Kay 17: @ube
Ur quote:
d trial of galileo was more sciency than dogmatic, galileo and other scientist had an arguement and d oda guys brought d bible as proof, galileo used a quote from augustine and said scriptures shuldn't be taken literally.
It follows that Church interpretation of the Bible at that time was contrary to Galileo's scientific views, and its evident that it was Bible verses that stood in the way of Galileo's progressive views. What punitive measures taken by the Church against Galileo are the Church's decisions and they take responsibility for it.

ofcuz it is d church's decision and they take responsibility for it. What i did show is that there was no interpretations writting in stone for those passages! It can be interpreted both ways and to claim one way shuld be dropped means u have to provide a substantial reason why. That was what galileo lacked and he was warned not to present d theory as a fact but as a scientiful view. He restrained himself and wen d pope gave him a forum to explain his hypothesis, he did exactly what he was cautioned about and went futher to insult the pope. Ofcuz he gat judged for suspicion of heresy.

The conclusion is: church stood in the way of science and progress.

Kay 17: The conclusion is: church stood in the way of science and progress.

u are entitled to ya opinion! "stood in d way" is a large phase! And i doubt u can explain how d church "stood in d way".

Kay 17: The conclusion is: church stood in the way of science and progress.

u are entitled to ya opinion! "stood in d way" is a large phase! And i doubt u can explain how d church "stood in d way".
You are reading history using a sunshade, y will u ever get d truth.

For the very fact that the Church expected Galileo to seek biblical approval with his views is against Science. Imposition of religious authority over Science.

Kay 17: For the very fact that the Church expected Galileo to seek biblical approval with his views is against Science. Imposition of religious authority over Science.

d church didnt ask galileo to seek biblical approval, it seem u haven't been reading d thread. Galileo and his fellow scientist were d guy who decided to leave science aside and go into scriptures. Nobody send them, nobody ask them to leave their telescope, on their own they decided to go and argue scripture!
The church didnt ask galileo to seek biblical approval, instead galileo and his peer decided to use scriptures as scientific proof, thus bring d church into d picture.

Ubenedictus: d church didnt ask galileo to seek biblical approval, it seem u haven't been reading d thread. Galileo and his fellow scientist were d guy who decided to leave science aside and go into scriptures. Nobody send them, nobody ask them to leave their telescope, on their own they decided to go and argue scripture!
The church didnt ask galileo to seek biblical approval, instead galileo and his peer decided to use scriptures as scientific proof, thus bring d church into d picture.

lies.

Ubenedictus: d church didnt ask galileo to seek biblical approval, it seem u haven't been reading d thread. Galileo and his fellow scientist were d guy who decided to leave science aside and go into scriptures. Nobody send them, nobody ask them to leave their telescope, on their own they decided to go and argue scripture!
The church didnt ask galileo to seek biblical approval, instead galileo and his peer decided to use scriptures as scientific proof, thus bring d church into d picture.

And the subject of the scriptural dispute was obviously astronomy, right? And the Church took a position against Galileo's, proving that the ideals of Christianity is against Galileo's ideas and its likes.

advocate666:

lies.

mr kay is entitled to his opinions! You accuse me of lying even wen u haven't proven it. That is called baseless accusation.

Ubenedictus: mr kay is entitled to his opinions! You accuse me of lying even wen u haven't proven it. That is called baseless accusation.

lol.......no one needs to argue with you anymore. Your deceitful comments are there for all to see. You think you are keeping the faith but you are helping to make others lose faith in christianity when they read your dubious comments and see that it is the atheist that is telling the truth.


Imagine a "moral" human being claiming that the church did not hinder Galileo science.

Ubenedictus: mr kay is entitled to his opinions! You accuse me of lying even wen u haven't proven it. That is called baseless accusation.

Galileo didn't "go into the scriptures" as you said. Galileo was a university professor and was teaching people that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. The church, which believed that it was the earth, didn't like it.

