Giving Credit Where it is Due: Courier Journal, Great Job! Friday, Mar 28 2014 

I was of course immediately suspicious when the black mob attacks occurred last week just blocks from my apartment that the media would expose it but it appears Courier Journal has dealt honestly and thoroughly with this problem of black youths in our city. Courier Journal put this issue on the front page of their site every day this week and gave a great summation of all the events with today’s article:

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/27/saturdays-louisville-mob-violence-step-step/6981285/

So much exposure has been giving to this issue and so many white people I have spoken to are now racially aware. I’m blessedly shocked! Thank you Courier Journal for your honesty and thoroughness in  protecting the white people of this city with truth and not feeding them with propaganda and excusing the recent black savagery. You are a hotbed for liberal propaganda no doubt, but this week you have shown your brightest colors and I commend you.

 

Proof the Yankees Do Not Believe in Racial Integration Thursday, Mar 27 2014 

http://www.amren.com/news/2014/03/report-ny-schools-are-most-racially-segregated/

Black Mob Violence Hits the Streets of Louisville with “17 downtown mob incidents Saturday” Tuesday, Mar 25 2014 

blackmobsLast year I was reprimanded by my manager at work for telling another white employee that I believed racial separation was necessary to avoid massive bloodshed in America. I suggested that Blacks get their own land here in America to have as their own country with their own Government. That is my solution to a growing bloodthirsty white fascist movement in America that will blame the Jewish race for this social chaos and bring God’s Judgment on this nation like we have never seen. A little over a month ago I was fired from my full time job because someone at my work got on this website and printed off this article that I wrote at home on a Saturday morning:

http://drakeshelton.com/2014/01/25/documentation-on-the-intellectual-inferiority-of-the-black-race/

She placed it on the back office desk for all to see. A few days later a woman from the Corporate office arrived at my place of work and fired me for this. I have laid down my life to expose the huge conspiracy that is growing here in America. The plan is simple: drive every racial group in America, especially the blacks, to absolutely despise white people. Morally destroy the black community and the black family to savagize the young black male population and using their hatred for the white race that they learned in School, influence them to live wicked violent lives and commit acts of violence against white people. Now the stage is set for the rise of the American Hitler. The great enemy of the white race has been created. The ultimate political stage is set. The emotions of the white people are stirred and now our American Hitler will strike while the iron is hot, the grievances are legitimate and the video evidence is abundant.  Once this has been executed  people will be placed in concentration camps, viz. Rex 84 [Resisting Reagan: The U.S. Central America Peace Movement By Christian Smith (University of Chicago Press), 310].

And now it comes to it. This weekend: 17 downtown mob attacks! The local newspaper posted 2 videos where we see the mobs were clearly black:

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/24/louisville-police-chief-says-incidents-around-downtown-saturday/6826259/

You ladies at my old work place still reading? All of my predictions are coming true and you tried to ruin my life for it. I am trying to help your people survive here and that is the thanks I get? I am trying to see to it that your people have their own lands before your thuggish black male brothers drive your entire race into a gas chamber.

My hands are clean from blood. But I won’t stop there. I need help guys. I need some white men to help me. Are you going to just sit back and watch this happen? White men, are you going to watch your people be abused and do nothing?

I await your response.

Reply to Father Morris at orthodoxchristianity.net Monday, Mar 24 2014 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,57159.0.html

“I will respond to a few of Drake’s points”

>>>Why not all of them?

“but do not have the time to write a detailed analysis.”

>>>You get paid to talk about religion and you don’t have time? I gave up my scholarship from school, both opportunities to have a career and a family, which cost me my health and every friend I have had since I was a child over these issues of religion. I live in borderline poverty and have been for 13 years though I have been forced to work two jobs most of this time.  Yet, I found the time to study every last stich of your religion though I didn’t believe it. And yet you don’t have time?

“He makes a great deal of comments in the New Testament that in “later times,” many will fall away from the truth. He adjective “later” means just that “later” not immediately, but in the distant future.”

>>> Acts 20:29 states clearly that the apostasy would arise among Paul’s disciples.

“Instead, he claims that the very people who learned the Gospel from the Apostles fell away. As an historian, I find that claim incredible. Men like Sts. Ignatius of Antioch,  Clement or Rome who actually heard the Apostles, or St. Irenaeus of Lyons who learned from St. Polycarp, who learned from the Apostle John have much more credibility than someone like John Calvin who lived 1,400 years later and had no contact with the Apostles.”

