Monday, January 13, 2014

Public Challenge To Dave Armstrong Re: "The Principle"

UPDATE: Dave has declined.

Gee, who could have possibly seen *that* one coming?

Dave Armstrong has exposed my pathetic ignorance.

I am so ashamed.

I hang my head in abject shame, to have been so deftly exposed by a man whose own credentials are, we must certainly assume, impeccable.

Mr. Armstrong: While it is clear that you shall certainly wipe the floor, as one of your commenters has suggested, with such a woefully inadequate opponent as my unworthy self, I nonetheless hereby issue a public challenge to you:

I will debate you, at our expense, in a public format, on a resolution to be agreed upon in advance, which resolution might include any among the following:

1. RESOLVED that science documentaries ought to be only produced by scientists, or those with scientific credentials (which ones)?

2. RESOLVED that "The Principle" is a film which ought not be taken seriously, due to the lack of scientific credentials of its Producer

3. RESOLVED, that Catholic apologists ought not throw stones when they live in glass houses

Other resolutions are possible, and ought to be considered by us mutually.

Please get back to me, Dave.

This would be fun, even though you will doubtless find me easy pickings……


  1. It took about five minutes for Mr. Armstrong to delete all comments from his post linked above, including my challenge.

    Is Dave afraid of something?

    1. Mr. Dave Armstrong has received my challenge.

      He has a lot of word salad going on, which boils down to this:

      "Not interested . . . Sorry, Rick, to take away all your fun."

      Gosh, how unpredictable was *that*?

      Anyway, chalk up another drearily predictable backdown to Mr. Dave Armstrong, a man who is brave when the com boxes are closed.

  2. I just tried to post something, but as soon as I did this message appeared on the screen: "New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator."

    Hmmm, curious, but with Dave Strongarm, uh I mean Armstrong, not quite so surprising.

  3. Dave and so many others are really hung up on all this formal higher education stuff when quite honestly a great amount of what passes for formal higher education in America is pure high priced garbage.

  4. Rick:

    You could win the debate against both the Davids, Mark (S), and Karl with one brain lobe temporarily deactivated (and they could choose which one).

    What passes for "Catholic" apologetics is pretty disturbing.

    1. "What passes for "Catholic" apologetics is pretty disturbing." Indeed!

  5. Very interesting, Rick.

    I also noted that before this challenge was made to Dave, there was a comment on Dave Armstrong's post about your recent interview on "Forward Boldy."

    I don't know when that comment was deleted, but it's gone today, with the rest as you mentioned.

    It seems that Dave Armstrong would like to keep his post about you devoid of any comments that would help people learn what you, Robert Sungenis, and The Principle have to say from the sources themselves.

    It seems that Dave would like to be the lens through which his followers see you.

    IMHO, that speaks volumes.

    To Rick and Robert, keep up the great work!

  6. I'm very new to this. I only started taking geocentrism seriously in 2012, after reading Galileo Was Wrong. I'm still dealing with some cognitive dissonance and still studying the debates, but have yet to find an argument that has convinced me to drop it and settle back into the prevailing theories. I can truly understand the incredulity of people, but I can't understand the extreme fear I'm witnessing, especially from Catholics, and especially when this fear seems to drive them to such displays of sheer malice. If they truly believe that geocentrism is utter nonsense, why don't they just allow it the idea to play out?
    It's to the point where the fear of geocentrism translates into a fear of discussing the implications of objective facts (eg CMB data) in a documentary, even if (as I understand "The Principle" will do) many interpretations will be given air time, not just geocentrism.
    I really want to express my gratitude for what you and Robert Sungenis are doing, and I'm keeping you both in my prayers.

    1. Alex, that's because they (me included, till 2012) were brainwashed by the world science for years, even centuries depending on where you live on this planet.

      The devil did his part good, I mean look at this. Catholic, which should be jumping with smile when he finds out there is (even a chance) the bible is correct after all, not only does not do that, but defends the atheistic point of view.

      The atheistic scientist and establisment did a number on us, didn't they? I'm glas though, I'm in the big big minority, who ran into this topic, mostly because I was a fan of Robert's debates against protestants. If I didn't I bet I wouldn't know about it till this very day.


