equilibrium doesn’t have a biological mechanism, then evolutionary theory, with the phylogenetic tree is also invalidated.

Flora - We do not need punctuated equilibrium to describe evolution, and even if proven untrue, it does not necessitate the throwing out the rest of the theory. What you propose is the equivalent of reverting to walking because you don’t like seat belts on airplanes.

JM – what you need is a miracle to explain the lack of evidence for the phylogenetic tree. Both punctuated equilibrium and transitionals do not exist in the real, so all the branches of the tree are at best hyper speculation and at worst, outright science fraud.

Flora - As for phylogenetic trees being incomplete, I wish to give you another analogy. If you see a picture of a father and son playing catch, and you see the ball in the father’s hands, and then in the next photo, the child is catching it, do you assume that the ball was magically transported there by a supernatural being?

JM – As a scientist I would speculate more than one cause to account for what I see and what I don’t see. As an evolutionist, you must speculate the ball got into the sons hand through natural selection, whereby the hand mutated to the shape of the ball, because the ball is the environment. We creationists sit back and see the outright craziness of evolutionary speculation and see the obvious evidence for the design of the father, son and the ball and conclude the entire episode is caused by God and his designed creatures.

Flora - Do you assume that it’s another ball entirely? Or do you assume that the ball was thrown from the father to the child?

JM – Evolutionary theory denies the need to account for the formal cause within biological systems. As such, evolutionary theory reduces biological systems down to merely biological matter, without the need for the soul. In a similar way, evolution must also account for the non living bodies, such as the ball, without the formal cause. So what then is the evolutionary explanation for the existence of the ball? Answer – evolution has no answer within its own false world view, so it merely promotes evolution in biological systems without the need for formal causes (which is false), yet when there is no formal cause in the real, as in the case of the ball, then evolution has no answer, other than an intelligent design (which is inconsistent with evolutionary theories denial of the existence of a formal cause).

The denial of formal causation within evolutionary theory is one magnificent logical hole, from which it cannot recover. The denial of formal causation is the downfall of evolutionary theory.

Flora - Well, maybe it’s reasonable to assume that it’s a different ball. What if we add another picture, with the ball in mid air and the child’s arms outstretched? Well, maybe there’s still doubt in your mind, so we take a video. Would you now be happy in saying that yes, the father threw the ball to his son? Well, video is just an illusion of continuity, images strung together in a way in which it appears to us that it is a continuous stream of pictures. We just think we have a complete picture, when in fact, were are missing an infinite amount of data in the gaps between those photos.

JM – The gaps mentioned here are nothing compared to the gaps in the phyogentic tree. There is virtually no evidence whatsoever in the fossil records for transitional biological organisms. Even if there were evidence for such transitionals, then we have the logical problem of what a transitional is and how it has any relationship to the survival of the fittest and natural selection. The notion of a transitional within the theory is very problematic.

Flora - And yet, we can safely say that we know what happened in the absence of these links because we have sufficient data. We have sufficient data about evolution, we have many pictures over a long period of time.

JM – You don’t have sufficient data. What you have is observations of small changes in the present and stability of biological systems in the present. You also have a classification system that is tailor made for the biological systems to fit into part of the theory. For example it is often argued that the emergence of new species have been observed, yet the definition of what a species is, is so flimsy that a new species comes about through what the evolutionist requires and wants to exclude. Once the “new species” is observed, then grand claims are made about the success of the theory and the validity of the phylogenetic tree. All of this is hand waving of course and the creationists is left a gasp at the gullibility of the evolutionists.

Flora - No matter how many more transitional forms we have, there will always be an infinite number of gaps, because it is impossible that every individual that has ever existed has been fossilized.

JM – the situation is far worse than you make it out to be. The very notion of a transitional is either poorly defined or logically not possible, or problematic within the theory itself. So an appeal to finding some transitionals is merely assertion and the appeal to an infinite number of gaps does the theory no good whatsoever either. It like saying we have a theory to account for some action, but the evidence for the theory is almost always negative, therefore we conclude the theory is a success. This means the less evidence there is, the more successful the theory is. Of course anyone who is scientifically minded knows this sort of thinking is entirely against the inductive method. But this is what the evolutionist’s push – no evidence means we must look, look, look, even though the very notion of a transitional is illogical.

Flora - That does not mean that we cannot track the changes over time because we know what came earlier, what came later, and what the changes in between are.

JM – You only know what came before and after because you assume uniformitarianism in geology, which is challenged by recent catastrophes and as such is merely a problematic assumption. Also you only think you know what came before and after, but you have no way of knowing if this is real or not, based upon where you find a fossil. For a fossil location does not infer heredity or causation of life. A fossil location only infers the death and burial of an organism and nothing more. The rest of the evolutionary mechanism and phylogentic tree is mere naturalist speculation.

Flora - We can see the father with the ball, we can see some shots of the ball in the air, and we can see the son catching the ball. We can reasonably conclude that the father tossed the ball to his son. We cannot reasonably conclude that in between those gaps, Superman popped in to make the ball levitate, and then swapped it out for a completely different but in every way identical ball halfway in between.

JM – This is a very poor analogy that has no relationship whatsoever to the formation of biological organisms. Then again, this is all the evolutionist ever produce as “evidence”, for they are lost in a naturalist, pantheistic, or perhaps atheistic world view that is thoroughly anti-realist.

Flora - If our knowledge about the world is based on supernatural thinking, we may as not ever try to learn anything ever, since indeed anything, theoretically, could happen. The universe behaves in an observable, consistent way, and assuming that it behaves in a supernatural, but non-observable, and non-quantifiable way is not empirically different than simply assuming that the universe is observable and consistent.

JM – Actually you merely assert supernaturalism is anti science, yet you don’t produce the evidence, so why do we not find naturalist arguments compelling? Could is be because many of those arguments are non sequiturs? Yep.

Flora - And irreducible complexity was refuted by Darwin himself. Things evolve in an additive fashion, with each adaptation at each stage being beneficial to the survival of the organism. Feathers might be useful for heat insulation and sexual selection before the development of gliding and ultimately flying.

JM – actually irreducible complexity is only one of several death strikes to the theory. Merely hand waving over the problem with an appeal to an analogy of “additive fashion” is intellectual hubris. The very notion of irreducible complexity is that a system is composed of a number of irreducible parts so that if one part is missing the system doesn’t work. So how then are we creationists to take evolutionists seriously when their arguments are reduced to –

1.      Irreducible complexity is a system composed of an irreducible number of parts
2.      Evolution says irreducible complexity is accounted for through the addition of parts
3.      But to have an addition of parts means the system without the parts does not function.
4.      But to not function, means the system is not the fittest
5.      Therefore evolution cannot account for irreducible complexity, without contradicting survival of the fittest.

Some how we are to ignore the logic of simple arguments against evolution and go along for the naturalist ride. I don’t think so.

Flora - Evolution does not necessitate that all things are done merely for survival, only that heritable characteristics increase the likelihood of survival/reproduction.

