ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Science vs Galileo

As most readers of this blog know, the "Flat Earth Church vs Galileo" narrative is mostly revisionist history that has been completely mischaracterized by atheists who fucking love science because they believe it disproves the existence of the Baby Jesus. But what is interesting is that there was a considerable amount of scientific opposition to Galileo at the time as well, which is of course ignored by the ahistorical atheist narrative:
In 1614, when the telescope was new technology, a young man in Germany published a book filled with illustrations of the exciting new things being discovered telescopically: moons circling Jupiter, moon-like phases of Venus, spots on the Sun, the rough and cratered lunar surface. The young man was Johann Georg Locher, and his book was Mathematical Disquisitions Concerning Astronomical Controversies and Novelties. And while Locher heaped praise upon Galileo, he challenged ideas that Galileo championed – on scientific grounds.

You see, Locher was an anti-Copernican, a fan of the ancient astronomer Ptolemy, and a student within the Establishment (his mentor was Christoph Scheiner, a prominent Jesuit astronomer). Locher argued that Copernicus was wrong about Earth circling the Sun, and that Earth was fixed in place, at the centre of the Universe, like Ptolemy said. But Locher was making no religious argument. Yes, he said, a moving Earth messes with certain Biblical passages, like Joshua telling the Sun to stand still. But it also messes with certain astronomical terms, such as sunrise and sunset. Copernicans had work-arounds for all that, Locher said, even though they might be convoluted. What Copernicans could not work around, though, were the scientific arguments against their theory. Indeed, Locher even proposed a mechanism to explain how Earth could orbit the Sun (a sort of perpetual falling – this decades before Isaac Newton would explain orbits by means of perpetual falling), but he said it would not help the Copernicans, on account of the other problems with their theory.

What were those problems? A big one was the size of stars in the Copernican universe. Copernicus proposed that certain oddities observed in the movements of planets through the constellations were due to the fact that Earth itself was moving. Stars show no such oddities, so Copernicus had to theorise that, rather than being just beyond the planets as astronomers had traditionally supposed, stars were so incredibly distant that Earth’s motion was insignificant by comparison. But seen from Earth, stars appear as dots of certain sizes or magnitudes. The only way stars could be so incredibly distant and have such sizes was if they were all incredibly huge, every last one dwarfing the Sun. Tycho Brahe, the most prominent astronomer of the era and a favourite of the Establishment, thought this was absurd, while Peter Crüger, a leading Polish mathematician, wondered how the Copernican system could ever survive in the face of the star-size problem.

Locher thought much was up in the air and ripe for study. In light of the star-size problem, he thought that the Earth clearly did not move; the Sun circled it. But the telescope made it clear that Venus circled the Sun, and that sunspots also went around the Sun. Brahe had theorised that all planets circled the Sun, while it circled Earth. Locher noted that Brahe might be right, but what was clear was that the telescope supported Ptolemy.
Granted, Locher didn't imprison Galileo. But then, he didn't have the power to do so, nor had Galileo treacherously turned on him, disregarded his wishes, and intentionally made him look like an ass in his published dialogue. The true lesson of Galileo and the Church is not one of religion and science, but rather, the price of being proud, stubborn, and socially retarded.

Labels: ,

72 Comments:

Anonymous James James March 30, 2017 6:39 AM  

The answer to the star size problem was that Galileo didn't know about diffraction. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100305/full/news.2010.105.html

Why should disregarding the wishes of the Church and making it look like an ass be grounds for imprisonment?

Blogger Silly But True March 30, 2017 6:42 AM  

Scientody versus science toadies.

Blogger JP March 30, 2017 6:42 AM  

James James wrote:Why should disregarding the wishes of the Church and making it look like an ass be grounds for imprisonment?

Because "freedom of speech" is a relatively recent invention.

Blogger VD March 30, 2017 6:48 AM  

Why should disregarding the wishes of the Church and making it look like an ass be grounds for imprisonment?

Because the Papal State was the government at the time. Try publishing something the U.S. government specifically tells you not to publish and see what happens.

Galileo didn't make the Church look like an ass, he made his former benefactor, Pope Urban VIII, look like an ass. Nobody had any sympathy for him; it wasn't a heroic act, it was a stupid dick move that cost Galileo most of his defenders.

