Author Topic: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation (Read 8993 times)

Tradman · « **on:** November 16, 2023, 11:40:40 AM »

Incredible 12 minute video explaining the philosophical principles behind Heliocentrism, to include the Geostationary globe. Traces the history of Copernicanism to modern pseudo science and boils it all down to: Materialism vs. Scripture.

Yeti · « **Reply #1 on:** November 16, 2023, 01:49:42 PM »

Current geocentric thought holds that the stars actually rotate around the sun, not the earth, i.e. that the stars remain a constant distance from the sun, not the earth, as they rotate.

They claim bizarrely that the earth is still the center of the universe, but just that the celestial bodies -- while still rotating around the sun as on a fixed point -- rotate in a lopsided manner around the earth at the same time, i.e. that every star rotates our solar system but not in a perfect circle, but that their orbit is lopsided to the extent of the distance between us and the sun.

This model replaced the true geocentric model (in which the stars rotate around the earth the way a tire rotates around its axle) when they found they could not deny stellar parallax, and that it was incompatible with a model in which the stars all remain a constant distance from the earth. I have to agree with this.

To me, though, the current geocentric model is not only not geocentric (since it is the sun, and not the earth, that the stars remain a constant distance from), but even worse it defeats all the logic that upheld the geocentric theory before. To say that the earth must be the center of the universe because of the presence of man on it, and because of the Incarnation, and so on, is completely thrown out when you say the stars don't actually rotate around the earth at all.

I was very surprised and confused when I started looking into geocentrism in the past year or two after many years of not thinking about it, to find all of this out.

Tradman · « **Reply #2 on:** November 16, 2023, 06:44:20 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 16, 2023, 01:49:42 PM

Current geocentric thought holds that the stars actually rotate around the sun, not the earth, i.e. that the stars remain a constant distance from the sun, not the earth, as they rotate.

They claim bizarrely that the earth is still the center of the universe, but just that the celestial bodies -- while still rotating around the sun as on a fixed point -- rotate in a lopsided manner around the earth at the same time, i.e. that every star rotates our solar system but not in a perfect circle, but that their orbit is lopsided to the extent of the distance between us and the sun.

This model replaced the true geocentric model (in which the stars rotate around the earth the way a tire rotates around its axle) when they found they could not deny stellar parallax, and that it was incompatible with a model in which the stars all remain a constant distance from the earth. I have to agree with this.

To me, though, the current geocentric model is not only not geocentric (since it is the sun, and not the earth, that the stars remain a constant distance from), but even worse it defeats all the logic that upheld the geocentric theory before. To say that the earth must be the center of the universe because of the presence of man on it, and because of the Incarnation, and so on, is completely thrown out when you say the stars don't actually rotate around the earth at all.

I was very surprised and confused when I started looking into geocentrism in the past year or two after many years of not thinking about it, to find all of this out.

Thanks for the info. Who are the geocentrists that say this?

Yeti · « **Reply #3 on:** November 16, 2023, 06:53:48 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on November 16, 2023, 06:44:20 PM

Thanks for the info. Who are the geocentrists that say this?

.

This book is what I was reading, which I heard of from this forum.

Also, the video made by Robert Sungenis explaining and defending geocentrism likewise proposed this system.

Tradman · « **Reply #4 on:** November 16, 2023, 08:09:04 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 16, 2023, 06:53:48 PM

.

This book is what I was reading, which I heard of from this forum.

Also, the video made by Robert Sungenis explaining and defending geocentrism likewise proposed this system.

You're right, it is bizarre and certainly isn't biblical. They lost everything that might be gained, especially after knowing earth is stationary. I wonder if the Kolbe Center thinks the same.

Incredulous · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2023, 01:28:03 AM »

Quote from: Tradman on November 16, 2023, 11:40:40 AM

Incredible 12 minute video explaining the philosophical principles behind Heliocentrism, to include the Geostationary globe. Traces the history of Copernicanism to modern pseudo science and boils it all down to: Materialism vs. Scripture.

Great post Tradman!

This is a materialism killer presentation... let's send to the Big Bang advocate, Fr. Paul Robinson.

