The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

[Adrift]

Again, feel free to actually use the BIBLE as your source for what the bible actually says. Go on, I will wait.

https://www.biblegateway.com/

Again, O'Niell adds some much needed context to the whole Galileo affair,

https://historyforatheists.com/2018/...d-publication/

Source: THE GREAT MYTHS 6: COPERNICUS’ DEATHBED PUBLICATION by Tim O'Niell

In 1559 Thomas Hill published The School of SkillDe revolutionibusIn The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus CopernicusHistory of ScienceCultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, TransformationSetting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of GalileoPrincipia Mathematica

© Copyright Original Source

And more directly here,

https://historyforatheists.com/2019/...rything-wrong/

Source: “ARON RA” GETS EVERYTHING WRONG by Tim O'Niell

Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Feel free to show me where it does. Here is a link to an online bible site:

https://www.biblegateway.com/

If I am wrong I will admit it.

People read verses about the sun setting, rising or standing still and think the bible is a science textbook. It isn't. It doesn't mention orbits or the Earth is in the center of the universe, or the moon and sun go around the earth, or that the earth is flat or round. It just talks about such thing in the vernacular, just as we do today.

And someone using the inaccurate views expressed in the language common for the time and place is not the same as affirming those mistaken views. The obvious example is like when, for example, an astronomer says "sunrise" or "sundown" that is not meant as some sort of verification for geocentrism but just using a common expression.

[rogue06]

Again, O'Niell adds some much needed context to the whole Galileo affair,

https://historyforatheists.com/2018/...d-publication/

Source: THE GREAT MYTHS 6: COPERNICUS’ DEATHBED PUBLICATION by Tim O'Niell

In 1559 Thomas Hill published The School of SkillDe revolutionibusIn The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus CopernicusHistory of ScienceCultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, TransformationSetting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of GalileoPrincipia Mathematica

© Copyright Original Source

And more directly here,

https://historyforatheists.com/2019/...rything-wrong/

Source: “ARON RA” GETS EVERYTHING WRONG by Tim O'Niell

Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari

© Copyright Original Source

While all of this is true we should not therefore overlook the fact that Galileo was facing charges of heresy -- not because he disagreed with the scientific consensus but because he was contradicting what theologians and church officials declared what the Bible taught.

[Charles]

What I said was that the bible never says anything about the sun orbiting the earth, or the planets, or any other detail of the Geocentric model. The Geocentric model was a scientific theory, as scientific as Copernicus's theory. Based on observations and math, it gave an accurate prediction of the positions of the planets, stars, sun and moon. None of those details are mentioned in the bible. Feel free to show me wrong FROM THE BIBLE.

None of those details are mentioned in your intepretation of the Bible. As history clearly shows and as I have made you aware the church was of a different opinion to the extent that they thought what Galileo promoted was heresy.

Interpretations differ. I did not make the statements the church did back then, nor do I support them. My very simple point was and is that it is interesting to note how interpretations change over time. And your statement that the Bible does not promote geocentrism is one the church back then would disagree with. That does not prove you wrong. And even if you could prove their interpretation wrong, it would not change the fact that they actually had that interpretation. And that is all I have pointed to.

[Sparko]

None of those details are mentioned in your intepretation of the Bible. As history clearly shows and as I have made you aware the church was of a different opinion to the extent that they thought what Galileo promoted was heresy.

Interpretations differ. I did not make the statements the church did back then, nor do I support them. My very simple point was and is that it is interesting to note how interpretations change over time. And your statement that the Bible does not promote geocentrism is one the church back then would disagree with. That does not prove you wrong. And even if you could prove their interpretation wrong, it would not change the fact that they actually had that interpretation. And that is all I have pointed to.

Well back to ignoring you, I guess.

I have explained myself several times, you keep trying to switch tracks, and ignore what I said and what everyone else has said.

We were talking about whether Geocentric model was scientific or just religious. Tassman claimed the latter. As I and Adrift and others have shown, it was a scientific model, very detailed and was developed by scientists who used math and observations to come up with a working theory that was ultimately proven wrong by another scientific theory. It was not just some religious nonsense.

[Charles]

Well back to ignoring you, I guess.

I have explained myself several times, you keep trying to switch tracks, and ignore what I said and what everyone else has said.

We were talking about whether Geocentric model was scientific or just religious. Tassman claimed the latter. As I and Adrift and others have shown, it was a scientific model, very detailed and was developed by scientists who used math and observations to come up with a working theory that was ultimately proven wrong by another scientific theory. It was not just some religious nonsense.

I have not said it was just religious. What I have pointed out is that - obviously - religion played a role in it. Galileo was facing charges of heresy. I have a hard time imagining you even disagree with me on that.

[Sparko]

I have not said it was just religious. What I have pointed out is that - obviously - religion played a role in it. Galileo was facing charges of heresy. I have a hard time imagining you even disagree with me on that.

Go back and read what Adrift said.

