Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 10-18-2002, 08:40 AM

<a href="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/geochallenge.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/geochallenge.html</a>

Kent Hovind, eat your heart out!

<a href="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/evochallenge.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/evochallenge.html</a>

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

tgamble · 10-18-2002, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong><a href="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/geochallenge.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/geochallenge.html</a>

Kent Hovind, eat your heart out!

<a href="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/evochallenge.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/evochallenge.html</a>

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</strong>

hoo boy! This guy is a real piece of work!

"It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA."

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Mediancat · 10-18-2002, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble, quoting Robert Sungenis (the guy making the "challenge":
[QB]

"It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA."[QB]

Damn. I'm a vegetarian. Why didn't somebody TELL me chickens and fish had been reclassified? I coulda had lunch at Red Lobster and not felt guilty about it!

Repeat after me, Mr. Sungenis: Animal is not the same as mammal Animal is not the same as mammal. Animal is not the same . . .

Rob aka Mediancat

Jimmy Higgins · 10-18-2002, 10:49 AM

Actually, isn't it a legitimate claim to say the sun revolves around the earth? Can't you set up a reference frame around the earth and take all motions about the frame as relative to the earth. Therefore, the earth is stationary.

Unfortunately, the statement that would wrong would be whether all the planets rotate solely around the earth. This would be contestable, as it would be clearly seen, that even with a fixed reference frame about earth, the planets would be rotating both around the earth and the sun. They don't make that claim though.

So they'll keep their $1000, however, they are right for all the wrong reasons.

Nat · 10-18-2002, 01:05 PM

Read it carefully - he seems to be creating the same kind of scam challenge that Hovind is. He has made the challenge unwinnable by requiring that "that the Heliocentric system is the ONLY viable system to understand the universe." Of course, a supernatural explanation is possible, but it requires all sorts of bizarre added agents (e.g. invisible angels pushing the stars around).

enigma555 · 10-18-2002, 04:02 PM

If you create a reference frame of the earth, and have the sun rotate about your stationary reference frame, and have all the planets rotate about the sun... hrmm...

Wouldn't that mess up the relative accelerations? I'll have to think about it.

It's absolutely amazing how stupid some people are. All the other planets revolve around the sun, but NOPE, we don't... we're stationary! My book said so! Dumsh*ts

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 10-18-2002, 07:31 PM

They are Catholic apologetics. I'll say, "The POPE says that evolution is true. Since, according to your own doctrine he is infallible, evolution, by your own rules, MUST be true. I am waiting for my $1000 check."

I just sent an email saying that.

I hope I gets me a grand.

Nic Tamzek · 10-19-2002, 12:26 AM

There are several problems with the "fix the earth" strategy, I'm sure physicists could add more:

1) A star one light-year away would be orbiting the earth at a speed of 2*pi*light-year *per day*. Einstein would not be pleased.

2) How do geostationary satellites stay up in space, just hanging above their non-rotating fixed point on the ground?

This came up on t.o. awhile ago, I never saw even an attempt at dealing with point 2.

I suppose a sophisticated geocentrist would be canny enough to keep the Earth stationary but allow it to spin, which would deal with #1 and #2 (and presumably the medieval geocentrists let the earth spin at least, no?), but I have yet to find a sophisticated geocentrist.

nic

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 10-19-2002, 03:11 AM

Venus's phases. And the fact that the relative brightness between full and new phases is something on the order 5 (could be wrong about the order of magnitutde, for some reason, 49 seems to be coming up, been a while).

There is no geocentrist model that accounts for both simultaneously.

Mercury's orbit has been shown to be changing one of its focii. Only way the data fits into our current understanding is if Einsteinian gravity is correct and the heliocentric model of the solar system is correct.

Do I ned to elaborate?

Clavius · 10-19-2002, 09:00 AM

Robert Sungenis is not representative of the Catholic apologetics community. His extremist views on science: evolution, einstein, and geocentrism which started coming out last year alienated him from the rest of the online Catholic community.

Catholics tried to reason with him on the geocentric issue, and confronting him with scientific evidence, he made remarks along the lines that NASA is in some sort of Copernican conspiracy, fudging their data based on their hostility to some Tychonic system.