Kay 17:

And the subject of the scriptural dispute was obviously astronomy, right?

yep

And the Church took a position against Galileo's,

yes

proving that the ideals of Christianity is against Galileo's ideas and its likes.

i dont know how u jumped from a to c, that a position was taken against Galileo's ideas doesn't neccesaryly imply that christianity in general or catholicism in particular is against galileo's ideas talk less of "its likes".
The judgement against galileo's ideas in 1616 though unfortunate and misguided was to shield the populance from what was consider uncertain hypothesis which challenged d literal reading of scripture without proof, while his house arrest was supposed to be a punishment for breaking his promise to card. Bella. among other things

advocate666:

Galileo didn't "go into the scriptures" as you said. Galileo was a university professor and was teaching people that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. The church, which believed that it was the earth, didn't like it.

unfortunately, galileo did engage his opponents-d ones he called "d pigeon league"_ in a bible arguement even after a friend was said to have warned him saying "stay off d sacristy". If he had kept his arguement out of d sacristy his ideas wouldnt have been condemned as heresy, and in his later years galileo would identify "d begining" of his woes as writting d book where he insulted the pope.

Ubenedictus: unfortunately, galileo did engage his opponents-d ones he called "d pigeon league"_ in a bible arguement even after a friend was said to have warned him saying "stay off d sacristy". If he had kept his arguement out of d sacristy his ideas wouldnt have been condemned as heresy, and in his later years galileo would identify "d begining" of his woes as writting d book where he insulted the pope.

In any case, history has proven the church wrong.

Ubenedictus: yep yes i dont know how u jumped from a to c, that a position was taken against Galileo's ideas doesn't neccesaryly imply that christianity in general or catholicism in particular is against galileo's ideas talk less of "its likes".
The judgement against galileo's ideas in 1616 though unfortunate and misguided was to shield the populance from what was consider uncertain hypothesis which challenged d literal reading of scripture without proof, while his house arrest was supposed to be a punishment for breaking his promise to card. Bella. among other things

Your argument is getting messy and unclear.

You seem to take Galileo's views as mere hypothesis rather from what he saw on his telescope.

Kay 17:

Your argument is getting messy and unclear.

You seem to take Galileo's views as mere hypothesis rather from what he saw on his telescope.

at d time galileo's views was mere hypothesis and he couldnt see d earth was round or dat it moves on a telescope, d earth was round and moves was simply a "leap of faith" at the time it could hardly be proven and wiki shows that galileo contradicted himself plenty in an effort to find substantial prove for d theory. Ofcux better equipment made sure it could be proved later on.

advocate666: In any case, history has proven the church wrong.

rather in any case science has succeeded in finding substantial proof dat d earth is round and it moves thus showing dat d literal sense of scripture didnt make sense and helping d church in taking d allegorical position instead.

I'm glad you brought this back to life.

The geocentric theory states all planets and heavemly bodies in the solar system revolve around the Earth. Galileo with aid of the telescope was able to detect a planet revolving around Jupiter. That only destroys the geocentric theory.

Also he was able to detect and calculate the paths of Jupiter, Venus and some others revolving around the Sun. As far as facts are concerned, this was not a hypothesis.

It forms the present theory of heliocentrism.

The Catholic Church and Martin luther opposed it based on their findings in the Bible.

advocate666:

This one pass apology. This one na grovelling for the church of the white master.

Yes e pass apology

More like :

Apologist + Revisionist + Liar

Kay 17: I'm glad you brought this back to life.

The geocentric theory states all planets and heavemly bodies in the solar system revolve around the Earth. Galileo with aid of the telescope was able to detect a planet revolving around Jupiter. That only destroys the geocentric theory.

Also he was able to detect and calculate the paths of Jupiter, Venus and some others revolving around the Sun. As far as facts are concerned, this was not a hypothesis.

It forms the present theory of heliocentrism.

The Catholic Church and Martin luther opposed it based on their findings in the Bible.

much of what u wrote here is true,but it wasnt j ust 2 theory someone once said they were abt 7, d geocentric came frm aristotle wu said there was no stellar parallax, d oda by Copernicus and defended by galileo, d third by typho, aristotle said everything moved around d earth galileos telescope saw d oda planet moving around d sun dat distroy aristotle but not typho, infact it supported typho since galileo had alot yet unproven copernicus wasnt widely considered.this is one of galileo's arguement frm wiki. Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides
Galileo Galilei. Portrait by Leoni

Cardinal Bellarmine had written in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun".[26] Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to him that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.[27] The reference to tides was removed by order of the Inquisition.