Tradman · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2023, 11:14:30 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on November 18, 2023, 01:28:03 AM

Great post Tradman!

This is a materialism killer presentation... let's send to the Big Bang advocate, Fr. Paul Robinson.

Hey, if you have his contact, do it. I suspect Fr. Robinson is working for somebody who's promoting modern science through the internet. Not necessarily NASA, but maybe. Some big supporter of his maybe, Idk. Why would an SSPX priest push heliocentric/evolutionary garbage in the trad world unless he's sent or supported for doing it? I get SSPX are leaning modern, but that's got to be a problem for a decent portion of his confreres.

Incredulous · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2023, 12:11:05 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on November 18, 2023, 11:14:30 AM

Hey, if you have his contact, do it. I suspect Fr. Robinson is working for somebody who's promoting modern science through the internet. Not necessarily NASA, but maybe. Some big supporter of his maybe, Idk. Why would an SSPX priest push heliocentric/evolutionary garbage in the trad world unless he's sent or supported for doing it? I get SSPX are leaning modern, but that's got to be a problem for a decent portion of his confreres.

Interesting angle... it did strike my mind that there was a purpose behind Menzingen's adaptation of modern (jew) science.

What has always perplexed me is Father's level of arrogance and audacity.

It's as if he has been mentally programmed by the SSPX?

cassini · « **Reply #8 on:** November 20, 2023, 02:47:17 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on November 16, 2023, 11:40:40 AM

Incredible 12 minute video explaining the philosophical principles behind Heliocentrism, to include the Geostationary globe. Traces the history of Copernicanism to modern pseudo science and boils it all down to: Materialism vs. Scripture.

A great video Tradman. Evolution was the child of heliocentrism. When Catholic churchmen from 1741 started to believe heliocentrism was proven, and when Pope Pius VII in 1820 took all heliocentric books off the Index, they jumped on the Trojan Horse giving these heresies more credibility to the world. The first ever evolutionary theory was the Nebular theory, that is, how the heliocentric solar system evolved. From 1820 then, the popes of the Catholic Church never condemned one evolution theory except the soul of Adam, Darwin's book never was put on the Index and Pope Pius XII allowed his encyclical to say we can investigate the body of Adam coming from a living animal.. Billions of souls were lost to Hell because if Big Bang heliocentrism is true then God is no longer needed. Remember, before he died, Stephen Hawking brought out the theory something can come from nothing, the ultimate god dismissing theory of all time.

.
Hawking receiving the Pope Pius XI medal from Pope Paul VI
and being greeted at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

I see Cardinal Newman, the one who promoted heliocentrism and evolution as God's way of creating, is to be made a doctor of the Church. He will probably be the first Doctor to support the heresy of heliocentrism condemned as formal heresy in 1616 because it contradicted the Biblical understanding of ALL THE FATHERS. This heresy contradicts so much of Catholicism you couldn't make it up.

In other words, unlike any other religion on Earth, Catholicism was destroyed from within.

Tradman · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2023, 04:53:58 PM »

Quote from: cassini on November 20, 2023, 02:47:17 PM

A great video Tradman. Evolution was the child of heliocentrism. When Catholic churchmen from 1741 started to believe heliocentrism was proven, and when Pope Pius VII in 1820 took all heliocentric books off the Index, they jumped on the Trojan Horse giving these heresies more credibility to the world. The first ever evolutionary theory was the Nebular theory, that is, how the heliocentric solar system evolved. From 1820 then, the popes of the Catholic Church never condemned one evolution theory except the soul of Adam, Darwin's book never was put on the Index and Pope Pius XII allowed his encyclical to say we can investigate the body of Adam coming from a living animal.. Billions of souls were lost to Hell because if Big Bang heliocentrism is true then God is no longer needed. Remember, before he died, Stephen Hawking brought out the theory something can come from nothing, the ultimate god dismissing theory of all time.

.
Hawking receiving the Pope Pius XI medal from Pope Paul VI
and being greeted at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
by Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

I see Cardinal Newman, the one who promoted heliocentrism and evolution as God's way of creating, is to be made a doctor of the Church. He will probably be the first Doctor to support the heresy of heliocentrism condemned as formal heresy in 1616 because it contradicted the Biblical understanding of ALL THE FATHERS. This heresy contradicts so much of Catholicism you couldn't make it up.