And it was Tassman who said that Geocentric was religious and not scientific:

.



which is who I responded to

You are an idiot. The geocentric model was based on observations and a lot of calculations. They even invented epicycles and the math to go with them to explain the retrograde motion of the planets. It was very much "science" - and it worked. The bible said nothing about any of it.

before you butted in.

[Charles]

Go back and read what Adrift said.

And read Rogue's comment on it: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post666865

In your answer to Tassman you forget the role religion played. I don't assume you want to try to ignore that. I pointed to it to balance things a bit. It seems you want to read a lot more into my posts.

[Adrift]

While all of this is true we should not therefore overlook the fact that Galileo was facing charges of heresy -- not because he disagreed with the scientific consensus but because he was contradicting what theologians and church officials declared what the Bible taught.

The judgement that Galileo's propositions were absurd appear to be first and foremost due to the fact that they contradicted the scientific consensus.

Christopher M. Graney, a professor of physics and astronomy, and adjunct Scholar at the Vatican Observatory, requested and received a copy of the original 1616 consultant's report against Galileo from the Vatican Secret Archives. In it, we see that there is a semi-colon between "philosophy" and "and formally" in the sentence, "All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology."

As Graney explains,

https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/in...uation-re-run/

Source: The Inquisition on Copernicus, February 24, 1616: A Little Story About Punctuation (re-run)

Almagestum Novum

© Copyright Original Source

O'Niell goes further and states, "As anyone who has actually bothered to study the Galileo Affair knows, the judgement is saying that his ideas are scientifically wrong ('false in philosophy') AND, therefore, 'formally heretical.'"

[rogue06]

What about folks like Nicholas Oresme, Albertus Magnus, William of Conches, Robert Grosseteste, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, Walter Burley, Adelard of Bath, John Dumbleton, John Peckham, Bernard Silvestris, Richard of Wallingford and Jean Buridan?

Thanks to John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White and to slightly lesser extent Thomas Huxley the myth of the Dark Ages became popular but later scholarship has utterly debunked the concept to the point that the term has been abandoned by scholars today (preferring to use "Early Middle Ages" or just "Middle Ages") because there isn't much evidence that life was any worse than during the periods before or after it.

In fact they've come to understand that not only wasn't the Christian church responsible for killing science but rather it was actually largely responsible for preserving it as a succession of one "barbarian" horde after another overran Europe for several hundred years^[1] reducing the Roman Empire to nothing but dust and vague memories.

What is ironic is that one of the first people to debunk the Dark Ages myth, the French physicist and mathematician Pierre Duhem, faced a great deal of resistance from the anti-clerical elements in the intellectual elite of his time who worked to keep his from being published. It wasn't until a little over 40 years after his death, and largely due to the efforts of his daughter Helene that the entire ten volume work was finally published in 1959.

It would do you good to read a bit of what modern scholarship has to say about the scientific achievements during Medieval times and could do worse than checking out David C. Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450 (1992), Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (2009), Edward Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (1996) and God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001), and James Hannam's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (2009).

In fact here is what an atheist reviewer of the last work had to say about the entire "Dark Ages" myth:

Source: The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews “God’s Philosophers”

The Christian Dark Age and Other Hysterical Myths

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.

So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena.

The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually, rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages. Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition, prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance saved us all from Medieval darkness.

The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly indefatigable idea range from the touchingly clumsy to the utterly shocking, but it remains one of those things that "everybody knows" and permeates modern culture. A recent episode of Family Guy had Stewie and Brian enter a futuristic alternative world where, it was explained, things were so advanced because Christianity didn't destroy learning, usher in the Dark Ages and stifle science. The writers didn't see the need to explain what Stewie meant - they assumed everyone understood.

About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis". That evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture.

And, almost without fail, someone digs up a graphic (see below), which I have come to dub "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", and to flourish it triumphantly as though it is proof of something other than the fact that most people are utterly ignorant of history and unable to see that something called "Scientific Advancement" can't be measured, let alone plotted on a graph.

00000000000000a00aa0.gif

It's not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one - just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.


Source

[*Emphases in original*]

© Copyright Original Source

O'Neill says a great deal more concerning the topic which can be seen by following the link provided. And keep in mind, this is an atheist source and not from a Christian apologist.










1. First came the Germanic tribes like the various Goths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii, Jutes and Franks, followed by groups like the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars and Alans and finally the Vikings, Normans, Hungarians and Moors.

[Mountain Man]

Thanks to John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White and to slightly lesser extent Thomas Huxley the myth of the Dark Ages became popular but later scholarship has utterly debunked the concept to the point that the term has been abandoned by scholars today (preferring to use "Early Middle Ages" or just "Middle Ages") because there isn't much evidence that life was any worse than during the periods before or after it.

As I understand it, the term "Dark Ages" was originally used by scholars because it was a period of history that we knew so little about, hence it was "dark".

