I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(07-01-2019, 04:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
Quote:If scientific study shows one thing, we cannot assert that Scripture says the contrary.

Geocentrists understand this in principle, and this is why they spend lots of words trying to show how the science is wrong and instead proves Geocentrism, but as David Palm and others have shown time and time again, every try is an utter failure in basic high-school level mathematics and science.

As Palm summarizes it :
Quote:The neo-geocentric explanation to those phenomena consists of after-the-fact, ad hoc special pleading and invocation of media and forces for which they do not have a shred of observational evidence.  Their only other recourse is to General Relativity, a theory they vociferously reject as hopelessly wrong, the product of moral degeneracy and possibly even syphilis-induced insanity (while still appealing to it themselves whenever they’re called to establish their case on its own grounds.)  Therefore neo-geocentrism is neither philosophically nor scientifically robust – it’s correctly labelled junk science.

The neo-Geocentrists like cassini, don't want to have to make the scientific arguments, because they don't work. So they oppose science to their dogma, and thus reject it. The consequence is that whenever even Magisterial or Scriptural proofs are asserted against their dogma, they must maintain it, like Fundamentalist Protestants do.

As I showed above, here is the reason why popes of the Catholic church dismissed the dogma of a biblical moving sun and the traditional doctrine of geocentrism held by all the Fathers as the Church of 1616 declared

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were discovered.…Cardinal Poupard says the 1633 sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the Earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Pope John Paul II Commission report: L’Osservatore Romano, November 4th, 1992.

Ever read such MOONSHINE in all your life? Here then are the 'proofs'
Stellar Aberration, stellar parralax and Foucault's pendulum.

Now let us keep this thread now to the science of these so-called proofs. Stellar aberration was no proof, because both H or G can account for it. Stellar Parallax is exactly the same, both H or G can account for it. The foucault Pendulum, well that is a bigger joke, it proved nothing but that there is an inertia moving around the Earth that can be caused by a rotating universe or a rotating Earth.

Stellar aberration could be tested. That happened in 1870, the Airy test. It showed it was the stars rotating, yes, it showed G.
But then came another test the 1887 Mitchelson & Morley test. it showed the Earth is not orbiting around the sun at 72,000 mph. So, two scientific tests and the evidence was that geocentrism prevails. So much for the proofs that made the popes reject the dogmas and doctrines of Geocentrism

So,what happened. For 17 years science had no Heliocentric evidence. Then came Einstein with his special theory of relativity and its absurd ad hocs. It amounted to; well while geocentrism CANNOT BE PROVED WRONG, Einstein's relativity allows the possibility of a heliocentrism. Yes, relativity tries to save heliocentrism. Now if you like we can go over all the falsifications of Einstein's relativity. In other words Einstein's relativity, once falsified, do not rescue heliocentrism and the evidenve of the Airy and M&M tests prevail.

Now wouldn't you think CHURCHMEN of the time would have said WOW, SO GEOCENTRISM WAS NEVER PROVEN WRONG? But not ONE could put 2+2 together and held on to their illusion no matter that it made fun of the doctrine of geocentrism. And we all know why, because they COULD NOT ADMIT THEY CONTRADICTED THEIR PREDECESSORS BASED ON AN ILLuSION. This is supposed to be the Catholic Church. Fast forward to today, with a pope who would baptise a martian making a mockery of the sacrament of baptism, with their other worlds with intelligent life out there necessitating many Christs while they teach Christ is the only one son of God  and you see where they have taken the Catholic Church with their pseudo-science..

So now magister, would you like to take me on with science or will you give us another piece of rhetoric and hope no one notices it is you and palm who are the chancers?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by cassini - 07-02-2019, 02:07 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)