Blogger Jew613 March 30, 2017 6:50 AM  

Galileo was an arrogant jerk who insulted the powerful in an era when doing so required the powerful to respond. By the standards of the time the Pope was very restrained in dealing with Galileo.

Blogger Skyler the Weird March 30, 2017 6:52 AM  

Freedom of speech is a recent Anglo Saxon cultural more. Those of not of that heritage that invoke the concept of Freedom of Speech are guilty of Cultural Approbation.

Blogger Lazarus March 30, 2017 6:54 AM  

proud, stubborn, and socially retarded.

Hence, a perfect atheist icon

Anonymous basementhomebrewer March 30, 2017 6:56 AM  

nor had Galileo treacherously turned on him, disregarded his wishes, and intentionally made him look like an ass in his published dialogue. The true lesson of Galileo and the Church is not one of religion and science, but rather, the price of being proud, stubborn, and socially retarded

So Galileo was a Gamma?

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) March 30, 2017 6:57 AM  

proud, stubborn, and socially retarded

Is that the real reason he's a hero to atheists?

Blogger JP March 30, 2017 7:18 AM  

No. Very very bad.

Anonymous jakob March 30, 2017 7:24 AM  

Eh, good chunk of those accusation against Catholic church and its supposed suppression of science came from Protestant propagandists rather than atheists. That said, there is some hilarity in the fact that modern atheists are unwittingly parroting what is basically the centuries-old religious propaganda.

Blogger Brian Niemeier March 30, 2017 7:46 AM  

"You see, Locher was an anti-Copernican, a fan of the ancient astronomer Ptolemy, and a student within the Establishment..."

Yep. The Galileo affair wasn't predominantly a battle between Christianity and Science. It was a flame war between Neo-Platonists and Copernicans.

And those who champion Galileo as some kind of martyr for Science conveniently overlook that: a) he couldn't answer his critics objections, e.g. lack of a global Coriolis effect, stellar parallax, etc., and b) he was right for the wrong reasons.

Making a lucky guess isn't science.

Anonymous Dyskord March 30, 2017 7:57 AM  

@jakob
Modern Atheism is a religion.
Its entire premise is based on anti-Christianity. In a sense its an alternate Satanism. Whereas modern Satanists simply invert the parables, teachings and beliefs of the Bible Atheism simply rejects it like a petulant child.
Atheists posit that human decency, science, marriage, morals, ethics etc would have developed naturally. Despite evidence provided by an increasingly secular West that without Christianity these things suffer, or cease to function.
There are even Atheists who posit nonsense like a good place exists for people who die but it is determined by some sort of vague point system where we accrue ethereal points in life. You are a good person for supporting Climate change, illegal immigrants, anything LGBTQA+, Aid in Africa, the suppression of western values etc. A Bad person is basically us.
They are selfish narcissists who question the existence of God because; natural disasters, human suffering, poverty, murder, etc as if the world should be a sort of monitored terrarium where our choices are predetermined so nothing bad can happen, we just eat and sleep and reproduce like cows. A loving Omnipotent God is too much too comprehend and to admit they have little control or understanding of the world is too frightening.
But the fault is also ours. Atheists do not get any push back. Churchians smile and cuck whenever an Atheist mentions child rape, genocide, murder, Patracide, etc in the bible. Churchians talk about forgiveness without atonement, absolution without repentance. They provide a watered down gospel perfectly suited to the current year trends which completely disillusions the young and faithful alike.

I've never heard an honest Atheist rebuttal to God. Only the selfish, narcissistic whining of narrow minded people.

Blogger Phillip George March 30, 2017 7:59 AM  

fundamental physical constants

simply aren't. Cosmology makes fools of everyone.

The last laugh: Vengeance is mine....
Men, remain, without an excuse
Happy New Year. Karaite

Blogger Nate March 30, 2017 8:02 AM  

200 years from now... humans will look back at our concept of how the universe works... and laugh at our ignorance. Things that are totally foundational to us will be completely disregarded and they will wonder how we could have been so ignorant.

Blogger exfarmkid March 30, 2017 8:04 AM  

The true lesson of Galileo and the Church is not one of religion and science, but rather, the price of being proud, stubborn, and socially retarded.