JM - Evolution does not necessitate that all things are done merely for survival, means modern evolutionists have noticed many organisms exist and act not from the motive of survival. Creationists have notice this for some time and have conclude the theory is full of non survival holes.

Flora - My development of a large neocortex has allowed me to understand complex planning and social situations, and confers self-awareness.

JM – Simply gibberish. You had no role whatsoever in the development of your neocortex. Your neocortex was designed as part of the generative plan made by God. To say you developed your own neocortex is to say you existed before you came to be.

Creationists have often noticed evolution is really a closet creation which substitutes the creator for humanism and pantheism. Evolution = creation – real creator + false creator in man + metaphor of natural selection.

Flora - This same planning and social neocortex that has allowed my ancestors to survive via cooperation allows me to choose not to reproduce, and yet no one could argue that humans would be more likely to survive, on a species level, without our neocortex.

JM – There is another metaphor of “social planning” and “social neocortex”. The reality is God as the creator made organisms to interact in groups as social animals so He gave them the biological mechanisms needed to act the way they do. We see no evidence whatsoever for any development of the neocortex or for that matter any organ at all within history as required by the phylogenetic tree.

Flora - And finally, you’ve completely neglected to answer my question in this post: if we can predict the phylogentic tree from morphology, and genetics have confirmed that tree in a quantifiable and statistically significant way, how could you say that evolution is invalid?

JM – You cannot predict the phylogentic tree from morphology, other than to set up a self serving classification system and add in intelligently designed models to retrospectively find what you need to find to prop up the many, many voids in the tree. Do you really think that those voids in the real, are filled in by a classification system that doesn’t have any evidence in the field? Evidently you do, but we creationists see this as a giant retreat back into maths plus assumptions and forced interpretations.

Really these classification systems that require trait and homology (common underlying structures) for classification into the phylogenetic tree are largely projections of the evolutionists. Lets have a look at the recent claim that recent models in two genus classifications of mammals and molluscs have had some success. What then are we creationists to say about such studies?

Firstly we can note that the definition of genus is most likely a set up definition used that assumes evolution and therefore assumes a common ancestor and heredity. So why wouldn’t such studies produce results consistent with genus classifications? After all that is what the classification system is all about. As such, such studies are most likely self serving evolutionist propaganda.

Secondly, the classification of genus is only of second rank above the poorly defined rank of species. So why would any success in the rank of genus be of any worry to a creationist? Does such success provide solid evidence for the tree, which requires solid evidence for modeling all the way through 7 other ranks of family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain and life. No it does not and it does not provide any evidence for a tree over say a forest or a succession of creation events or a single creation event.

Thirdly, the systems by which organisms are classified are done so on the bases of trait. So a common trait, or a group of common traits is often used as evidence for a common ancestor. But does this really follow as strong evidence, for a common ancestor and any substantial links to other ranks? Definitely not, simply because the inductive method does not have the means by which such common ancestors can be proven to have existed. The inductive method is only concerned with what can be observed here and now, and not what may or may not have happened in the past, especially when the past shows no evidence of transitionals.

Flora - It is clearly predictive. It is not perfect, but to refute it all together in the face of overwhelming evidence is just silly.

JM – Maybe it is predictive, but then again the theory is so full of logical holes and ad hoc answers and just so stories and the fallacy of naturalism that creationists step back and say where does all this false research end? In another grant, . . .?

I notice you have avoided several criticisms of evolutionary theory. I will take this as an indication that you are reconsidering your position or you currently acknowledge the problems are real. I have also now found more problems with the theory and as such you should respond to those problems. The problem of irreducible complexity has not been resolved by evolutionists and as such the theory is currently invalidated. Because it is invalid, then science must be open to a creation event, or at least some form of intelligent design.


Take your time and think things through. I request you put your best arguments for evolution forward for review and I will answer them. You can take your arguments from any source you like for the sake of fair use. I prefer that you keep your arguments as non technical as possible for the sake of clarity. I am not a biologist or a scientist, but I have read many books on philosophy, history, theology and science. I am qualified in engineering, philosophy and theology.

I am confident that evolution is an invalid theory and must be replaced by any thinking scientist in favor of a more robust, evidence based theory.

Another argument against evolution is as follows -

Irreducible complexity means a system is composed of parts and each part is needed for the system to function. Evolution proposes to account for irreducible complexity by stating parts of a system are found in other, more primitive systems and these parts eventually came together over time to form more complex systems. This means, evolutionists believe the more complex systems are therefore derived from less complex systems and ultimately the most simple system, which is only one part.

But can a system of many parts be derived from a system of fewer parts or only one part? As a part is a heterogeneous thing, which is different to other parts, which is less than the whole, then of itself the part is not in any way ordered towards a function (and therefore an end) other than what the part acts for. For the part to then be used in another system for the same end, requires the part to be copied and then placed within the new system. But to have the part placed to acted within the new system, requires the action of intelligent design to order the part towards an end within the system for the following reasons. 

1. A part from itself cannot arrange itself to act outside the system which it currently acts.

2. The part acts for an end and as an end can only be known as an end by an intellect, then a part can only act for an end, assuming the action of an intellect. but an intellect concludes to intelligent design and not evolution.

3. A part acting for an end is a part that has received order, for not from itself can anything order itself essentially. As such, the passive ordination in a part, means an ordering intellect must be actively ordering. But this means wherever a part is acting, there must be an intellect acting, which is intelligent design and not evolution.

Therefore the evolutionary claim that parts can be used from other systems to account for irreducible complexity concludes to intelligent design. As such evolution is invalidated.
Another argument – 

Evolution claims that natural and mutation selection accounts for the biological systems around us. Yet in this claim, there is the implied claim that biological systems can be accounted for through the assumption that life is merely a well ordered biological system. As such, evolution denies there is any fundamental difference between the living and non living biological systems, other than the ordering of the system to allow it to function and therefore survive in the case of a living system, or to not function, and therefore die and decompose, in the case of a non living system.

Yet what does reason have to say about the differences between the non living and the living? The living is a body that moves itself according to an auto-perfective motion. Such motion brings a living body from a state of tension to equilibrium and then back to a state of tension, contrary to the action of chemicals, which only ever act from a state of tension to equilibrium. Therefore to account for this action of equilibrium to tension, another cause exists within the body to that than mere chemicals. This other cause must act with a power within the body, which is to give a form to the living body. This form as a cause is the formal cause of the body, which is the soul. As such, all living bodies must have a soul as the formal cause of the living body.

Also, as motion is on account of an end, then action may be divided into the manners in which living bodies act for an end – 

Plants only act for an end, such as nourishment, without knowledge
Animals act for an end, with sense knowledge and instinct (which is not a will)
Man acts for an end with sense and intellective knowledge of an end.

As such action must be accounted for formally, then there must be three species of soul according to –

Plants have a vegetative life whereby the body acts beyond chemical actions to grow, nourish and regenerate.
Animals have a sensitive life whereby the body acts beyond chemical actions to grow, nourish and regenerate and have sense knowledge.