In other words, unlike any other religion on Earth, Catholicism was destroyed from within.

Wow. How badly did Cardinal Newman get involved with heliocentrism? Was it some words in passing, or worse? What a shame. Yea, this video is clean, minimally polemic and can help Catholics come to the realization that heliocentrism is evil.

cassini · « **Reply #10 on:** November 21, 2023, 05:20:32 AM »

Quote from: Tradman on November 20, 2023, 04:53:58 PM

Wow. How badly did Cardinal Newman get involved with heliocentrism? Was it some words in passing, or worse? What a shame. Yea, this video is clean, minimally polemic and can help Catholics come to the realization that heliocentrism is evil.

Henry Newman converted to the Catholic faith in 1845 and was ordained a priest in 1847. After that he was made rector of the proposed new Catholic University in Ireland where he gave a series of discourses on faith and science that resulted in his book The Idea of a University (1852). In a composition of May 24 1861, the now Fr Newman, adduced the case of Galileo as one of the critical points towards maturing on the part of Catholic Scripture-scholars. In his lectures in Dublin University, and in subsequent writings, Fr Newman explored the relation between theology and the natural sciences, as he saw it. In another book written by Phyllis Hodgson, Towards a Grammar of Assent (1870), it states; ‘Henry Newman explored the ways we’ve come to believe, and found instructive similarities between theology and science, and indeed everyday beliefs as well. We rarely believe because of a logical demonstration, but much more frequently by the convergence of probabilities. This is the case in our everyday affairs, and also in science and religion.’ Arising from all these ‘probabilities,’ Newman thought he was competent to resolve the Galileo case. In trying to do so he raised the retreat from Biblical geocentrism to a new level of sophistry.

‘As the Copernican system first made progress... it was generally received... as a truth of Revelation, that the Earth was stationary, and that the sun, fixed in a solid firmament, whirled round the Earth. After a little time, however, and on full consideration, it was found that the Church had decided next to nothing on questions such as these... it surely is a very remarkable feat, considering how widely and how long one certain interpretation of these physical statements in Scripture had been received by Catholics, that the Church should not have formally acknowledged it... Nor was this escape a mere accident, but rather the result of providential superintendence.’--- Fr Henry Newman: The Idea of a University, 1852, p.468.

Fr Henry Newman’s Galileo, Revelation, and the Educated Man. (1861)

