Any stargazers out there...?

[slimslob]

How about the bible?

Maybe you need to actually read the Bible. What you claim was in it wasn't. You are reading things into it that never were there, just like the medieval Europeans did. Do you think you are living in the dark ages?

[theengel]

Who got scientific knowledge from the bible?

[emujo2]

My point exactly..thanks. E

[theengel]

Who THOUGHT they were getting scientific knowledge from the bible?

Oh well--instead of trying to draw this out, giving him enough rope to hang himself, I'll go straight to the point.

The Catholic Church has done more for the sciences than any other institution, historically. Scientists, mathematicians, physicists, and the like have never relied on the bible for their knowledge. The knowledge we have today, is all based on the teaching and knowledge given to us by the Catholic Church. The church has never tried to keep scientists from discovering the truth--nor have they hindered discovery.

[emujo2]

The church was very powerful in the 16th century..They taught that the earth was the center of the universe..Those that did not adhere to the churches beliefs were heritics and coould be jailed or executed. The church got its ideas from somewhere, maybe not the bible, but my point is that if the church was still holding sway over scientific beliefs based on theology, then we would not know that we revolve around the sun, are just 1 of billions of galaxies, and the earth is 5 billion years old..E

[slimslob]

The church was very powerful in the 16th century..They taught that the earth was the center of the universe..Those that did not adhere to the churches beliefs were heritics and coould be jailed or executed. The church got its ideas from somewhere, maybe not the bible, but my point is that if the church was still holding sway over scientific beliefs based on theology, then we would not know that we revolve around the sun, are just 1 of billions of galaxies, and the earth is 5 billion years old..E

The Catholic Church created the idea. Remember, the Pope was the center of the Church. Since the Pope was here on the Earth, the Earth had to be the center of the universe because everything revolved around the Pope. It is what can happen when humans are appointed to lifetime positions of power.

[theengel]

The church was very powerful in the 16th century..They taught that the earth was the center of the universe..Those that did not adhere to the churches beliefs were heritics and coould be jailed or executed. The church got its ideas from somewhere, maybe not the bible, but my point is that if the church was still holding sway over scientific beliefs based on theology, then we would not know that we revolve around the sun, are just 1 of billions of galaxies, and the earth is 5 billion years old..E

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.

[slimslob]

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.

Oh, and you were alive in the 16th century, January 1, 1501 to December 31, 1600 inclusive? The 1600s is the 17th century not the 16th.

[copier addict]

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.

We better not get into how utterly horrible the Catholic church was and still is and get back to talking about stargazing

[emujo2]

Well now you're in for it..Attacking the good ol Catholic church..Nothing to see here folks..move along..