Man has an intellective life whereby the body acts beyond chemical actions to grow, nourish and regenerate, have sense knowledge and intellective knowledge.

Therefore all bodies have a soul as the formal cause of life in the living body. But evolution denies the need or existence of the soul in living bodies, therefore evolution is an invalid theory.

Monday, August 15, 2011

In Response to David Palm's "Sungenis and "johnmartin" Studiously Miss the Point"

 The following are comments on David Palm's article entitled "Sungenis and "johnmartin" Studiously Miss the Point" -

Bob Sungenis and "johnmartin" have issued lengthy "rebuttals" to my two pieces, Neo-geocentrism: Excessive Interest in Usury Comes to Naught and Neo-geo Exaggerations: The Catechism of Trent (see here and here).  I have to put "rebuttals" in quotes because, although both men deployed a great many words and both would probably claim that I have been "answered" and decisively so, the fact remains that neither individual actually engaged the central points I was making. 

JM – Palm has made his first error by merely asserting Robert Sungenis and me have not engaged the central points in Palms arguments. You’d think if Mr Palm was genuine about his rebuttals he would go through our arguments line by line, just as we go through his arguments line by line and show the readers where his arguments fail. As Mr Palm has once again chosen the low road of assertion without evidence, we insist he is reacting out of sinful intent to slander Robert Sungenis and Geocentrism.

Palm - The core points that they missed are:

1) The Roman Catechism doesn't teach geocentrism, Copernican heliocentrism, or any other specific cosmological theory.

On this point, in vintage style, Bob deploys a number of debater's tricks to hide the fact that I plainly demonstrated that the Roman Catechism does not teach geocentrism or any other specific cosmological system.  As such, Sungenis totally misses the point when he concludes, "Pius V didn’t say one word about heliocentrism in his catechism, so why is Mr. Palm arguing that Pius V was accommodating heliocentrism? Arguments from silence work both ways." 

JM – Robert was responding to Mr Palms statements concerning geocentrism not being an article of the faith as taught in the catechism of the Catholic church issued by John Paul II. Mr Palm cited –

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium.

In this text JPII clearly states the doctrines taught in the catechism are “attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium”, which means the catechism is illuminated by the decrees of past Popes against Galileo, the church fathers, who taught geocentrism and scripture, that teaches a stationary earth. As such, the catechism embraces geocentrism as a teaching of the church through scripture, the magesterium and the fathers.

Palm -  I've repeatedly stated that the Catholic Church doesn't teach any theory regarding celestial motion as a matter of faith, that Catholics have freedom in this regard.  The whole point that Bob studiously avoided is that the Catechism uses generic language that doesn't dogmatise any one theory.

JM – Catholic geocentrists have repeatedly told you of the unanimous consent of the church fathers, the scriptures and the Papal degrees against Galileo, which teach geocentrism. You have made false arguments about the meaning of what the fathers said and the binding nature of what they have said. You have made false arguments about statements made by recent Popes on the opinions of the fathers and the teaching of scripture on the matters of science. You have also told blatant falsehoods about what the decrees of the Popes against Galileo said when they condemned the theory of the motion of the earth as false doctrine. You have also been corrected on statements found in the catechism of the Council of Trent concerning the motions of the sun, moon and stars. Finally, you have denied that either Robert or myself have answered your arguments, yet you ignore the many arguments made against your statements. Evidently you think it is satisfactory to routinely make false statements about others and think those statements are sufficient to win the day.
Palm - It's a common debater's trick to try and shift the burden of proof to his opponent.  But remember that it was Sungenis who claimed that the Roman Catechism contains, "One of the clearest official and authoritative statements from the Catholic Church defending the doctrine of geocentrism..." and speaks of the "Roman Catechism’s dogmatic assertion of geocentrism".  Obviously, with a build-up like that, the burden of proof is squarely on him to show just where this clear and dogmatic assertion of geocentrism exists in the Catechism.

JM – Statements in the catechism of Trent related to geocentrism (with comments) are as follows –

Trent - Of Heaven and Earth

 The words heaven and earth include all things which the heaven's and the earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of his fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety.

The context of the above statement is the creation of the universe. Within the discussion on creation, the text states the words, sun, moon and stars. It is then in the context of sun, moon and stars that the “celestial bodies” have a certain uniform course and continual revolution. Therefore the bodies doing the motion in uniform course and continual revolution are the sun, moon and stars and not the earth.

Formation Of The Universe


The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures.

I have made an extensive commentary on what Trent means in this passage and why Mr palms arguaments are false here – and copied in green below -

Palm - The earth [terram] also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world [mundi], rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures.
While mundus can mean "universe", it can also just mean "world", e.g. Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur,

JM – A flaw in Mr Palm’s argument is that he does not take into account the context of the statement in CT. The statement is made in the context of the creation of the universe here – under article 1 - “I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.” In this section the catechism says
“The words heaven and earth include all things which the heaven's and the earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of his fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety.”

Clearly the heavens is distinct from the earth, therefore the notion of celestial body is distinct from the earth also. And as the celestial bodies are said to be doing the revolving, and the earth is excluded from the celestial bodies, then the earth is stationary.

The fatal flaw however, is when we examine the content of the first half of the opening sentence under the title of “Formation Of The Universe”, where it states, “The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation”. We see the broader context of the meaning of the word world, in CT where it says knowledge of God is attained through faith in the act of God who “From the beginning of the world” had created the world. Evidently the “world”, means the universe, for “From the beginning of the world” is found under the article concerning the creation of the heaven and earth, which means the entire universe.

We also see the meaning of “world” in the context of Gods ability to annihilate all creatures, which means to move the entire universe out of existence and then create other “worlds”. Therefore, according to consistency, if God can annihilate all creatures and then create again, what is it that He is going to create? Is it going to be another part of the earth, as requires by Mr Palm’s argument, or is God going to create another universe? Evidently God is able to create another universe, or for that matter, any number of universes. Therefore the broader context of the meaning for “world” is the universe and not merely the globe of the earth.

We also see the CT article discuss the creation of the spirits. It states “He created out of nothing the spiritual world and Angels innumerable to serve and minister to Him”. If we follow Mr Palm’s argument, we must say the article in CT is saying “He created out of nothing the spiritual globe of the earth  and Angels innumerable to serve and minister to Him”. When we see the incompatibility of Mr Palm’s argument with the context of God creating the spirits it should be immediately obvious that Mr Palms argument is simply not feasible.