‘One of the characteristics of the day is the renewal of that collision between men of science and believers in Revelation, and of that uneasiness in the public mind as to its results, which are found in the history of the 17th century. Then, Galileo raised the jealousy of Catholics in Italy; but now in England the religious portion of the community, be they Catholic or not, is startled at the discoveries or speculations of geologists, natural historians and linguists. Of course I am speaking, as regards both dates, of the educated classes, of those whose minds have been sufficiently opened to understand the nature of proof, who have a right to ask questions and to weigh the answers given to them. It was of such, we must reasonably suppose, that Father Commissary was tender in 1637 [1633?], and to such he allied in his conversation with Galileo, as he took him in his carriage to the Holy Office. “As we went along,” says Galileo, “he put many questions to me, and showed an earnestness that I should repair the scandal, which I had given to the whole of Italy, by maintaining the opinion of the motion of the Earth; and for all the solid and mathematical reasons which I presented to him, he did but reply to me: “Terra autem in aeternum stabit,’ because ‘Terra autem in aeternum stat,’ as Scripture says.” There could not be a greater shock to religious minds of that day than Galileo’s doctrine, whether they at once rejected it as contrary to the faith, or listened to the arguments by which he enforced it. The feeling was strong enough to effect Galileo’s compulsory recantation, though a pope was then on the throne who was personally friendly to him. Two Sacred Congregations represented the popular voice and passed decrees against the philosopher, which were in force down to the years 1822 and 1837. Such an alarm never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once. At least, for myself, I can say that, had I been brought up in the belief of the immobility of the Earth as though a dogma of Revelation, and had associated it in my mind with the incommunicable dignity of man among created things, with the destinies of the human race, with the locality of Purgatory and Hell, and other Christian doctrines, and then for the first time had heard Galileo’s thesis, and, moreover, the prospect held out to me that perhaps there were myriads of globes like our own all filled with rational creatures as worthy of the Creator’s regard as we are, I should have been at once indignant at its presumption and frightened at its speciousness, as I never can be at any parallel novelties in other human sciences bearing on religion; no, not though I found probable reasons for thinking the first chapters of Genesis were not of an economical character, that there was a pre-Adamite race of rational animals, or that we are now 20,000 years from Noah. For that past controversy and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me, that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the Earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environs us. And I seem to myself here to be speaking under the protection and sanction of the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, which has since the time of Galileo prescribed to itself a line of action, indication of its fearlessness of any results which may happen to religion from physical sciences… Consider then the case before us: Galileo on his knees abjured the heresy that the Earth moved but the course of human thought, of observation, investigation and induction, could not be stayed; it went on and had its way. It penetrated and ran through the Catholic world as well as through the nations external to it. And then at length, in our own day, the doctrine, which was the subject of it, was found to be so harmless in a religious point of view, that the books advocating it were taken off the Index, and the prohibition to print and publish the like was withdrawn. But of course the investigation has gone further, and done, or is now even doing, some positive service to the cause which it was accused of opposing. It is on the way to restore to the Earth that prerogative and pre-eminence in the creation which it was thought to compromise. How true it is that nature and revelation are but two separate communications from the same infinite Truth. Nor is this all. Much has been said of late years of the dangerous tendency of geological speculations or researches [long ages]. Well, what harm have they done to the Christian cause... In answer to the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants, considering that our globe has such, geology teaches us that, in fact, whatever our religion may accidentally teach us to hope or fear about other worlds, in this world at least, long ages past, we had either no inhabitants at all, or none but those rude and vast brutal forms, which could perform no intelligent homage and service to their Creator. Thus one order of spiritual researches bears upon another, and that in the interest or service of Christianity; and supposing, as some persons seem to believe in their hearts, that these researches are all in the hands of the enemy of God, we have the observable phenomenon of Satan casting out Satan and restoring the balance of physical arguments in favour of Revelation. Now let us suppose that the influences which were in the ascendant throughout Italy in 1637 [1633?] had succeeded in repressing any free investigation on the question of the motion of the Earth. The mind of the educated class would have not the less felt that it was a question, and would have been haunted, and would have been poisoned, by the misgiving that there was some real danger to Revelation in the investigation; for otherwise the ecclesiastical authorities would not have forbidden it. There would have been in the Catholic community a mass of irritated, ill-tempered, feverish and festering suspicion, engendering general scepticism and hatred of the priesthood, and relieving itself in a sort of tacit Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, of which secret societies are the development, and then in sudden outbreaks perhaps of violence and blasphemy. Protestantism is a dismal evil; but in this respect Providence has overruled it for the good. It has, by allowing free inquiry in science, destroyed a bugbear, and thereby saved Catholics so far from the misery of hollow profession and secret infidelity…. If I find that scientific inquiries are running counter against certain theological opinions, it is not expedient to refuse to examine whether these opinions are well founded, merely because those inquiries have not yet reached their issue or attained a triumphant success. The history of Galileo is the proof of it. Are we not at a disadvantage as regards that history? Why, except because our theologians [like who, all the Fathers of the Church, popes and theologians like St Bellarmine?], instead of cautiously examining what Scripture, that is, the Written Word of God, really said, thought it better to put down with a high hand the astronomical views which were opposed to its popular interpretation? The contrary course was pursued in our own day; but what is not against the faith now, was not against the faith three centuries ago; yet Galileo was forced to pronounce his opinions a heresy. It might not indeed have been prudent to have done in 1637 [1633?] what was done in 1822 [1820?]; but, though in the former date it might have been unjustifiable to allow the free publication of his treatises with the sanction of the Church, that does not show that it was justifiable to pronounce that they were against the faith and to enforce the abjuration. I am not certain that I might not go further and advocate the full liberty to teach the motion of the Earth, as a philosophical truth, not only now, but even three centuries ago. The Father Commissary said it was a scandal to the whole of Italy; that is, I suppose, an offence, a shock, a perplexity. This might be, but there was a class, whose claims to consideration are too little regarded now, and were passed over then. I mean the educated class; to them the prohibition would be a real scandal in the true meaning of the word, an occasion of their falling. Men who have sharpened their intellects by exercise and study anticipate the conclusions of the many by some centuries. If the tone of public opinion in 1822 [1820] called for a withdrawal of the prohibition at Trent of the Earth’s movement, the condition of the able and educated called for it in Galileo’s age; and it is as clear to me that their spiritual state ought to be consulted for, as it is difficult to say why in fact it is so often is not… I cannot help feeling that, in high circles, the Church is sometimes looked upon as made up of the hierarchy and the poor, and that the educated portion, men and women, are viewed as a difficulty, an encuмbrance, as the seat and source of heresy, as almost aliens to the Catholic body, whom it would be a great gain, if possible, to annihilate. For all these reasons, I cannot agree with those who would have us stand by what is probably or possibly erroneous, as if it were dogma, till it is acknowledged on all hands, by the force of demonstrations to be actually such. If she affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent. .. It would be nothing else than a great gain to be rid of the anxiety which haunts a person circuмstanced as I am, lest, by keeping silence on points as that on which I have begun to speak, I should perchance be hiding my talent in a napkin..’--- Fr John Henry Newman, 1861( As found in James Collins, Philosophical Readings on Cardinal John Henry Newman (Chicago: H. Regnery Press, 1961), pp.284-291. (http://inters.org/Newman-Galileo-Revelation)

