Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

[hildegaard]

It will be interesting to see what comes of this, though it may take some time, of course. I think the OP’s claim is premature.

I am glad to see some open mindedness. It may be a little premature, but as Catholics, at the very least, we should keep an open mind to it.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, for instance:

"1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness.

5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.

9 God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done.

10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."

Later:

"4 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.

16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.

18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and morning were the fourth day."

Thank you.

Pardon me. I do not see anything which matches the science content of your posts. I guess that is why the Catholic Church, as an institution, stayed out of science doctrines. Nonetheless, there is a wonderful number of Catholic scientists, including clergy.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

So, when/where did you see the movie?

I made it clear I wouldn’t want to see a junk movie called The Principle.

Everyone can read about it here:rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/07/star-trek-actress-lends-her-gravitas-to-film-promoting-idea-that-sun-revolves-around-earth/?onswipe_redirect=no

Here is part of what is on that page:
The film, which is set to be released sometime this spring, was bankrolled in part by the ultra-conservative and anti-Semitic Robert Sungenis, who maintains the blog “Galileo Was Wrong.”

Robert Sungenis is horrible man!!! I’ve already provided links that prove him wrong not only on this topic but other topics! I should mention that Alec MacAndrew (hecd2) also helped out and other people too.

 

[pnewton]

I made it clear I wouldn’t want to see a junk movie called The Principle.

I would think just the fact that he had to cut and paste from interview to reflect views that these scientists do not believe should speak to the integrity of the movie. Isn’t that the exact thing we get up in arms at the press (as well as certain congresswomen) when they (she) uses quote from the Holy Father in support of teaching contrary to the faith?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I would think just the fact that he had to cut and paste from interview to reflect views that these scientists do not believe should speak to the integrity of the movie. Isn’t that the exact thing we get up in arms at the press (as well as certain congresswomen) when they (she) uses quote from the Holy Father in support of teaching contrary to the faith?

Perhaps you would stop insulting me! This is the second time a person has done this to me. I am a woman! I put that on my profile the moment I joined. Do some homework before insulting me and read my previous postings while I’ve been on this website Also, Logistics Branch at Princeton means information branch. I obtain information by going to websites that support scientific views or try to discredit scientifc views. That is part of my job. I hope that helps you out pnewton. As far as the topic and snide remarks aimed at me then I would have to answer you by saying that all the Catholic and non Catholic schools teach science and all major universities including Catholic ones do support science.

Many Holy Fathers’ have sided with science. They most defintately keep informed since they have a slew of scientists to help them!

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you would stop insulting me! This is the second time a person has done this to me. I am a woman! I put that on my profile the moment I joined. Do some homework before insulting me and read my previous postings while I’ve been on this website Also, Logistics Branch at Princeton means information branch. I obtain information by going to websites that support scientific views or try to discredit scientifc views. That is part of my job. I hope that helps you out pnewton. As far as the topic and snide remarks aimed at me then I would have to answer you by saying that all the Catholic and non Catholic schools teach science and all major universities including Catholic ones do support science.

Many Holy Fathers’ have sided with science. They most defintately keep informed since they have a slew of scientists to help them!

Ummm…while pnewton is quite capable of defending himself, I have to say that I’m pretty sure pnewton was referring to Mr. Sungenis. Not you.

That is:
“-]he/-] Robert Sungenis had to cut and paste from interview to reflect views that these scientists do not believe should speak to the integrity of the movie.”

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps you would stop insulting me! This is the second time a person has done this to me. I am a woman!

I posted in reference to the movie “The Principle”. “He” is movie director. I took it as a given you had nothing to do with this movie.

I was simply relaying the disconnection between the way these snippets of interviews are presented and that those doing these interviews came out saying they were misrepresented.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Ummm…while pnewton is quite capable of defending himself, I have to say that I’m pretty sure pnewton was referring to Mr. Sungenis. Not you.

That is:
“-]he/-] Robert Sungenis had to cut and paste from interview to reflect views that these scientists do not believe should speak to the integrity of the movie.”

You did not make that clear to me and some members of my audience. You should have stated what you have now done. That’s good. Have a great day.

I’m going to go to the News Section next week.

I think there is one thing we will agree on. We put our trust in God. A great priest and friend of mine who has been dead for years used to always say,to me “Don’t worry, trust in God.” Thank you for reminding me of how much love he shared. Take care.

 

[PRmerger]

You did not make that clear to me and some members of my audience. You should have stated what you have now done. That’s good. Have a great day.

I’m going to go to the News Section next week.

I think there is one thing we will agree on. We put our trust in God. A great priest and friend of mine who has been dead for years used to always say,to me “Don’t worry, trust in God.” Thank you for reminding me of how much love he shared. Take care.

Are you confusing me with pnewton?

I mean, our screennames do start with the same letter, so if you are indeed meaning to address me, PRmerger, I can’t imagine what that has to do with my posts here.

 

[pnewton]

Are you confusing me with pnewton?

I mean, our screennames do start with the same letter, so if you are indeed meaning to address me, PRmerger, I can’t imagine what that has to do with my posts here.

Guy with the cat avatar here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Some interesting comments here. One thing no one here has considered. None of us here have verified either the Potlemian or the Copernican view of the relative movement of the sun, the earth, and the planets. Who here has gone through the supporting documents and worked out the mathematics, who has done the thousands upon thousands of observations?