>>>I know you Christians hate the Bible but this is incredible.

“I do not think that he really understands Orthodox theology because he does not present an accurate statement of what we believe.”

>>>I know your religion better than you know yourself. Debate me formally on whatever forum you like. I would love to publicly humiliate you for all to see.

“Part of the problem is that he is cannot get past the fact that we do not use the same language as Calvinists.”

>>>Oh yeah, that was why I wrote my almost 800 page Systematic Theology comparing language in Eastern Orthodoxy and Calvinism the whole way through.

“For example, although we do not use the Anselmic language of penal substitution”

>>>I don’t either but how you justify your doctrine of hell without some type of juridical language and divine retribution remains IMPOSSIBLE.

“or vicarious atonement, that does not mean that we do not believe that Christ died for our sins on the cross.”

>>>It just means that his humanity was a universal and thus eternal and thus not consubstantial with any human person.

“The difference is that we put the Cross in its proper context of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. The Cross is only part of Christ’s saving work which began with the Incarnation and ended with the Ascension. In Christ. God assumed all that is human”

>>>See, there you go. Messiah was not all that is human. He was a male not a female. He was a Hebrew not a Greek. He was not huperousia as much as you want him to be.

“to deify humanity and reunite us to Him. That is why St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, “That which is not assumed is not healed.”

>>>Which assumes the problem with man is his ontology, not his activity or tendency. You conflate all these categories because you are just as enslaved to Neoplatonism as the Romanists are.

“The problem with the doctrine of the vicarious atonement is that it is based on a partial view of salvation which is confined to the forgiveness of sins, and does not understand that God not only declares the believer righteous, God also makes the believer righteous.”

>>>Which assumes that righteousness refers to the genus of being. That it is a being and not the activity of a being. You are still laboring under Occam sir.

“There is a judicial aspect to salvation, but it is only one aspect, not the totality of salvation, which includes deification.”

>>>Asserting it is not justifying it. You are using ad hoc reasoning.

“Drake makes the point that in the New Testament the titles “presbyter” literally elder, and “eposkopos,” overseerer or Bishop are used interchangeably. That is correct. However, the New Testament was written while the Apostles were still alive. Drake does not consider what happened when they began to die. We know from the example of St. Matthias, and historical documents such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, and St. Irenaeus of Lyons that when the Apostles realized that Christ was not coming again during their lifetime, that they appointed successors, who were called Bishops to distinguish them from the Presbyters. Thus, although it is only hinted at in the New Testament, we know from the history of the Church that the Apostles left the leadership of the Church in the hands of Bishops who acted as their successors. The Apostles acted as Bishops over the Churches they founded. For example in Acts 14:23, refers to the ordination of priests for the Churches they founded by Sts. Paul and Barnabas; “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.”  The Greek word translaed “appointed” really means ordained, and “elders” is “presbyters” which is the source of our English word Priests.”

>>>The problem is Deut. 4:1-3, 12:29-32, does not allow innovation like that. The Bible teaches the regulative principle.

“He fails to understand that there is a difference between forbidding to marry and placing restrictions on when one may marry.”

>>>A person must get married at a specific time. Deny the massive evidence I presented that marriage was prohibited by your tradition if breaking the 9th command is your thing.

“There is no prohibition of marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Indeed, unless one wishes to be a monastic, it celibacy is strongly discouraged among the parish clergy. However a man must marry before he undertakes the sacred office of the Priesthood. (actually Diaconate) Here Drake is twisting words instead of honestly dealing with the issue.”

>>>You replied to not a single quotation or reference from my writings and I am not being honest?

“There is a difference between fasting for a time and forbidding eating certain foods. Our Lord, Himself spoke of fasting. In Matthew 6:16, Christ says, “When you fast…” He does not say, “If you fast,” but “When you fast,” because fasting is a part of the Christian life. Besides the citation from Acts 14, there are several references to fasting among the earliest Christians in the Book of Acts.”

>>>Was it for the purpose of recoiling from the burden of physical constitution and for the purpose of penance? Nope.

“He accuses the Orthodox Church of being Gnostic. This is laughable.”

>>>I’m laughing at you not with you.

“Gnosticism taught that the material world is evil.”

>>>And that is why your monks fast to control their evil flesh with its desires for sex which brings the monk away from angelic celibacy.

