By now, scientists are pretty sure

Scientists don’t know &!@$.  It’s all a house of cards.  Theories built on conjectures, attached together by guesses.
.
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 $.

Have you sold your cell phone and computer yet ?
Canceled your internet connection yet ?
Better not buy any evil telescopes.

That video I posted discusses how redshift theory has been seriously questioned by top astronomers due to finding various anomalies, such as quasars, which have totally skewed redshift numbers ... indicating that something other than movement away from us can be and is responsible for redshift.

That video also discusses how the entire theory of an "expanding" universe comes from the tenuous redshift, and that in turn the Big Bang comes from the notion of reversing the current "expansion".  So it's a house of cards all built on redshift.  Astronomers who questioned redshift were silenced (lots of specific examples cited) because they threatened to overturn Big Bang theory.  Now, there have been other problems with Big Bang.  They've had to revise it a few times, saying that there were phases of it.  Recently, to keep it alive on life support, they had to posit the existence of "dark matter".

There are a number of things taught by Sacred Scripture that are simply incompatible with modern science's view.  No amount of "interpreting" it can absolve it of error.

God created the earth before the sun and the stars.  Either this is true, or it's an error.  In order to explain this away, you have to resort to, "the Bible doesn't intend to teach about science."  Regardless, the Bible, having been authored by Holy Spirit, cannot contain error.  And this would be error.

God created Adam from the earth, and the woman from the man.  This rules out even a theistic version of evolution.  There's no way that "earth" could possible be "interpreted" as ... a primate.

Sacred Scripture lays down a very clear chronology for human beings that cannot be reconciled with anything more than about 6,000 or so years.  You can't even pull the stunt about, "perhaps there's a different meaning of years," because making a year anything more than a year would result in individual human beings like Adam or Seth having lived for 10s of thousands of years.

If there's error in the Bible, then the Holy Spirit was not the primary author of Sacred Scripture, or else you have to reinterpret what this authorship means, watering it down to, "the Holy Spirit inspired the general message behind each book."

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1044874/5402626-a-lounge-room-chat-with-father-paul-robinson

Now skip to 25 minutes and listen to what this 'intellectual' priest was teaching SSPX seminarians. Before that he quotes Pope Leo XIII's encyclical and the Biblical commission on the word yom in Genesis. Now read Providentissimus deus and you will find an encyclical written to STOP the reinterpretation of Scripture after churchmen allowed the changing of the literal geocentric words of Scripture be read as teaching the very opposite. Pope Leo XIII, while rightfully saying that not every opinion of EACH of the Fathers is to be adhered to, did say what ALL OF THE FATHERS agreed on must be held without question. And, as we all know, or should know, one of those revelations was that the sun orbits the Earth. Note also that Fr Robinson fails to note Pope Benedict XV's 1920: Spiritus Paraclitus does not allow 'science' to change anything.

Here is what the Biblical commission said on the question of Yom/day

‘Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis.
VIII: In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.’ --- Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909

Hugh Owen, Kolbe center adds;

‘In reality, the other answers released simultaneously by the PBC in 1909 to questions about Genesis 1-3 exclude the possibility of inserting long ages of time into the Hexameron, but the answer about the meaning of “day,” taken by itself, left an opening that the Earthmovers and evolutionists have been exploiting ever since.’ ---

Needless to say Fr Robinson paid no heed to both above, disregarding the teaching of ALL OF THE FATHERS, and using the Biblical commission to make yom mean 3 billion years each except Sunday which they kept as a day.

Next, Fr Robinson, as you hear in this interview, places his whole teaching of faith and reason is based on human reason being able to age the universe as far older than Genesis. And how does he do this? He says science has proven there arev stars 13.8 billions of 'light-years' away, so that proves his rejection of Genesis. I have put it to him on his Q&A blog that it proves nothing other that God created stars on day 4, the same day He created birds, some stars 13.5 billion light years away. That is the last I heard from him and my argument against his whole notion of faith and science never went up on his Q&A

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.

• the Sun orbits the Earth in an elliptical orbit and an average diameter of ~93 million miles daily
• the planets orbit the Sun daily
• the Sun changes it's ecliptic (orbital plane) to create the seasons, it oscillates up and down (without changing the planets' ecliptic IIRC)
• all galaxies and stars rotate around the Sun (with insane speed, greater than the speed of light), creating stellar parallax because of the 93 million mile radius movement

There are a couple of problems here. First of all, the computer bizarrely showed this movement from a viewpoint that was outside the universe. Now, since by definition there is nowhere that is outside the universe, the animation cannot be used as a proof of anything. This may sound like a nitpick, but it makes no sense to say, "Here's a rendition of what type of motion I'm talking about," and then demonstrate that with a video that is logically impossible. A video that is logically impossible is worthless as an argument.

My second and much more serious objection to this idea is to ask, What does it mean for the earth to be the center? Doesn't it mean that the stars and galaxies rotate around the earth? Basically, doesn't it mean that the stars rotate around the earth the way a wheel rotates around its hub? Isn't the hub the center of a wheel? And yet Sungenis is claiming that the sun functions as the hub of the wheel, and the stars all remain equidistant from the sun, not the earth, and yet somehow it is the earth and not the sun that is the center of the universe. If you posit such a thing, then by what definition or criterion is the earth the center of the universe? What makes it the center? He's basically saying to look at a bicycle wheel and see it rotate, but then he tells you that the reflector halfway up one of the spokes is actually the center of the wheel, and the hub and spokes are rotating around that reflector. By definition, the center of a rotating system is the part that remains equidistant from every other part of the system, and Sungenis said in his system that's the sun, not the earth.

Thirdly, the video posited that the universe as a whole moves with a local motion. This is irrational, illogical and impossible. While it is obvious that the universe as a whole rotates in place like a ball, since we see the heavenly bodies rotate around the earth, if you say that the entire universe moves in an elliptical orbit, you are implicitly saying there is some space in which the universe as a whole moves in that orbit, i.e. you are positing that the entire universe, as a system, is contained within some other space, through which it moves in an elliptical manner. This is a contradiction inasmuch as the universe by definition is all there is, there is nothing outside the universe in which it can move.