Catholic Astronomy

[kbachler]

As bananas ripen they reflect blue in the UV spectrum. The point is why didn’t we know this until recently?

Likewise, are you open to truth or a disciple of the current paradigm?

I am not using personal knowledge in formulating IDvolution. I am using the clear teachings of the Church on the faith side, and emerging science on the reasoning side.

What assumptions do you claim I am making?

We didn’t know it because we didn’t look for it. That’s not a particularly deep meaning.

The current paradigm IS open to truth. Looking to prove what you believe is not being open to truth.

You use personal knowledge in all knowledge. It’s forced.

You assume what you wish to prove. That’s a fatal logical flaw.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The point around which the sun orbits is sometimes inside the sun but it is also sometimes outside the sun too, so the sun is orbiting a point.

This is a stretch of the meaning of “orbits”. If you want to define orbiting as any circular motion, then sure, the sun orbits. But that is not what is commonly understood as the meaning of orbit. So you are resorting to being right on a technicality. And the fact that the mechanism for the ultra-tiny orbit of the sun is the same as the mechanism for the grossly obvious orbit of all the other planets does not obscure the fact that the sun’s orbit is tiny while all the planets’ orbits are huge by comparison. And that quantitative difference is what people mean when they say the planets orbit around the sun. When people thought the sun revolved around the earth, they actually believed the apparent motion they saw in the rising and setting of the sun represented the real motion of the sun around the earth. Size does matter.

 

[buffalo]

We didn’t know it because we didn’t look for it. That’s not a particularly deep meaning.

The current paradigm IS open to truth. Looking to prove what you believe is not being open to truth.

You use personal knowledge in all knowledge. It’s forced.

You assume what you wish to prove. That’s a fatal logical flaw.

I again ask, what assumptions do you claim I am making?

 

[kbachler]

The point around which the sun orbits is sometimes inside the sun but it is also sometimes outside the sun too, so the sun is orbiting a point.

The term wobble has been used in astronomy for several years now to describe what is happening here.

 

[kbachler]

I again ask, what assumptions do you claim I am making?

“IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you look at the supporting resources here, most of this is not about odds. It is what we see and have discovered…

Buffalo, do you understand this emerging science yourself or are you relying on the testimony of the people associated with the resources you cite here? If you really understood them you would be able to argue your point without recourse to these experts starting with data that is accepted by everyone, including scientists who disagree with IDvolution. That is how real science works.

So you have your scientific experts who say the evidence strongly supports IDvolution and I have mine that say it doesn’t. How do we decide whose experts are most believable? If you don’t want to engage in that debate, then the only choice I can see if you want to convince anyone is to put together a scientific argument yourself with no citations to your resources. That is for the scientific side. For the religious side, don’t bother on my account because you and I are in total agreement there.

 

[buffalo]

“IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. Buffalo”

Ahhh - Yes - God breathed - I could replace that with God “did something”. I use “breathed” because it is Scriptural and I cannot better describe the “breathed” part. I do not know if we ever will.

The end result though is God did convey His thoughts and will into action.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, do you understand this emerging science yourself or are you relying on the testimony of the people associated with the resources you cite here? If you really understood them you would be able to argue your point without recourse to these experts starting with data that is accepted by everyone, including scientists who disagree with IDvolution. That is how real science works.

So you have your scientific experts who say the evidence strongly supports IDvolution and I have mine that say it doesn’t. How do we decide whose experts are most believable? If you don’t want to engage in that debate, then the only choice I can see if you want to convince anyone is to put together a scientific argument yourself with no citations to your resources. That is for the scientific side. For the religious side, don’t bother on my account because you and I are in total agreement there.

Fair enough. Time will tell though.

Remember this. IDvolution is philosophy. I have studied Catholic teaching for years now and science all my life. Faith and reason cannot be opposed. We agree on the faith side. The converging science (biology) is altering the paradigm as we peer deeper into the cell and further study DNA. I do not expect this to be complete in a snap of the fingers though, it will take time.

IDvolution will only stand if it is true.

 

[kbachler]

Ahhh - Yes - God breathed - I could replace that with God “did something”. I use “breathed” because it is Scriptural and I cannot better describe the “breathed” part. I do not know if we ever will.

The end result though is God did convey His thoughts and will into action.

As I said, you assume what you set out to prove. This then, is meaningless as it adds nothing. This clearly is not science, and isn’t even logic.

 

[buffalo]

As I said, you assume what you set out to prove. This then, is meaningless as it adds nothing. This clearly is not science, and isn’t even logic.

That is not the way it happened. Just the opposite. Through much research it is a conclusion reached.

 

[ishii]

sigh cradle Catholics…
No of course not. God did not make the stars and planets did he? and he sure didnt create science so lets just leave him out of this shall we?

what an absolute stupid and idiotic statement to make puzzleannie.

