Any stargazers out there...?

[theengel]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

I'm talking about the Church's contribution to astronomy and the fact that those who make ignorant accusations have very little historical knowledge of it... and very often have very little astronomical knowledge as well.

[Copier Addict]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

I hate to say this, but you're just flat-out wrong. The church taught no such thing. Many of the intellectuals in the church may have believed so, but their adherence was to the mathematical systems created by Nicolaus Copernicus... not because it was concerned with what revolved around what, but because it was the accepted tool for predicting the movement of the stars and planets. For the people in that day, it worked. And creating a new system, with new equations, meant ALL the schools (most of which were created by and run by the Catholic Church) would have to change. And besides--no new system had proven itself more accurate at the time.

It's idiotic statements like that that perpetuate the incorrect idea that science and religion are somehow at odds with each other. They aren't. They never were.

Galileo (that's the one that uneducated finger pointers love to talk about, generally because it's the only one they know of, even though they've never done a bit of research on the subject) supported a new idea. He was told not to publish it, because it was at odds with what thousands of scholars had already learned. The same way Stephen Hawking supported a new idea that was at odds with what the scientific community believes. Galileo ended up being right. Hawking, after many years of trying to convince people, ended up being wrong... even though he convinced a lot of band wagoners he was right.

But if the scholars today were a little more skeptical, as they were in the 1600s, they might have avoided embarrassment.

There is more pseudo-science and ridiculous theories floating around today than there EVER were in the 'dark' ages.

Here is some research.

Galileo is convicted of heresy - HISTORY

[theengel]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

Well, it's on the internet, so it must be true.

Come on, you're smart enough not to call that 'research.'

which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church

This statement, in the very first paragraph, was all I needed to know that this article is just a repeat of what a bunch of other people who didn't research wrote down.

The church is famous for their record keeping. So show me the records stating this 'conviction.' Actually, if anyone is in any way deemed heretical, that means they have to publicly teach AGAINST church teaching. So show me the teaching that Galileo taught against. It amazes me that some of these big names can get away with just writing ANYTHING and never having any documentation to give any evidence.

Remember, Catholic teaching has been the same for 2000 years. All you have to do is find the church teaching that states what Galileo publicly opposed, or vice versa. You've got 2000 years to find a single statement made by any pope ex cathedra, and I would gladly concede.

[Copier Addict]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

Well, it's on the internet, so it must be true.

Come on, you're smart enough not to call that 'research.'



This statement, in the very first paragraph, was all I needed to know that this article is just a repeat of what a bunch of other people who didn't research wrote down.

The church is famous for their record keeping. So show me the records stating this 'conviction.' Actually, if anyone is in any way deemed heretical, that means they have to publicly teach AGAINST church teaching. So show me the teaching that Galileo taught against. It amazes me that some of these big names can get away with just writing ANYTHING and never having any documentation to give any evidence.

Remember, Catholic teaching has been the same for 2000 years. All you have to do is find the church teaching that states what Galileo publicly opposed, or vice versa. You've got 2000 years to find a single statement made by any pope ex cathedra, and I would gladly concede.

So am I to understand you have studied 2000 years of Catholic church documents?

[slimslob]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

So am I to understand you have studied 2000 years of Catholic church documents?

From his posts you would think he was alive back then.

[emujo2]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

We base our understanding on what happened in the past based on what we've been taught, read or seen on TV, web ect, yet somehow, everyone of has got it wrong and his version of the events of the past is the correct one. Please lend me your time machine so I can go back with you and watch as dinosaurs and cave man walked together..E

[theengel]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

So am I to understand you have studied 2000 years of Catholic church documents?

Of course I have. But see, I don't have to. I'm not out making outrageous claims. I don't have to prove a negative. That's not how it works. It's on you, who claims the Church convicted someone of heresy for believing the heliocentric theory. You're the one making a claim and it's on your shoulders to give any evidence. Any evidence at all.

But you won't. I'm sure you could come up with another pointless 'comeback' that doesn't prove anything (or even makes any sense in context with the conversation) and maybe get a high-five from someone of emuj's caliber. But backing up your smack talk--that's something you WON'T do.

[Copier Addict]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

Of course I have. But see, I don't have to. I'm not out making outrageous claims. I don't have to prove a negative. That's not how it works. It's on you, who claims the Church convicted someone of heresy for believing the heliocentric theory. You're the one making a claim and it's on your shoulders to give any evidence. Any evidence at all.