Nicely summarized Vox.

Blogger Michael Maier March 30, 2017 8:10 AM  

Lazarus wrote:proud, stubborn, and socially retarded.

Hence, a perfect atheist icon



Well-played, sir.

Anonymous Cheshirych March 30, 2017 8:16 AM  

Science vs genetics in soviet union. Also science vs cybernetics in soviet union. They all seem to run in the same way as Copernicus/Galileo vs State.

I would not try to defend Catholic Church too much as it may have been highly converged organization at that time, with agenda being different from today of course, but still agenda being very clear - defend our pyramid at all costs against any percieved threats. Where earth not being a center of the universe was seen as an ideological threat to papal power.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 30, 2017 8:18 AM  

Galileo bucked the scientific consensus of his day, which ironically the Church was happy to bow to, and paid the price.

Further irony arises when the modern atheists try to make him a victim of some superstitious witch-doctory, while insisting that we all should bow to the alleged consensus on any particular subject... take your pick: global warming alarmism, age of the earth, origin of life, etc.

What they're telling you, even as they abuse his corpse for their political purposes, is that they would have joined those who persecuted Galileo for his heresy.

Blogger plishman March 30, 2017 8:23 AM  

No, of course not one man or woman in the Church was acting in good faith. All were just self-seeking power whores.

What was it our host was saying about SJWs always projecting?

OpenID herenvardo March 30, 2017 8:34 AM  

I think now is a good time to (re-)introduce the Ilk to Mike Flynn. His Great Ptolemaic Smackdown series is da bomb:
http://tofspot.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

Blogger Orville March 30, 2017 8:42 AM  

Intransigent group-think. Nothing new there as science is still rife with it today, and in fact always has been. That's one reason why billions go into "mainstream" fusion concepts that have produced little results in over 40 years, and barely any money goes into other fusion reactor concepts like electrostatic confinement which are showing more promise, not to mention the "heresy" of LENR.

Or how about fission reactor design? Water moderators vs. thorium cooled reactor designs, or even simpler, safer pebble bed designs. The Chinese have a pebble bed reactor that is absolutely meltdown proof.

Anonymous Stickwick March 30, 2017 8:44 AM  

What is generally not well known is that Galileo also attempted to re-interpret scripture, something that was far beyond his purview, and he was warned by the Jesuits not to do. That was a major factor in his troubles with the Church.

Resident Moron: Galileo bucked the scientific consensus of his day, which ironically the Church was happy to bow to, and paid the price.

The Church didn't bow to consensus. The Ptolemaic geocentric model prevailed at the time, because the evidence -- and common sense -- favored it over the Copernican model. And there was no consensus; in fact, there were divisions within the Church over this issue.

As Butterfield pointed out, people are susceptible to a form of bias he referred to as the Whig interpretation of history. We look back on those who happened to favor theories now considered correct and see them as champions of scientific progress, irrespective of whether their evidence and reasoning warranted it at the time. Galileo may have been brilliant, but he was an imprudent man who tried to defend the Copernican model using a flawed and incorrect argument. In that regard, he was no champion of science. The Head of the Inquisition, Cardinal Bellarmine, on the other hand, was the model of scientific prudence when he said:

While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe … and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.

Anonymous Cheshirych March 30, 2017 8:46 AM  

Aha. Projection and PC detected. Mem and women of grand inquisition. Sounds like 21st century bullshit.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer March 30, 2017 8:48 AM  

Brian Niemeier wrote: b) he was right for the wrong reasons.


In Leftist's eyes this is the second best thing to being wrong for the right reasons.

Anonymous Cheshirych March 30, 2017 8:49 AM  

+100500

Blogger Melampus the Seer March 30, 2017 8:53 AM  

The choice of origin is arbitrary, but the debate was fruitful.

Galileo was a brilliant scientist, and perhaps an even more brilliant writer. His dialogue is a magnificent piece of literature, and his letter to the Grand Duchess sparkles with wit and insight.

But he was also an ingrate at a time when ingratitude was a serious civic infraction. He had a mark of character I've noted in most competent physicists I've known. They take the great confidence they have in their physical model, and they apply that confidence recklessly in the social and political realms.