To the other posters. I did not come here to defend Geocentrism. But looking for some Orthodox teaching on astronomy as opposed to the bull that makes its way across our screens today.

Like I said I dont mind if the book contains heliocentrist views just as long as its somewhat well- rounded and informative.

With all due respect, I think the reason why everyone has focused on your geocentrism is because it is at odds with rational thought. You might as well have said: *“I believe the moon is made of green cheese. Does anyone know where I can get a good telescope to look at the moon?” * If you’re going to say you’re geocentric, expect people to respond to that more than any other part of your post.

Ishii

 

[buffalo]

With all due respect, I think the reason why everyone has focused on your geocentrism is because it is at odds with rational thought.

Ishii

What? rational thought or popular thought.

Again, anyone is free to prove it wrong. It has been tried and has failed. The math works both ways. How does one go about choosing?

 

[cassini]

why thank you Steve, and how is your day going

Astronomy in no way denies that God created the heavens and all that exists, but it seeks to explain the rules by which He set them in motion, in scientific terms. There is no conflict between science and religion, or by creation accounts in scripture, with scientific explanations of the order of creation and of the heavenly bodies.

Why not look for astronomy teaching on a science site, not a Catholic apologetics site, was my suggestion. If it is not helpful to you, you can ignore the advice without indulging in opprobrious epithets.

if you are looking for self-identified Catholics who promote geocentrism and other non-scientific ideas through the misuse of scripture I am sure someone here can point you to those sites.

What began as an amusing post, ended up as a great victory of science over faith. Well Puzzle, for some - Buffalo and I being two, Stephenlig probably a third - we prefer faith over science. You see on a Catholic forum defined and declared faith is guaranteed by infallibility, science is very fallible, just keeps changing to keep up with new discoveries and the theories of the time.

'Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars of the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth? Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the earth?— (Job. 38:31-33).

In the Bible, some of God’s most profound teaching comes to us by way of questions. In the passage above, where the Lord queries Job about the order and mechanisms of the universe, He was demonstrating to us all the limits of our human understanding and the folly of thinking we could figure out His Omnipotence.

Were Job asked the same questions today on CAF, the answer would be ‘yes, we do know. The order is heliocentric, and Arcturus, the day and evening stars, are not actually turning about us but it is the earth that is doing the turning. Finally, modern Job could really impress the Lord by telling Him the reason for this order is because of gravity, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
Now if any believe that scenario, that God’s intended teaching was made redundant by 17th and 18th century ‘science,’ then they do not know how the ‘Father of lies’ operates.

When you, and indeed by all in the Catholic Church since 1820 piously proclaim the commandment of the Copernicans ‘There is no conflict between science and religion’, what you really mean is that there is no conflict when faith is made comply with science, not the other way round. Let me prove this. Given that relativity prevails when considering the order of the cosmos, and this means science cannot determine the relationship between the earth, sun and stars, and this in turn means man cannot know the LAWS OF COSMIC MOVEMENT, then we have two legitimate choices, a G order and a H order. Now given that the Fathers held God revealed a G order, and the Church defined and declared this order, thus confirming a Catholoic astronomy and cosmology, why in God’s name wouldn’t Catholics accept this revelation?

I ask this because are you not one of those self-identified Catholics who promote immaculate conceptions, virgin births, miracles, ressurections of dead people etc., all based on scripture that could also be said by Hs are through the misuse of Scripture?

 

[rossum]

The point around which the sun orbits is sometimes inside the sun but it is also sometimes outside the sun too, so the sun is orbiting a point.

Thanks for that. I was unsure so I checked. The CoM can be outside the Sun, e.g. from October 2006 to March 2010, or inside the Sun.

rossum

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Fair enough. Time will tell though.

Remember this. IDvolution is philosophy. I have studied Catholic teaching for years now and science all my life. Faith and reason cannot be opposed…

That is true. And I will argue just as vigorously with the atheists who say that evolution and science “prove” that life arose without God. Either way it is just unscientific.

 

[rossum]

What? rational thought or popular thought.

Again, anyone is free to prove it wrong. It has been tried and has failed. The math works both ways. How does one go about choosing?

No. Some calculations can indeed be referred to any chosen origin. Other calculations cannot. In particular acceleration requires a force, as per basic Newtonian physics: F = ma. If a body moves in a circle then it needs a force to keep it moving in that circle and not moving off in a straight line at a tangent.

If you want to Andromeda galaxy to rotate around the earth once a day then you are going to need to explain what force is keeping it moving in a circle rather than flying off at a tangent.

rossum

 

[Biedrik]

What began as an amusing post, ended up as a great victory of science over faith. Well Puzzle, for some - Buffalo and I being two, Stephenlig probably a third - we prefer faith over science. You see on a Catholic forum defined and declared faith is guaranteed by infallibility, science is very fallible, just keeps changing to keep up with new discoveries and the theories of the time.

'Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars of the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth? Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the earth?— (Job. 38:31-33).

In the Bible, some of God’s most profound teaching comes to us by way of questions. In the passage above, where the Lord queries Job about the order and mechanisms of the universe, He was demonstrating to us all the limits of our human understanding and the folly of thinking we could figure out His Omnipotence.

Were Job asked the same questions today on CAF, the answer would be ‘yes, we do know. The order is heliocentric, and Arcturus, the day and evening stars, are not actually turning about us but it is the earth that is doing the turning. Finally, modern Job could really impress the Lord by telling Him the reason for this order is because of gravity, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
Now if any believe that scenario, that God’s intended teaching was made redundant by 17th and 18th century ‘science,’ then they do not know how the ‘Father of lies’ operates.

When you, and indeed by all in the Catholic Church since 1820 piously proclaim the commandment of the Copernicans ‘There is no conflict between science and religion’, what you really mean is that there is no conflict when faith is made comply with science, not the other way round. Let me prove this. Given that relativity prevails when considering the order of the cosmos, and this means science cannot determine the relationship between the earth, sun and stars, and this in turn means man cannot know the LAWS OF COSMIC MOVEMENT, then we have two legitimate choices, a G order and a H order. Now given that the Fathers held God revealed a G order, and the Church defined and declared this order, thus confirming a Catholoic astronomy and cosmology, why in God’s name wouldn’t Catholics accept this revelation?

I ask this because are you not one of those self-identified Catholics who promote immaculate conceptions, virgin births, miracles, ressurections of dead people etc., all based on scripture that could also be said by Hs are through the misuse of Scripture?

The problem is that you are putting faith in something that is not in any way dogmatic. There is no reason to believe in geocentrism on the grounds of faith. One can certainly try to get something out of scripture passages, but then your putting your faith in your interpretation. There’s nothing to give us infallible belief in geocentrism.

 

[cassini]

The problem is that you are putting faith in something that is not in any way dogmatic. There is no reason to believe in geocentrism on the grounds of faith. One can certainly try to get something out of scripture passages, but then your putting your faith in your interpretation. There’s nothing to give us infallible belief in geocentrism.

Here we go again. Are you saying only ‘infallible’ promulgations of the Church are to be held as Catholic beliefs? Can I as a Catholic tell others on a Catholic Forum to totally disregard the 36 other decrees of the same Holy Office to be found today in Denzinger’s THE SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA. Are you saying that the Catholic hermeneutics defended in 1616 by the Church can be disregarded as not of Catholic faith, and a doctrine defined as heresy that they condemned can be embraced today in spite of not one Church statement to support your doctrine above?

Yes you are.

 

[Biedrik]

Here we go again. Are you saying only ‘infallible’ promulgations of the Church are to be held as Catholic beliefs? Can I as a Catholic tell others on a Catholic Forum to totally disregard the 36 other decrees of the same Holy Office to be found today in Denzinger’s THE SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA. Are you saying that the Catholic hermeneutics defended in 1616 by the Church can be disregarded as not of Catholic faith, and a doctrine defined as heresy that they condemned can be embraced today in spite of not one Church statement to support your doctrine above?

Yes you are.

What doctrine above of mine? I gave none. For all you know I think the moon is the center of the universe.

Moving on, yes only the infallible teachings of the Church should be taught as definitively Catholic. One should not elevate certain things, such as geocentrism, to their level. If one treats geocentrism as something to be faithfully believed in despite scientific evidence to the contrary as a matter of faith, that means it must be an unshakable belief. Only infallible ones are such. If the Church infallibly stated that the Sun was not in fact the center of our solar system, then one would have ground for doing so. However, the Church will not do so because this isn’t even a matter of faith. It’s a matter of science, in the same way that the Pythagorean theorem or laws of thermodynamics are. It is not under the Church’s jurisdiction of teaching, which is faith and morals. Therefore, it is not a matter of faith and should not be treated as such.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

What began as an amusing post, ended up as a great victory of science over faith. Well Puzzle, for some - Buffalo and I being two, Stephenlig probably a third - we prefer faith over science. You see on a Catholic forum defined and declared faith is guaranteed by infallibility, science is very fallible, just keeps changing to keep up with new discoveries and the theories of the time.

That, dear Cassini, is the point. It is called “learning.” It is not safe nor easy and it requires mental flexibility and maturity. And it does not require either atheism/agnosticism, not does it require being non-Catholic.

So, I found a Church for you guys to attend. It is Beryl Baptist Church and I know it is yours because the marquee outside it says:

“REASON IS THE GREATEST ENEMY THAT FAITH HAS”

From your’s and your “friend’s” posts, you appear to be members, physical attendance or not.