“Orthodox bless the material world.”

>>>So why do you seek to escape the body at death? Why is celibacy better than marriage contrary to Gen. 2:18?

“We bless everything, our homes, our cars, our food, firetrucks, railroad, everything. Our worship is very physical.”

>>>So is Hinduism.

“Calvinism, on the other hand has no place for the blessing of the material world.”

>>> I’m no longer a Christian. I think all Christians are gnostics but maybe they don’t do it because it is superstitious nonsense that is not mentioned in the bible.

“The Sacraments are symbols and not real means of grace”

>>>First your sacraments are a laughing stock. They are inventions of heretics and anti-semites. Read Leviticus 23 and then seriously ask yourself how God could introduce a new feast without defining the timing of it. When is the Lord’s Supper supposed to be held again? How often? And how do you know? Second, even Calvinists believe that the Lord’s supper is a means of grace. You are thinking of Baptists.

“and the central act of worship is the sermon, which turns Christianity into an exercise of the mind or emotions.”

>>>That is hysterical. That was the way synagogue worship was performed for centuries.

“The model for the arrangement of a Calvinist Church is a medieval university lecture hall”

>>> I dealt with all your ridiculous lies when I was still a Christian:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/the-regulative-principle/the-synagogue-and-the-regulative-principle-by-drake-shelton

“The truth is that Calvinism is Gnostic because it denies the sanctification of matter.”

>>>Could you show me from the bible why the physical world needs sanctifying?

“He dismisses free will and does not understand that although God knows how we will respond to the Gospel, that does not mean that He predestines some to salvation and some to damnation.”

>>>Asserting it is not proving it. Again you didn’t quote a single statement I made. You are arguing against a straw man. Foreknowledge is causal enough. And don’t even try to play the game where you conflate a formal with an efficient cause.

“This goes completely against the entire spirit of the Gospel which teaches again and again that Christ died for all.”

>>>Those in hell as well?

“Drake contradicts the words of St. Paul, who wrote that God, “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

>>>You are conflating a decree and a moral will.

“I Timothy 2:4. This verse alone demolishes the entire Calvinist system for if God desires that all be saved and there is no free will, one must assume that all are saved.”

>>>Playing games with the word free will.

“However, we know that not all are saved.”

>>>On your theology they are all saved at the level of nature.

“Since God desires that all be saved and all are not saved, it is obvious that God has given us the ability to accept or reject His offer of salvation.”

>>>Given? Not innate? Be careful father, you may becoming a Calvinist.

“In other words, free will. Calvinism with its denial of free will makes God into a sadistic monster who sends people to hell without giving them a chance to be saved.”

>>>Sadistic according to what standard?

“Such a God is not the God of love described in the New Testament.”

>>>Romans 9. One vessel for honor, another for dishonor.

“Drake accuses Orthodox of being Arians and Monophysites.”

>>>Quote me now Father don’t keep punching those straw men you keep putting up.

“Thus at the same time, we deny the divinity of Christ and teach that the divinity of Christ absorbed His humanity. That is obviously a major contradiction. Actually, if one studies Calvin, his Christology is highly defective. He has a strong tendency towards Nestorianism.”

>>>So? Calvin is not the measure of truth.

“He denies the deification of the human nature of Christ and the “Communication of Attributes,” both of which are important doctrines from the age of the Holy Fathers.”

>>>Because your Jesus is a pagan deity. An attribute of God is omnipresence. If the human nature of messiah shares divine attributes then the human nature is omnipresent and thus not consubstantial with any human person.

“Finally, Drake uses all sorts of philosophical language to discredit Orthodoxy. However, this simple verbiage that really has no meaning. He actually uses high language to hide the shallowness of his theology and basic misunderstanding of Orthodoxy. Calvinism has become the latest fad among American Evangelicals.”

>>Fascinating because most Eastern Orthodox people I know know that Calvinism is Augustine’s Theology. That is the stage from which traditional Orthodoxy has implicated Rome on the Filioque. You have just embarrassed yourself beyond repair Father. It is time to retire from the religion and apologetics gig. Time to find a new job.

“However, like all fads it lacks depth. Instead, Calvinism provides easy answers to complex questions and falsely relies on human reason to understand the mysteries of God.”

>>>How else can a human understand something?