Blogger Cail Corishev March 30, 2017 8:56 AM  

As an aside: I'm always bemused when someone I know in real life who would be caught dead before using the word "fuck" in public, shares something from an "I Fucking Love Science" group on social media, where everyone they know (including kids) can see it. I'm not a prude, but there's a time and place for profanity. I really don't get how the word "science" makes it clever and funny instead of offensive in their minds.

Anonymous Cheshirych March 30, 2017 9:00 AM  

I would be interested to understand what was wrong with Galileo's reasons.
I do know one: he subscribed to heliocentric model. It was not necessary to do that. I guess its easy for us to say today.

Anonymous Cheshirych March 30, 2017 9:02 AM  

What else would you expect of science-churchians.

Blogger darrenl March 30, 2017 9:05 AM  

From what I know, Galileo was a bit of an arrogant ass and was pressing an u proven theory as fact, which was a no-no..More do then than now.

He was put under house arrest for continuing to not only insisting on bad science but bad theology.

Holding him up as a hero was, IIRC, not Protestant in nature but more of an attack from supporters of the Enlightenment. Though, some of those lines blurr a bit.

I don't argue with atheists on this issue anymore. 100% of the conversations where like talking to a brick wall.

Blogger darrenl March 30, 2017 9:06 AM  

Ugh...My apologies for the bad autocorrect in my comment above.

Anonymous Grayman March 30, 2017 9:10 AM  

The issue of star size with galileo and his contemporaries seems similar to the current issues with gravity.

Anonymous Stickwick March 30, 2017 9:11 AM  

Cail Corishev: I'm always bemused when someone I know in real life who would be caught dead before using the word "fuck" in public, shares something from an "I Fucking Love Science" group on social media, where everyone they know (including kids) can see it. I'm not a prude, but there's a time and place for profanity. I really don't get how the word "science" makes it clever and funny instead of offensive in their minds.

This ain't your grandpa's science-lovin', son. It's edgy to love science.

Astrophysicist and science communicator Brian Koberlein previously stated that, due to its misleading, sensationalist, and click-bait articles, it is clear that IFLS is "just interested in pageviews" and is guilty of "the willful promotion of ignorance."

Blogger heyjames4 March 30, 2017 9:15 AM  

Galileo, Darwinists, etc. Weren't put on trial for saying the earth traveled around the sun, but for being jerks about it.

Not just for saying "I noticed a flaw in your natural philosophy..." for taking the next step of; "...and therefore, ALL your moral philosophy is also wrong, and the people should listen to me about everything instead of you."

Blogger seeingsights March 30, 2017 9:21 AM  

Galileo had character flaws. Galileo's friend Kepler thought that gravity from the moon caused the tides. Galileo criticized the geat Kepler in an incredulous way--Kepler's notion came from astrology.
It turns out that Kepler was basically right on this.
Criticism per se is fine but Galileo's tone is wrongheaded. After all, the criticizer can be wrong too.

Blogger Ilya Fisher March 30, 2017 9:21 AM  

How is lenr progress? Thin metal substrates consume low velocity atomic hydrogen nuclei releasing gamma quants.

Blogger James Dixon March 30, 2017 9:24 AM  

The proper response to Galileo should obviously have been: "97% of scientists agree. We have consensus. The science is settled."

Blogger Dirtnapninja March 30, 2017 9:27 AM  

galileos problem is that old astronomy actually did a perfectly good job explaining the motions of the stars in the sky

Blogger Zach March 30, 2017 9:31 AM  

I second the recommendation for Flynn's "The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown." I had no idea how resilient the geocentric model was in the face of the new telescopic observations, nor just how many different models were competing at the time (hint: many more than two).

It also gives a good primer in the politics of the time. Galileo was the prototype for "Back off, man, I'm a scientist!". Socially retarded, indeed.

Blogger Dire Badger March 30, 2017 9:50 AM  

Thank you zach, I was about to mention that Galileo was the Peter Venkman of his time.

The vast majority of his discoveries were proven utterly wrong, but he was very, very popular among the scientifically ignorant.

