Earth IS Center of Universe?
#21
(07-06-2011, 06:01 PM)OldMan Wrote: Really, does it matter? I would think that there are more important things to worry about!

If it is true it would be a fatal blow to Atheism. It would be extremely hard and next to impossible to deny God, theism, and design. It would change everything. Absolutely everything.

Modern science will have been shown to be a fraud with its theories and conclusions based on bad erroneous science and the bad philosophy behind it.

People still cling to evolution despite the overwhelming proof against it in order to deny God and affirm materialism/naturalism. If rejecting evolution is too hard for most men to deal with without their worldview crashing and burning, then admitting Heleocentrism is false would shatter their whole reality and lives which is bound up in atheism, materialism, relativism, and secularism.
Reply
#22
I've quietly considered geocentrism for a number of reasons; I will have to read some of this material.

This is not a merely academic question, as Andrago and SaintRafael, because if Earth were demonstrated to be the center of the universe, that would annihilate evolution/atheism/sciencism.  It would simply make the randomness argument too obsurd for anyone with sense to accept, confirm our special seat in creation, and provide rather red-handed evidence that the Church is the ark of all truth revealed.  All of these absolute givens in Science to explain things would collapse like Saito's dream within a dream.

Having studied some physics and astronomy, much of 'sure fact' in our times is actually nothing more than the imagination of seriously troubled people, often drug abusers who hate God. 

Today, we see new heights in the ridiculous with ultra compensated 'academics' claiming that there are multiples of every person that often get killed whenever we move around  (:pazzo:), who engage in pure speculation on millisecond by millisecond commentary on atheistic Universe creation rooted mostly in potsmoke haze ( :pipe:), and some who are paid by our hard earned money to muse about there being on other planets 'plant-animal beings' and 'animate inanimates' such as living chairs (which I guess are the bastard children of sofas and the delusional drug addict who is proposing this.)

Sergius mentions Tycho's model as being probably closest; interestingly enough when I was a wee lad in king school, I found this as rather plausible.
Reply
#23
I hate to break it to you guys but evolution and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive.

If geocentrism were be accepted by science tomorrow (for the sake of argument), that won't make a lick of a difference to atheists who already reject God despite the proof we already have in creation.
Reply
#24
(07-06-2011, 09:57 PM)romanaround Wrote: I hate to break it to you guys but evolution and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive.

If geocentrism were be accepted by science tomorrow (for the sake of argument), that won't make a lick of a difference to atheists who already reject God despite the proof we already have in creation.

You are just wrong.

I find a great way to begin teaching modern younger people about just the concept of faith is to point out the fact that the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from our vantage point.  Even hardcore sciencists have to conceed that the odds of this are hard to fathom in a random arena - but they will always follow with 'let's talk about something important, like population control and how to make GM food.'

If it were to be shown that Earth is stationary, it would be a hard, hard sell to keep up the whole 'we are the result of random genetic mutations beginning with pond scum that caught on fire' thing.
Reply
#25
If more parents would put their children in CATHOLIC schools you wouldn't have to deal with scientific theories, such as the "pond scum" doctrine,  that run counter to Catholic doctrine.
Reply
#26
(07-06-2011, 02:12 PM)dan hunter Wrote: Why wouldn't the Earth be the Centre of the Universe?

Why would it?
Reply
#27
(07-06-2011, 10:52 PM)OldMan Wrote: If more parents would put their children in CATHOLIC schools you wouldn't have to deal with scientific theories, such as the "pond scum" doctrine,  that run counter to Catholic doctrine.
Quite true. But you would have a bunch of new kids singing kumbaya at the NO parishes.

Reply
#28
(07-06-2011, 06:10 PM)Andrago94 Wrote: There are two separate but related issues in this debate.

The first is whether the Earth is the center of the universe.  This could be true both physically and spiritually and does not necessarily depend on the motion of objects within the universe.  I don't think that this issue is the one that is the subject of much controversy.

The second subject is specifically the motion of objects in the universe.  This is a point about which many people fail to see the importance of Galileo's work.  Galileo's important contribution was to start people on the path to realizing that the motion of planetary objects is defined by other forces, specifically by what came to be described as gravity.  This was the true revolution.  Earlier astronomers had systems with the Earth as the center of the solar system, but the problem is that no known physical phenomenon will cause planets to move in the very strange paths needed  for the earth to be at the solar system's center.  The most obvious being the sun rotating around the earth.  The laws of physics hold that objects of less mass will revolve around objects of larger mass.  For the geocentric model of the solar system to be correct there must be a multitude of varying physical laws all over our solar system to get each planet and the sun moving around the earth.  This is the major issue that Sungenis fails to see and that the scientific community also failed to understand before Galileo's time.

Well, the Sun is made up mostly of hydrogen and helium, right?  So, since hydrogen and helium float, and that's what the Sun is made of, that would make the Sun lighter than the Earth, so that would explain why the Sun orbits around the Earth.   :bubbles:
Reply
#29
(07-06-2011, 12:40 PM)richness of tradition Wrote: 'Some Catholics maintain Galileo was wrong':

I think the  article means the Catholic priest Copernicus and not Galileo. It wasn't Galileo who put forth the idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe.
Reply
#30
(07-06-2011, 11:42 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-06-2011, 02:12 PM)dan hunter Wrote: Why wouldn't the Earth be the Centre of the Universe?

Why would it?

Because Christ became man on Earth, suffered persecution and brutal death on this Earth, and rose again on this Earth - all for the redemption of His chief steward of creation, man.  Scripture and patristics strongly indicate Earth as the center of all creation.

Regarding the the Sun's composition: these are models that should be investigated but not so heavily relied upon.  It is absolutely impossible to verify the convection model because the theory works on a scale of millions of years.  Furthermore, there is iron clad repression of other models (such as an electrically based Sun rather than nuclear fusion as the primary energy production.)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)