Once you allow any error into Sacred Scripture, the floodgates open.  What ELSE in there might be wrong because the Bible didn't really "mean" to teach it?

That’s the fatal problem implicit with the scientific revisionism of Biblical interpretation.

What do you mean? He spoke and it was made  

Well, of course I mean that we don't know what did specifically.  He could of course create light and heat out of nothing, with no source, or else He could have created something else to cause light and heat.

We need to break ourselves of Cartesianism if we want a proper understanding of Creation. Good video.

Is this a quote from the Sungenis movie? I remember being very convinced by all his arguments until it got to this part, where I almost choked on my beer. In one simple computer animation in which Sungenis showed this, I was stunned to see the entire geocentric model fall completely apart like a house of cards, and I had been a lifelong geocentrist up to that point. What he showed was basically an animation of the sun and all the stars moving in a circular or elliptical manner around the earth, which remained fixed in the center, and said that the stars were rotating around the sun, but the sun and the stars were rotating around the earth, and therefore the earth was fixed.

I meant to reply to Yeti's post above until I saw Dankward's reply that Stellar parallax will be found in the geocentric order. If it couldn't then how come in the real science of cosmology Einstein and Mach and every other cosmic physicist didn't agree with you when they made up their Special and General theory of Relativity? If you really do think you have it right I suggest you write up your paper about its beer-choking impossibility. You will be famous. And while your at it add that in your opinion not even God could create His universe geocentrically.

Many Traditional Catholics have been poisoned, in varying degrees, by these errors.

Yes, I'm glad you agree, modern geocentrism is a poison among traditionalists.

We all need to take a giant step back from modern science and realize much is a lie, intended to 1) erase God from the creation, 2) inflate man’s ego, and distract him from daily duties by concentrating on “billions of light years” (...how ridiculous) away 3) reduce the importance of earth, which limits the importance of Christ, His Church and our earthy battle for salvation, 4) raise the importance of science over faith/bible/church, 5) create a new industry for $.

1) Trying to understand reality does not "erase God from his creation". If it does for you, I hope you recover.
2) It's the anti-science people who brought up "billions of light years". So it is they who inflate man's ego and distract him from his daily duties by concentrating on their nonsense.
3) Non sequitur.
4) I don't see that. But if people insist on rejecting knowledge, preferring lies over the truth even in the natural order, they aren't going to get far in the supernatural order. Grace builds on nature.
5) Not sure what this says except implying you're anti-capitalist.

Yes, I'm glad you agree, modern geocentrism is a poison among traditionalists.

Modernist ^^^

Ladislaus, you're just quote mining like a Protestant. They don't say what you seem to think.

British Physicist Julian Barbour: "It is remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...

"Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense. The basic standpoint of this book, hinted at in Chapter 1, is that correct insights into the interconnections of things are apt to suggest concepts of the world and reality that go far beyond the objective facts from which they spring and are suggested. Sooner or later they are shown to be gross distortions of the truth even though they may have done sterling service in the meantime and helped to uncover numerous further objective interconnections between observed phenomena.
Good theories contain high truth content even though they do not tell us the final truth about the world. The measure of their truth content is their ability to make predictions. Ptolemy's theory of the planetary motions had a high truth content because, on the basis of past observations, he was able to predict, with very reasonable accuracy, how the heavens would appear at any time in the future as seen from the surface of the earth. The really dramatic advance that the Copernican revolution brought was that it extended the ability to predict the appearance of the heavens at any date in the future from the surface of the earth to any point in the solar system (in principle, in fact, to the entire universe). Thus, the astronauts knew what the universe would look like from the moon before they got there. This helps to put residual difficulties about the problem of the precise sense in which the earth does or does not move into their proper perspective - while also emphasising that these very same difficulties often give hints of the direction in which new theories will develop, usually with the most profound consequences." 
The Discovery of Dynamics, Julian B Barbour, Oxford University Press, Kindle Edition, ref. 2 Jul, 2020


The second quote:

"What is the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implication is that the Earth is not moving." - Richard Wolfson, Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury College

"I want to emphasise this about this experiment. This is not an experiment to measure the speed of light in two mutually perpendicular directions. It's an experiment to determine whether the speed of light differs in two mutually perpendicular directions, and the way we detect that difference is by looking at the interference pattern. One case, we learn nothing from that single case. We rotate the apparatus, and we see if the interference pattern shifts, and the amount of shift tells us something about how different the times were along those two paths.
... [skipping a few paragraphs]
It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? Well, the conservative conclusion is there's no fringe shift. But what's the implication of that conclusion? The implication of that conclusion is the earth is not moving relative to the ether. If the earth were moving relative to the ether, the path lengths, the times to travel the two paths in the Michelson-Morley apparatus would have differed either at different times of year or in different orientations. We would have detected that as a shift in the interference pattern, a shift that was easily measurable for speeds much less than the known speed of the earth in its orbit, and we would have seen that shift."
Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution, Modern Physics for Non-Scientists, 2nd Edition, Richard Wolfson, The Great Courses, Lecture 6: Earth and the Ether

"... relative to the ether". Hmm. Kind of a big omission there, Laddy.
I'm not going to bother with the others. If you cared at all about the truth, you would act differently.
As usual, it takes much less time to lie than it does to correct that lie.