Blogger manfred arcane March 30, 2017 10:11 AM  

Galileo is one of the most extreme historic examples of the infamous Mandela Effect out there.
I mean, how many of you have Catholic friends who would automatically argue how he was imprisoned, tortured and burned at stake for his theories or that his work was burned...

Blogger Robert What? March 30, 2017 10:16 AM  

There was a sea change in the way science was approached. I'm not sure when that occurred. But the older approach - that of Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, etc - was to use science to explore God's creation. The modern approach is to use politicized science to disprove God's existence. Anyone know when that sea change occurred?

Blogger Robert Paxton March 30, 2017 10:17 AM  

Most historical issues with the Church are described in purposefully confused fashion by TPTB. People forget that the Copernican theory, which was technically more accurate than geocentrism and developed into the model that we have today, was also thought up by a Catholic cleric (Copernicus was in minor orders).

Also, ignorant people tend to scoff at geocentrism without understanding that it works. All astronomers last century could have told you that geocentris functions perfectly well and can tell you where all the stars and planets will be on a given date. We switched to a heliocentric model because it explains why the planets move the way that they do (especially with the help of the theory of gravity). If geocentrism didn't work, they would not have used it for thousands of years.

But it is part of the narrative to depict our ancestors as idiots/racists/ sexists/etc. and not give them credit for creating the foundation of our world.

Anonymous Cheshirych March 30, 2017 10:19 AM  

So sounds like Galileo went after enlightened Pope claiming that Pope was not enlightened enough and more enlightenment was necessary. And that was stupit!

Blogger Zundfolge March 30, 2017 10:35 AM  

There's "science" (a method of processing information) and then there's "Science-ism" (a religion loosely based on the trappings of science).

Most of the "IFLS" people along with most of the modern "Skeptic" community (and especially the "Atheism +" which is Science-ism + Marxism) are religious fanatics that make the Catholics that supposedly attacked Galileo look reasonable.

Anonymous Mick March 30, 2017 10:37 AM  

Also overlooked by many is that this was an intramural battle within the Catholic Church.

Galileo was not only a practicing Catholic, he was also a cleric. He accepted a clerical position as an honorific from the Church (after his illegitimate son turned it down, Galileo jumped on the offer like a fat man on a pork chop) received the tonsure, and then received a monthly stipend from the Church - a stipend he continued to receive even after the trial, until his death.

As a cleric, he was under the direct authority of the CEO, namely Pope Urban. When the boss tells you to shut up, you shut up or you accept the consequences. Pope Urban was a red-blooded Italian alpha male with all the capacity to accept public disagreement that Tony Soprano had.

This was also, incidentally, the reason Galileo was not, and would not have been, tortured - torture was prohibited in the interrogation of clerics.

Blogger Jose March 30, 2017 10:52 AM  

VD wrote:Try publishing something the U.S. government specifically tells you not to publish and see what happens.

I understand the Ecuadoran embassy in London is lovely this time of the year.

Anonymous VFM #6306 March 30, 2017 11:04 AM  

Anyone know when that sea change occurred?

Slowly, during the Enlightenment. Its crowning achievement came much later with Darwin's protoModernist Favoured Races which contained no serious science practice, and justified his godless grief.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky March 30, 2017 12:07 PM  

Robert What? wrote:There was a sea change in the way science was approached. I'm not sure when that occurred. But the older approach - that of Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, etc - was to use science to explore God's creation. The modern approach is to use politicized science to disprove God's existence. Anyone know when that sea change occurred?

Yes, it is called the Victorian Crisis of Faith. It began happening in England in the early part of the 19th Century when William Paley published this work:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity

Nobody reads it now, but this was enormously influential. It set the seed which blossomed later after Charles Darwin published _Origin_Of_Species_. By that time a significant number of intellectuals had glommed onto Paley's current of thought. They seized the moment and emerged as the thought-leaders of intelligentsia, in science, arts & letters (philosophers had already arrived there beforehand).

Anonymous DJMoore March 30, 2017 12:07 PM  

As I understand it, one of the problems that Galileo had with his enemies in the Church was not that he demoted the Earth from being the Center of the Universe.