Under the creation of all things, the CT article also says “What we have said, then, of the creation of the universe is to be understood as conveyed by the words heaven and earth, and is thus briefly set forth by the Prophet: Thine are the heavens, and thine is the earth: the world and the fullness thereof thou hast founded”. According to this CT statement, the universe is the heavens and the earth, which is the world. Yet, if we are consistent with Mr Palm’s argument, the Prophet says “the globe of the earth and the fullness of the globe of the earth, therefore thou hast founded.” Does this sound feasible or even probable in the context of the article which discusses the creation of the universe and the heavens and earth being the universe? No. Certainly the context, the world is not merely the globe of the earth, but rather, the world refers to the heavens and the earth, which is the entire universe.

Finally, if Mr Palm wants to play word games about the meaning of “world” then let him shows us the meaning “world” from Article I in the CT. For it is in this context of the world as the universe, that CT makes its statements. Once this is done, Mr Palm’s interpretation is found to be false.

Palm - "The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived." But from the whole context it appears that the Catechism is using the word "earth" (terra) in terms of the "land", as distinct from the "air" and "water" and the word "world" (mundus) to mean the whole globe.

JM – Mr Palm introduces a statement not found anywhere in the immediate context of the formation of the universe, or in the broader context of the article on creation. As such, Mr Palm has brought in a sentence to include a meaning of “world” not found in the CT article.
Further, we have already seen above, the context of the article on creation in CT concerning the meaning of “world” to mean the universe and not the earth. Therefore Mr Palm’s argument is false, concerning the meaning of the world “world”.

We can also check Mr Palms claims concerning terra and mudus here -

Terra means – earth, ground, land, country, soil

Mundus means - clean, world, neat, universe, elegant

Mr Palm thinks terra means land, when the first definition is earth. He also thinks mundus means “whole globe”, when this online translator says it means world or universe. Which translation are we to take for mundus? Taking the context of Article I of CT as discussed above, we must take it to mean universe and not “whole globe”, as Mr Palm asserts.

Palm -  (This echoes the wording of Gen 1:10, "And God called the dry land, Earth [terram]".) Thus in this context "rooted in its own foundation" means that the land is fixed in place with relation to the water, not in relation to the cosmos.

JM – Even if we ignore all of the problems we have so far found with Mr Palms arguments, we can compare the first half of the sentence with the second. The first half says “The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation”. Here we see under the title of the “Formation of the universe” , where God commanded the earth to stand in the midst of the universe [world]. What then is the relationship between the earth in the world and the mountains and plains of the earth? The relation between the two groups is the word “foundation”, for it is the earth, which is firstly made on a foundation within the universe. It is then the earth, upon this foundation that God “made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them”. Notice God makes the foundation for the earth in the universe [world] and only then does he create the mountains and plains. The common notion of ‘founding’ as termed foundation and founded is the link that allows the correct interpretation to be understood.

In short the statement “The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them.” Is correctly understood to mean –

God made the universe [world] and included the earth on a foundation.

The earth is on a foundation in the universe [world], as such this provides a circumstance for the forming of the mountains and plains.

There mountains and plains are not founded in relation to the earth, but it is the mountains and plains, which is the terra (earth), which is formed due to the earth being already founded in the universe [world].

This interpretation takes into account the meaning of the word, world in the rest of the article and the grammatical structure of the sentence. Evidently when this is done, Mr Palm’s interpretation is shown to be false and the CT text is clearly a geocentric statement.

Even so, there is yet still another weakness in Palm’s argument where he is unable to make his conclusion that the “world” definitely does not mean universe. If the” world” does mean the universe, then CT teaches geocentrism. If it might mean universe, then we are obligated to defer to the church’s decision on the matter by seeing what it has stated in a case when the centrality of the earth is denied. We see that the church did react and make official statements to condemn Galileo and the moving earth. Therefore the mind of the church must prevail and CT means what it says concerning the motion of bodies other than the earth and the stationary earth. Therefore, according to CT, the earth is motionless because God made it stand on its foundation.

So if we look to the broad context, or the narrow context or if we look to the mind of the church, we come to the same conclusion; the CT teaches geocentrism.

Palm -  If "earth" here means the entire globe then the passage ceases to make sense, since in the last sentence the "earth" is specifically contrasted with the "air" and "water" and God certainly didn't cover the entire globe, including the air and water, "with trees and every variety of plant and flower".

JM – Mr Palm has got it all wrong. If the earth means the globe, then and only then does it make any sense doe to the meaning of the word “world” in the broader context of the article and the grammatical structure of the sentence itself.

Palm - This passage, then, doesn't represent a description of the globe's place in the universe and it has no application to geocentrism.

JM – No, the passage is a clear statement that teaches geostatism and therefore geocentrism.

Trent - "Who art in Heaven" Meaning Of These Words


 But though God is present in all places and in all things, without being bound by any limits, as has been already said, yet in Sacred Scripture it is frequently said that He has His dwelling in heaven. And the reason is because the heavens which we see above our heads are the noblest part of the world, remain ever Incorruptible, surpass all other bodies in power, grandeur and beauty, and are endowed with fixed and regular motion.

The catechism clearly refers to the heavens in the context of having a fixed and regular motion. If it is disputed that the catechism is referring to the heavens that do the motion, then we note the statements are made in the context of sacred scripture, so what does sacred scripture have to say on the matter of the motion of the heavens and the immobility of the earth? When we see the many texts within scripture on the topic, we note there are texts on the immobility of the earth –

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

The scriptures also teach the motion of the sun –

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Habakkuk 3:11
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear.

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

Evidently, when the catechism of Trent makes a statement concerning the heavens with a regular motion, it means the sun, moon and stars have a regular motion around the stationary earth, which is fixed on a foundation. Only in this way are the sources of revelation in scripture and tradition consistent.

That God May Be Thanked For His Favours


...all goods both natural and supernatural, must be recognised as gifts given by Him from whom, as the Church proclaims, proceed all blessings. If the sun by its light, if the stars by their motion and revolutions, are of any advantage to man; if the air with which we are surrounded serves to sustain us...nay, those very causes which philosophers call secondary, we should regard as so many hands of God, wonderfully fashioned and fitted for our use, by means of which He distributes His blessings and diffuses them everywhere in profusion.

The catechism of the council of Trent states “the stars by their motion and revolutionswhich means it is the stars that have revolutions as a collective unit, which revolve around something. This unit of stars that revolve is the same heavens mentioned previously in the catechism, that is doing the revolving around the fixed earth.

Palm - The problem is that he can't.

JM - Apparently Robert cannot demonstrate the catechism of the Council of Trent teaches geocentrism as a doctrine of the faith, yet I have shown above that the catechism does teach the doctrine of the moving sun, moon and stars and the fixed earth. I have also shown the teaching from the catechism is consistent with scripture, which also teaches a fixed earth. And what do you know, the unanimous consent of the fathers is the same – they also teach the earth is stationary.