  7. Dave Armstrong is notorious for his one way communication style. It doesn't matter it his opponent is a TradCat, a Protestant Fundamentalist, a defender of the A-Bombing of Japan, or a Geocentricist, if you disagree with the Amazing Armstrong, you're only worthy of his scorn and ridicule. He is the man who says,"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!"

    1. This behaviour is frustrating, because, as Elisa points out, it involves consciously controlling the information that people receive. In this case, he removed all comments, and then selectively cut & pasted them along with his own commentary. He then referred people to the "excellent discussion" on the issue at Karl Keating's FB page, not mentioning of course that opponents are being blocked there and inconvenient comments deleted.
      It's as if KK, Shea, & the two Davids are all playing the same game to control the message. The the main points of the message are that there is a hidden agenda; that 'quack science' is being promoted; and that anyone who wants open discussion about the science is either one of "their minions" or poor dupes. And always there is the strategy of muddying the waters with extraneous accusations of anti-semitism, deception etc...
      I just hope and pray that people will see this for what it is.

  8. My Dearest DeLano,

    I just want to you to know, Rick, that watching you melt down publicly and embarrass yourself is quickly becoming one of my favorite pass-times.

    I am deeply indebted to you and Armstrong both for these gems; here's to you having a happy, blessed, and drama-filled New Years!

    Paul Boillot

    1. Dear Paul:

      I have the greatest consolation in noticing your continued devotion to our little saga.

      It is a hoot, isn't it?

      I trust it will be a fascinating New Year indeed.

      Stay tuned!

    2. Paul, I have two versions of your follow up rant.

      Which one would you like me to publish?

  9. Do you want the one where the cat fights and tearful apologies come at the beginning, or the middle?

  10. Which ever you like better, my dear!

    1. Hmmmm.

      Decisions, decisions.

      How *does* one choose between two approximately equal absurdities?

      No, I must insist.

      You choose ;-)

    2. I can certainly sympathize with you, Paul.

      It is indeed a dilemma.

      Just let me know when you decide.


  11. Dear Rick DeLano and others,

    Galileo Galilei was convicted by The Catholic Church as "vehemently suspected of HERESY" after his insincere denial of Heliocentric theory: (Catholic encyclopedia);

    => Had Galileo not denied Heliocentric theory before the court he would have been convicted as a HERETIC;

    => Heliocentric theory is a HERESY;

    => Whoever professes to be a Catholic and knowing the above infallible judgment (definition) of The Catholic Church vs. Heliocentric theory still publicly supports Heliocentric theory isn't a Catholic but is a formal (willful) public heretic.

    Mr. Dave Armstrong, for a Catholic the infallible, irrevocable and irreformable judgment of The Catholic Church, as the judgment of HERESY is, is sufficient.

    A Catholic then proceeds to find astronomical evidence supporting the infallible judgment of The Catholic Church.

    You, Mr. Dave Armstrong, are either grossly ignorant of the infallible judgment of The Catholic Church regarding Heliocentric theory or contradict the infallible judgment of The Catholic Church to which all Catholics must submit themselves to remain in The Catholic Church, either of which is immensely embarrassing.

    It is you, Mr. Dave Armstrong and all who support HERESY of Heliocentrism while calling themselves "Catholics", who must repent and do penance in order to save your own souls and souls of others whom you scandalized by your scandalous public support of the HERESY.

    For Catholics, case of The Catholic Church vs. Heliocentric theory has been closed for about 400 years: Heliocentric theory is a lie destructive of the Catholic faith and nothing more or less than that.

  12. Dear Rick and others,

    Galileo Galileo was convicted by The Catholic Church as "vehemently suspect of heresy". Therefore, Heliocentric theory is a heresy!

    Dave Armstrong and others who support the heresy of Heliocentrism, you cannot be Catholics and knowing the infallible definition of The Catholic Church vs. Heliocentric theory publicly profess that heresy.

    1. Dear Cman:

      Here is the problem I have with your post.

