Movie - "The Principle"

The Principle | Now Available on DVD, Bluray & Streaming.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTgI would like to provide information to forum members about the motion picture entitled The Principle, a scientific documentary which brings into question the prevailing assumptions about the structure of the Cosmos.The Principle has already sparked heated debate, and is likely to become one of the most controversial films of our time.Is the idea of a stationary Earth at the center of the Universe nothing more than a ridiculous holdover from an irrational and superstitious age?Modern science has long maintained that the human species is nothing special in the context of the cosmos. Indeed, in Carl Sagan’s words, the Earth is nothing more than an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. Now this worldview is founded upon what amounts to religious faith in the Copernican Principle, the core dogma underpinning the evolutionist origins paradigm."The Principle" provides a format with which to re-examine the modern cosmological assumptions, by publishing, in a visually stunning manner, the astonishing experimental data collected from recent large-scale surveys of the Universe, such as the Planck probe. The evidence discloses a preferred direction, an Earth-oriented alignment in the cosmos, which clearly indicates, not that the Earth is an insignificant orb of dust (as posited by evolutionists), but rather that it occupies a very unique and compelling place in the macrocosm.The Principle features narration by Kate Mulgrew (Star Trek Voyager, Orange Is The New Black, and Ryan’s Hope); stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (Life of Pi, Thor"); and interviews with scientists and thinkers, some of whom are the most prominent evolutionist cosmologists of our time - George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, Max Tegmark.Why the controversy? Because the clear implications of the data point to an alternative model for the structure of the Universe. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change topic title from "THE PRINCIPLE MOVIE".

Thanks!

PRESSIE: Err, why on earth would an evolutionist have anything to say about the Copernican Principle? Evolutionists do biology.SUZANNE: The Copernican Principle, especially as it has been applied by modern speculative physics, is evolutionist in its essence. The evolutionary worldview posits several paradigmatic foundational principles, all of which have their nascence and inception in the assumptions and theories of the heliocentrists/copernicans.The first principle of evolutionism is that of material origin or first cause. Whereas both Natural Theology and Divine Revelation recognize One, Omnipotent, Uncreated, Eternal, Intelligent, Simple, and Good First Cause (Creator), In Whom there is no matter, no composition, no material extension, and no potency, Who is pure Act and Pure Spirit, and from Whom came forth the material, finite, created Universe; the evolutionary worldview posits a material first cause. Matter was, matter is, and matter will be. All things that exist are products of cosmological and biological material causes. Whatever form their existence might take at any moment of measurement, observation, or apprehension, owes all of its attributes to random physical causes, and not to the intelligently determined design of an omnipotent Creator.The Copernican Principle (CP) underpins the Big Bang Theory (BBT) of the origin of the Universe. This theory posits a material first cause. Something - in some versions so small that it amounts to virtually nothing - exploded, cooled, and gelled. And then there was the Universe. And this took billions, and billions of years.The next principle is perpetual change. In the evolutionary/copernican/relativist paradigm, there is no stable, immovable, absolutely at rest body. If absolutely nothing in the material Universe is at rest, then no motion whatsoever is capable of measurement; for all measurement requires a standard for comparison. Furthermore, if absolutely nothing in the material Universe is at rest, then there can be no objective direction. There is no up, no down, and no center. All motion is relative, i.e. subjective, i.e. based on perception and vantage point and nothing more. Indeed Big Bang Cosmology posits just this: an acentric universe with no objective direction and no objectively measurable motion.According to Natural Philosophy and Divine Revelation, the Earth is a fixed, stable body at rest in the center of the spherical, finite Universe. A fixed Earth conforms to common sense, and, being fixed, provides the basis and foundation for all measurement of all motion. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein and the modern scientist establishment posited that the Earth is not fixed, but rather revolves around the sun and rotates on its own axis, in addition to hurtling through outer space with its sun, moon, planets, and galaxy. This destroys the objective existence of a body at rest in the created cosmos, destroys all true measurement of motion, and - not incidentally - destroys belief in the literal sense and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.Likewise biological evolutionism posits perpetual change in the matter-form composition of generic biological forms. Sacred Writ reveals that the Eternal Word created all things according to their kinds (genera). Sacred Theology and Scholastic Philosophy teach that the kinds of plants and animals made by God during the Six Days of Creation are immutable substances, which, though subject to the changes of growth and corruption, are not subject to transubstantiation or transmutation. Evolution holds for the absurd idea that a lower being has the power, through material causality, to transmute itself into a higher being, so that it gives what it never had. Amoeba has no lungs and no legs, but by some magic (called billions and billions of years), its offspring has lungs and legs. Ape has no rationality, but, by the power inherent in matter cum quasi-infinite magnitudes of time, can transmute itself into man.Evolutionism gives to matter creative power OVER TIME. Matter creates OVER TIME. Because time is the essential requisite for the evolutionary system to have any possibility at all, the entire construct is qualified by the attribute of perpetual change, a function of time. In the case of man, matter is alleged to have created both a body and an immaterial soul. But this is absurd because there is no intellectual or spiritual power or capacity in matter. For this cause the evolutionary paradigm is constrained to categorize man, not as rational animal, but as just plain animal, and to deny the existence of his immaterial, rational, immortal soul. But this flies in the face of observable reality.Evolution posits that the observable and measurable created kinds are not immutable forms, but rather transitional forms, always in the process of becoming, and therefore never actually participating in true existence according to a true essence or nature. Absurd consequences follow: True taxonomic measurement ceases to be possible because there are no immutable biological forms (no beings at rest, we might say) upon which to base a true branch of science. No category of living being can be anything other than a transitional, relative existence (relative to what, they never say); and this unmoors the entire science of taxonomy.I don't want this reply to go on forever, wherefore I hope I have sufficiently addressed your question.