But you won't. I'm sure you could come up with another pointless 'comeback' that doesn't prove anything (or even makes any sense in context with the conversation) and maybe get a high-five from someone of emuj's caliber. But backing up your smack talk--that's something you WON'T do.

Sorry, but you are the one making bold statements about how the church was so progressive when they were and still are the exact opposite.

It sounds like your argument is that he wasn't "charged" ?with heresy. I'll give you that one. He was however held under house arrest for until his death for his views on the sun and earth and which one orbited the other.

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" (though he was never formally charged with heresy, relieving him of facing corporal punishment[97]), namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[98][99][100][101]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[102] On the following day, this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.[103]

[theengel]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

See what happens when you do just a LITTLE research?

[Copier Addict]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

See what happens when you do just a LITTLE research?

That isn't a win for you. He still had his freedom taken away simply because his views, the truth, contradicted the church.
The church didn't bring astronomy forward, it was dragged kicking and screaming to the truth

[theengel]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

Pardon me, but you've just conceded that Galileo was not convicted of heresy.

Imagine how far you'd have gotten if you'd dug just a little deeper...

Like, you might have found that the Inquisition that 'condemned' Galileo was an office originally set up by the pope, but that it quickly turned into a political tool. Galileo comes at a time when huge portions of the population are just getting away from the idea of astrology--and that was brought on by the Catholic church.

Imagine for a second, most of the world believes that the movement of the stars is an expression of 'the gods'. The Catholic church is the one to finally convince scholars that it might be a perpetuating system of motion--a predictable one. Copernicus, backed by the church, came up with a mathematical system for PREDICTING planetary and stellar movement. That, in itself, is an incredible feat. Within a hundred years (and this is before they had mass communication) the church had taught this system to thousands of people, even though it completely went against what had been taught previously. Clerics, who did not understand the math behind his system, were wowed into belief. That was one of the first really big breakthroughs. Copernicus had it wrong, but his premise that there was a natural and cyclical movement in the heavens wasn't.

A hundred years later, Galileo comes along with another system. One NOT known at the time, and he's trying to teach it to bishops who'd already been told that Copernicus had it right. Another big change like that was hard to swallow--not just by the church but by civilization as a whole. And while the political force of the day (the Inquisition) condemned him for it, the secret was out and it didn't take long for the church to accept it.

Your accusation that the church stifled scientific study is as ignorant as the the claim that the medical professionals stifled the findings of Louis Pasteur. And I'm sure you can find public statements and legal documents condemning Pasteur, because that's exactly what happened. Pasteur was a pioneer who challenged 'settled science.' He was revolutionary. And he was right. He proved the scientists of the day wrong. But to say that the scientists of the day were stifling scientific discovery is just stupid. The scientists of the day were defending what they thought to be truth. They were protecting the industry from fraud... which they had every right and obligation to do.

The inquisition was doing the same thing. The men who condemned Galileo didn't understand his system--any more than they understood the system of Copernicus. They were protecting the world against fraud, as they had every right and obligation to do... as they were commissioned to do by the church and by sovereign governments. But the mere fact that they had anything to protect is evidence of the church's contribution to the sciences.

What if there were a major discovery today? One that slapped 'settled science' in the face? It would not be accepted at first. It would be ridiculed. So would that mean that ALL those who argue with it are stifling science?

That's a position impossible to defend.

[Copier Addict]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

Pardon me, but you've just conceded that Galileo was not convicted of heresy.

Imagine how far you'd have gotten if you'd dug just a little deeper...

Like, you might have found that the Inquisition that 'condemned' Galileo was an office originally set up by the pope, but that it quickly turned into a political tool. Galileo comes at a time when huge portions of the population are just getting away from the idea of astrology--and that was brought on by the Catholic church.

Imagine for a second, most of the world believes that the movement of the stars is an expression of 'the gods'. The Catholic church is the one to finally convince scholars that it might be a perpetuating system of motion--a predictable one. Copernicus, backed by the church, came up with a mathematical system for PREDICTING planetary and stellar movement. That, in itself, is an incredible feat. Within a hundred years (and this is before they had mass communication) the church had taught this system to thousands of people, even though it completely went against what had been taught previously. Clerics, who did not understand the math behind his system, were wowed into belief. That was one of the first really big breakthroughs. Copernicus had it wrong, but his premise that there was a natural and cyclical movement in the heavens wasn't.

A hundred years later, Galileo comes along with another system. One NOT known at the time, and he's trying to teach it to bishops who'd already been told that Copernicus had it right. Another big change like that was hard to swallow--not just by the church but by civilization as a whole. And while the political force of the day (the Inquisition) condemned him for it, the secret was out and it didn't take long for the church to accept it.

