The Evolution Definition Shell Game

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.)

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.

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?

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.

Um, that's because he didn't complain when they banned it as heresy.