Do you really believe this? There was no earth at 380,000 years after big bang. Earth age is 4.54 billion years, sun age is 4.6 billion years and age of universe is 14 billion years meaning that there is a gap in which there was no solar system.
You can read more
here.
Nothing in that article contradicts anything I said. Indeed, it says, " We may have to rethink some things. " ( paraphrased )
Since the Microwave Antisotropy Probe launch ( 2001 ) questions have arisen concerning the Standard heliocentric model. All I am doing is pointing out how difficult it is to prove absolutely many things in science. In view of this the shabby treatment of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis science is unjustified and is a mark of prejudice, simply.
Here is some interesting discussion on this topic.
" …Second, it is incorrect to identify this group of “conservative Roman Catholics” as a splinter
group. Resurgent interest in geocentrism can be found across many religious groups, and
there are some modern defenders of the geocentric hypothesis who are not members of
any religious group at all. I do think all would agree that, if science had irrefutably proven
that the Earth revolves around the sun, we would not be engaged in this endeavor. We
would have adjusted our interpretation of Scripture to fit with the instruction of St.
Augustine, that is, if science ever proves its case we will maintain that the Bible only speaks
figuratively on cosmological topics. The whole basis for our movement, however, is that
science has not proven the Earth moves and, in fact, mounting scientific evidence over the
last one hundred years or so, and especially in the last 20 years, has shown astounding
evidence that the Earth is, indeed, in the center of the universe. We didn’t invent these
ideas. They come from some of the top cosmologists in the world today. In fact, when we
happen to catch these cosmologists admitting to a central Earth, we sometimes find them
trying to hide these same admissions when the media spotlight comes upon them. Such was
3
the case, for example, when Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University was interviewed
by Dru Sefton in May 2006 when he was at Case Western University. Ms. Sefton used Dr.
Krauss as my opponent, quoting him saying “What works? Science works. Geocentrism
doesn’t. End of story.” On the Internet, however, we found Dr. Krauss giving a whole
different testimony on geocentrism when he wrote his article “The Energy of Empty Space
That Isn’t Zero” just two months later in July 2006.1
So let’s make it clear from the outset. We don’t wear tin foil hats and wait for messages
from outer space. We don’t just spit out Bible verses and ignore the science. We take our
model from St. Paul who suggested in 1 Corinthians 9:20 that we should become all things
to all people when we preach the Gospel. To scientists who want to talk science, we’ll be
scientists and talk science. As such, we can show these scientists that the popular science
touted in universities today involves foundational assumptions which are philosophical,
not scientific, in nature. For example, today’s Big Bang cosmology simply doesn’t work
unless it is injected with 96% energy and matter that has never been observationally
detected, despite decades of lavishly funded experiments to find it (including the 1 billion
dollar Hadron collider). Yes, you heard that correctly. And unless these exotic forms of
matter and energy can be experimentally identified, the Big Bang theory increasingly relies
upon more and more assumptions involving less and less observable entities. These are
serious questions. Unless this 96% missing stuff is found, the Big Bang theory remains on
life support. And guess what the kicker is? Those sympathetic to a geocentric view of the
universe in the scientific community tell us that we can do away with the need for this 96%
missing stuff if science would be willing to abandon the Copernican princip
galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Response-to-Chicago-Tribune-on-Geocentrism-Conference.pdf …"
Linus2nd