      On the one hand, it is incontestably true that Galileo was vehemently suspected of heresy.

      It is also true that the 1616 injunction of the Holy Inquisition explicitly declared heliocentrism to be heretical.

      This 1616 declaration was reproduced in the 1633 papal sentence against Galileo.


      The Church has manifestly declined to enforce this since at least the middle of the 19th century; that is to say, at least four generations have been born, raised, lived, and died without the Church having taken any steps whatsoever to enforce Her teaching on this question.

      How, then, can one condemn a fellow Catholic for refusing to be bound, by what the Church has manifestly declined to bind him to?

      This is one oaf a very few highly anomalous cases where the Church has either practically abandoned Her teaching (usury is an example), or else magisterial pronouncements are in tension, one with another.

      In such a case it seems to me that a liberty of conscience must be charitably presumed to exist for Catholics seeking in good conscience to hold the Catholic Faith.

    2. Dear Rick and others,

      there is no need for The Church to enforce Her own definitions by special pronouncement in any particular case after a definition since formal (willed) and public violation of any of Her definitions ipso facto (automatically) enforces expulsion of the perpetrator from The Church, whoever he is/was (“If anyone says … let him be anathema”). It's Divine and not human law.

      The Church cannot ever abandon any of its definitions since it would necessarily mean that It erred in the matter when defining it which is impossible since The Church is Divine and not human institution and God cannot err.

      So, to claim that "The Church has abandoned Its own definition vs. Heliocentric theory" thus implying that "The Church has erred regarding Heliocentric theory" (the latter is a heresy I routinely hear from people professing to be Catholics and supporters of Heliocentrism whom I confront with the condemnation of Galileo Galilei) is very dangerous for salvation and maybe even for the Catholic faith.

      Therefore, infallible definition of The Church vs. Heliocentric theory has always been in force and will always be till The Judgment day, that is, as long as the world lasts. Any pronouncement contrary to it is evidently heretical and not coming from a Catholic nor from The Catholic Church.

    3. Cman:

      1. Notice that the Church has abandoned Her teaching against usury, and against heliocentrism. This abandonment is de facto, not de jure.

      2. This does not imply error in doctrinal teaching or definition.

      3. It does involve questions of pastoral prudence.

      4. The teaching obviously remains in force. It has never been reversed. It is not being taught, and it is not being enforced.

      5. You, nor I, are a bishop. We cannot bind anyone to anything.

      6. We can, as laymen, point out the facts concerning these anomalous matters, and explain why we hold to the Church's teaching.

      We can do nothing beyond that.


    Dear Rick and others,

    The Church has never de facto abandoned Her teaching against usury (1) nor against Heliocentrism (2).

    (1) Usury is defined as lending money on a condition that more money than was lent be returned to the lender by the borrower so that the lender earns from lending.

    "A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs of something he ought to have, for this is not to sell the use of money but to avoid a loss. ... But the lender cannot enter an agreement for compensation, through the fact that he makes no profit out of his money: because he must not sell that which he has not yet and may be prevented in many ways from having." (Summa Theol., II-II, q. 78, a. 2, Reply to Objection 1.,

    So, when The Church allows interest to be taken on lending money it's only as compensation for inflation which decreases value of money in time or for any other loss if it exists. This isn't usury because there is just a compensation for loss.

    But earning money from borrowing it is usury and has always been sinful and condemned by The Church and always will be.

    (2) Heliocentrism has been defined by The Church as heresy only for the reason that it's impossible to avoid doubt regarding inerrancy of The Holy Scripture if Heliocentrism be allowed as possibility.

    So, if you say “Heliocentrism could be true” you must necessarily admit “The Bible could be wrong about The Sun going down or standing still” (Josue 10:13) which The Church cannot ever allow, for any reason whatsoever, for it would necessarily mean that it could be that The Bible isn't inspired of God who cannot err.

    Note that if it were possible to abandon any definition de facto and not de iure it would make definition a dead letter and defined in vain. Hence, it is a lie destructive of belief in Catholic dogmas and as such extremely dangerous for salvation, if not for the Catholic faith also.