Palm - As I laid out in my original article, there are a number of passages cited by the neo-geocentrists to try to find geocentrism in the Roman Catechism.  But even Sungenis has to admit that there is doubt about what these actually mean.  So he deploys what he considers to be the show-stopper—the "foundations of the earth" passage—which he claims will, "expel any doubt about what objects are revolving".  The problem is that I demonstrated that this passage has nothing to do with the position of the globe in relation to the universe, but speaks of the position of dry land in relation to water on the surface of the earth.  As I said there, "If 'earth' here means the entire globe then the passage ceases to make sense, since in the last sentence the 'earth' is specifically contrasted with the 'air' and 'water' and God certainly didn't cover the entire globe, including the air and water, 'with trees and every variety of plant and flower'."

JM – I have answered Mr Palms arguments in the green text above, which he has decided to ignore. Evidently a counter response means nothing to him, so he is merely making more false statements above concerning the teaching of geocentrism in the catechism of Trent.

Palm - What does Bob say to this demonstration?
Sure, I’ll grant to Mr. Palm that 'mundus' could refer to the earth and earth could refer to the land. But that doesn’t get him off the hook with the previous passage that says the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth. Mr. Palm’s mundus could either mean earth or universe, but the burden of proof is on him to show that it means earth since the catechism has already stated it believes the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth.

JM – Regardless of what Robert has said (which I agree is correct anyway), I have shown Mr Palms argument in the context of what the catechism of Trent says, is that mundus refers to the universe.

Palm - But the careful reader will notice that Bob has added the words "around the earth" to the Catechism because that's what he needs it to say in order to support geocentrism.

JM – When Robert adds “around the earth” he is only making explicit, what is already contained within Trent’s catechism text. Other texts state the unanimous consent of the fathers is binding and normative and so when the text discusses the motions of the sun, moon and stars, these motions are around the earth, as taught by the church fathers and later popes who correctly condemned Galileo’s novel doctrine of the moving earth.

Palm - The fact is, the Catechism never uses such words.  Instead, it uses generic phrases like "certain and uniform course", "continual revolution", "fixed and regular motion", "motion and revolutions" with respect to the heavenly bodies. 

JM – Heavenly bodies is a plural, so it is the heavenly bodies and not the earth that is doing the "certain and uniform course", "continual revolution", "fixed and regular motion", "motion and revolutions" and no the earth. This is logic 101, which Mr Palm has failed, yet again.

Palm -  And these would apply just as well to the pre-Tridentine theories of Bishop Nicolas Oresme and Cardinal Nicolas Cusa as they would to Copernican heliocentrism and more modern acentric cosmologies.  In other words, the Catechism does not teach anything with respect to any one scientific theory—that was not the intent of those passages.

JM – These statements do not apply to any cosmology other than geocentrism because the scriptures, church fathers and later popes are all explicit and very clear concerning the immobility of the earth and the motion of the heavenly bodies.

Palm - This answers Bob's other off-point comment, "As such, Mr. Palm will also have to accept the fact that he cannot interpret land and earth literally in the catechism and then interpret the sun, moon and stars moving around the earth non‐literally." 

JM – It doesn’t answer Roberts comment at all, simply because Mr. Palm is making arguments, based upon a severe case of projecting meanings into the word “mundus”, which is not in the context of the catechism of Trent.

Palm - Wrong.  There are really two ways to answer this.  First, the Magisterium teaches that the Holy Spirit did not put specifics about "the essential nature of the things of the visible universe" into sacred Scripture.  Rather, they are depicted according to "what comes under the senses" (Providentissimus Deus 18).

JM – Mr Palm has used this argument before and it has been answered before as well. When taken in context of several other statements made by the Popes, the doctrine of geocentrism stands. The counter argument to Mr Palm’s statement is simply this – the church fathers are unanimous on the immobile earth and as such, they speak as the ordinary magesterium. The scriptures are also consistent on the immobility of the earth and the motion of the sun, moon and stars. The Papacy has made several statements that reaffirm the doctrine of the immobility of the earth and the motion of the sun, moon and stars. As such, these three sources of revelation are in harmony and therefore geocentrism has been revealed by God.

Palm -  We cannot really expect more from the Roman Catechism than what we get from sacred Scripture itself concerning the precise details of celestial motions. 

JM – Correct Mr Palm, the precise details of the motions of the sun, moon and stars are not given to us in scripture, the fathers or the magesterium. But then again we don’t need the precise details to know what the sources of revelation have told us what is and what is not moving in the universe. Mr Palm has definitely over played his hand on the use of one misunderstood statement by one Pope to arrive at a false conclusion about the immobility of the earth.

Palm - But second, the motions are literal, it's just that the Catechism does not give specifics about those motions.  Can Bob prove that the theories of Bishop Oresme and Cardinal Cusa are excluded by the Roman Catechism?  No, he can't.

JM – Yes, Robert can prove any cosmological theory that is not geocentric is false by pointing to the tradition of the church which teaches against the motion of the earth as found in the church fathers, scripture and Papal statements. What the heck, Robert even has modern science on his side so he could demonstrate the immobility of the earth even without the sources of revelation.

Can Mr Palm prove the theories of Bishop Oresme and Cardinal Cusa are to be considered at all when the sources of revelation and modern science tell us the earth is stationary? No, he cannot, so his entire thesis is bogus.

Palm - It is he who reads subsequent controversies and his own cosmological biases back into the Roman Catechism and adds words that are not there, to make the Catechism say what he wants it to say.

JM – Robert adds word when they are required so Catholics such as you, with chips on your shoulder can see the light that staring them in the face. That light is geocentrism.

Palm - But more importantly, notice how Bob plays both ends against the middle.  He had already implicitly acknowledged that the other passages are not clear, that there was "doubt" that needed to be expelled.  So he deployed the "foundations of the earth" passage which, he claimed, will "expel any doubt about what objects are revolving".  But I proved that that passage has nothing to do with the motions of celestial bodies. 

JM – Mr Palm hasn’t proven anything at all about the matter of geocentrism. What he has demonstrated is his inability to deal with counter arguments in depth, so he answers only what he can to make his case look at least tenable, when in fact it is he who is against the church fathers, scripture, the magesterium and modern science.

Palm - Bob did not even engage my exegetical argument.  (Neither did "johnmartin".) 

JM – I wonder what Mr Palm was reading. Did he not see the text written in green as copied from my original rebuttal above? How can anyone state such a blatant lie about geocentrist not answering his exegesis and then have us believe he is being honest? The fact is Mr Palm has decided that blatant lies are the order of the day when it comes to arguing against geocentrism.

Palm - Instead, he circles back around to claim that the passages that he acknowledged are doubtful are now clear enough to support the meaning of this passage: "the burden of proof is on [Palm] to show that it means earth since the catechism has already stated it believes the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth."  The problem for Bob is that I did prove just that.

JM – The problem for Mr Palm is that I have shown his arguments are false, so his currently claims are more dishonesty.

Palm - The bottom line is that the Catechism's language accommodates more than one cosmological view, because the Catholic Church does not teach any one cosmology as a matter of faith

JM – I have shown otherwise. Even if Mr Palms arguments held some weight and the catechism doesn’t teach geocentrism explicitly, how then is a faithful Catholic to interpret the text? Does he use a false hermeneutic of Mr Palm and ignore the context of the catechism and the sources of revelation? Or does he use the context and the sources of revelation and arrive at the conclusion that any ambiguity in the text is to be understood in a way consistent with the scriptures, tradition and the magesterium.

