We find at the below link how Fr. Robinson would dismiss my powerful point above.  It is fairly amazing/shocking/scandalous to see what Fr. Robinson has written here.  On close and careful review it can be seen to simply does not wash with a traditional Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture.  A key point is that he wrongly uses St. Thomas Aquinas to support an untraditional exegesis of Sacred Scripture!  He would have us believe that since there is such solid evidence for the Big Bang (which in fact is just a theory) then Genesis must be interpreted in such a way so as to support the Big Bang.   In other words science the tail wags religion the dog.  Right -- I know -- Go figure! https://therealistguide.com/big-bang-theory-reactions.

If God created everything fully formed, as described in Genesis, then, based on what we know about planets and stars, they would have the appearance of having been formed over millions of years...That is, in fact, the Protestant position, as I explain in chapter 7 of The Realist Guide. Their idea of God is that He wanted to deceive our minds by creating a world in an instant that appears to have developed over long periods of time. Why would He do this?

The Church indicates that Genesis 1 is meant to teach us important dogmas of faith, but is not meant to teach us science.

There is not a fig of difference between the atheist story of the Big Bang and that of Fr Robinson and other 'intellectual Catholics.' Fortunately others have addressed all that is in his diatribe above and shown that it is not only Einsteinian 'nonsense' but 'simple nonsense.' Accordingly I am willing over the next few days to illustrate what Fr Robinson is trying to convince others of is no more scientific evidence for anything, but has long been falsified.

Let me begin with Einstein:

‘The third and most important reason [to study this chapter well] is that he [Einstein and his theories of relativity] provides another opportunity to show up the fallacy of the general belief that modern science, in every field but perhaps especially in mathematics and physics, is so complicated that it cannot be understood by the non-specialist, and that the layman has no choice but to rely on the words of experts with superior intelligence and training. Stripped of its disguises, which as with other science and elite professions are mostly jargon and bluff, Relativity, whether Special Theory [STR] or General Theory [GTR], involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. [Einstein’s] Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense; and the only difficulty in seeing this lies in bringing oneself to believe it possible that anything so generally accepted by so many intelligent people really can be such obvious nonsense.’--- N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.7.

---

Fr Robinsdon writes:
The Theory of Relativity quickly received several empirical confirmations, one being that it could calculate the orbit of Mercury around the sun with perfect accuracy, whereas the same calculation using Newton’s theory of gravitation contained statistical error.

Orbits remember; were measured by Domenico Cassini as Cassinian ovals and not Keplerian compromise ellipses, a fact that Fr robinson never heard of. The problem with Mercury’s perihelion then, is that it is not real but based on a false mathematical elliptical orbit of Kepler and Newton, whereas there is no sliding or shifting in Cassinian ovals. Nevertheless, to ‘solve’ this illusion Einstein used another newly invented incomprehensible mathematical system, the tensor calculus of the mathematicians Ricci and Levi-Civita. To say this exercise proved the GTR should now be seen for what it is; wishful thinking.

    But here is something else so obvious that we cannot pass this supposed proof for the GTR without pointing it out. If Einstein’s whirlpool theory is correct, and Mercury gets sucked in to a spiral causing problems with its supposed orbit, how come all the other planets in Einstein's whirlpool theory seem to be immune from similar effects? Are they too not whirling around in this same spiral? Did all these planets come out squeaky-smooth in their ‘elliptical’ orbits when Einstein’s formula was used for the new astronomy?  

Fr Robinson states as PROOF for his Big Bang theology:
The most important confirmation of Einstein’s theory was Sir Arthur Eddington’s observation of a star shift during a solar eclipse in West Africa in 1919, a shift predicted by the theory of relativity

My Answer:

A camera was set up; steady as a rock. Photographs of the sky were taken just before the eclipse. Shortly afterwards the sun and moon converged, leaving all in darkness. A second series of photographs were taken. Then it was back to the laboratory for development and comparisons. There were 43 photographic plates in all; the Sobral team took 27 and the Principe team took 16. Fifteen of these, however, were discarded because they were clouded, no use for their purpose. The conclusion, well first let us see the propaganda that Fr Robinson fell for:

‘Eddington found that light rays which had left the surface of stars thousands of years ago and had been bent by the curved space near the Sun only eight minutes previously, passed through the lens and exposed the photograph plates just where Einstein said they would. One of the most remarkable experiments in scientific history had been completed. The results of the eclipse expedition were presented by the Astronomer Royal at a meeting of the Royal Society on 6th November 1919 [announcing the observers had confirmed Einstein’s theory], and Einstein became a national hero overnight. Headlines in the New York Times suggested that a new Universe had been discovered… and this time the newspaper hype was not exaggerated. A world weary from war embraced the quiet and eccentric scientist, sitting in his study in Berlin with a pencil and pad, who had figured out the great plan of the Almighty for the entire Universe.’[1]

Keep on reading however, and we find the following tucked into the corner of the next page: ‘Many critics said the results were inconclusive, that the possibility of error in the star measurements was too great, so the scepticism continued.’ But note ‘Einstein became a national hero’ anyway, and the New York Times did suggest ‘that a new Universe had been discovered.’

    If the theory is true, then all the stars positioned near the sun should have been displaced towards the sun. They were not. The stars in fact were displaced in the photographs in every conceivable direction, this way, that way, and every which way, but a long way from showing Einstein’s GTR to be true.

‘To make the observations come out to support Einstein, Eddington and the others took the Sobral 4-inch results as the main findings and used the two Principe plates as supporting evidence while ignoring the 18 plates taken by the Sobral astrographic… On 6^th Nov. 1919, Sir Joseph Thomson, the President of the Royal Society, chaired a meeting at which he said: “It is difficult for the audience to weigh fully the meaning of the figures that have been put before us, but the Astronomer Royal and Professor Eddington have studied the material carefully, and they regard the evidence as decisively in favour of the larger value for the displacement.” ’[2]

Ah yes, the Royal Society, doing what it was established to do, dictate what ‘science’ the world was to believe, and what it was to ignore. They approved Newton’s eureka mind-conclusions and then Einstein’s ‘proofs.’ ‘The results of the measurements confirmed the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner,’ wrote Einstein in his paper already quoted.

Rejection and Rebuttals

Dr Arthur Lynch, the distinguished mathematician, let the cat out of the bag:

‘The results of the observations are shown on a chart, by a series of dots, and by tracing connections between these dots it is possible to obtain a “curve” from which the law of deviation is inferred. But the actual charts show only an irregular group of dots, through which, if it be possible to draw a curve that seems to confirm the theory of Relativity, it is equally possible to draw a curve which runs counter to the theory. Neither curve has any justification.’[3]

And if that is not enough to show a ‘scientific’ farce, Professor Charles Lane Poor really spilled the beans on the tricksters:

‘The table showing displacement of individual stars shows that on average the observed deflection, as given by the British astronomers, differ by 19% from the calculated Einstein value. In the place of two stars the agreement between theory and observation is very nearly perfect… in other cases however, the differences range from 11% to 60% [from the calculated Einstein value]. The diagrams show clearly that the observed displacements of the stars do not agree in direction with the predicted Einstein effect. This point was nowhere mentioned in the report… But, after the measurements of the plates became available for study, several investigators called attention to this fact of a radial disagreement in direction between the observed and the predicted displacements.’[4]

 

Professor Poor then goes on to tell us that the Einsteinian relativists tried to claim the differences between the predicted and observed shifts are no greater than should be expected. Consequently, ‘This very question was investigated by Dr Henry Davies Russell, of Princeton University, a most ardent upholder of relativity theory.’ After ‘an exhaustive examination’ he found the differences are real, and are contradictory.

‘The results given in the Report for the observations are the means (average) of the radial components (direction towards or away from the sun) only, nothing whatever being given to the directions in which the actual displacements took place. The Einstein theory requires a deflection, not only of a certain definite component, but also in a certain observed direction. To discuss the amount of the observed deflection is to discuss only one-half of the whole question and the less important half at that. The observed deflection might agree exactly with the predicted amount, but, if it were in the wrong direction, it would disprove, not prove, the Relativity theory. You cannot reach Washington from New York by travelling south, even if you do go the requisite number of miles.’ --- Gravitation v Relativity

But the Royal Society, as we have already seen, has long been taking homo consensus to Washington from New York travelling south, west and east.

‘Now the diagrams of the seven best plates, the seven taken at Sobral with the 4-inch camera, show clearly and definitely that the observed deflections are not in the directions required by the Einstein theory… The relativists either totally disregard these discordances, or invoke the heating effect of the sun to distort the vision by just the proper amount to explain them away.’ --- Gravitation V Relativity.

Find any old ad hoc that can be said to cause the problem by ‘just the proper amount’ and that explains it. Recall this ploy was used to explain the Airy and Michelson & Morley failures. But then Professor Poor offered another solution to ‘starlight-bending.’ one Cassini was well aware of back in 1650.

‘Further… there are other perfectly possible explanations of a deflection of a ray of light; explanations based on every-day, common-place grounds. Abnormal refraction in the Earth’s atmosphere is one; refraction of the solar envelope is another… Such is the evidence, and are the observations, which according to Einstein, “confirm the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.’[5]

---

[1] J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., pp.43-44.

[2] H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem, p.51, and quoting J. Earman, and C. Glymour, ‘Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expedition of 1919 and their Predecessors,’ Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1), 49-85.

[3] Arthur Lynch: The Case Against Einstein, 1932, p.264.

[4] C.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226.

[5] C.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226.