We accept it on faith right. The same for the modern cosmologists, we accept their statements on faith. So none of us here can say, based on our personal expertise, who is right.

And I do think the Church has been unfairly smeared. There is hardly a textbook in science, and few professors that have not taken a swipe at the Church during the last four hundred years or more, an orgy of piling on. I say that that is overdone. Galileo may have been brilliant but he had real personality problems ( to put it politely ) and the age the Church lived in was a different age - enemies to the North, West, East, and South. Different times indeed.

Linus2nd

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, for instance:

"1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness.

5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.

9 God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done.

10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."

Later:

"4 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.

16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.

18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and morning were the fourth day."

You know, I think it’s very interesting to look at the above, and more, and consider how modern astrophysics sometimes seems to say the same thing, only less poetically and (sometimes) metaphorically. But I remember, for instance, previous arguments that Genesis is a crock because there “couldn’t be light before there was a sun to give it”. Well, we now know light certainly preexisted the sun.

And to call the heavens a “firmament” when space is just a vacuum? Well, seems like it might be full of dark matter; a “firmament” of another sort.

And how could God’s spirit “move over the waters” before there was light? If one thinks of the hypothetical, undulating “membranes” some physicists posit, a collision of which perhaps ignited the “Big Bang”, one can at least picture such a thing.

I don’t know, it seems the older I get, and the more the physicists seem to discover, the more literally one seems to be able to take things like the Genesis account, bit by bit.

 

[frobert]

Galileo may have been brilliant but he had real personality problems ( to put it politely ) and the age the Church lived in was a different age - enemies to the North, West, East, and South. Different times indeed.
Linus2nd

You appear to be saying it was ok for the CC to put Galileo on trial because he had personality problems.

Here is a thought process for you? What was your purpose of bringing up the bit about apologies when at least one pope has already apologized for the legal process that Galileo was put through. Please note it was the legal process that the pope apologized for.

Its a thought process for yourself so there is no need to reply

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You appear to be saying it was ok for the CC to put Galileo on trial because he had personality problems.

Here is a thought process for you? What was your purpose of bringing up the bit about apologies when at least one pope has already apologized for the legal process that Galileo was put through. Please note it was the legal process that the pope apologized for.

Its a thought process for yourself so there is no need to reply

The point you missed is that the apology did no good. The secular world never abandons its deep seated prejudices. If it hadn’t been Galileo that the Church " mistreated " then it would have been something else. He was just an excuse. I never said it was O.K. for the Church to use the means it did. Galileo was certainly wrong. But the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. I’m sorry you persist in taking the prejudical view.

Linus2nd

 

[frobert]

The point you missed is that the apology did no good. The secular world never abandons its deep seated prejudices. If it hadn’t been Galileo that the Church " mistreated " then it would have been something else. He was just an excuse. I never said it was O.K. for the Church to use the means it did. Galileo was certainly wrong. But the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. I’m sorry you persist in taking the prejudical view.

Linus2nd

I think its remarkable how you continue to read your own prejudices into my post from things that I did not say or intend. I can’t help it if the pope’s apology did no good. I think your original post was asking others to apologize to the church. I suggested a thought process and look into yourself to discern why you brought it up in the first place. There is no need to respond the thought process is for yourself.

 

[hildegaard]

Thank you.

Pardon me. I do not see anything which matches the science content of your posts. I guess that is why the Catholic Church, as an institution, stayed out of science doctrines. Nonetheless, there is a wonderful number of Catholic scientists, including clergy.

You asked about Genesis, not science.

 

[hildegaard]

I would think just the fact that he had to cut and paste from interview to reflect views that these scientists do not believe should speak to the integrity of the movie. Isn’t that the exact thing we get up in arms at the press (as well as certain congresswomen) when they (she) uses quote from the Holy Father in support of teaching contrary to the faith?

No cutting and pasting was done. Keep in mind that Kate Mulgrew nor Lawrence Krauss have yet (even to this day) seen the movie. Here is an alternate view (the view of the producers):

youtu.be/OvR7pMqAEso

 

[hildegaard]

No cutting and pasting was done. Keep in mind that neither Kate Mulgrew nor Lawrence Krauss have yet (even to this day) seen the movie. Here is an alternate view (the view of the producers):

youtu.be/OvR7pMqAEso

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think its remarkable how you continue to read your own prejudices into my post from things that I did not say or intend. I can’t help it if the pope’s apology did no good. I think your original post was asking others to apologize to the church. I suggested a thought process and look into yourself to discern why you brought it up in the first place. There is no need to respond the thought process is for yourself.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black. Heal thyself first.

Linus2nd

 

[pnewton]

No cutting and pasting was done. Keep in mind that Kate Mulgrew nor Lawrence Krauss have yet (even to this day) seen the movie. Here is an alternate view (the view of the producers):

Defense of this movie and the tactics used does nothing but diminish the credibility of the movie, and you. The scientist themselves denounced the editing as intellectually dishonest. The editing has them seem to present opinions that they do not hold. If geocentrism had any actual evidence, then why for such propaganda tactics? Why not just present the evidence honestly? After this movie, I would not trust the producers to be honest about anything.