**
…Take any one of them, say stellar aberration for example. This phenomenon is caused by the relative movement between the earth and the stars. Now this means that it could be caused by the earth’s movement relative to the stars yes, but it could also be caused by the movement of the stars relative to the earth. Now this is a simple example of relativity that all should recognise. Yet see above in your underlined (by me) sentence that it is offered by SCIENCE as proof for a moving earth. But not only does your piece not OMIT that it could also be ‘proof’ for a turning stars, but it fails to mention the experiment conducted by SCIENCE to try to break the deadlock, that is the AIRY EXPERIMENT (1871) . And do you know why this is never mentioned? Well SURPRISE, SURPRISE, it found that it is the stars that move relative to the earth if stellar aberration is taken to be proof of anything. But what happened then? well there is NO WAY that SCIENCE will tolerate a creationist position, not on empirical grounds, but on IDEOLOGICAL GROUNDS. So a few physicists CONJURED up ad hocs** to put the question back into SCIENTIFIC LIMBO. In other words Itinerant, stellar aberration no longer proves ANYTHING in PHYSICS, but it SERVES A PURPOSE IN PROPAGANDA. And you Itinerant have done jut that in this CATHOLIC ANSWERS FORUM.
Now let me reproduce the first item in your recommended site:
The triumph of the heliocentric theory
Johannes Kepler’s (1571-1630) work enabled the heliocentric solar system model to accurately match and predict planetary positions on the zodiac for many centuries. After trying many geometric curves and solids in Copernicus’s heliocentric model to match earlier observations of planetary positions, Kepler found that the model would match the observed planetary positions if the Sun is placed at one focus of elliptical planetary obits. This is Kepler’s First Law of Planetary Motion. Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion allow accurate matches and predictions of planetary positions.
This is absolute Bull. Kepler’s ellipse was a COMPROMISE between a circle and something else. He never proved it. And as for ‘the model would match the observed planetary positions if the Sun is placed at one focus of elliptical planetary obits’, that too is Bull when the subject is studied at a much more detailed level. Proof of this came about when Isaac Newton had astronomers in England test the ellipse for him. No way did the planets remain on an elliptical course (as this site above claims). Why do you think Newton HAD TO INVENT perturbations?
Now the point of all this is to show that MODERN SCIENCE goes down the ideological path set for them - the ANTI-CREATIONIST path, and everything INTERPRETATED to give them what they need - from the Big Bang, the AGE of the world, and the evolutionism that DEPENDS ON the 14.5 Billions of years to fascilitate and hide its impossibility.
It’s clear that you will, *a priori, *reject any scientific proof regardless of its merit if it proves a fact that contradicts your creationist ideology. Hence, I would be wasting my time by presenting the argument for heliocentrism. Furthermore, I never imagined I would be arguing against geocentrism in the 21st century. Such a discussion would be no more productive than discussing science with someone raised in and indoctrinated by a pre-scientific culture. The one thing that you have convinced me of is that dinosaurs still exist in the 21st century.
If anyone in the Vatican in modern times advocated geocentrism they would think the poor cleric had gone off his rocker.
You arbitrarily dismiss Big Bang theory despite its very good supporting scientific evidence. However, Catholics should welcome Big bang theory, not just because the theory originated with a Catholic priest,
Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, or that it was enthusiastically promoted by Pope Pius XII, or that Catholic Thomists
have no problem with the theory , but because there is
good scientific evidence to support the theory.
Furthermore, you arbitrarily dismiss evolution theory since it contradicts your creationist ideology. Creationists fantasize that they are representing the mind of the Church or the “enlightened remnant” of the Church on evolution, when they are merely representing their own ideological mind set. However,…
“The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” – Pope Pius XII
“Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.” – Pope John Paul II
Obviously, Pope John Paul II does not consider evolution to be an impossibility. Neither does the current pope. Nonetheless, you pretend you are wiser and more knowledgeable than these popes. What does one say to that?