[Mountain Man]

While all of this is true we should not therefore overlook the fact that Galileo was facing charges of heresy -- not because he disagreed with the scientific consensus but because he was contradicting what theologians and church officials declared what the Bible taught.

He chose to make it a theological issue when his ideas were rejected by the scientific community. Of course he didn't help his cause when he openly insulted even those in the Church who supported him.

[Tassman]

What about folks like Nicholas Oresme, Albertus Magnus, William of Conches, Robert Grosseteste, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, Walter Burley, Adelard of Bath, John Dumbleton, John Peckham, Bernard Silvestris, Richard of Wallingford and Jean Buridan?

Thanks to John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White and to slightly lesser extent Thomas Huxley the myth of the Dark Ages became popular but later scholarship has utterly debunked the concept to the point that the term has been abandoned by scholars today (preferring to use "Early Middle Ages" or just "Middle Ages") because there isn't much evidence that life was any worse than during the periods before or after it.

In fact they've come to understand that not only wasn't the Christian church responsible for killing science but rather it was actually largely responsible for preserving it as a succession of one "barbarian" horde after another overran Europe for several hundred years^[1] reducing the Roman Empire to nothing but dust and vague memories.

What is ironic is that one of the first people to debunk the Dark Ages myth, the French physicist and mathematician Pierre Duhem, faced a great deal of resistance from the anti-clerical elements in the intellectual elite of his time who worked to keep his from being published. It wasn't until a little over 40 years after his death, and largely due to the efforts of his daughter Helene that the entire ten volume work was finally published in 1959.

It would do you good to read a bit of what modern scholarship has to say about the scientific achievements during Medieval times and could do worse than checking out David C. Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450 (1992), Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (2009), Edward Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (1996) and God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001), and James Hannam's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (2009).

In fact here is what an atheist reviewer of the last work had to say about the entire "Dark Ages" myth:

Source: The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews “God’s Philosophers”

The Christian Dark Age and Other Hysterical Myths

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing.

So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena.

The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually, rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages. Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition, prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance saved us all from Medieval darkness.

The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly indefatigable idea range from the touchingly clumsy to the utterly shocking, but it remains one of those things that "everybody knows" and permeates modern culture. A recent episode of Family Guy had Stewie and Brian enter a futuristic alternative world where, it was explained, things were so advanced because Christianity didn't destroy learning, usher in the Dark Ages and stifle science. The writers didn't see the need to explain what Stewie meant - they assumed everyone understood.

About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis". That evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture.

And, almost without fail, someone digs up a graphic (see below), which I have come to dub "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", and to flourish it triumphantly as though it is proof of something other than the fact that most people are utterly ignorant of history and unable to see that something called "Scientific Advancement" can't be measured, let alone plotted on a graph.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39539[/ATTACH]

It's not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one - just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa - and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.


Source

[*Emphases in original*]

© Copyright Original Source

O'Neill says a great deal more concerning the topic which can be seen by following the link provided. And keep in mind, this is an atheist source and not from a Christian apologist.










1. First came the Germanic tribes like the various Goths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii, Jutes and Franks, followed by groups like the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars and Alans and finally the Vikings, Normans, Hungarians and Moors.

stylehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/

[rogue06]

stylehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/

It would help if you actually knew what a Gish Gallop was rather than just ignorantly slinging it about in the same manner that a 4 year old uses a swear word he overheard and has no idea what it means but is only aware that it is something bad.

A Gish Gallop is when a debater throws out a myriad of unrelated or at best loosely connected claims in an attempt to swamp his opponent. It is usually used in oral debates where there is a limited amount of time and it is impossible to address each charge leaving the usually false impression that the person was incapable of answering some of the claims and hence they might be valid.

In sharp contrast I'm making a single claim -- namely that the notion of a Dark Ages has been discredited and offered something like four examples to substantiate my claim.

I understand that someone actually offering corroboration for what they say rather than merely mindlessly repeating the initial claim over and over ad nauseam without bothering to substantiate it may be an alien concept for you but it isn't for the vast majority of those who post here.


ETA: And while Bacon typically gets the credit, others were advocating for or using similar methods starting with groups like the Stoics and the Greek philosopher Epicurus and later by such figures as Ibn al-Haytham (a.k.a., Alhazen)^[1], Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, William of Ockham and Robert Grosseteste (the latter of whom inspired Bacon)



1. He introduced experimental method and combines observations, experiments and rational arguments in his 7 volume Kitāb al-Manāẓir ("Book of Optics") nearly two centuries before Bacon.

[rogue06]

Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo

And from the unanimous opinion of the Inquisition at Rome:

The first proposition, that the sun is the center and does not revolve about the earth is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture ... the second proposition, that the earth is not the center but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith.

Others like Father Lecazre, the eminent theological authority and rector of the College of Dijon, described Galileo's research as "cast[ing] suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation"

It was his insistence that his discoveries needed to be taken into account when interpreting Scripture that got him in trouble especially since he wasn't able to provide truly convincing evidence to support them (that would come from Kepler and some others).