David Palm (of Debunking Geocentrism) Avoiding to Show my Post?

The post is still there:

[images, click to enlarge]



It doesn't show on his page:



Here is some text:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl‎ à David Palm

Is this one by you or by Fr. Robertson?

The Fathers' Understanding of Genesis 1
29 novembre 2018|Religion article
https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/the-fathers-understanding-of-genesis-1

Either way, here is my comment thereon:

Creation vs. Evolution : Fr. Vigoroux on Fathers - is Day-Epoch Still an Option?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/12/fr-vigoroux-on-fathers-is-day-epoch.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

One more, did you actually hide this publication?

Here is a little more, on David's wall:

II

PS

shared

David Palm and Karl Keating, the ultimate nightmare for ball earth geocentrists...

H/T John Nichols

Karl Keating

I don't see a problem here. The sun and all the other planets are flat circles. Earth is a flat square. Flat is flat--who cares what the shape is?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't see any problem for ball earth geocentrics.

Someone drew a cosmography wrong in two ways.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I get a problem posting on your wall, so, I add this here instead:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bill Nye Answered on "Science Works" Meme, Inter Alia
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/12/bill-nye-answered-on-science-works-meme.html

[On the "reminder's" publication]

[a video by FB on our friendship]

[I added this link after above:]

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/12/bill-nye-supposed-to-destroy-flood-or.html

III

David Palm

In his latest article Fr. Paul Robinson, author of "The Realist Guide to Religion and Science" finds, ironically, that St. Maximilian Kolbe, the chosen patron of the Kolbe Center for Creation, did NOT hold to geocentrism or to young Earth creationism, which according to the Kolbe Center means he fell for modernist lies that are fundamentally opposed to the Faith. But in fact,

"St. Maximilian did not find these positions to be injurious to the faith; on the contrary, he expressed them in an issue of his Japanese version of The Knight of the Immaculata and concluded them with an argument for the existence of God....If his Knight of the Immaculata article from above were submitted anonymously to the Kolbe Center, it would certainly receive a negative review....The fact is that St. Maximilian did not agree with the central tenets of the Biblicist creationism on which the Kolbe Center is founded. The Kolbe Center professes to have chosen him as its patron, because 'he was an expert in theology, philosophy, and natural science', but it does not follow him in questions of natural science nor those of exegetical science."

See the whole article at

The Realist Guide Blog : St. Maximilian Kolbe’s Disagreement with the Kolbe Center
29 août 2018|Religion article, Book review
https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/st-maximilian-kolbe’s-disagreement-with-the-kolbe-center

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am glad not to accept Wojtyla as Pope or his canonisations.

I don't think Pope Michael will confirm the canonisation of Fr. Kolbe after a quote like "My chair, rotating together with the earth, moves at a speed of 300 m a second, while our earth revolves around the sun at 30 km/s. The earth, together with the sun, is moving toward the constellation of Hercules."

Supposing, of course, that he was not referencing a position he did not himself hold.

The other quote, on Evolution, that is clearly less helpful to you, since it clearly opens the way to scientific creationism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Btw, I looked it up, no Kolbe actally in that passage did endorse modern cosmology and also a more than 7500 year old universe.

Too bad ...

Now, I wonder, could there be some kind of directive behind David Palm actually hiding a post by me? One in which I link to my Creationist blog?

Look at stats for it, over 24 hours:



Yes, there seems to be a strong collusion about what posts to read, four page views per "blog post", one per "page".

Can we pinpoint where this collusion is from?



68 from Italy? Hmmm ... that's where Rome is, right?

Funnily enough, 68 = 4*17. And we get 17 from Russia.

But I posted the link to David Palm's wall in US, and from US we only get 7 readers?

There is of course a technology which will hide your real IP adress (or IP adresses, if as in my case you use several, bc you only borrow computers) and pretend it's from another country. But I am not sure it wouldn't rather simply give a result like "région indéterminée". I'm taking the chance there were 68 readers in Italy (or page views) ... and I think there is a suspect for being both reader and able to tell a Catholic in US to ignore the very existence of my blog : the Vatican.

I am writing this 18:35 Paris time, 10.XII.2018. I am waiting for an answer before I publish this, perhaps they were only busy ...

And I am writing this 11:42 Paris time, 11.XII.2018. The video publication on our friendship is gone, no answers to any questions ...

Btw, all named persons are public. David Palm is at Debunking Geocentrism, Karl Keating is normally a Catholic Apologist, but one who started to imagine that Young Earth Creationism or Fundamentalist Exegesis is "Protestant" and John Nichols is an actual Protestant minister. As to PS, she is left with initials.

One more, if we go to the pdf from a text by Maximilian Kolbe, here, and take page 2, and go to the last words of the left side, which continues from page 1, Kolbe is in fact using the heliocentric / modern cosmology stuff in order to illustrate prima via. Or rather, a Newton like kalaam, not the actual Thomasic prima via:

...

Each rotary movement is easily transformed into a rectilinear one. At the same time, following this transformation, this movement ceases. When we link together two liquids contained in two different containers and their levels become equal, their movement ceases.

These generalisations can be applied to any movement. Every movement in the universe tends to be transformed in a rectilinear direction, which will lead it to its end. A movement having an end must necessarily also have a beginning. Consequently, each movement that exists in the universe must have also had its beginning at some well-defined moment in the past.

There are two hypotheses concerning this. One affirms that once the movement of prime matter started, matter must have already been in existence. The other one asserts that prime matter originated together with the first movement.

The second theory is most probably the actual reality. Concerning the first theory, it is difficult to affirm that the cause if the first movement was matter, for a static body cannot set another body moving. In the second hypothesis it is not necessary for matter to cause movement, since, when the latter began, matter did not exist, and therefore it is clearly evident that a nonexistent thing cannot be the cause of anything.

The conclusion of all this discussion is that, in both hypotheses, it must be recognized that the cause of the first movement of prime matter is external to matter itself.

This cause either gave the first push to an intrinsically static matter, or simultaneously with the first movement also transmitted existence to matter. In both cases it has set matter in motion in different ways.

"The acceptance of the second hypothesis agrees with the scientific point of view." We call this power-which is beyond any human consideration and reckoning-God.

Kolbe

So, perhaps I was unjust to Kolbe. Certainly he was not agreeing with the assessment of "CCC" that proofs of God's existence are not scientific in nature, are not scientific proofs, anymore than St. Thomas Aquinas would have agreed with it. Then he applied this philosophy to a science drill he was getting and taking in with too little criticism./HGL