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

[Sparko]

Nope. You just misunderstood.

No you did. I corrected Tassman that the geocentric view was not a religious view but a scientific one that Copernicus questioned with his own scientific analysis.

Shuny tried to back up Tassman by saying that Luther and others believed in Geocentrism because of religion. So what? that doesn't mean it wasn't a scientific theory any more than Christians believing in Heliocentricity today. My original comment was about Copernicus questioning the current scientific consensus of the day, not whether the religious people also believed it. Of course they did. That doesn't mean it wasn't the scientific consensus of the day.

you truly are a moron, Tassman. The geocentric model was not invented by Christians. The greeks used it hundreds of years before Jesus. It was early scientists who came up with it from observations. They even calculated the orbits of the planets.

It is not a matter of 'who invented it?' It is a fact the Martin Luther and many if not most Christians believed it, as well as a literal Genesis Creation relying on the testimony of the Church Fathers.

now I am just going to ignore your moronic nitpicking since you have no idea what the conversation is and you are just trolling as far as I can tell. Either that or you are as much a moron as Shunyadragon and Tassman are.

[Mountain Man]

For the obvious reason that bible-based religious presuppositions took precedence over empirically verified science.

I love how confidently you spout ignorance.

Have you not read anything that has been posted? Galileo's #1 problem was that the heliocentric hypothesis had not been empirically verified.

Source: Catholic Answers

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

© Copyright Original Source

[Charles]

Let's try again Mountain Man: If the biblical view of geocentrism played no role in this case why is it mentioned explicitly? Try to answer the question, please.

[Charles]

No you did. I corrected Tassman that the geocentric view was not a religious view but a scientific one that Copernicus questioned with his own scientific analysis.

Shuny tried to back up Tassman by saying that Luther and others believed in Geocentrism because of religion. So what? that doesn't mean it wasn't a scientific theory any more than Christians believing in Heliocentricity today. My original comment was about Copernicus questioning the current scientific consensus of the day, not whether the religious people also believed it. Of course they did. That doesn't mean it wasn't the scientific consensus of the day.



now I am just going to ignore your moronic nitpicking since you have no idea what the conversation is and you are just trolling as far as I can tell. Either that or you are as much a moron as Shunyadragon and Tassman are.

This is all very simple, Sparko. The church held on to the view longer and more insistently than needed because it found that the Bible supported the view. So for those who held this view, it was hard to change their mind for religious reasons. Remember that in 1616 the Copernican view was declared heretical? And do you remember why? Was it due to the lack of evidence? Or was it due to the fact that it contradicted the Bible? The word "heretical" will help you answer.

You misunderstood Shuny's point or made a strawman of it. He did not say geocentrism is a Christian world view because some or most Christians held to it at the time. He was merely pointing to the fact, along with Tassman, that some Christians did hold on to the view simply because they believed heliocentrism was contrary to Scripture. Which the church declard it was. And which Luther, a very influental Christian, also did.

[Mountain Man]

Let's try again Mountain Man: If the biblical view of geocentrism played no role in this case why is it mentioned explicitly? Try to answer the question, please.

I have no patience for chasing after moving goalposts.

[Charles]

In this context we were talking about the old Greeks as those who held specific philosophical or early scientific views on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. The fact that those in power killed Socrates is well known. It does nothing to undermine the fact that during those days philosophical discussion was more open and healthy than under the reign of the catholic church. Thales was not put in prison for saying that water had the powers of the Gods. The skepticists, materialists, heliocentrists and so on were not killed or put in prison.

[Charles]

I have no patience for chasing after moving goalposts.

The goalpost is exactly the same. Everyone can go back and see that. Can you answer?

[Sparko]

This is all very simple, Sparko. The church held on to the view longer and more insistently than needed because it found that the Bible supported the view. So for those who held this view, it was hard to change their mind for religious reasons. Remember that in 1616 the Copernican view was declared heretical? And do you remember why? Was it due to the lack of evidence? Or was it due to the fact that it contradicted the Bible? The word "heretical" will help you answer.

You misunderstood Shuny's point or made a strawman of it. He did not say geocentrism is a Christian world view because some or most Christians held to it at the time. He was merely pointing to the fact, along with Tassman, that some Christians did hold on to the view simply because they believed heliocentrism was contrary to Scripture. Which the church declard it was. And which Luther, a very influental Christian, also did.

None of that has anything to do with MY original point which was that Copernicus went against the current scientific consensus of his time. It was in fact the scientific theory of the universe at the time, held by everyone since the Greeks.

This point was made because Tassman originally was whining that it is wrong to go against the scientific consensus.