Just read the dialogue between Gary Hoge, a Catholic, and Sungenis on the geocentric "response" page.

Sungenis just last month, wrote an article on Jews which plagiarized from a Nazi tract, and from a white supremacist. Members of his staff resigned and his last remaining presence in the Catholic community was almost entirely eliminated on the internet.

He has some serious issues, and it is sad to see

peace,CLAV

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2002, 08:40 AM	#1
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	Anyone want to make an easy grand? <a href="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/geochallenge.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/geochallenge.html</a> Kent Hovind, eat your heart out! <a href="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/evochallenge.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/evochallenge.html</a> [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

10-18-2002, 10:49 AM	#4
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	Actually, isn't it a legitimate claim to say the sun revolves around the earth? Can't you set up a reference frame around the earth and take all motions about the frame as relative to the earth. Therefore, the earth is stationary. Unfortunately, the statement that would wrong would be whether all the planets rotate solely around the earth. This would be contestable, as it would be clearly seen, that even with a fixed reference frame about earth, the planets would be rotating both around the earth and the sun. They don't make that claim though. So they'll keep their $1000, however, they are right for all the wrong reasons.

10-18-2002, 01:05 PM	#5
Nat Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 100	Read it carefully - he seems to be creating the same kind of scam challenge that Hovind is. He has made the challenge unwinnable by requiring that "that the Heliocentric system is the ONLY viable system to understand the universe." Of course, a supernatural explanation is possible, but it requires all sorts of bizarre added agents (e.g. invisible angels pushing the stars around).

10-18-2002, 04:02 PM	#6
enigma555 Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 282	If you create a reference frame of the earth, and have the sun rotate about your stationary reference frame, and have all the planets rotate about the sun... hrmm... Wouldn't that mess up the relative accelerations? I'll have to think about it. It's absolutely amazing how stupid some people are. All the other planets revolve around the sun, but NOPE, we don't... we're stationary! My book said so! Dumsh*ts

10-18-2002, 07:31 PM	#7
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	They are Catholic apologetics. I'll say, "The POPE says that evolution is true. Since, according to your own doctrine he is infallible, evolution, by your own rules, MUST be true. I am waiting for my $1000 check." I just sent an email saying that. I hope I gets me a grand.

10-19-2002, 12:26 AM	#8
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	There are several problems with the "fix the earth" strategy, I'm sure physicists could add more: 1) A star one light-year away would be orbiting the earth at a speed of 2pilight-year per day. Einstein would not be pleased. 2) How do geostationary satellites stay up in space, just hanging above their non-rotating fixed point on the ground? This came up on t.o. awhile ago, I never saw even an attempt at dealing with point 2. I suppose a sophisticated geocentrist would be canny enough to keep the Earth stationary but allow it to spin, which would deal with #1 and #2 (and presumably the medieval geocentrists let the earth spin at least, no?), but I have yet to find a sophisticated geocentrist. nic

10-19-2002, 03:11 AM	#9
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	Venus's phases. And the fact that the relative brightness between full and new phases is something on the order 5 (could be wrong about the order of magnitutde, for some reason, 49 seems to be coming up, been a while). There is no geocentrist model that accounts for both simultaneously. Mercury's orbit has been shown to be changing one of its focii. Only way the data fits into our current understanding is if Einsteinian gravity is correct and the heliocentric model of the solar system is correct. Do I ned to elaborate?

10-19-2002, 09:00 AM	#10
Clavius Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 8	Robert Sungenis is not representative of the Catholic apologetics community. His extremist views on science: evolution, einstein, and geocentrism which started coming out last year alienated him from the rest of the online Catholic community. Catholics tried to reason with him on the geocentric issue, and confronting him with scientific evidence, he made remarks along the lines that NASA is in some sort of Copernican conspiracy, fudging their data based on their hostility to some Tychonic system. Just read the dialogue between Gary Hoge, a Catholic, and Sungenis on the geocentric "response" page. Sungenis just last month, wrote an article on Jews which plagiarized from a Nazi tract, and from a white supremacist. Members of his staff resigned and his last remaining presence in the Catholic community was almost entirely eliminated on the internet. He has some serious issues, and it is sad to see peace,CLAV

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.