https://infogalactic.com/info/Geocentrism

Well there’s this site

https://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/p/summary.html

Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Garnering scientific information from physics, astrophysics, astronomy and other sciences, Galileo Was Wrong shows that the debate between Galileo and the Catholic Church was much more than a difference of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture.

Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo’s confrontation shows that the Church’s position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.

But also, as far as I understand it, Galileo was thought to be in the wrong not necessarily for scientific views, but for implied theological arguments based on those views.

For example, scientifically and theologically I thought geocentrism was the prevailing view at that time among scientists (God created the earth as a kind of “moral center” of the universe of God’s Creation?); today acentrism (universe has no center) seems to be a prevailing scientific view. So by this logic, Galileo was wrong by modern scientific standards, and theologically some still argue for a kind of geocentrism or other such views (such as “galileowaswrong.com” or other such sites) against Galileo’s theological views.

Hence Galileo was rightly criticized for lacking religious caution; his rebellious attitude against religion (again, not necessarily for supporting a speculative scientific view) indeed has caused centuries of harm, pitting science against religion, whereas true science can never contradict religious truth.

  • airrow@hilariouschaos.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    Actually there is evidence for a literal flood

    The earth is carbon dated; again it could have been created as such, or the theistic evolutionists are fine with it being old (not reakky proven one way or the other)

    “young man not resurrected after being crucified”

    again just an assertion with mutual disagreement (not dealing with science)

    Indeed Sodom and Gemorrah could have been destroyed by “fiery meteors”, again not a conflict with science (surely it’s logically understood an all-powerful God can arrange such a thing?)

    " young man did not transmite wine"

    again nothing to do with science, you simply don’t believe supernatural miracles can happen, which is understood.

    Yes, the disagreement about the existence of objective morality is different from claiming Christian morals are the “objectively correct” morals.

    • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      By definition supernatural miracles cannot be explained by science. That’s like their entire point.

      You not understanding the scientific explanations for events and history is not the same as the only explanation for those events being your god.