PRESSIE: This whole thing seems to have been written by someone who is too uneducated to know the difference between Cosmology and Biology. If such an ignorant person writes a recommendation to go and see such a "scientific documentary" movie, be sure that it's a comedy...SUZANNE: You got me there, Pressie!

DR ADEQUATE: Are you going to argue in favor of geocentrism or whatever it is, or is this just an advertisement?SUZANNE: Of course; and it is also an advertisement or promotion.

ADMINNEMOOSEUS: I think that "evolution/evolutionists" is being legitimately used as per cosmological evolution.SUZANNE: YOW darn right!

MR HAMBRE: There's no question that Darwinian evolution does away with the notion of species being fixed and immutable.SUZANNE: Interestingly, in all of human history, we observe only one thing: That animal and plant species are fixed and immutable, admitting, of course, that there are innumerable specific variations within the quite stable kinds (genera).MR HAMBRE: True, a "species" is more a convenient classification than a hard fact.SUZANNE: Species is a hard fact insofar as a real existent being belonging to an apprehensible, observable, measureable, generic, categorizable class, is a hard fact.MR HAMBRE: However, I don't understand how that makes taxonomy as a whole somehow impracticable. Most populations evolve slowly enough that useful if arbitrary distinctions have always been made, with or without the assumption of common ancestry.SUZANNE: Indeed the Linnaen and other systems of taxonomy work perfectly well in practice because there have been no recorded observations of transpeciation or transmutation within a kind from the beginning of human history. Evolutionism claims that such systems of taxonomy are workable precisely because the hard, factual, material evidence of transmutation comes into being so gradually as to be imperceptible (not to mention unprovable; wherefore evolution is a philosophical system or a religion).[See this article for a discussion of the problem presented by evolutionism's absolute incapacity for the production of experimental data to support its speculations:The Remnant Newspaper - The Neo-Catholic Planet of the Apes ]MR HAMBRE: The notion of flux in other areas of empirical research doesn't invalidate all their distinctions either. Temperature is a variable quality that's local and dependent on many factors, but that doesn't mean "true temperature measurement ceases to be possible." Uranium decays into lead over time, but that doesn't mean that measuring the proportion of radioactive element to its byproduct ceases to be possible.SUZANNE: Your points address the distinction between substance and accident. Per its formal definition, 'substance' is one of the fundamental classifications of existing beings. It is a category. A substance subsists in itself, and not in another as in its subject. Substance is constituted into existence in such a manner as not to require the support of another being in its mode of existence. It differs from accident in that an accident always requires another being in which it inheres in order to exist.Wherefore an accident is any reality that does not have within itself the power of existing alone, but requires another reality to hold it in existence. Color is an accident because it cannot exist without a being that is colored holding it into existence. To take your example, temperature is an accidental form or quality that determines or modifies the substance in which it inheres. There is no such thing as a hot or a cold. Hot and cold must inhere in a subject. [Formal definitions taken from Glossary of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Benzinger Brothers, 1948]A man is a substance - an individual being belonging to a class of beings sharing the same essence or nature. From conception to death, he will always participate in the act of existence through his immutable human nature. But many of his accidental realities will change - size, shape, hair color, reproductive ability, health, knowledge, experience. These accidental realities are intelligible, measureable, sensible - in fact by them we know the nature or essence - and the condition - of the being in question.Both substance and accident are measurable, but substance is immutable. And immutability (fixity, stability), is necessary for the establishment of all standards of measurement.

Thanks for your replies. I'm getting ready to call it a day.Will respond tomorrow.

To Mr. Hambre, who mentioned that Mulgrew and the scientists were duped into narrating the film and interviewing with the production team:This video interview of Sungenis/Delano addresses your post: Edited by Suzanne Romano, : No reason given.

Sorry keep forgetting you have to do the quote thing.This is to RAZD:Thanks to you and admin for the codes. Edited by Suzanne Romano, : No reason given.

This is in reply to NoNukes who nuked Sungenis and called him a Jew-basher.I will let Sungenis answer for himself:https://athanasiuscmdotorg.files.wordpress.com/...ntrism.mp3Edited by Suzanne Romano, : No reason given.

To Adminnemooseus, who gave his children the rod of correction:Even be they mean
Venting all their spleen
Thou art nice
Which doth suffith! Edited by Suzanne Romano, : No reason given.

I'm very tempted to do Nope/Yup, but that would not be nithe.

May I post a review of the DVD series written by an engineer? I'm not sure what his beliefs are. I thought his review was very objective.The DVD series goes into the science BTW.

NoNukes wrote:

quote:

---

For anyone inclined to accept Sungenis answer, I submit that the truth regarding this man's anti-Semite positions is still readily available all over the internet. In many cases the full context of his remarks are available.

​

The people who do participate in this group are well equipped to do their own research, so I'll leave them to their own resources.

​

For those people who are interested in geocentricism and who are inclined to believe such a thing, there are plenty of resources other than this dirt bag's movie to be found on the internet.

---

I believe Sungenis wrote an article about Jewish domination of the science establishment in Culture Wars magazine. If I can get a copy, may I post it here?Then you can read exactly what the man has said.