cassini · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2023, 05:31:14 AM »

The Patron Saint of Evolution

‘I mean that it is as strange that monkeys should be so like men with no historical connection between them, as the notion that there should be no course of history by which fossil bones got into rocks.’--- H. Newman, quoted in Chieflifejournal. (H. Newman, quoted in https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/a-patron-saint-of-evolution/)

Then there is the Newman who indicates he would have had no problem with Darwin’s ape-to-man evolution, pre-humans who ‘could perform no intelligent homage and service to their Creator,’ if God chose to do it that way. Again, so much for Moses’s revelation that God created Adam in His image directly from clay, gifted with full knowledge of God and the world necessary for humans.

‘On the question whether Genesis and the theory of evolution would contradict each other, Newman considers the verse “All are of dust” (Eccles 3:20) and concludes: “yet we never were dust—we are from fathers. Why may not the same be the case with Adam? I don’t know why Adam needs be immediately out of dust—Formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae (“God formed man from the dust of the earth” (Gen 2:7)-i.e., out of what really was dust and mud in nature, before He made it what it was, living.” Newman was one of the first theologians (together with Rev. Charles Kingsley and Rev. Frederick Temple, both Anglicans) who were positive voices acknowledging that Darwin’s theory did not contradict the Christian faith.’--- Ibid.

Henry Newman also brings up the question of ‘the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants,’ hinting he would also have no problem if there were such aliens. Here then, we find again the old Pythagorean heresies that Pope Urban VIII predicted would happen if the Galilean heresy was allowed as a truth of faith and reason. Prof. A. A. Martinez tells us:

‘[St] Thomas also denied the claim that there are multiple worlds. Like Hippolytus, he attributed this false claim to those who did not acknowledge the ordering wisdom of God. St Thomas declared: “Those who posit many worlds do not believe in any ordaining wisdom, but in chance, as Democritus, who said that this world and infinitely many others came from a concourse of atoms.”’--- Burned Alive.

Unable, or unwilling, to challenge the sciences of heliocentrism, long ages and evolution, Newman set out to show these sciences and the Catholic faith could be one and the same truth. As it turned out, he was a man who put more faith in the false theories of modern science than in the faith of the Fathers and churchmen of Trent and the 17th century. John Henry Newman was a man who lectured on endless subjects at university level, influencing those who would go on to spread his opinions among the future generations

And this is the man they want to make a DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH..

cassini · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2023, 06:16:00 AM »

On this website you will read how Catholics refused to bond with Protestants at the Scopes trial at which they were trying to stop evolutionism being taught in schools.

https://www.academia.edu/24045778/Evolution_and_Voices_of_Progressive_Catholicism_in_the_Age_of_the_Scopes_Trial?email_work_card=view-paper

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2023, 06:56:38 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on November 18, 2023, 12:11:05 PM

What has always perplexed me is Father's level of arrogance and audacity.