Palm - Bob huffs that "Even die hard modernists admit that the Tridentine catechism teaches geocentrism. They just don’t want to accept it, but at least they are not foolish enough to force the catechism into a mold that it cannot hold."

JM – Mr Palm thinks he he can ignore the sources of revelation and make false statements about the catechism, the fathers, the scriptures and the Popes have said about the stationary earth. He thinks his ignorance of science is a compelling case against geocentrism. He also thinks that writing repeatedly about a topic which has already been answered by geocentrists makes his false arguments become true. What are geocentrists to do with such a man, who routinely makes the sources of revelation say that they do not say?

Palm - But I categorically deny that the Roman Catechism teaches geocentrism or any cosmology at all and the arguments that I have deployed to demonstrate that apply every bit as much to the modernists as to the neo-geocentrists

JM – The Roman Catechism teaches a creationist, geocentrist cosmology that is consistent with the sources of revelation. How could it be otherwise Mr Palm? Do you really think the church compartmentalizes its teaching so a catechism from an ecumenical council is not consistent with the sources of revelation? Evidently you must and therefore geocentrists think you have a false understanding of the sources of revelation.

Palm - But the fact that Bob will side with the Church's enemies in order to save his "pebble" of geocentrism pretty much proves my point: "The neo-geocentrist fixation on their pet cause is like a monkey who reaches into a precious Ming vase to grasp a pebble. Intent only on holding onto that bit of rock and unable to extract his clenched fist, the monkey will happily smash the vase to get his "prize", heedless of the priceless nature of the treasure he has wrecked."

JM – Mr Palm is living in an up-side-down world of lies and half truths.

Palm - 2)  There is no instance in which the Magisterium of the Church has for centuries ceased to teach a doctrine of the Catholic faith.

JM – Mr Palms title begs the question. The fact is that geocentrism has been found in the sources of revelation, so if the church no longer teaches geocentrism, it is because she has gone quiet on the topic.

Palm - In Neo-geocentrism: Excessive Interest in Usury Comes to Naught I pointed to instances in which neo-geocentrists attack the very Magisterium of the Church in order to explain their anomalous position.  "johnmartin" deployed a whole list of doctrines which he claims the Catholic Church has "de facto denied" and speaks of "church [sic] silence" prompted by "inept leadership or fear of the science establishment".  Rick Delano speaks of "surrender" and "abandoning" of "binding doctrines" and "dogmas" put forth by the "ordinary magisterium".

JM – When Mr Palm says neo-geocentrists attack the magesterium, this is merely an empty rhetorical device used to paint geocentrists, who are actually faithful to the church as being a group of ill informed, rebels.

Palm - And yet I have shown how, in each and every case, the Magisterium of the Church has explicitly reaffirmed the examples they propose, right up to the present day.  This leaves geocentrism standing in utter isolation as the lone alleged exception to the rule. 

JM – Let’s assume the magesterium has continued to teach every doctrine I alleged was not taught by the modern church. What follows from Mr Palm’s argument in regard to geocentrism? Nothing other than the fact that the church has chosen to remain silent on the matter of geocentrism and has not made any statements to overturn previous Papal statements that conform to geocentrism. As such, church silence on the matter of geocentrism and its lack of statements to overturn previous geocentric statements infer the church gives consent to geocentric statements and as such, the church continues to teach geocentrism.

Palm - But the neo-geocentrists are simply wrong: it is not an exception at all because geocentrism is not now and never has been taught as a matter of faith by the Catholic Church, in either her ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium. 

JM – This is simply a bold faced falsehood perpetuated by Mr Palm. He has been confronted over the matter of the church fathers, the scriptures and the Papal statements that all teach geocentrism. He routinely denies all evidence presented through special pleading the weight of the church fathers, the Papal decrees and he ignores the scriptures and modern science that is consistent with geocentrism. Overall, Mr Palm has already made up his mind on the matter of geocentrism and his attacks against geocentrism are truncated, inconsistent and invalid.

Palm - The Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches 100% of the doctrines of the Faith. 

JM – Correct, the magesterium teaches 100% of the doctrines of the faith, including geocentrism. Mr Palm will ignore or hand wave his way around the statements made by the church fathers, scriptures and the Popes on geocentrism, then make a false argument, based upon his misunderstanding of some statements made by geocentrists concerning the deficiencies of the modern magesterium. The fact is that the modern magesterium includes all the bishops of the world, who are unfortunately responsible for modernism within the church today. As many bishops are either modernists or at least permit modernism within the church, then yes, the magesterium has failed to pass on the fullness of the faith.

Palm - That she does not teach geocentrism demonstrates that never has been part of the Faith. 

JM – the church does teach geocentrism, so it is part of the faith.

Palm - Neo-geocentrism is exactly as I have described it many times in discussions on the Catholic Answers Forum—an elaborate exercise in special pleading, both scientifically and ecclesiastically.

JM – The anti-geocentrism of Mr Palm is actually a grand case of special pleading whereby he thinks he is the arbiter of what is and is not taught on the matter of cosmology within the sources of revelation. The sources of revelation are clear and they all teach geocentrism. He thinks his special pleading the weight of the church fathers, his novel understanding of unanimous consent of the fathers, his vacuous hermeneutics of scriptural texts, his reversal of Papal statements, his false understanding of the value of Papal statements are all the true mind of the church. The truth is that Mr Palm has only proven his is thoroughly incompetent when engaging geocentrists, church documents, scripture and the church fathers.

Palm - Now "johnmartin" and Sungenis consistently miss this point.  The former seeks to blunt my criticism of his extreme statements by appealing to what happens on the "local level". 

JM – The church has failed to teach the fullness of the faith at the local level for some time. Also many bishops and Cardinal hold to novel doctrines at odds with the church, such as the dual covenant theology and errancy of the scriptures, not to mention the ordination of women preists and the use of condoms.

Palm -  For the record, that is not what he said before.  What he said was, “I’ve presented a list of doctrines that have been de facto denied by the modern church” and “I believe the church silence on the matter of geo[centrism] in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment”.  I don't see any disclaimers in there about this only happening on the "local level".

JM – What is the “modern church” Mr Palm? Is the magesterium of the church always manifesting itself as a competent guide in the face of debacles such as the pedophile scandals, modernist scholarship and liberal teachers being permitted to disseminate their ideas throughout the church? Does this sound like a magesterium that makes courageous decisions or does it sound like a mixed bag of incompetence and goodness?

You have merely repeated your claims about what I did and did not say, yet what was said has already been clarified in Dave Armstrong’s combox and later in other posts on my blog. Evidently further explanations in this matter mean nothing to you at all so you pick and chose what to examine and leave out explanation to paint geocentrists as being the rebels, when in fact you are the rebel, who routinely denounces the fathers, places the Popes into your ahistorical pigeon holes and ignores the scriptures and modern science.

