The first principle of evolutionism is that of material origin or first cause. ...
Nope.
... 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; ...
Or more simply stated, some people believe it was all created. It is a religious belief.
... the evolutionary worldview posits a material first cause. ...
Again, nope.
... Matter was, matter is, and matter will be. ...
Nope.
... All things that exist are products of cosmological and biological material causes. ...
Cause implies purpose. Purpose is not considered in science, which is interested in providing the best explanation of the observed evidence.
... 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.
Not really. Once again science attempts to explain the observed evidence. If the observed evidence can be simply explained by simple theories then that is what science will try to determine -- how the system works, not why it is that way.
The Copernican Principle (CP) underpins the Big Bang Theory (BBT) of the origin of the Universe. ...
Nope.
... This theory posits a material first cause. Something - in some versions so small that it amounts to virtually nothing - exploded, cooled, and gelled. ...
Nope.
... And this took billions, and billions of years.
That is what the evidence says, not the theory.
The next principle is perpetual change. In the evolutionary/copernican/relativist paradigm, there is no stable, immovable, absolutely at rest body. ...
Again, this is what is observed, not theoretical.
... If absolutely nothing in the material Universe is at rest, then no motion whatsoever is capable of measurement; ...
Wrong.
... for all measurement requires a standard for comparison. ...
Nope. Any assumed frame of reference will work.
... . 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. ...
Nope. Relative is not subjective, relative measurements are very objective.
... Indeed Big Bang Cosmology posits just this: an acentric universe with no objective direction ...
Again, that is what is observed, that is the objective evidence.
... and no objectively measurable motion.
Wrong.
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. ...
Common sense tells you nothing about reality, senses are easily fooled.
... 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. ...
And again, that is what is observed, that is the objective evidence.
... This destroys the objective existence of a body at rest in the created cosmos, destroys all true measurement of motion, ...
Wrong. The evidence invalidates an incorrect hypothesis.
... and - not incidentally - destroys belief in the literal sense and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.
Oh boo hoo. What it shows is that such belief is delusion:
Likewise biological evolutionism posits perpetual change in the matter-form composition of generic biological forms. ...
Curiously that is what is observed, that is the objective empirical evidence.
... Sacred Writ reveals that the Eternal Word created all things according to their kinds (genera). ...
Interesting -- you equate "kinds" with genera ... How many are there just out of curiosity?
... 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. ...
Ah, I think I know where you are going ...
,,, Evolution holds for the absurd idea that a lower being has the power, through material causality, to transmute itself into a higher being, ...
Absolutely false. Transmutation is not a biological process but a creationist fantasy.
... Amoeba has no lungs and no legs, but by some magic (called billions and billions of years), its offspring has lungs and legs. ...
Do you realize that amoeba are eukaryotes, and that you are skipping some 2 billion years of evolution?
Do you realize that time is not magic?
... Ape has no rationality, but, by the power inherent in matter cum quasi-infinite magnitudes of time, can transmute itself into man.
Curiously some apes are as intelligent as some people. We share a common ancestor some 10 million years ago.
Evolutionism gives to matter creative power OVER TIME. Matter creates OVER TIME. ...
LOL When you are wrong you go whole hog don't you?
Because time is the essential requisite for the evolutionary system to have any possibility at all, ...
Nope. The process of evolution occurs every day.
... the entire construct is qualified by the attribute of perpetual change, a function of time. ...
Nope.
... In the case of man, matter is alleged to have created both a body and an immaterial soul. ...
Nope.
... But this is absurd because there is no intellectual or spiritual power or capacity in matter. ...
Nope, it is absurd all on it's own.
... . For this cause the evolutionary paradigm is constrained to categorize man, not as rational animal, but as just plain animal, ...
Nope.
... and to deny the existence of his immaterial, rational, immortal soul. ...
Nope.
... But this flies in the face of observable reality.
Really? what is your evidence?
Evolution posits that the observable and measurable created kinds are not immutable forms, but rather transitional forms, always in the process of becoming, ...
No, that is what the evidence shows.
... and therefore never actually participating in true existence according to a true essence or nature. ...
LOL. We'll settle for real existence.
... Absurd consequences follow: True taxonomic measurement ceases to be possible because there are no immutable biological forms (no beings at rest, ...
You mean reality invalidating incomplete hypotheses is absurd? Fascinating.
... we might say) upon which to base a true branch of science. ...
You can say whatever wrong thing you like, that doesn't make it true.
... 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. ...
Nope.
I don't want this reply to go on forever, wherefore I hope I have sufficiently addressed your question.
Indeed that is waay to many mistaken statements -- each one worthy of a separate thread to discuss the details of why you are so wrong, and to add to it would just pile error on top of error.
Your concept of modern evolution is wrong.
Your concept of modern cosmology is wrong.
If I were to try to distill your post into a set of points that are correct there would be no post.
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.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
If you want to take any of those points and start a separate thread on them, I will be happy to show you why you are wrong.
But to be succinct: if you are going to argue about evolution then you need to discuss the actual science of evolution and not some fantasy version of it. Same goes for cosmology.
I suggest you take what you think is your best argument and start a thread on it, then we can work back to the others.
... but that would not be nithe.
It's not so much a matter of being "nithe" but of using the language and current knowledge of science the way that science uses it.
For instance you talk about the "Copernican Principle, the core dogma underpinning the evolutionist origins paradigm" when it has nothing to do with cosmic evolution and nothing to do with biological evolution.
Copernicus formulated a heliocentric system (but not the first to do so) with circular orbits, and these are considered falsified concepts in modern astronomy\astrophysics\cosmology -- in other words you think you are arguing against a central governing tenet, when in fact you are arguing against a discarded incomplete concept.
When your whole argument is based on straw man versions of evolution and cosmology then no conclusions you reach can be valid.
The Copernican Principle is not the same as Copernicism, although it may well be that the makers of the movie are conflating them.
The Copernican Principle is the idea that our planet doesn't particularly have a special place in the universe. In terms of its location (if not its population) it's just one more planet in the solar system; the solar system is a perfectly ordinary solar system of a sun which is unremarkable in our galaxy; our galaxy is a normal member of the Local Group, which is just one more bunch of galaxies in the Laniakea Supercluster ... and so on.
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?
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.
That's certainly fair. And if I don't find your posting to be completely representative of everything Sungenis has said, I'm sure you won't mind if I post some additional material in response.
I suspect that an exchange of such material might derail your movie thread about "The Principle" considerably. You might want to consider opening a new thread on whether or not Sungenis is a Jew Bashing anti-Semite. I promise to keep my rebuttal to such a thread if it is opened.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
quote:That's certainly fair. And if I don't find your posting to be completely representative of everything Sungenis has said, I'm sure you won't mind if I post some additional material in response.
I suspect that an exchange of such material might derail your movie thread about "The Principle" considerably. You might want to consider opening a new thread on whether or not Sungenis is a Jew Bashing anti-Semite. I promise to keep my rebuttal to such a thread if it is opened.
Thanks for a hearty chuckle. Let's do that. And you have to give me time to locate the article.
Copernicus never went that far, as he assumed the sun was the center of the universe.
Using his name can certainly lead to confusion and the conflation of concepts, or to the wrongful attribution of ideas.
More to the point, in modern cosmology a more appropriate term would be the cosmological principle:
quote:In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
Which you will note refers to cosmological "evolution of the matter field", again not something that Copernicus envisaged, but which Suzanne Romano refers to ...
™ Version 4.2
(1)