For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. He circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.[28] His theory gave the first insight into the importance of the shapes of ocean basins in the size and timing of tides; he correctly accounted, for instance, for the negligible tides halfway along the Adriatic Sea compared to those at the ends. As a general account of the cause of tides, however, his theory was a failure.

If this theory were correct, there would be only one high tide per day. Galileo and his contemporaries were aware of this inadequacy because there are two daily high tides at Venice instead of one, about twelve hours apart. Galileo dismissed this anomaly as the result of several secondary causes, including the shape of the sea, its depth, and other factors.[29] Against the assertion that Galileo was deceptive in making these arguments, Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that Galileo developed his "fascinating arguments" and accepted them uncritically out of a desire for physical proof of the motion of the Earth.[30] Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[31] He also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets,[32] considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.
so d typho was considered a modification of aristitle.

turnstoner:

Yes e pass apology

More like :

Apologist + Revisionist + Liar

if there is anything untrue in what i said point it out!

Ubenedictus: much of what u wrote here is true,but it wasnt j ust 2 theory someone once said they were abt 7, d geocentric came frm aristotle wu said there was no stellar parallax, d oda by Copernicus and defended by galileo, d third by typho, aristotle said everything moved around d earth galileos telescope saw d oda planet moving around d sun dat distroy aristotle but not typho, infact it supported typho since galileo had alot yet unproven copernicus wasnt widely considered.this is one of galileo's arguement frm wiki. Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides
Galileo Galilei. Portrait by Leoni

Cardinal Bellarmine had written in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun".[26] Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to him that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.[27] The reference to tides was removed by order of the Inquisition.

For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. He circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.[28] His theory gave the first insight into the importance of the shapes of ocean basins in the size and timing of tides; he correctly accounted, for instance, for the negligible tides halfway along the Adriatic Sea compared to those at the ends. As a general account of the cause of tides, however, his theory was a failure.

If this theory were correct, there would be only one high tide per day. Galileo and his contemporaries were aware of this inadequacy because there are two daily high tides at Venice instead of one, about twelve hours apart. Galileo dismissed this anomaly as the result of several secondary causes, including the shape of the sea, its depth, and other factors.[29] Against the assertion that Galileo was deceptive in making these arguments, Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that Galileo developed his "fascinating arguments" and accepted them uncritically out of a desire for physical proof of the motion of the Earth.[30] Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[31] He also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets,[32] considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.
so d typho was considered a modification of aristitle.

Typho's theory was geo-helicentricism. A modification influenced by Copernicus and Kepler's views and how untenable geocentric model was. The Geocentric model was cracking and its chief rescue was the Bible.

Kay 17:
Typho's theory was geo-helicentricism. A modification influenced by Copernicus and Kepler's views and how untenable geocentric model was. The Geocentric model was cracking and its chief rescue was the Bible.

that is science man! Wen one model doesnt seem exactly true it is modified, wen rutherford's model of an atom failed it was replaced! Geocentrism wasn't winning simply because of the bible but because galileo was unable to show anyone d stella parallex dat d copernicus model predicted! Not just that as the wiki excrept above shows he was also unable to give a substantial physical proof that the earth moved and d sun stood and dat was d exact thing that card. Bella needed to review d literal interpretation.
Copernicus didnt propose his theory until he was very old not becos he was afraid of d church bt becos he was afriad of d ridicle of his co-scientist. He system just didnt have sufficient proof.

We are discussing Chruch vs science and the hardships perpetuated at Galileo by the Church. Given that Aristotle/Ptolemy's geocentric model and Typho's geohelicentric model are scientific. And both were experiencing a revolution.

The church's attitude was to pick sides which gave weigh to its own doctrines and bluntly refuse those that go against it.

The Church stood with Aristotle/Ptolemy model, because it believed it agreed with the Scriptures, despite the fact that it was crumbling. Galileo further provided observations to back up Copernicus's model and additional physical proofs to create a comprehensive theory on its own, though incomplete!

Geocentricism wasn't viable at all anymore. And some sort of agreement had to be found in Helicentricism in order to accept Typho's views (which were modifications and with the powerful observations of Galileo)

The Church's response was to try a scientist for heresy on account of his research.

Kay 17: We are discussing Chruch vs science and the hardships perpetuated at Galileo by the Church. Given that Aristotle/Ptolemy's geocentric model and Typho's geohelicentric model are scientific. And both were experiencing a revolution.
The church's attitude was to pick sides which gave weigh to its own doctrines and bluntly refuse those that go against it.

The Church stood with Aristotle/Ptolemy model, because it believed it agreed with the Scriptures, despite the fact that it was crumbling. Galileo further provided observations to back up Copernicus's model and additional physical proofs to create a comprehensive theory on its own, though incomplete!

the church didnt exactly say aristotle was right, d judgement was given in d negative way, by dat judgement either typho or aristotle was probable so i dont see d side's picking. Galileo's observations didnt support copernicus alone it also support typho and galileo had zero physical evidence that d earth moved and d earth stood! At d time galileo was a hypothesis at best.

Geocentricism wasn't viable at all anymore. And some sort of agreement had to be found in Helicentricism in order to accept Typho's views (which were modifications and with the powerful observations of Galileo)

actual typho worked independent of galileo.

The Church's response was to try a scientist for heresy on account of his research.

have it ever occured to you why copernicus wasnt tried for heresy even though he proposed d theory?

What was the Church's basis for heresy?

All I'm saying is Galileo backed by observations had gone beyond hypothesis. Hypotheses are random speculations without any empirical backing at all.

My accusations against the Church are for stifling Science and its development, likewise its course.

Kay 17: What was the Church's basis for heresy?
All I'm saying is Galileo backed by observations had gone beyond hypothesis. Hypotheses are random speculations without any empirical backing at all.

My accusations against the Church are for stifling Science and its development, likewise its course.

galileo lack substantial physical proof that made it hypothesis.
And abt u last sentence abt the 'stifling' of science i get ur line of arguement, and that stifling only happened becos galileo and co were argueing scripture. That was like and invitation to the church. Copernicus was never suspect of heresy because he kept his work within d realm of science, galileo became suspect of heresy because he took his arguement into religion he was no longer on science but on theology dat mean he was asking d judgement of d theologians. I hope dat ansa's d first question.
It is truly unfortunate that his condemnation may have stalled enquiry into our solar system.

Ubenedictus: galileo lack substantial physical proof that made it hypothesis.
And abt u last sentence abt the 'stifling' of science i get ur line of arguement, and that stifling only happened becos galileo and co were argueing scripture. That was like and invitation to the church. Copernicus was never suspect of heresy because he kept his work within d realm of science, galileo became suspect of heresy because he took his arguement into religion he was no longer on science but on theology dat mean he was asking d judgement of d theologians. I hope dat ansa's d first question.
It is truly unfortunate that his condemnation may have stalled enquiry into our solar system.

You are an annal retentive, aren't you?

You must have the last word even if you make no sense!

turnstoner: You are an annal retentive, aren't you?You must have the last word even if you make no sense!

i prefer to ignore ur implied insult. Those words were 4 kay17 and if in d line of d discussion thus far my statements make no sense i would let d words come from his lips.
God bless u

Ubenedictus: galileo lack substantial physical proof that made it hypothesis.
And abt u last sentence abt the 'stifling' of science i get ur line of arguement, and that stifling only happened becos galileo and co were argueing scripture. That was like and invitation to the church. Copernicus was never suspect of heresy because he kept his work within d realm of science, galileo became suspect of heresy because he took his arguement into religion he was no longer on science but on theology dat mean he was asking d judgement of d theologians. I hope dat ansa's d first question.
It is truly unfortunate that his condemnation may have stalled enquiry into our solar system.

Copernicus wasn't as outspoken as Galileo. A charge of heresy was drawn against Galileo before the trial in which he argued the scriptures.

Then the Church actually ban Galileo's books and outlawed and censored helicentric model teachings.

Kay 17:

Copernicus wasn't as outspoken as Galileo. A charge of heresy was drawn against Galileo before the trial in which he argued the scriptures.

Then the Church actually ban Galileo's books and outlawed and censored helicentric model teachings.

then u were misinformed. Galileo and his self termed pigeon league had a scriptural arguement on paper year b4 galileo's trial. Galileo's arguement was pacelled by his opponents and sent to rome that was how galileo's problem started.

^^
Yet why ban all Galileo's books and helicentricism?

And why was Galileo indicted for heresy for promoting helicentric model, because that was what was in his charge