Your accusation that the church stifled scientific study is as ignorant as the the claim that the medical professionals stifled the findings of Louis Pasteur. And I'm sure you can find public statements and legal documents condemning Pasteur, because that's exactly what happened. Pasteur was a pioneer who challenged 'settled science.' He was revolutionary. And he was right. He proved the scientists of the day wrong. But to say that the scientists of the day were stifling scientific discovery is just stupid. The scientists of the day were defending what they thought to be truth. They were protecting the industry from fraud... which they had every right and obligation to do.

The inquisition was doing the same thing. The men who condemned Galileo didn't understand his system--any more than they understood the system of Copernicus. They were protecting the world against fraud, as they had every right and obligation to do... as they were commissioned to do by the church and by sovereign governments. But the mere fact that they had anything to protect is evidence of the church's contribution to the sciences.

What if there were a major discovery today? One that slapped 'settled science' in the face? It would not be accepted at first. It would be ridiculed. So would that mean that ALL those who argue with it are stifling science?

That's a position impossible to defend.

Thanks, but I'm done with this. You have your opinion and I see how much the catholic church still refuses to move forward. Good luck

[slimslob]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

Pardon me, but you've just conceded that Galileo was not convicted of heresy.

Imagine how far you'd have gotten if you'd dug just a little deeper...

Like, you might have found that the Inquisition that 'condemned' Galileo was an office originally set up by the pope, but that it quickly turned into a political tool. Galileo comes at a time when huge portions of the population are just getting away from the idea of astrology--and that was brought on by the Catholic church.

Imagine for a second, most of the world believes that the movement of the stars is an expression of 'the gods'. The Catholic church is the one to finally convince scholars that it might be a perpetuating system of motion--a predictable one. Copernicus, backed by the church, came up with a mathematical system for PREDICTING planetary and stellar movement. That, in itself, is an incredible feat. Within a hundred years (and this is before they had mass communication) the church had taught this system to thousands of people, even though it completely went against what had been taught previously. Clerics, who did not understand the math behind his system, were wowed into belief. That was one of the first really big breakthroughs. Copernicus had it wrong, but his premise that there was a natural and cyclical movement in the heavens wasn't.

A hundred years later, Galileo comes along with another system. One NOT known at the time, and he's trying to teach it to bishops who'd already been told that Copernicus had it right. Another big change like that was hard to swallow--not just by the church but by civilization as a whole. And while the political force of the day (the Inquisition) condemned him for it, the secret was out and it didn't take long for the church to accept it.

Your accusation that the church stifled scientific study is as ignorant as the the claim that the medical professionals stifled the findings of Louis Pasteur. And I'm sure you can find public statements and legal documents condemning Pasteur, because that's exactly what happened. Pasteur was a pioneer who challenged 'settled science.' He was revolutionary. And he was right. He proved the scientists of the day wrong. But to say that the scientists of the day were stifling scientific discovery is just stupid. The scientists of the day were defending what they thought to be truth. They were protecting the industry from fraud... which they had every right and obligation to do.

The inquisition was doing the same thing. The men who condemned Galileo didn't understand his system--any more than they understood the system of Copernicus. They were protecting the world against fraud, as they had every right and obligation to do... as they were commissioned to do by the church and by sovereign governments. But the mere fact that they had anything to protect is evidence of the church's contribution to the sciences.

What if there were a major discovery today? One that slapped 'settled science' in the face? It would not be accepted at first. It would be ridiculed. So would that mean that ALL those who argue with it are stifling science?

That's a position impossible to defend.

Have you ever read any of Immanuel Velikovsky books or are you one of those who ridicule and reject his works? A good place to start and in keeping with the title of this thread is Stargazers and Gravediggers: Memoirs to Worlds in Collision. There are also his earlier works:

Ages in Chaos: A reconstruction of ancient history from the Exodus to King Akhnaton
Ages in Chaos I: From the Exodus to King Akhnaton
Ages in Chaos II: Ramses II and his times
Ages in Chaos III: Peoples of the sea
Worlds in Collision
Earth in Upheaval

For a little lighter reading there is Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History in 1945, where he claimed that the history of the ancient Near East down to the time of Alexander the Great is garbled.

[theengel]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

Thanks, but I'm done with this.

I'm sure you are.

[FrohnB]

Re: Any stargazers out there...?

Closest pictures of Sun reveal mysterious '''campfires'''spacecraft