A verbis ad verbera
Posted on 07/09/2009 6:25:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
This year is the bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin (1809–1882), and it’s no accident that assorted atheists are making sure that everyone knows that. But they have some competition from those wanting to name 2009 as the “International Year of Astronomy”, because it’s the quadricentennial of the first use of the telescope by Galileo Bonaiuti de’ Galilei (1564–1642), usually known by his first name only. Not to be outdone, the atheists have long used Galileo as a story of “science versus religion”. So what are the facts? [1]
Not science vs religion, but science vs science
Many historians of science have documented that the first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment, not the church. The prevailing ‘scientific’ wisdom of his day was the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory—an unwieldy geocentric system, with the earth at the centre of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly complex orbits around the earth. And it had its origins in a pagan philosophical system.[2]...
Galileo challenged all that, when he promoted Copernicus’s earlier idea that the Earth moved around the sun, i.e. the heliocentric or geokinetic theory.3 And much like the evolutionary establishment today, the Aristotelian establishment reacted furiously. As Arthur Koestler wrote...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Galileo, Geocentrism, and Joshua’s Long Day Questions and Answers>
Throwing your Geocentric creationist compatriots under the bus there GGG?
No, I’m throwing your geocentric pagan compatriots under the bus.
Still fighting losing battles against the dead then I see.
Nobody who was Pagan made the Catholic Church decide that “and HE set the foundations of the Earth so that it should not be moved forever” meant that the Sun orbited the Earth.
A distinction without a difference. Almost all members of the scientific establishment of the time were churchmen.
==Nobody who was Pagan made the Catholic Church decide that “and HE set the foundations of the Earth so that it should not be moved forever” meant that the Sun orbited the Earth.
It was the scientific establishment of Galileo’s day—not the theologians—who fought the hardest to get the Pope to preserve the pagan geocentric model of Aristotle/Ptolemy. Indeed, the top theologian of Galileo’s day thought his heliocentric model made “excellent good sense.” Unfortunately, the Catholic Church was swayed by the Aristotelian scientific establishment (who hated Galileo)....and the rest, as they say, is history.
As for the Bible verse you are alluding to, there is no reason to assume that it means that the Earth does not move. For instance, the foundation of a locomotive does not move, and yet it sets the course of the locomotive that moves on top of it.
Likewise, Psalm 16:8 says “I have set the LORD always before me; Because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved.” Does that mean the those who set the LORD always before them never physically move? Please!
The point is, the theologians were very favorable to Galileo’s heliocentric model, it was the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic science establishment that was vehemently opposed to Galileo, and pulled out all the stops to destroy him. Of course, Galileo’s arrogance didn’t help much either.
It was the Pope who decides Catholic doctrine.
It was based upon “And HE set the foundations of the Earth so that it should not be moved forever” that the Pope decided, not anything scientific.
Are you trying to say the scientific “establishment” of the day was Pagan?
Much of the science being done was by clergy, they were not Pagan but men who held God foremost in their hearts, and the findings of science led most of them inexorably to the conclusion that the Earth orbits the Sun and that any untoward extrapolation of scripture trying to claim the Earth didn’t move was exactly that.
I guess this is another place where the Bible suddenly turns metaphorical rather than literal and you just have to "know" which is which?
==Are you trying to say the scientific “establishment” of the day was Pagan?
Nope. But they allowed a pagan understanding of our Solar System/Universe to dictate church doctrine in much the same way that the Catholic church is allowing nature worshiping Evos to dictate church doctrine with respect to Darwin’s atheist creation myth today.
That understanding is in no way Pagan when it is justified as scriptural based upon “And HE set the foundations of the Earth so that it should not be moved forever”.
Don’t forget, the “Big Bang Theory” was developed by a Jesuit priest, Georges Lemaître, and was ridiculed by the scientific community for years as “religion masquerading as science”.
Amazingly, you claim to be a Christian!
Yet you seem unable to understand the nature od God’s geocentricity. The fact that Earth was the point of origin of the expansion of the universe is in no way an impediment to the structure of our solar system, or of the cosmos in general. Einstein made that point quite well, but you seem to be frozen in fear of reality, and unable to read his explanation.
But you still want to feel sciencey.
Vatican should learn from Galileo mess, prelate says
newsdaily | 2009/07/02 | Philip Pullella
Posted on 07/07/2009 8:24:48 AM PDT by JoeProBono
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2287295/posts
You too!
Wow, zero understanding of basic physics. The Earth could very well be static in the universe, with the entire cosmos posessing an angular moment about the axis of the Earth, but since we lack a point of reference outside of the cosmos, there is no way that it would be detectable.
As Einstein said, all coordinate systems are equivalent mathematically.
==That understanding is in no way Pagan when it is justified as scriptural based upon “And HE set the foundations of the Earth so that it should not be moved forever”.
Actually, any theologian worth his salt interpreting that verse in light of the whole Bible would know that there are verses referring to the spiritual aspects of moving objects as not being moved. Indeed, had the Catholic theologians prevailed, instead of the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian scientific establishment of Galileo’s day, the Catholic Church would almost certainly have adopted Galileo’s heliocentric model instead of putting him on house arrest, as per the wishes of the the scientific establishment of his day. That’s what happens when you put your trust in scientists who have placed a pagan understanding of “science” above God’s Holy Word.
See #18
So anyone who isn’t a Geocentrist isn’t a Christian?
Laughable.
So is editor-surveyor putting a “pagan understanding of “science” above God’s Holy Word” in your opinion GGG?
Or do you presume he is basing his view on a mistaken interpretation of the Bible?
“Almost all members of the scientific establishment of the time were churchmen”.
Hasn’t changed much, only now it’s the church of all things unintelligent and undesigned, no God, no way.
Thanks to the ACLU, NEA, algore and other liberals, science suffers more than ever. Just like any and everything else they touch.
Thanks for the ping!
“It was the scientific establishment of Galileo’s day—not the theologians—who fought the hardest to get the Pope to preserve the pagan geocentric model of Aristotle/Ptolemy.”
—Can you give any examples of these scientists?
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about. The Aristotelian philosophy was endorsed by the Church. St. Thomas Aquinus was a very influential Aristotelian.
The Solar System doesn't rotate around the Earth. The Milky Way doesn't rotate around the Earth. The cluster of galaxies we are in doesn't rotate around the Earth, yet you want us to believe that the Universe does. No wonder people like you turn reasonable people away from religion.
Who was this top theologian?
I have no quarrel with that interpretation. But I'm sure the next line--"You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains"--is supposed to refer to the literal Flood. But then later--"who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke"--is metaphorical again: surely no theologian worth his salt would claim that volcanoes are caused by the touch of God!
It's just fascinating to me the way the parts that are meant to be interpreted and the parts that are meant to be taken literally are all side-by-side like that--sometimes even in the same sentence--and yet everyone's so sure they know which part is which.
See #28. Interesting that we're supposed to take "should never be moved" as true only in a spiritual or relativistic sense, but other sections have to be taken absolutely literally. I am filled with admiration for those who can so clearly see which is which.
just another old dead white genius who stole all his ideas from primitive folks who ate one another and sacrifice their young on pikes
right?
The stars would have to be exceeding the speed of light ...
You make yourself an idiot.
We have no frame of reference from which to say what anything is doing.
Very low reading comprehension, and falling...
How in the world do your fingers ever hit the keyboard?
You still haven’t explained what force could move the massive Sun around the tiny Earth while leaving the Earth motionless.
And even GGG thinks your position is ludicrous and tries to blame it on pagan thinking.
Do you think you are effected by pagan thinking?
The forces remain the same moron.
The relative motions remain the same; the only thing that changes is the assumption of the origin of the coordinates. Albert Einstein developed it mathematically to prove the point.
Coordinate systems don't explain forces, only motion.
Einstein developed no mathematical model that would explain the forces necessary to move the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension.
And do you think your Geocentricism is influenced by pagan thought as GGG opines?
And OF COURSE the forces don’t remain the same.
The force I am speaking of is the gravitational attraction of the MASSIVE sun upon the teeny tiny Earth.
What forces you are talking about is some vague appeal to planetary and other celestial bodies gravity without any explanation how they could have such a disproportionate effect upon the motion of the (once again for those of you in Rio Linda) MASSIVE Sun, while leaving the Earth motionless.
You must be really stupid.
All the forces remain the same. If they did not, the relationships would change. Study a little relativity; it’s not that hard.
Relativity doesn't explain how the force of the Sun's gravity upon the Earth is exactly counteracted such that the Earth doesn’t move in orbit around the Sun.
But thanks for pointing out just what depths of ignorance and denial of reality creationism leads to.
So do you base your Geocentricism upon pagan thinking as GGG claims?
Cut the ignorant prattle!
Relativity definitely does explain how every coordinate system is equivalent. Learn and shut up!
The gravity of the Sun (a force)keeps the Earth in its orbit (its motion can be described by a coordinate system).
Thus the gravity of the Sun is both necessary and sufficient to explain the coordinate system of the Earth moving in orbit around the Sun. You have not detailed a force necessary or sufficient to move the MASSIVE Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless.
So is your Geocentricism based upon Pagan thinking as GGG maintains?
If evos didn't demand that Christians and creationists take the entire Bible literally, they'd have no ammunition to use against them.
The only way evos can argue against creationism/Christianity, is to misrepresent them and what they believe so that they can knock down the strawman they erected.
Evos can only make progress in the crevo debates when the misrepresent their opponents. That’s why they harp on geocentrism and flat earth and pi=3, because they don’t have anything to counter what Scripture REALLY says.
LINCOLN’S GHOST TALKS TO OBAMA
Actually, I give more credence to WWN than your source.
>>Relativity definitely does explain how every coordinate system is equivalent. Learn and shut up!<<
You are the greatest friend/example that people who understand science could ever want or need.
Have a blessed day.
You are fake, and all know it.
Well, since the real value of pi represented in the word is sufficiently accurate to manufacture any necessary implement, and is in use to this day, I welcome their pi = 3 ignorance. It illustrates their lack of truthfulness well.
>>You are fake, and all know it.<<
Yeah, sure — this from the 0bama supporter and long-time troll.
Your continued attempts to make FR look stupid continue to FAIL. But only because many of us point it out to the reading public.
Thank you for the confession, Obama butt boy, and troll!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.