It was that he promoted the Earth into the crystalline spheres of Heaven. (And then shattered those spheres.) Hell, after all, was at the center of the Earth, which was in essence the asshole of the universe.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky March 30, 2017 12:09 PM  

Meant to say "against Paley's current of thought"

Blogger pnq8787 March 30, 2017 12:34 PM  

Being a "dick" might be a good characteristic in a scientist. I think there was a study done recently where groups that argue with each other produce better results than groups that try to get along and produce consensus.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 30, 2017 12:38 PM  

@Stickwick

You wrote:

"The Church didn't bow to consensus. The Ptolemaic geocentric model prevailed at the time, because the evidence -- and common sense -- favored it over the Copernican model. And there was no consensus; in fact, there were divisions within the Church over this issue."

I'm struggling to make sense of this. There was no consensus, but the Ptolemaic model "prevailed".

There are always divisions. There are divisions today, on every topic. Still, by and large, the standard model prevails. There's a loose consensus, granted, with perhaps every man having differing objections to differing parts, but still ...

I have no idea what exactly you were trying to convey.

But I appreciate you making the effort.

Blogger Basil Makedon March 30, 2017 12:55 PM  

Technically speaking, both Copernicus and Ptolemy were correct or neither were correct, depending on how you want to view the issue. In fact, both the Earth and the Sun (and all the planets for that matter) revolve about a point in space called the Barycenter...

https://infogalactic.com/info/Barycenter

Anyway, the Galileo Incident is always one of those things those people raise as one of the great crimes of Christianity against humanity (along with the Inquisition and the Crusades). They always seem to skip the part about how Copernicus was in the Clergy and that Bacon, a Franciscan, is given credit for formalizing the Scientific Method.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky March 30, 2017 2:27 PM  

Basil Makedon wrote:Technically speaking, both Copernicus and Ptolemy were correct or neither were correct, depending on how you want to view the issue. In fact, both the Earth and the Sun (and all the planets for that matter) revolve about a point in space called the Barycenter...

I think the one who got it correct wasn't Ptolemy or Galileo, but rather Galileo's contemporary, Giordano Bruno. Bruno came to form the opinion that the center of the universe is wherever you want it to be, because it's all relative.

He didn't use one lick of science to come up with that either, but rather philosophical reasoning. "He got lucky," some say. True, but you have to admit that Galileo did, too. He couldn't make his case stand on scientific grounds either.

Galileo was indeed much more lucky. Bruno was burned at the stake (but not over this).

Blogger Matamoros March 30, 2017 4:50 PM  

So now we know that Locher was correct and Copernicus was wrong.

“Scientific American: Cosmology Is Wide Open”
http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/scientific-american-cosmology-wide-open/

All the recent space tests show that the earth is the center of the universe and that the "axis of evil" (evil to the Copernican theory) goes through the Earth.

I recommend everyone watch and see how "science" got hijacked by atheists and anti-Christians.

Even NASA uses a geocentric model for its tracking.

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com

Blogger SirHamster March 30, 2017 5:15 PM  

Resident Moron™ wrote:I'm struggling to make sense of this. There was no consensus, but the Ptolemaic model "prevailed".

consensus - general agreement
prevailed - prove more powerful than opposing forces; be victorious

No agreement, but the Ptolemaic model was the strongest model at that moment and "prevailed at the time".

Blogger Jose March 30, 2017 5:41 PM  

Stickwick wrote:This ain't your grandpa's science-lovin', son. It's edgy to love science.


Most of these people "love science" only as long as they don't have to learn any.

And I don't mean PhD- or even college-level science. I mean grade school science. But, hey!, photo of space plus a Neil "Kardashian of Science" Tyson quote (on politics, for extra Oomph), therefore Science!

Blogger Ceerilan March 30, 2017 7:03 PM  

The science worshipers claim that the Church was anti-science while ignoring that that same church supported Kepler who in retrospect published more accurate science.

Blogger Phillip George March 30, 2017 7:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Phillip George March 30, 2017 7:10 PM  

[typo fixed]

Ps. There's an extremely important footnote to be made here.

How close the earth is to the actual center of the Universe is VERY challenging philosophically to every non deist.
Whether the Universe is flat and finite and the Earth very near the center is very challenging.

If the Universe is homogeneous, finite and closed/ unbounded is a matter of still absolute philosophical bias.

Not only have these questions not gone away several hundred years later, they still make fools of everyone.

The fool says in his heart.....

Blogger Phillip George March 30, 2017 7:26 PM  

pointed question

Do you really want to make human understanding your little g god.

we are in the 'experiment'. The smoke and mirrors obscure the boundaries.

Jesus is reliable.

Blogger Mordakei Silberreich March 30, 2017 8:16 PM  

But, I love the facebook page "i fucking love science". I mean, they don'y just like, or even love it, they fucking love it. It's how you u no dey b keepn it real. And how you know how smart and scientific they are, I mean that's how scientists talk right? Y look at this big ass black hole, I fckn love it!

Anonymous VFM0265 March 30, 2017 10:54 PM  

I second Matamoros' recommendation to watch www.theprinciplemovie.com

This is an excellent first step towards Truth for many of those who have believed the 500 yr old lies of heliocentrism. Research, which all should do on their own (don't take our word for it), will show the Luciferian agenda behind heliocentrism, outer space, as presented, NASA's lies, etc. Zetetic astronomy and Geocentrism are the way to go IMHO. Doesn't conflict with Scripture and is repeatedly testable scientifically. But of course the lazy NASA fanboys who's egos can't handle such a paradigm shift will recoil in disgust....classic tell of "programming". Anyway, further research will also reveal that Science-Fiction are one and the same. Space, as presented, has been intentionally implanted in the mind of man since the mid 1800's & most early science fiction was written by astronomers. But hey, Fanboys, please continue to cling to your fantasies without even bothering to investigate further. Like Vox has said before.....Meh, I'm tired and need a nap.

Blogger VFM #7634 March 31, 2017 2:47 AM  

So Galileo was a Gamma?

@8 basementhomebrewer
*scans thread* Sure looks like it at this point.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club March 31, 2017 4:21 AM  

@55 - Whenever some goes into the "Galileo was a hero" spiel, I was reply "Giordano Bruno says Galileo was a pussy." Nobody ever knows what I'm talking about.

@44- "But it is part of the narrative to depict our ancestors as idiots"

A point of view often vociferously voiced by iPhag addicts who can't even explain how the electricity that runs their little marvel works.

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 31, 2017 1:59 PM  

Dyskord wrote:Atheists posit that human decency, science, marriage, morals, ethics etc would have developed naturally.
They've developed in every agrarian society, including ones that never heard of Christ.  They serve an essential purpose.  If you didn't have them, you'd have to have something else to serve the same purpose.

Despite evidence provided by an increasingly secular West that without Christianity these things suffer, or cease to function.
Those things don't seem to be decaying in e.g. Buddhist Thailand.  You have mis-attributed the causes here.  Lack of belief does not strictly cause moral decay (morality is still valuable), but Christianity is under attack by the same (((people))) who use immorality to undermine and weaken society so (((they))) can rule it.

There are even Atheists who posit nonsense like a good place exists for people who die
I hang out in humanist circles and I have NEVER encountered anyone who says this.

I've never heard an honest Atheist rebuttal to God.
Well, if you define atheists as "narrow minded people" and all their arguments as "selfish, narcissistic whining", that's what you're going to find.

Nate wrote:200 years from now... humans will look back at our concept of how the universe works... and laugh at our ignorance.
Meanwhile in the real world, all but a tiny fraction of physics and engineering is done with the assumption that Newton's laws are literally true.  330 years and counting.

Orville wrote:Or how about fission reactor design? Water moderators vs. thorium cooled reactor designs, or even simpler, safer pebble bed designs.
Americans would LOVE to build such things, but the NRC has said "pay us $1 billion and give us 10 years and we'll be able to analyze your non-LWR license application".  In other words, "no".  This is why ThorCon has moved to Indonesia.

The Chinese have a pebble bed reactor that is absolutely meltdown proof.
TRISO fuel was invented in England.  The Fort St. Vrain reactor used it.

@39  Circles left anomalies in the positions of planets, and epicycles were an obvious kluge that begged to be replaced by heliocentrism.  When Jupiter's moons proved that things could orbit something other than Earth, that was it for Ptolemy.

Phillip George wrote:How close the earth is to the actual center of the Universe is VERY challenging philosophically to every non deist.
A funnymentalist Christian, making blanket assertions about non-deists.  Now, where have we seen things like THAT before?

You're also dead wrong.  Literally, this ONLY matters to YOU.

Blogger Robert What? March 31, 2017 2:59 PM  

@a deplorable rubberducky,

Thanks for the references. There seems to now be a (very) small group of scientists who recognize that Genesis is the only holy scripture in the world that is supported by science (Big Bang). Which is why mainstream science now is so desperate to push the multiverse hypothesis. Of course they don't stop to think that even a multiverse needs a Creator.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge April 01, 2017 4:22 PM  


        Cheshirych wrote: "I would be interested to understand what was wrong with Galileo's reasons."

        Most things.

        First, Galileo argued that the traditional arguments against heliocentrism were invalid.  E.g., one of them was that if the earth was rotating towards the East, as Copernican theory required, then a arrow shot straight up into the air would fall to the ground to the West of the shooter, due to what's now called Coriolis Force.  This is invalid, the 'force' is so small over the distance an arrow can travel that the effect is not detectable.  But showing the arguments against the rotation of the Earth were wrong doesn't show that the Earth moves, just that it might.

        Second, Galileo uses the argument that the discoveries he made with the telescope show that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  But they don't.  The phases of Venus, discovered by Galileo, are evidence that Venus revolves around the Sun, but say nothing about the motion of the Earth, or lack of same (and the idea that Venus and Mercury revolve around the Sun goes back at least to Macrobius, who wrote about twelve centuries before Galileo).  The same is true of concerning the moons of Jupiter, or the mountains on the Moon.

        Finally, Galileo gets to what he believes is direct evidence of Earth's rotation, the tides.  Galileo had published a theory of the tides some years earlier, and his book was originally meant to be called DIALOGUE ON THE EBB AND FLOW OF THE SEA (or DIALOGUE ON THE FLUX AND REFLUX OF THE TIDE, depending on the translation).  The argument requires you to believe that the Earth rotates, but the sea doesn't.  This is supposed to lead to a jiggling effect on the oceans, moving them back and forth.  But even if you grant the hypothesis that the Earth rotates and the oceans don't, the argument is incoherent, and leads to the conclusion that the tides shouldn't exist.

        Galileo fundamentally has no evidence that the Earth moves, only that it might.  And the evidence that it doesn't move then appeared strong.  Stellar parallax, which is a direct consequence of heliocentrism, was not observable till the Nineteenth Century.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge April 01, 2017 5:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge April 01, 2017 5:36 PM  

[Previous post deleted to correct a typo. I got Redondi's name wrong originally.]

        One of the interesting questions concerning Galileo is “What was he accused of?” According to Pietro Redondi’s book GALILEO HERETIC, the Roman Inquisition was a judicial process in which the first step was the accusation of having expressed a heretical opinion.  The second stage was an examination of the opinion, to see if was heretical.  If ‘No’, the process stopped.  Only if a ‘Yes, such a position is heretical’ is pronounced did the Roman Inquisition move to the third stage, where an inquiry would be made as to whether the person accused had actually expressed such an opinion.

        In the Galileo records, stage one is missing, according to Redondi.  Who made the accusation, and what he was accused of is not there.  Redondi believes that Galileo was accused of really serious heresy (denying transubstiation), and that the trial was a put-up job to get his book out of circulation and prevent further accusations.  The ‘punishment’ of ‘house arrest’ allowed exceptions, and at Galileo’s age, he wasn’t going to travel much anyway.

        In short, Redondi proposes that the trial was actually staged to protect Galileo from his many scientific enemies.  It’s worth noting that the original ‘indictment,’ which states that he was forbidden to discuss the Copernican theory in any way, appears to be based on a forged document; that Galileo had a notarized letter from Cardinal Bellarmine (the former head of the Roman Inquisition) stating that he may discuss the theory but not defend it; that the trial was stopped when he presented this to the inquisitors; and that when it resumed, Galileo confessed to ‘accidentally’ violating the order not to defend the theory.  In other words, it looks like they went off the record so that they could explain how much trouble he was really in, and that they needed to convict him of a trivial offense to protect him from conviction on a serious theological heresy that would lead to execution.

        It’s well worth reading.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts