Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Definition Shell Game
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 31 of 46 (53813)
09-04-2003 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by docpotato
09-03-2003 8:07 PM


On the Galileo issue.
Galileo and Copernicus both worked in an institution funded and supported by the Catholic church and their work was only possible because of its patronage. The idea then that Catholic church supressed science is nonsense; in fact, it was its biggest supporter.
Galileo was executed not because he espoused heliocentricity but because he insulted the church in his writtings. His execution was a source of horror to most of the Catholic peers of the time, who increased funding to the institute he worked for in a kind of recompense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by docpotato, posted 09-03-2003 8:07 PM docpotato has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Parasomnium, posted 09-04-2003 6:26 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 32 of 46 (53816)
09-04-2003 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Jack
09-04-2003 6:13 AM


Galileo wasn't executed at all. He lived to the ripe old age of 78.
See http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/...thematicians/Galileo.html
(The following excerpt is taken from the above site.)
Shortly after publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican the Inquisition banned its sale and ordered Galileo to appear in Rome before them. Illness prevented him from travelling to Rome until 1633. Galileo's accusation at the trial which followed was that he had breached the conditions laid down by the Inquisition in 1616. However a different version of this decision was produced at the trial rather than the one Galileo had been given at the time. The truth of the Copernican theory was not an issue therefore; it was taken as a fact at the trial that this theory was false. This was logical, of course, since the judgement of 1616 had declared it totally false.
Found guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment, but the sentence was carried out somewhat sympathetically and it amounted to house arrest rather than a prison sentence. He was able to live first with the Archbishop of Siena, then later to return to his home in Arcetri, near Florence, but had to spend the rest of his life watched over by officers from the Inquisition.
Cheers.
------------------
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas N. Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 6:13 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 6:38 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 33 of 46 (53821)
09-04-2003 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Parasomnium
09-04-2003 6:26 AM


I stand corrected. I maintain however that it was not heliocentricity that resulted in Galileo's punishment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Parasomnium, posted 09-04-2003 6:26 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by truthlover, posted 09-04-2003 10:36 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 09-04-2003 12:13 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 34 of 46 (53837)
09-04-2003 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mammuthus
09-03-2003 1:03 PM


You are so confused you cannot even stay on the topic of the thread YOU started.
To be fair, Mammuthus, I think Fred's point was to say that even if evolutionists no longer define abiogenesis as part of evolution, most evolutionists still believe that abiogenesis occurred through natural means.
Therefore when Fred said, "as far as what Darwin believed, just because he did not offer a just-so story of abiogenesis does not mean it was not part of his overall paradigm of life arising via naturalistically processes," he was staying on topic.
His topic is irrelevant, because no one is denying (as far as I know) that most evolutionists, even many who are theists, believe that abiogenesis occurred by natural means, but he's not off his topic. (There are a number of theists who have to admit evolution, because of the evidence, but are holding on to the belief that abiogenesis required a supernatural act of God.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 09-03-2003 1:03 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Mammuthus, posted 09-04-2003 11:15 AM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 35 of 46 (53838)
09-04-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 12:39 PM


This was a bit of dubious revisionist history perpetrated in the 1800s, which is well-documented in the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell. Dr Danny Faulkner has a good online article about this here:
I can find quotes from Christians of the 2nd century saying the earth is round, and I've heard plenty of evidence that the people of Columbus' day knew the earth was round (but thought, accurately, that India was too far to sail to), so you're right about this.
However, the main point of the post you were replying to was that Christians believed, taught, and forcefully defended the view that the sun circles the earth. Now they've changed that view, but there's no explanation for how the sun could stand still in the sky.
Perhaps you could address the main point of the post you were replying to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 12:39 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 36 of 46 (53840)
09-04-2003 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Fred Williams
09-03-2003 2:07 PM


This is also misleading. Most of Galileo’s problems were due to resistance from the academic community. Only later did the Roman church become involved. Why is it evolutionists conveniently forget this fact?
Dan's point was accurate. It wasn't the scientific community threatening Galileo to force him to recant.
However, this dodges the whole argument. Are you really suggesting that Christians knew the earth revolved around the sun, but the academic community convinced them to drop that belief, adopt the belief that the sun circles the earth, and then get adamant enough about it to persecute Galileo?
That's bizarre.
Christians believed that the sun circled the earth. Due to scientists, the churches have agreed. This makes the "earth standing still in the sky" concept very difficult to swallow.
The original point still stands. Care to address it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Fred Williams, posted 09-03-2003 2:07 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 37 of 46 (53844)
09-04-2003 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Jack
09-04-2003 6:38 AM


I maintain however that it was not heliocentricity that resulted in Galileo's punishment.
You can maintain it all you want, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence backing you.
From The Galileo Project:
quote:
Galileo's belief in the Copernican System eventually got him into trouble with the Catholic Church....A committee of consultants declared to the Inquisition that the Copernican proposition that the Sun is the center of the universe was a heresy. Because Galileo supported the Copernican system, he was warned by Cardinal Bellarmine, under order of Pope Paul V, that he should not discuss or defend Copernican theories. In 1624, Galileo was assured by Pope Urban VIII that he could write about Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a mathematical proposition. However, with the printing of Galileo's book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was called to Rome in 1633 to face the Inquisition again. Galileo was found guilty of heresy for his Dialogue, and was sent to his home near Florence where he was to be under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
I think you'll find most biographies share the same view. Perhaps what bothered the RCC was the way he expressed his views. Nonetheless, had the RCC agreed then that the earth revolved around the sun, as it now does, there would not have been an issue. The views were the issue. It's very hard to "properly" express a dissenting viewpoint when a religious entity is ruling the country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 6:38 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 11:17 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 38 of 46 (53848)
09-04-2003 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by truthlover
09-04-2003 9:46 AM


Hi TL,
I am not sure I entirely agree with you here.
quote:
To be fair, Mammuthus, I think Fred's point was to say that even if evolutionists no longer define abiogenesis as part of evolution, most evolutionists still believe that abiogenesis occurred through natural means.
Therefore when Fred said, "as far as what Darwin believed, just because he did not offer a just-so story of abiogenesis does not mean it was not part of his overall paradigm of life arising via naturalistically processes," he was staying on topic.
Except in the first paragraph there is no evidence that evolutionists including Darwin ever did generally include abiogenesis in the definition of evolution. The reference to Darwin has no bearing on the threads title "The Evolution Definition Shell Game" since Darwin could have believed that life arose from a pink unicorns eye and it would still be irrelevant for thetheory of evolution...i.e. it has no bearing on the definition of evolution or the theory of evolution.
quote:
His topic is irrelevant,
I agree with you here completely
but
quote:
because no one is denying (as far as I know) that most evolutionists, even many who are theists, believe that abiogenesis occurred by natural means, but he's not off his topic.
I don't know if the numbers here would hold up. I think the majority would say god(s) or whatever started it and evolution then worked from there. I am not so sure theistic evolutionists necessarily subscribe to abiogenesis...especially because there is no theory of abiogenesis.
Perhaps Percy could re-post the numbers for scientists who take a
1. creationist view
2. theistic evolution view
3. are atheists
since I think he has posted this before?
quote:
(There are a number of theists who have to admit evolution, because of the evidence, but are holding on to the belief that abiogenesis required a supernatural act of God.)
His topic is that evolution = abiogenesis and both are impossible and therefore goddidit...if you want more information about Fred and his ideas (and have a lot of patience for pure nonsense) go here
404 Not Found
and here
404 Not Found
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by truthlover, posted 09-04-2003 9:46 AM truthlover has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 39 of 46 (53849)
09-04-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by truthlover
09-04-2003 10:36 AM


My television told me so, it must be true!
I'm getting my information here from 'Gods in the Sky' a recent science and religous history series on British TV, it seemed accurate and authorative on the points I already knew about, so I consider it likely to be accurate on this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by truthlover, posted 09-04-2003 10:36 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Zhimbo, posted 09-04-2003 12:02 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 40 of 46 (53853)
09-04-2003 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Jack
09-04-2003 11:17 AM


I hope this wasn't meant to be a serious reply...that fact that one possibly scholarly source says something in the face of overwhelming opposition from other scholarly sources means little. If your post was just a tongue-in-cheek concession, then never mind.
The Galileo story *is* subtler than often depicted, but there's no controversy that heliocentricity was central to his conflict with the Church.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 11:17 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 12:10 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 41 of 46 (53855)
09-04-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Zhimbo
09-04-2003 12:02 PM


Mostly it was meant to be a 'I don't really know' reply. Not having done anything approaching a thorough investigation I am not in a position to judge between the source cited by Truthlover and 'Gods in the Sky'.
I find the idea that heliocentricity was central unlikely. Copernicus had suggested it without problem many years earlier, and the church continued to fund the institute and it's research into this area afterwards. Certainly the writing in which Galileo forwarded this idea did cause the problem, but that does not necessarily mean it was heliocentricity itself that was the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Zhimbo, posted 09-04-2003 12:02 PM Zhimbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 09-04-2003 12:42 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 44 by truthlover, posted 09-04-2003 7:30 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 42 of 46 (53857)
09-04-2003 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Jack
09-04-2003 6:38 AM


It is my understand, Mr Jack, that you are in a technical way, correct.
It was disobedience of an earlier order that resulted in his house arrest. However, this is a very technical legalistic point of view, Nit picking in fact. The issue was he was ordered not to teach heliocentrism as a fact but only as an idea. He was preceived, for good reason, to have disobeyed this order.
Obviously, however convoluted the cases before the inquisition and the politics of the time. It was heliocentrism that was at the root of it all. To suggest otherwise is disengenuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 6:38 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by posterdot, posted 09-04-2003 11:33 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 46 (53862)
09-04-2003 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Jack
09-04-2003 12:10 PM


Copernicus managed to avoid "any problem" but the church felt it appropriate to burn Bruno for believing him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 12:10 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 44 of 46 (53912)
09-04-2003 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Jack
09-04-2003 12:10 PM


Copernicus had suggested it without problem many years earlier
Um, that's because he didn't complain when they banned it as heresy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 09-04-2003 12:10 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Jack, posted 09-05-2003 5:28 AM truthlover has not replied

  
posterdot
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 46 (53949)
09-04-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NosyNed
09-04-2003 12:13 PM


Condemned for Solar Heresy
The text of the condemnation reads: "We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in our presence you abjure, curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church in the manner and form we will prescribe to you
http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/a/esenten.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NosyNed, posted 09-04-2003 12:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024