Indeed, but this kind of arrogance is generally the fertile soil for Modernist heresy ... someone who thinks he knows better than the Church Fathers.

I have no qualms about calling out Father Paul Robinson as a Modernist heretic. Apart from his borderline-sacrilegious derision of "Biblicism", he does such violence to Sacred Scripture (with his Local Flood theory) that there's no other possible conclusion than that he regards Genesis as merely a fable, a story told to get a lesson across.

It might seem shocking that an SSPX priest would be a Modernist heretic, since the very raison d'etre of the SSPX in its foundations was to combat Modernism, but truth is truth, and we cannot tip-toe around reality on account of a false "charity", but must call it out for what it is to mitigate the damage caused by his heresy. It's actually much more pernicious because it's being peddled by a man posing as a Traditional Catholic, since the faithful are more apt to swallow the poison in a spoonful of sugar. So we have to take the gloves off and call it out for what it is ... Modernist heresy. I've seen this precise undermining of Sacred Scripture into a collection of fables lead to the loss of faith among many young men at Jesuit High School, so my tolerance for this garbage is zero.

Oh, but it's not "nithe" to call someone a heretic. But this attitude is contrary to the Traditional attitude of the Church toward heresy, which is a destroyer of souls, and worse than murder. St. Pius X said that Modernists should be beaten with fists. There's no Mr. "Nithe" Guy where it comes to Modernism.

BTW, this softness towards heresy is a corollary to the same phenomenological thinking that leads to religious indifferentism. I'm OK, you're OK. He's sincere and means well. As long as someone is sincere and means well, he's pleasing God ... even if he's spewing heresy. No. That is not the Church's attitude toward heresy.

cassini · « **Reply #14 on:** November 21, 2023, 07:54:00 AM »

Yes Incredulous, Fr Paul Robinson SSPX has done and is doing more harm to Catholic faith in our day than Teilhard de Chardin did since his day. I have three books on heliocentric evolution written by priests in our day:

Fr Sean Kealy, CSSP: Science and the Bible, Columba Press, 1987.
Fr Brendan Purcell: From the Big Bang to Big Mystery, Veritas Publications, 2012.
Fr Paul Robinson SSPX: The Realistic Guide to religion and Science, Gracewing, 2018.

Fr Robinson's account of Genesis is probably the most absurd anti-Catholic Modernism ever written. This priest taught Thomism in A SSPX seminary in Australia. Here is what St Thomas wrote:

‘That the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.’--- St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theolagiae I.46.2)

Fr Robinson writes Genesis is not a science book. But then he uses his 'science' to interpret the true meaning of Genesis. Like Pope Pius XII he teaches the Big Bang describes the creation by God. Well if the Big Bang shows us a beginning of time then there is no need for FAITH in God's Creation. What Fr Robinson has spread out around the world with his book and website is that you do not need any faith because science can show us, the exact same belief held by atheists.

On Noah's Flood, he infers not even God could produce enough water to cover the whole Earth so it must have been a local flood which makes God's order to Noah to build an arc unnecessary as they could have moved outside their flooded area.
He also says the age of the world is 123.7 Billion years because the furthest star out is 13.7 billions of light years away since the Big Bang. Faith in Genesis tells us that God created the stars visible to man when created. Thus there is no Einsteinian time differences in the stars, the whole universe has the one time clock.

You couldn't make it up'

Author Topic: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation (Read 8993 times)

Tradman

Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Yeti

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Tradman

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Yeti

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Tradman

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Incredulous

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Tradman

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Incredulous

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

cassini

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Tradman

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

cassini

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

cassini

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

cassini

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

Ladislaus

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation

cassini

Re: Copernicanism: Hidden Destroyer of God and Creation