Palm -  As such, his new argument seems to be a tacit recognition that his original argument was false. 

JM – Its not. Roberts arguments are sound and your arguments are nothing more than B grade cunning.

Palm - And it's interesting that this alleged ineptitude and cowardice didn't prevent the Magisterium from explicitly teaching on a wide range of volatile and controversial topics, from contraception to homosexuality to divorce and remarriage

JM – Here’s a couple of controversial topics the magesterium has avoided – take the matter of coeducation condemned by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri   §§ 68-69, here - What has the magesterium done about many Catholic schools that embrace coeducation in disconformity with the magesterium?

We also have the modern church’s silence on the anti modernist oath given by Pope St. Pius X which is no longer required of clergy, even though modernism is rampant, here -

Palm -  Are we to believe that this alleged failure of competence and nerve is reserved only for geocentrism?  Again, this is just one more instance of neo-geocentric special pleading.

JM – According to surveys in the USA, many bishops and priests are gay and many have been caught up in the pedophile scandals. We also know that catechesis has stalled in many parts of the world and many bishops deny parts of the faith (eg Weakland) and what has the magesterium done about this? It has done something no doubt, but it sure was tardy and the problems are not over by a long stretch. How does this auger for Mr Palms argument It sure des tell us there is something wrong about the way in which the magesterium has decided to pass on the faith to generations that have since lost the faith because of ineptitude.

How does this fit into the problem of the “missing” doctrine of geocentrism? Well firstly, the doctrine is not really missing, but only not taught in its fullness, because the church has chosen to do so. Even so, the truth can be found in the sources of revelation, which have not been suppressed by the church. Secondly, recent church history clearly demonstrates there is something wrong with the magesterium and the way in which the it has chosen to ignore or badly handle the different crisis’s within the church. As such, we geocentrists have solid precedent for pointing out a consistent pattern of church magisterial behavior, whereby the fullness of the faith has not been handed down to the faithful and in many instances the faithful have consequently completely abandoned the faith. The matter of silence by the magesterium on the doctrine of geocentrism is consistent with these other historical matters.

Palm - Regardless, now "johnmartin" complains that he's been misunderstood.  For example:
It is in this context that geocentrist claim that the doctrine of the stationary earth has been dropped in practice (in so far as it is not taught at the local level),...

JM – sure, geocentrism has been dropped at the local level. It has been passed over in silence by the magesterium, because the magesterium has decided to embrace the theories of modern science as strong advice in contention with revealed truths such as creation and geocentrism. As such, many prelates of the church are confused over matters such as creation and evolution, cosmology, the age of the universe, the value of psychology and so on in relation to the truths of the faith. If we dispute this matter, geocentrists can point to the facts of history and show the Pontifical Biblical Commission was once part of the magesterium, with the power to issue statements on biblical truths, yet that commission was downgraded to merely an advisory body, which no longer has any magisterial authority.

Why was this done? Was it done because the commission was full of orthodox theologians who were teaching the truths of inerrancy as taught by Leo XIII, or was it because the theologians were no longer consistent with the magesterium? Evidently it was the later and that’s why the PBC was downgraded.

What relation does this downgrading of the PBC have to the magesterium’s lack of teaching on geocentrism? It shows Catholics that Popes have tried to stem to tide of modernism and liberal biblical scholarship through the authoritative use of Catholic professionals to investigate problems within the biblical text, yet even those Catholic theologians could not remain faithful to the church and continue on with defending the fullness of the faith. As such, the PBC was downgraded and as such geocentrists have historical evidence that shows parts of the magesterium have not been faithful to the church. So as the PBC was not faithful to all parts of the faith, then so too, it is no stretch to attribute silence to the magesterium on the matter of geocentrism.

Also, what can we say of the Pontifical Academy of Science? Why are atheists and unbelievers permitted to advice the Papacy when none of the members are creationists? What message does this send out to the liberals and modernists within the church, who push for evolution and a mythical interoperation of Genesis? It gives them historical precedent to continue on with their aberrant teachings, in opposition to the faith and all this is caused in part by an incompetent magesterium.

What can we say of modern Catholic biblical scholarship, such as the New Jerome Biblical commentary that restricts biblical inerrancy to matters of salvation? Why didn’t the magesterium discipline the Catholic theologians who taught these errors? What message does this send out to the liberals and modernist theologians and bishops within the church? It tells them the magesterium is almost completely incompetent when it comes to enforcing church doctrines and church discipline.

These obvious problems with Magisterial inaction show us geocentrists that the magesterium has a pattern of ineptitude in matters of enforcing doctrine and causing occasions of confusion among the faithful by associating itself with the opinions of unbelievers in the case of the PAS and the liberals and modernist ideas in the case of the PBC.

Do geocentrists maintain the magesterium has formally taught error in matters of faith and morals? No. It is precisely because the magesterium cannot teach error on faith and morals that geocentrists state geocentrism is part of the faith. As such Mr Palm’s position on the matter of geocentrism is untenable.

Palm - and
Geocentrism is then only one part of a larger problem within the church. The doctrine of geocentrism has not been taught at the local level for some time, but then again, many other doctrines have also not been taught for a long time either.

JM – Sure and I still stand by this today.

Palm - It is true that on "the local level" many things have broken down in many parts of the world in the Catholic Church.  But let's be clear.  We aren't talking about "the local level" with respect to geocentrism.  We're talking about what the universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church presents to the faithful as matters of faith. 

JM – And the magesterium still teaches geocentrism because the magesterium is a historical body. So if it is currently silent on the matter, then it officially gives its consent to geocentrism.

Palm -  And I demonstrated that, while the Church certainly does not teach geocentrism as a matter of faith, she has reiterated her teaching formally in each and every example that "johnmartin" presented as supposed parallels.

JM – Mr Palm has not demonstrated the church does not teach geocentrism as a matter of faith. Mr Palm has special pleaded, made erroneous statements about the fathers, scripture and the Papal statements, but proof? There is no proof presented at all.

Palm - Similarly, Sungenis deflects from the core issue by speaking of "what is actually being taught in many Catholic institutions".  But that is not what we're talking about.  We are talking about what is taught by the Catholic Magisterium, to the universal Church.  The Catholic Church teaches 100% of the doctrines of the faith to the universal Church.  She does not teach geocentrism.  Ergo, geocentrism is not part of the Catholic faith.  Period.

JM – Mr Palm uses a false logic here.

The Catholic Church teaches 100% of the doctrines of the faith to the universal Church.  She does not teach geocentrism.  – either explicitly or implicitly by giving consent to past teaching that has not been revoked.

Ergo, geocentrism is not part of the Catholic faith.  Period.- Ergo, geocentrism is part of the faith because it still exists in the sources of revelation.

Palm - If the neo-geocentrists actually could come up with a doctrine of the faith that the Magisterium had not publicly affirmed for many centuries, then they would at least have a parallel.

JM – The magesterium has chosen not to formally define several doctrines of the faith for centuries, such as the Eucharistic presence, the Immaculate Conception, the assumption of Mary and the canon of scripture. This shows us that the church has remained silent on matters of faith for centuries, even though those doctrines are known to be part of the faith. In a similar way, geocentrism, which has historical foundation in the sources of revelation, has been passed over in silence in recent times.

Palm - They can't.  Most Catholics would rejoice in the fact that, even in these dark and difficult times the Catholic Church continues to teach, publicly and solemnly, all the doctrines of our faith.

JM – The fact of the matter is that it simply doesn’t matter if we can or cannot do what Mr Palm wants us geocentrists to do. The case for geocentrism is so strong that it takes a thoroughly inept or thoroughly disingenuous man such as Mr Palm to construct such a poor case against geocentrism and then after so many contortions of logic and ignored counter arguments, that he arrives at another false conclusion.

Even if Mr Palm ignores all the above counter arguments against him and he still insists upon the magisterial silence on geocentrism as being unique in church history, then what is the case against geocentrism? Nothing, at all, simply because geocentrism is in the sources of revelation and as such we now have a possible unique situation in church history. He cannot conclude that geocentrism is a fabrication made by the geocentrists, who must special plead to make their cause.

Palm - But not the neo-geocentrists (or at least not these neo-geocentrists).  This fact is a cause of great vexation to them and so they instead scramble to manufacture whatever difficulties they can imagine.  To them, geocentrism must be defended at all costs.  Why is that so?  What has led them to such fanaticism?

JM – I don’t know about other geocentrists, but the only vexation I have is the complete inability of Mr Palm to thoroughly answer his critics counter arguments.

Palm - At least two reasons suggest themselves.  First, some of these individuals have staked their very reputations on geocentrism. 

JM – and what is the evidence for Mr Palms statements here? Nothing as unusual. The fact is that the magesterium has staked its reputation on geocentrism, because the fathers, scriptures and the Popes all teach geocentrism.

If Mr Palm wants to push his reputation argument further, I could counter by saying Mr Palm wants to make a reputation for himself and the modern liberal establishment who routinely modify or ignore parts of the faith and explain away church history. So he has taken it upon himself to attack geocentrists at the expense of his own integrity to gain political points with the likes of Dave Armstrong (who routinely places Mr Palm’s posts on his blog and prevents comments being made), and This Rock and Catholic Answers.

Palm - Perhaps they feel they’ve reached the point of no return and have no choice but to defend it to the bitter end. 

JM – Perhaps Mr Palm doesn’t appreciate the gravity of the situation in Europe and the rest of the western world concerning the apostasy from the faith and much of this is due to the denial of geocentrism as a fundamental doctrine of the faith. After all if the earth is only a lonely planet moving around another star in an ordinary galaxy, then the creation event and the Christ event become quite unbelievable, just as the modern west finds the gospel unbelievable. A denial of geocentrism inevitably ends up in nihilism. Mr Palm won’t see the logic behind this because he has committed himself to his anti geocentrism, but nevertheless the bitter fruits of apostasy are there for all to see.

Put it this way, if the earth really is at the center of the universe and the fathers, scripture, the magesterium and science all teach this, then it is a very powerful tool to bring the faith back to a dying world. What is Mr Palm’s argument to this godly agenda? Evidently he doesn’t have a clear response because geocentrism is true.

Palm - Second, they’ve also presented geocentrism in such a way that their personal faith in the Catholic Church is dependent upon it.  In their view, if geocentrism is not true then the Catholic Church isn’t indefectible.

JM – Geocentrists argue in a different manner. The church is indefectible, the church teaches geocentrism has been revealed by God, and as such geocentrism is true. As such, faithful Catholics, who understand their faith far better than Mr Palm defend geocentrism for the sake of God, the church and the salvation of souls.

Palm - This latter problem particularly concerns me in that others who have the misfortune of encountering such misguided neo-geocentrist fanaticism—whether practicing Catholics or those considering the Catholic faith—may also be adversely affected. 

JM – This so called misguided neo-geocentrist fanaticism is actually fidelity to the church founded by Jesus Christ. Mr Palm is calling white, black, because he has fallen into the sin of calumny and as such, he has not been given the grace to see the truth of geocentrism as a penalty for his sin.

Palm - I know this from private notes I have received to date.  But this "all or nothing" approach is, of course, a product of manifest neo-geocentrist exaggeration as to the authority and nature of the ecclesiastical documents that address geocentrism.  For the Catholic who knows his faith, the truth or falsehood of geocentrism has no impact whatsoever on his trust in the Catholic Magisterium.

JM – Those how don’t have an all or nothing approach with regard to the faith end up fighting against the magesterium and fall into heresy and eventually apostasy. This is what happened to the protestants and northern Europe is now apostate. Mr Palm is a heretic who opposes the magesterium and as such, he has fallen from the faith. If he does not change his mind and convert to the fullness of the faith, he will die and face judgment for his errors.

Palm - Unfortunately, these neo-geocentrist fanatics are heedless of the damage they may be doing to others' trust in the Magisterium—all in order to open some glimmer of plausibility for their pet theory to be part of our faith. 

JM – We geocentrists call out the magesterium when it is needed, we also provide evidence of magisterial failures based in history, when it is needed as well. We are faithful to the magesterium and the likes of David Palm and David Armstrong are not completely faithful to the magesterium when it comes to the matter of geocentrism. The evidence has been provided and they have made a bad choice on the matter. They still have time to review the evidence and change their minds.

Palm - And this once again proves my point.  To all appearances they will do anything to hang on to the "pebble" of their private fixation on geocentrism, even to the point of making a shipwreck of their faith and the faith of others.

JM- Unfortunately it is Mr Palm who is making a shipwreck of the faith of many by perhaps making a god out of This Rock and any apologetics association he has association with such as Dave Armstrong or maybe Catholic Answers who back up his anti geocentrist arguments.  The fact is the sources of revelation are clearly in favour of a stationary earth and apologists such as David Palm and David Armstrong have no authority whatsoever to object to the doctrine. It is the height of arrogance, ignorance and stupidity to oppose geocentrism, even though they know the case for geocentrism is very strong, not only in the sources of revelation, but also in science itself.

Mr Palm is one of the greatest inventors of false arguments concerning geocentrism I have seen. He out does the atheists and the anti Catholics in his statements about geocentrists by claiming to be faithful to the church when he is not. He ignores counter arguments and invents lies about what geocentrists have and have not said. He over exaggerates past statements made by geocentrists and is very selective in what he answers. In short, no answer from a geocentrist is good enough, for Mr Palm has made up his mind that geocentrism is not part of the faith and that is that. Mr Palm can ignore the fathers, he knows better than the magesterium and scripture and he knows better than modern science as well.

Evidently Mr Palm has some substantial problems with his ego.