Whether the religious people of the time believed it for religious reasons makes no difference. It has nothing to do with my point to Tassman. Copernicus wasn't arguing against the bible, he was arguing against the Geocentrist scientific view.

[Charles]

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



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

The interpretation that was wrong is an interpretation that would seem to follow directly from the words in the Bible that some even argued it was hardly an interpretation at all. Now, based on new and better knowledge people know that those words in the Bible are simply wrong in their litteral meaning and thus they reinterpret. That happens all the time. Which is why, in this context, the Bible cannot be wrong, since it is just reinterpreted to mean something different when proven wrong. The actual words are wrong.

The fact that Galileo's line of reasoning was declared bad science does, even if it is correct, not do anything to justify imprisoning or threatening a man due to some particular world view he holds. Do you think otherwise? Should we imprison scientists who go for ideas with not enough evidence to support it. Or should we just allow scientists to prove them wrong? The latter is the scientific aproach.

[Charles]

None of that has anything to do with MY original point which was that Copernicus went against the current scientific consensus of his time. It was in fact the scientific theory of the universe at the time, held by everyone since the Greeks.

This point was made because Tassman originally was whining that it is wrong to go against the scientific consensus.

Whether the religious people of the time believed it for religious reasons makes no difference. It has nothing to do with my point to Tassman. Copernicus wasn't arguing against the bible, he was arguing against the Geocentrist scientific view.

So the scientific way to go for this is to declare a specific view heretical? Where is the science in that? And if you were right the please answer the question that Mountain Man cannot answer, namely why Galileo was accused of holding a view that contradicted scripture.

[Charles]

None of that has anything to do with MY original point which was that Copernicus went against the current scientific consensus of his time. It was in fact the scientific theory of the universe at the time, held by everyone since the Greeks.

Take care, Sparko. While I am perfectly aware what you mean by "the Greeks" lilpixieofterror might want to correct you on that one. Some Greeks did not hold the view, many probably did not consider the case too much and so on. Just using this example to show the absurdity of his response regarding my points about the ancient philosophers.

[Sparko]

So the scientific way to go for this is to declare a specific view heretical? Where is the science in that? And if you were right the please answer the question that Mountain Man cannot answer, namely why Galileo was accused of holding a view that contradicted scripture.

er what?
You are determined to not understand the thread of the conversation, aren't you?

If it is wrong to question the scientific consensus as Tassman said, then it was wrong for Copernicus to do so against the scientific theory of geocentrism. Surely that is not too difficult for you to understand? Maybe I can type slower for you?

[Charles]

I love how confidently you spout ignorance.

Have you not read anything that has been posted? Galileo's #1 problem was that the heliocentric hypothesis had not been empirically verified.

Source: Catholic Answers

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

© Copyright Original Source

It seems you are more of a Catholic than Pope John Paul II. It least he had the courage to admit his church was wrong. You can read about it in this article: After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves

In 1616, the Copernican view was declared heretical because it refuted a strict biblical interpreation of the Creation that "God fixed the Earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever." But Galileo obtained the permission of Pope Urban VIII, a Barberini and a friend, to continue research into both the Ptolemaic and the Copernican views of the world, provided that his findings drew no definitive conclusions and acknowledged divine omnipotence.

But when, in 1632, Galileo published his findings in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems," the work was a compelling endorsement of the Copernican system.

Summoned to Rome for trial by the Inquisition one year later, Galileo defended himself by saying that scientific research and the Christian faith were not mutually exclusive and that study of the natural world would promote understanding and interpretation of the scriptures. But his views were judged "false and erroneous." Aging, ailing and threatened with torture by the Inquisition, Galileo recanted on April 30, 1633.

[Charles]

er what?
You are determined to not understand the thread of the conversation, aren't you?

If it is wrong to question the scientific consensus as Tassman said, then it was wrong for Copernicus to do so against the scientific theory of geocentrism. Surely that is not too difficult for you to understand? Maybe I can type slower for you?

So you cannot answer either? And now you are trying to change focus... The question is very simple: If this was not a case of religion then why was the view of heliocentrism declared heretical. Why was it not just pointed out that the evidence was insufficient. And why would one need to threaten with torture or prison? Feel free to answer.

[Sparko]

So you cannot answer either? And now you are trying to change focus... The question is very simple: If this was not a case of religion then why was the view of heliocentrism declared heretical. Why was it not just pointed out that the evidence was insufficient. And why would one need to threaten with torture or prison? Feel free to answer.

Who CARES? Yes, the church declared him a heretic for religious reasons. SO WHAT? That has nothing to do with my point about whether going against the scientific consensus is the right thing to do or not. Feel free to actually get the point as it zooms over your head once again.