Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[Charles]

Oh, you mean like what you did?


I think what "works"? Did you even read what you quoted? The problem wasn't that Galileo argued in favor of heliocentrism, the problem was that he insisted it was true despite the lack of proof. Remember, he had gotten permission from the Pope to publish his book, and several of the judges argued that the book should continue to be published, so the Church was obviously not staunchly opposed to exploring a competing hypothesis so long as there were facts to support it. It's likely that if Galileo had better evidence, was more humble, and didn't intentionally piss off the Pope then he wouldn't have had a problem. The Church encouraged scientific discovery; what it discouraged was scientific dogmatism.

So why does the text I pointed to insist that part of the problem is that it contradicts scripture? Why is that one of the main points? Why does it not seem to say but rather to contradict what you are saying?

[lilpixieofterror]

Personal attacks. And none of what you have said changes the content of the quotes I provided in which it is clearly stated that heliocentrism is absurd because it contradicts the bible. Did you bother to read that? If so then what have you got to say about it?

I see you like whining about 'personal attacks' when the fact you can't read or think yourself out of a wet paper bag is apparent. So what if people of the time thought the Bible taught a geocentric view of the universe? Everyone, from the ancient Greeks to those living in the early modern period thought the same thing and it wasn't until Christians understood enough to question such a model. So can you please show how a wrong view of the universe, based upon a literalist understanding of the Bible proves anything?

[Charles]

You are aware that Pope Urban VIII allowed Galileo to write his book under the condition that he gave arguments for and against the heliocentric model, right? If Galileo would have been more careful, he would have been fine. Even Wikipedia says this much, did you even bother to read a thing before you opened your mouth?

You do remember he was not allowed to come to a definitive conclusion and he had to acknowledge devine omnipotence? And of course both you and Mountain Man remember that in 1616 heliocentrism was declared heretical by this church that just really, really loved science?

[Mountain Man]

So why does the text I pointed to insist that part of the problem is that it contradicts scripture? Why is that one of the main points? Why does it not seem to say but rather to contradict what you are saying?

Sure, you can continue to ignore 99% of what your source says on the matter. I'm well aware that intellectual dishonesty comes easily to you.

[Charles]

I see you like whining about 'personal attacks' when the fact you can't read or think yourself out of a wet paper bag is apparent. So what if people of the time thought the Bible taught a geocentric view of the universe? Everyone, from the ancient Greeks to those living in the early modern period thought the same thing and it wasn't until Christians understood enough to question such a model. So can you please show how a wrong view of the universe, based upon a literalist understanding of the Bible proves anything?

The ancient greeks held the view for quite different reasons. They did so based upon observations that would seem to point in that direction. The church defended the view long after it was outdated not for scientific but for religious reasons. That is the difference in short. Aristotle would have no reason to feel humiliated when proven wrong while the church clearly did.

The old greeks even allowed for people to hold different views. Aristarchus was a heliocentric hundreds of years before Christ. He was not treated like Galileo.

[Charles]

Sure, you can continue to ignore 99% of what your source says on the matter. I'm well aware that intellectual dishonesty comes easily to you.

So you cannot answer the question? I am not ignoring any part. It seems you want to ignore the part that clearly contradicts you.

[Mountain Man]

So you cannot answer the question? I am not ignoring any part. It seems you want to ignore the part that clearly contradicts you.

I did answer the question by quoting extensively from the source that you provided which made it clear that it was a political and not a theological issue.

Here's another source for you to ignore:

Source: Catholic Answers

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Any "useful information" from 'Answers in Genesis' is hopelessly compromised by its Apologetic agenda. It assumes its conclusions in advance...basically 'god-did-it'. It is, as it says in its website: "dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively". This is its goal, not impartial research.

Any "useful information" from you is no less compromised.

Just sayin'.

[rogue06]

You do remember he was not allowed to come to a definitive conclusion and he had to acknowledge devine omnipotence? And of course both you and Mountain Man remember that in 1616 heliocentrism was declared heretical by this church that just really, really loved science?

He was not allowed to describe heliocentrism as a fact unless he was able to provide the evidence which showed it was a fact. He thought he did but scientists today note that he actually miscalculated. As for acknowledging "'devine' omnipotence," from everything I've read about Galileo that was not a problem for him.

[rogue06]

I did answer the question by quoting extensively from the source that you provided which made it clear that it was a political and not a theological issue.

It was both and a bit more.

[rogue06]

The ancient greeks held the view for quite different reasons. They did so based upon observations that would seem to point in that direction. The church defended the view long after it was outdated not for scientific but for religious reasons. That is the difference in short. Aristotle would have no reason to feel humiliated when proven wrong while the church clearly did.

The old greeks even allowed for people to hold different views. Aristarchus was a heliocentric hundreds of years before Christ. He was not treated like Galileo.

[lilpixieofterror]

You do remember he was not allowed to come to a definitive conclusion and he had to acknowledge devine omnipotence?

So? Yet again I'm still waiting for you to explain how an interpretation being wrong means the Bible must be wrong too.

And of course both you and Mountain Man remember that in 1616 heliocentrism was declared heretical by this church that just really, really loved science?

And was declared bad science, by the scientific community too. A fact you seem to gloss over, why?

[lilpixieofterror]

The ancient greeks held the view for quite different reasons. They did so based upon observations that would seem to point in that direction.

Using the evidence and observations that they had at the time, can you prove that the earth is in motion or that the sun orbited the earth? Face it Charles, even many of today's scientist have said that Galileo made a compelling, but not convincing case.

The church defended the view long after it was outdated not for scientific but for religious reasons.

So why do actual scientist say Galileo didn't make a compelling enough case and joined the church in condemning the heliocentric model?

That is the difference in short. Aristotle would have no reason to feel humiliated when proven wrong while the church clearly did.

Apparently you're unaware how badly the Greeks dealt with disagreement. Aristotle didn't step on the wrong persons toes.

The old greeks even allowed for people to hold different views. Aristarchus was a heliocentric hundreds of years before Christ. He was not treated like Galileo.

And you seem to flat ignore how the Greeks treated those who stepped on the toes of those in charge. Wasn't it the Greeks that sentenced Socrates to die by drinking poison or did you forget that little fact? It seems your mode of operation is simply to flat ignore stuff you don't like. The Greeks had no problems executing those who stepped on the elites toes. The church put Galileo under house arrest and even many clergy had issues with this and defended Galileo at his trial. You might want to at least study this stuff. Might keep all the egg off your face next time.

[lilpixieofterror]

He was not allowed to describe heliocentrism as a fact unless he was able to provide the evidence which showed it was a fact. He thought he did but scientists today note that he actually miscalculated. As for acknowledging "'devine' omnipotence," from everything I've read about Galileo that was not a problem for him.

And he also discounted the fact he was wrong about tides and couldn't explain why there was two high tides. The fact is that Galileo was a pretty smart guy and did advance scientific understanding, but some of his understanding was flawed and took around a century to correct. Of course, he wasn't even working with a newton level of physics, so he didn't do half bad.

[Tassman]

So why does the text I pointed to insist that part of the problem is that it contradicts scripture? Why is that one of the main points? Why does it not seem to say but rather to contradict what you are saying?

For the obvious reason that bible-based religious presuppositions took precedence over empirically verified science. Sadly it still does, among many Evangelicals, including MM.