0
0

What if Geocentrism were accepted by mainstream science? (self.Catholicism)

GarretKadeDupre が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Ihaveacouplequestion 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Why would it be better for something that is verifiably not real to be believed by mainstream science?

It would probably be worse if no one had taken the time to find out that the earth goes around the sun- we wouldn't have been able to learn about the physics of why it does and apply it to different things!

If you're talking hypotheticals, I still don't really see why it would make a difference.

Just my $.02

[–]GarretKadeDupre[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Why would it be better for something that is verifiably not real to be believed by mainstream science?

Isn't it verifiably not true that the Eucharist is Christ's flesh?

[–]Ihaveacouplequestion 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

False equivalence. The Eucharist / transubstantiation is a theological mystery. The earth going around the sun is a pretty basic and useful fact about our solar system!

[–]GarretKadeDupre[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The Eucharist / transubstantiation is a theological mystery.

No, using your logic, it's a pretty basic and useful fact about the chemistry of bread that the Eucharist is bread and not Christ's flesh!

[–]Ihaveacouplequestion 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not thinking/caring about how the earth revolves around the sun displays a critical lack of curiously, which humans, as a group, have.

Since we are curious, we want to see how the world works. One of the few things that a lot of civilizations were able to do is pay attention to the movement of the stars. Throughout history, math got more complex. This allowed people like Galileo and Kepler to do the math and realize that the evidence that they had (based on their observation of the stars) supported a heliocentric theory.

The Eucharist is a beautiful sacrament that involves Jesus Christ giving himself to us in remembrance of him, in the form of his body and blood. We are given his body and blood through bread and wine, which are transubstantiated into His Body and Blood during mass. If you took a host and looked at it under a microscope, it would still look like bread. Why? Pray about it. I don't know. That's why it is a mystery, an especially beautiful one.

If I wanted to learn about the chemistry of bread I'd look at the ingredients of bread and look at it under a microscope. I'm not going to desecrate his Body for that. We already know that the Body after it is transubstantiated, still looks like bread.

Very different. Science and religion answer two different things imo

[–]GarretKadeDupre[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you took a host and looked at it under a microscope, it would still look like bread. Why? Pray about it. I don't know. That's why it is a mystery, an especially beautiful one.

If you took the Earth and looked at it in a telescope from the moon, it would still look like it was spinning. Why? Pray about it. I don't know. That's why Geocentrism is a mystery, an especially beautiful one.

Now I don't mean to disrespect Transubstantiation, I'm only trying to show you the illogic of your position that science can disprove Geocentrism but not Transubstantiation.

You say the Host looks like bread but isn't. I say Earth does look like the center but you say it isn't.

What kind of logic is that?

[–]Ihaveacouplequestion 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

did you look at any of the links I sent you. literally any of them. do you know what geocentrism is. like the definition.

The earth is not the center of the solar system. Since the universe is infinite, it stands to say that ANY point is the center of the universe. Because it is infinite. But geocentrism is not about the universe. It is about the solar system.

Why does it matter? I have provided SUBSTANTIAL evidence for my case. And you clearly have not looked at any of them, because if you did, you would not be asking me this question. Which is answered in the links.The majority, if you look at our number of upvotes in this thread, think I am right. No one else has a problem with what I am saying as far as I know (if anyone else does, please let me know?) You haven't even said why my logic is flawed. You are the one who is making the equivalence between two things that aren't really comparable in this context.

So now, I am going to demand evidence even though this is an easy googleable question. Links please! Why is geocentrism important? Why would it make a difference whether or not.

This is all assuming you are not a troll. This seems like a pretty troll post and troll responses.

Anyway! Links please. Have a blessed afternoon.

[–]jamaicanmecray-z 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The Church teaches that the species, the outward appearance, of the bread and wine does not change but that it's substance has changed. Science can't really verify or deny that, since the outward appearance/chemical structure/genetic makeup of the bread is what is accessible to scientific inquiry. As a scientist, I consider the two completely compatible but distinct types of truth.

[–]GarretKadeDupre[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Science can't really verify or deny that, since the outward appearance/chemical structure/genetic makeup of the bread is what is accessible to scientific inquiry.

What about Geocentrism? Who can go outside the universe to determine whether Earth is located in it's geometrical center; science or God?

And if you think science has already done so, I demand a peer-reviewed source.

[–]Ihaveacouplequestion 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Technically geocentric theory is disproven by the fact that the sun does not go around the earth. And since the universe is expanding rapidly in every direction infinitely, one could argue that anything is the center of the universe. (If I am wrong someone please correct me)

We aren't even the center of our galaxy.

Earth's relative position in the universe doesn't affect God's love for us, or the fact that we are his creation!

[–]GarretKadeDupre[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Technically geocentric theory is disproven by the fact that the sun does not go around the earth.

So you've put the sun on a scale to show that it's more massive than Earth, so that Newtonian physics would predict the sun is orbited by Earth?

Really? Peer-reviewed source, please. And where can I buy such a scale?

And since the universe is expanding rapidly in every direction infinitely

Proof?

We aren't even the center of our galaxy.

Proof?

[–]Ihaveacouplequestion 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Obviously, we cannot put the sun on a scale. Some very smart people who are very good at math were able to figure it out using math and physics and observations about the world! This is verifiable, go do the math! Here is a link on how they know the mass of the sun, earth, their distance from each other, and a lot of cool other factoids about the amazing math used to figure this out! http://www.astronomyforbeginners.com/astronomy/howknow.php

This is how we know where we are in the galaxy! Nestled right there in the Orion arm of the Milky Way. http://m.phys.org/news/2014-02-earth-galaxy.html

If you want more sources: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_location_in_the_universe

We know the universe is expanding because to put it simply, the spaces between the galaxies are getting larger continuously. We have other methods of knowing, detailed in the link below

http://m.livescience.com/32260-how-do-scientists-know-the-universe-is-expanding.html

Bless your heart OP. I learned some things today! I am going to go to bed now. Pray for me and pray for understanding of God's love for us and thank God for all of his beautiful creation and the tools he gave us to understand it. :)

[–]autowikibot 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Earth's location in the universe:

Knowledge of Earth's location in the universe has been shaped by 400 years of telescopic observations, and has expanded radically in the last century. Initially, Earth was believed to be the center of the universe, which consisted only of those planets visible with the naked eye and an outlying sphere of fixed stars. After the acceptance of the heliocentric model in the 17th century, observations by William Herschel and others showed that the Sun lay within a vast, disc-shaped galaxy of stars. By the 20th century, observations of spiral nebulae revealed that our galaxy was one of billions in an expanding universe, grouped into clusters and superclusters. By the 21st century, the overall structure of the visible universe was becoming clearer, with superclusters forming into a vast web of filaments and voids. Superclusters, filaments and voids are likely the largest coherent structures that exist in the Universe. At still larger scales (over 1000 megaparsecs) [e] the Universe becomes homogeneous meaning that all its parts have on average the same density, composition and structure.

Interesting: Outline of space science | Lists of astronomical objects | NASA World Wind | Solar System

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]GarretKadeDupre[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Here is a link on how they know the mass of the sun, earth, their distance from each other, and a lot of cool other factoids about the amazing math used to figure this out!

So you think that the reliability of Newton's laws to calculate the relative motion between masses in the Solar System is proof that Earth has absolute motion?

This is how we know where we are in the galaxy! Nestled right there in the Orion arm of the Milky Way. http://m.phys.org/news/2014-02-earth-galaxy.html

I see no proof that we aren't the center of our galaxy in that link.

If you want more sources: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_location_in_the_universe

I see no proof there, either.

We know the universe is expanding because to put it simply, the spaces between the galaxies are getting larger continuously.

What proof do you have that Earth isn't the center of the expansion?

We have other methods of knowing, detailed in the link below http://m.livescience.com/32260-how-do-scientists-know-the-universe-is-expanding.html

From the article you linked:

  • In 1929 the astronomer Edwin Hubble measured the velocities of a large selection of galaxies. He expected that about equal numbers would be moving toward and away from us. After all, the Earth isn't a particularly special place in the universe.

(allegedly!)

  • Instead, he discovered that almost all galaxies are moving away from us!

Lol, your own source just proved that Earth is the center of the universe's expansion. Thanks for making my case for me! If all galaxies move away from us, this means we are the center of the expansion. I mean, this is very, very obvious. How could you miss that?

[–]dem_eggs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is just one of many corrections someone could make to that extremely strange post, but - In an expanding universe, any observer will perceive everything else moving away from them, as if they are "centered" somehow. This is expected behavior, not verification of geocentricity.

[–]GarretKadeDupre[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is expected behavior, not verification of geocentricity.

That is a contrived explanation to avoid the obviously Geocentric implications of the observations.

It also makes no sense; your model says space expands, but expands into what? Space? Space can't expand into space!

[–]Ihaveacouplequestion 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look at the links again. More slowly. You replied pretty fast OP. Is it fair for me to say that since all of those links DID provide evidence of my point, that you didn't read them if you think they didn't?

(Anyway, I'm out. I'm pretty sure you are a troll. Don't worry about providing links on the last post i made. I'm not too worried about it, since I can google it myself if I want to. And if you are a troll, just know that I learned something useful today in googling all of your incredibly easy to answer questions, despite your flawed logic, and I learned something today. So I guess it was worth it for me! Thanks for the effort OP)

Peace ;~)