“Calvinism also appeals to people because it tells them that they are special because God has chosen them for salvation out of the mass of sinful humanity. As Orthodox Christians know the worst sin of all is the sin of pride, a sin produced by Calvinism.”

>>>Total depravity, pride? Actually it is your Pelagian system that states that God chose you because of some intrinsic good in you. That is the pride.

“St. John Chrysostom.”

>>>This man was the hero of the Nazis with his Nine Homilies Against the Jews. He was a scumbag piece of filth.

Thank you for affirming just how bankrupt your religion is sir.

Alpha Judaizer over and out

Robert Lewis Dabney on Women Preachers Monday, Mar 24 2014 

http://www.biblebb.com/files/RD-001WP.htm

Against Universal Suffrage by Phillip Kayser Monday, Mar 24 2014 

Click to access UniversalSuffrage.pdf

To the Cowards at orthodoxchristianity.net Friday, Mar 21 2014 

I keep getting referrals from this forum. I have tried many times in the past to join this forum but to no avail. Hey guys:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,57159.0.html

why don’t you try attacking me here where I can defend myself?

The Biological Reality of Race by Jared Taylor Wednesday, Mar 19 2014 

Re: Texe Marrs Exposes Eric Jon Phelps on The Alex Jones Show Wednesday, Mar 19 2014 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQnG2wfvsJE

My opponents love to delete my comment so:

texepic

A Philosophically Clarkian Examination of Geocentrism and Heliocentrism Monday, Mar 17 2014 

sagan“Our ancestors worshipped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. It makes good sense to revere the Sun and the stars, because we are their children.”

Carl Sagan

In the Jesuit Enlightenment’s Counter-Reformation attempts to draw our Protestant population away from the Bible and to revive the ancient pagan religions of our ancestors, they have given away so much that only the willfully ignorant are duped into believing the malicious lies foisted upon our people. Carl Sagan even openly promoted ancient Sun worship as an extension of Enlightenment Philosophy. As our population grows more pagan and atheistic, our Government becomes increasingly Catholic. Hook……line……and sinker…….

The Bible explicitly states that the earth does not move and never indicates in a single place that it moves or changes its position in the universe. (Joshua 10: 12-13, 27, 1 Chronicles 16: 30, Job 26:7, Psalm 93:1, 96: 10, 119: 90)

The Bible explicitly states that the Sun moves around the earth. (Genesis 15:12, 17, 19:23, 28:11, 32:31, Exodus 17:12, 22:3, 26,  Leviticus 22:7, Numbers 2:3,  Deuteronomy 11:30, 16:6, 23:11, 24:13, 24:15, Joshua 1:4, 8:29, 12:1, Judges 5:31, 8:13, 9:33, 14:18, 19:14,  II Samuel 2:24, 3:35, 23:4, I Kings 22:36, II Chronicles 18:34, Job 9:7, Psalm 19:4-6, 50:1, 104:19, 22, 113:3, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Isaiah 13:10, 38:8, 41:25, 45:6, 59:19, 60:20, Jeremiah 15:9, Daniel 6:14, Amos 8:9, Jonah 4:8, Micah 3:6,  Nahum 3:17, Habakkuk 3:11, Malachi 1:11, Matthew 5:45, 13:6, Mark 1:32, 4:6, 16:2, Luke 4:40, Ephesians 4:26)

Clearly then the Bible does not teach that we subsist within a “Solar System”.  It may shock the reader to discover that the Heliocentric theory which has turned the Educated Western World against the Bible is not based on any clear demonstration of evidence but is in fact, just as ad hoc, arbitrary and irrational as Christian Theology is. Just as Christians appeal to the infinite nature of God in order to bypass any rational examination of their Theology, Copernicus, in order to bypass any Geocentric examination of his system,

“transformed the earth into a planet, humans into planetarians and stars into suns, thereby ‘infinitizing’ the universe…because of the problem of the relativity of motion, no observation, even one made with the telescope…of the objects in our planetary system could demonstrate the correctness of the heliocentric theory…mathematical considerations could not determine which system is correct. For this reason, it should be clear why some scholars have characterized the choice between the two systems as one that rested on aesthetic considerations…Numerous problems beset the Copernican system…If the earth moves around the sun, stars should appear to shift their positions. Such an effect is called parallax…No such parallactic effects had ever been discovered. Copernicus tried to explain away this failure to find parallax by saying that the stars are so remote that the effect, although present, is beyond the limits of observation. In this sense, the Copernican system ‘infinitized’ the universe”.[1]

Again, the scenario that modern science presents is just as ad hoc and irrational as Christianity. If space is infinite and everything is constantly changing, there is no such thing as motion, so we might as well close the book on Heliocentrism from the get-go.  The older empiricists (Democritus for example) who were a bit more honest admitted the problems and took motion as an axiom. If space is infinite and everything is changing nothing can be identified, and thus nothing can be identified as having moved. Aristotle makes clear that for motion to be possible “the primary reality” or “substratum” cannot change for “motion is known because of that which is moved”.[2] If motion begins with Subject A and ends with Subject P, Subject A did not move; all that happened was numerous still Subjects were presented in a location and replaced by another Subject in another location. This is what happens in cartoons.  In a cartoon motion is an illusion which is exactly what Einstein and Copernicus have fooled us with. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1998), Volume 16, page 760 states,

“A major contribution to Western thought was the publication in 1543 of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, libri VI (Eng. trans., On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, 1952; Latin reprint, 1965) by Copernicus…Henceforth, the Earth could no longer be considered the centre of the cosmos; rather, as one celestial body among many, it became subject to mathematical description.”

Yet, Mathematics is fraught with its own mentally excruciating problems. Albert Einstein said, “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”[3] NYU Mathematics Professor, Morris Kline said,

“Thus one cannot speak of arithmetic as a body of truths that necessarily apply to physical phenomena. Of course, since algebra and analysis are extensions of arithmetic, these branches, too, are not bodies of truth….It seemed as though God had sought to confound them with several geometries and several algebras just as he had confounded the people of Babel with different languages…Nature’s laws are man’s creation.”[4]

For one, Empiricist Philosophers cannot distinguish between numeric substances.[5] This leaves them with Monism which can in no way provide justification for the reality of numbers. Pythagoras, later Pythagoreans and Euclid affirmed the Monad, the ultimate principle without distinction and source of all numbers. Euclid defined the Monad as “that according to which every thing that exists is called one.”[6] Numbers were extensions from the Monad. This is all ad hoc as Plotinus admitted later in his Enneads. How does distinction emanate from a distinction-less monad? Plotinus admitted he had no answer.

Another problem with the Copernican system is defining what gravity is, which is essential to the Heliocentric idea of planetary motion. Clark says,

“As is known, the attraction of gravity, in the Newtonian theory, is directly proportional to the product of two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. How could this law have been obtained by experimental procedures? It was not and could not have been obtained by measuring a series of lengths and (assuming unit masses) discovering that the value of the force equaled a fraction whose denominator was always the square of the distance. A length cannot be measured [Only an average is chosen among many variable measurements. DS]. If it could, the experimenter might have discovered that the force between the two masses, when they are a unit distance apart, was 100 units; he might then have measured the force when the two masses were 2 units apart and have discovered that it was 25 units; and a similar measurement at 4 units distance would have given the value of 6.25. The experimenter presumably would then have made a graph and indicated the values so obtained as points on the graph. Measuring 4 units on the x axis, he would have put a dot 6.25 units above it; and at 2 units on the x axis he would have put a dot 25 units above it; and so on. By plotting a curve through these points, the experimenter would have discovered the law of gravity. But as has been seen, the length of a line cannot be measured. The values for the forces therefore will not be numbers like 6.25, but something like 6.25.0043. And since the same difficulty inheres in measuring the distances, the scientist will not have unit distances but other values with variable errors. When these values are transferred to a graph, they cannot be represented by points. On the x axis the scientist will have to measure off 2 units more or less, and on the y axis, 6.25 more or less. It will be necessary to indicate these measurements, not by points, but by rectangular areas. But, as an elementary account of curves would show, through a series of areas, an infinite number of curves may be passed. To be sure, there is also an infinite number of curves that cannot be drawn through these particular areas, and therefore the experimental material definitely rules out an infinite number of equations; but this truth is irrelevant to the present argument. The important thing is that areas allow the possibility of an infinite number of curves; that is, measurements with variable errors allow an infinite number of natural laws. The particular law that the scientist announces to the world is not a discovery forced on him by so-called facts; it is rather a choice from among an infinity of laws all of which enjoy the same experimental basis.”[7]

Heliocentrism has been defended by the following arguments:

1. The Coriolis Effect. First, human beings have no knowledge of cause and effect concerning physical objects as David Hume proved in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section IV. Secondly, is the Coriolis Effect a force that causes an effect or is it itself the effect of some force? You cannot have it both ways. Third, what documented evidence do you have that pre-guidance system pilots like Charles Lindbergh’s 1927 flight from New York to Paris, accounted for the Coriolis Effect? A journey into world History and its use of Geocentrism presents so many things the Heliocentrists must explain. How did Ptolemy predict eclipses[8] so accurately in specific geographical locations for specific time periods if the Earth is really spinning 1000 MPH? How have Astrologists fooled the world for so many centuries until this very day seeing their system operates off of a Geocentrist Cosmology?  Fourth, contrary to popular myth, “For very long-range missiles, the approach of celestial mechanics with nonrotating Earth-centered coordinates is used.”[9] Fifthly, no image from space can be shown to prove the earth is moving because such a satellite, or space station cannot be in a fixed position as Einstein’s Relativity rules out any such thing as a fixed object. Sixthly, any basic airplane flight comparing movements East-West and West-East refutes the idea that the earth is moving. I personally, have taken two round-trip plane flights from Kentucky to California and back and it took the same time to fly both directions. Seventh, any basic consideration of the news channel will disprove that the earth is moving. I have many times witnessed Meteorologists claim that storm clouds moving 20-30 MPH from the West will arrive in my home-town within the hour, while supposedly my home town is moving away from this alleged storm front at hundreds of MPH! The ridiculous attempts to explain these contradictions from the Heliocentrists commits one to claim ad hoc, that the Earth’s atmosphere is somehow velcroed to the Earth to make all this possible. Eighth, any soldier who has descended from a hovering helicopter can testify to you that the Earth does not move as he is climbing down the extended rope; or you can simply watch footage of this happening. Folks, it is all a big joke and it would be funny if it were not couched in the darkest and most malicious Counter-Reformation motivations.

2. The Foucault Pendulum. Pendulums cannot demonstrate anything about physical reality.  The pendulum is a device that suspends an object (Traditionally a bob) from a fixed point. The object is said to move back and forth under the influence of the law of gravity (Which as we have already seen is a myth).  The principle behind the pendulum is “the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length.”[10] First, according to Einstein there is no such thing as a fixed point. Also, as Clark says,

“If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.”[11]

The only reply the Scientist can conjure is that Clark is using Science to disprove it and thus he is giving it validity. Actually, he is criticizing the coherency of the system and the ad hominem attack in this case is a demonstration of its incoherency and contradictory nature. The Scientists want to play a game where their theory is unfalsifiable. What else could he use to criticize Science? The Bible?

3. The Equatorial Bulge. The Equatorial Bulge argument is guilty of the Induction fallacy or Asserting the Consequent. This theory is not based on video coverage of the elements of the earth underground moving to create this Bulge. Like everything else involved in Heliocentrism, we are faced with a Philosophical argument. Heliocentrists choose out of an infinite number of possible explanations, the conclusion they want you to draw. The construction is a classic Induction fallacy. If p then q, q, therefore p. If the earth is moving, there will be a bulge at the equator. There is a bulge at the equator. Therefore, the earth is moving. That is a logical fallacy. Why can’t the centrifugal force (Whatever that means) of a rotating universe around a fixed earth cause the bulge?

4. Aberration of Starlight. The Heliocentrists assert the consequent that if the earth is moving, the stars should appear to shift. Then they affirm that the stars do shift, thus the earth is moving. This is the logical fallacy of Induction or Asserting the Consequent. Rejecting Ptoemy’s idea that the Stars are attached to a rotating Universe they demand, using the logical fallacy of False Dilemma, that there is only one alternative to Ptolemy, namely Heliocentrism.

Now I would like to dive into the insane mind of Albert Einstein for a moment. In his The Evolution of Physics he says,

“Take two bodies, the sun and the earth, for instance. The motion we observe is again relative. It can be described by connecting the c.s.  [Coordinate system: frame of reference.-DS] with either the earth or the sun. From this point of view, Copernicus’ great achievement lies in transferring the c.s. from the earth to the sun. But as motion is relative and any frame of reference can be used, there seems to be no reason for favouring one c.s. rather than the other.

Physics again intervenes and changes our common- sense point of view. The c.s. connected with the sun resembles an inertial system more than that connected with the earth. The physical laws should be applied to Copernicus’ c.s. rather than to Ptolemy’s. The greatness of Copernicus’ discovery can be appreciated only from the physical point of view. It illustrates the great advantage of using a c.s. connected rigidly with the sun for describing the motion of planets…”. [12]

The problem is the inertial grid is an illusion for Modern Science can give no account for any such thing as a line or anything in motion on that imaginary line due to Darwin’s and Einstein’s demand for constant change.

Here it appears that Einstein’s construction must appeal to the Christian, Platonic and Neoplatonic concept of Huperouisa. If indeed “motion is relative and any frame of reference can be used” then we can conclude that motion between two bodies, such as a train station and a locomotive can be seen at “any frame of reference”. Thus, we can affirm that it is just as possible for the train station to be moving towards the locomotive at 60 MPH, as vice versa. Relativity then transcends ousia, and affirms that all activity in a subject is absolutely arbitrary. It is a form of Cosmological Pelagianism and Nominalism.

Objection: If the Sun and the starts are rotating around the Earth the stars would have to be moving at the speed of light. Ans. Your calculation of how far away the stars are and thus the speed they must be moving to rotate around the Earth is determined by Parallax which itself assumes upon Heliocentrism. You are assuming what must first be proved.

I feel sorry for Robert Sungenis and Marshall Hall. These men have wasted decades of their lives trying to Scientifically disprove logical fallacies that took me a few minutes to disprove using Clark’s books. Clark has truly saved decades of my life.

Bibliography

The title image comes from: Carl Sagan’s Cosmos: Episode 9-The Lives of the Stars, 52:13

Thy Kingdom Come: A Sketch Of Christ’s Church In History – Book Ii-Chapter 44 : The Modern Humanistic Era- Compiled And Edited By J. Parnell Mccarter

The Case for The Enlightenment: Scotland and Naples 1680–1760, by John Robertson

“Enlightenment” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

Vatican Assassins III, by Eric Jon Phelps

Thales to Dewey by Gordon Clark

Christianity: The Spirit of Antichrist and the Mother of All Conspiracies by Drake Shelton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBTPtdWE3e8

The Earth is Not Moving (Fair Education Foundation, Inc: Cornelia, GA, 1991) by Marshall Hall

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1998), Volume 16

Theories of the World, by Michael Crowe, University of Notre Dame

Physics by Aristotle

Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline

“Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle”, Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics by Mary Louise Gill

Theoretic Arithmetic by Thomas Taylor

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section IV by David Hume

Science and Truth by Gordon Clark: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=19

McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia Of Science & Technology, 10th Edition, “Ballistics”

Philosophy of Science and Belief in God by Gordon Clark

The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein

21st Century Geocentrism by Steven Dutch

My Refusal to Wrangle With Robert Sungenis Over Geocentrism and a Supposedly 10,000-Year-Old, Non-Rotating Earth by Dave Armstrong

As the Universe Turns Is it physically possible for the whole universe to orbit the earth? by Gary Hoge

Dialogue on the Center of Mass of the Universe Why the earth can’t be the center of mass of the universe by Gary Hoge

Geocentrism – Crackpot Theory? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=554TOFX3FW8


[1] Professor Michael Crowe, University of Notre Dame, Theories of the World (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1990, 2001), 83, 86, 97, 98: Anyone familiar with Christian Theology knows the game that Copernicus is playing here. In order to bypass rational criticism of his theory Copernicus appealed to Neoplatonic metaphysics that transcend reason, the principle of huperousia. This is exactly what Christians do with their Trinity Doctrine.  Heliocentrism is then fully Philosophical.

[2] Aristotle, Physics, Book 2, Part 7; Book 4, Part 11: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.mb.txt

[3] Geometry and Experience, Address to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin on January 27th, 1921

[4] Kline, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, 95-98

[5] Professor Mary Louise Gill, Brown University, refuted all attempts made to provide a theory of individuation in Aristotle in her article: “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle” (Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

[6] Thomas Taylor, Theoretic Arithmetic, 4

[7] Gordon Clark, Science and Truth; http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=19

[8] Ptolemy, Algamest, Book VI

[9] McGraw-Hill, Encyclopedia Of Science & Technology, 10th Edition, “Ballistics”

[10] Gordon Clark, Philosophy of Science, 57

[11] Ibid.

[12] Some versions page 211, some 212, some 222-223

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: