S
StAnastasia
Guest
Oriel16, I’m not sure Arius would have supported time travel, nor am I sure why you think Arius had no respect for creation.
- Status
O
oriel16
Guest
What people call ‘science’ I know as empiricism for it hjacks the machinary of the learning institutions that once brought many of the great insights to light such as Copernicus in astronomy and Steno in evolutionary biology/geology and distorts premises and conclusions towards anti-scientific ends.What is worse is that people who call themselves Christians are fully supportive of this ‘predictive’ method thereby rotting the foundations which once accepted celestial/terrestrial investigation within Christian tradition and spits it out as something else.
There are guys here pondering whether Darwin was racist or not but that distracts from the topic that his ‘cause’ is derived from an essay on national supremacy applied to biological evolution which in turn is only a minor facet of a bigger problem in that the origins begin with Newton’s distortions of astronomy which started that particular empiricism strain from devloping to where it is today.
You think Einstein was right and I show you that it is Well’s fictional ‘Time Machine’ novel you are admiring just as those who think Darwin was right by following a ‘survival of the fittest’ manifesto that created the catastrophie that is 1940’s Europe.
I would just as soon converse with a genuine Christian on scientific matters and leave you to those numbskulls that are celebrated among the wider population.As most are just empirical/Arian apologists does not matter,it is a matter how quickly they can set aside the stupid distortions and return to a rich Christian tradition.
O
oriel16
Guest
If geocentrism is all you can manage then good for you,at least it is better than homcentrism currently proposed as a plausible view of the celestial arena.
I am sorry that I am one of those heretics who love what Copernicus achieved but as you can see,I am a minority of one in recognising how he resolved the apparent backward motion of the other planets through the orbital motion of the Earth -
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
“In the Ptolemaic hypotheses there are the diseases, and the
Copernican their cure. . . . With Ptolemy it is necessary to assign to the celestial bodies contrary movements, and make everything move from east to west and at the same time from west to east, whereas with Copernicus all celestial revolutions are in one direction, from west to east. And what are we to say of the apparent movement of a planet, so uneven that it not only goes fast at one time and slow at another, but sometimes stops entirely and even goes backward a long way after doing so? To save these appearances, Ptolemy introduces vast epicycles, adapting them one by one to each planet, with certain rules about incongruous motions – all of which can be done away with by one very simple motion of the Earth.” Galileo
Although you do not like this type of reasoning it appears that neither does anyone else as they choose a different view of retrogrades and how to resolve them -
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct…” Newton
So Cassini,it look like you still have your geocentric view or you can even have a homocentric view if you like,either way I guess I will have to be satisfied with my Copernican heresy.I try to spread the heresy of Copernicus around but I have had no luck in all these years and most seem happy with time travel.warped space,multiple universes,imaginary celestial objects and all the other things dumped into the celestial arena under the name of astronomy.
Now take,care and remember that I am beyond hope with my brand of astronomy.
C
cassini
Guest
There you go again oriel 16, stuck in your half-way house. Before I address the above, let me begin by challenging the thesis you base your half-way house on. You say on another post (edited by me):
’What people call ‘science’ I know as empiricism for it hjacks the machinary of the learning institutions that once brought many of the great insights to light such as Copernicus in astronomy towards anti-scientific ends.'
It was Copernicus who ‘hijacked’ true science and created what people call ‘science’ today. The history of the heliocentric theory and Copernicus’s part in it show us this, if we have an open mind that is: It was Newton who phrased the term ‘on the shoulders of giants’, but he too was hijacking true science to created what people call ‘science’ today
True science was begun by pagans.
‘Copernicus hardly bothered with stargazing, relying on the observations of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars than they did. Hipparchus’s Catalogue of the fixed stars and Ptolemy’s Tables for calculating planetary motions were so reliable and precise that they served [the needs of the time].’ A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p.73.
Yes, Hipparchus’s Catalogue of fixed stars and Ptolemy’s Tables for calculating planetary motions were accurate enough to provided adequate navigational assistance to such seafarers as Christopher Columbus and Vasco de Gama in their discoveries of the new world. So, what then did Copernicus find that led him to propose such a radical change of astronomical comprehension was necessary, that is, to move from a geocentric perspective to a heliocentric one? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing.
Ptolemy’s system, built upon all that went before him, sufficed adequately for reasonably accurate astronomical calculations. For 1400 years it prevailed, with little or no means of improvement in sight. Then, in 1543, out of the blue, Copernicus’s book emerges, peddling the old heliocentric theory once again.
‘Nevertheless, historically, the appearance of this work is as surprising as a mountain suddenly rising from a calm sea.’ Morris Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1986, p.81
So, where did Copernicus’s ‘science’ come from:
The truth of course is that Copernicus, the man who discovered nothing nor measured anything important, would not rate at all if we were to list the giants of astronomy throughout the ages. The only footstep Copernicus imprinted on astronomy was the pagan magic of Hermēs Trismegistus. We know this because he admitted he favoured the heliocentric religion of the ancient Egyptians on offer by Hermes, The sun became Copernicus’s ‘visible god’, only because it, and it alone, reflected a ‘harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs.’ Copernicus considered Ptolemy’s geocentric system ‘lacked elegance’, with its artificial equant, and was therefore too clumsy to be God’s design. He then compared Ptolemy’s model to the hands, feet, head and other limbs of a man put together to make a monster rather than a thing of beauty. Yet what he was proposing in his heliocentric model contained just as many, if not more, arms, hands, legs, feet, and other appendages. Copernicus then, was first and foremost an idealist, an out and out Pythagorean, smitten by the magic of Hermēs Trismegistus. His route to science was paganism.
So, there was no scientific advance discovered by Copernicus, only a rehash of the heliocentricism of Phallicism, the solar system long established by the ancient sun worshippers.
So oriel 16, how in God’s name can anyone say Copernicus was following the path of science as practiced in Christianity? Quite the opposite, he was ignoring revelation which is the Queen of all true science and thus offering the world religion as science.
As regards your argument above about his accuracy etc,
Arthur Koestler, in his Sleepwalkers, shows us that Copernican calculations were anything but simpler. One of the reasons for this is because Copernicus used circular orbits he also had to use deferents, epicycles and eccentrics to plot movements. As for accuracy, well his tool is admitted by all to have been inaccurate, falling short by as much as 10 degrees (the moon takes up one-half a degree) in predicting angular positions of planets. So here again we find the assertion of simplicity for the Copernican system as he proposed it to be a fraudulent claim. And lest anyone think Copernicus advanced knowledge of the ‘magnitude of the orbs’ of his theory, he didn’t. Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation that Copernicus did not have. Estimates based on earth-diameters were all the early astronomers could manage. Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 610 earth-diameters away. Copernicus ‘corrected’ this estimate to 571, which was even further from the actual distance than Ptolemy. The first astronomer to achieve the realistic magnitudes for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth – now said to be 11,500 earth-diameters – at 10,305 earth-diameters.
As regards Newton’s quote above, if we lived on the sun that would indeed be the case. But we do not.
O
oriel16
Guest
That is the only answer I require as it is the false one and you can forget epicycles and equants and the refinement by Kepler which is based on orbital comparisons between Earth and Mars.
Now,remain with the empiricists,Newton and the hypothetical absolute/relative space he created out of his stupid and idiosyncratic version on the great insight of Copernicus as to retrogrades and leave me be.
I could have a thousand guys like you trying to work your way through the details and still not get the basic flash of inspiration where we see the orbital motion of the Earth overtake the other planets thereby resolving retrogrades -
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Try sounding like a geocentrist and you end up being an empiricist,ghostly people who live on opinions with no rhyme or reason.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
OK, I’ll stick with the “numbskulls” as you call them, as they will probably be the only ones represented at the Vatican conference next week.
G
grannymh
Guest
“What fell and died in Adam rose and lived in Christ.”
This is the key to understanding the purpose of human living.
Dear oriel 16,
Eureka!
I’m just figuring out what you mean by Arianism being anti-science. If I’m expressing it off target, let me know. In effect, Arius was limiting the power and presence of God to the human I, me and mine. Even though Arius was placing Jesus as the highest created being with superior gifts, he was still injecting restrictions. Unfortunately, limiting the supernatural also limits the natural.
Neo-Darwinism is a case in point. A purely natural cause has been chosen for evolution. Thus, every bit of evidence reflecting awesome evolution has to fit the model of the chosen cause. Now that is really limiting scientific exploration.
Creative thinking is impossible when it comes to learning about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going because our options are limited by empirical science dictated by the lecture circuit biologists with their own personal agenda. These people are the least free of all.
One thing is important to realize. In my view, choosing a natural cell as a beginning of life is not inherently bad. But saying that it is the only possible cause because currently it can be examined empirically in its natural state tramples all other possibilities.
In a real sense, science is now limited just as Arius wanted to limit Jesus.
I agree with oriel16 that it is the genuine scientists who will be hurt the most by the limited view in vogue. It is easier to swim downstream.
One final thing for the fraidy cat personality to realize is that being open to the supernatural doesn’t necessarily exclude the natural. What it does is free up one talents from the clutches of somebody’s I, me and mine agenda.
Blessings,
granny
All human beings were created for life beyond the limits of our universe.
O
oriel16
Guest
If anything remotely close to what you wrote comes out of the meeting this week in the Vatican,we will have reason to rejoice for the first time in this generation.Thanks for making up for my deficiencies but such is the community of Jesus.
The real challenge is dealing with the root of the matter back in the late 17th century but here too,it amounts to a limiting and distorting approach by Newton, which looks initially attractive,turns into an anti-scientific mess.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Cardinal:
**What are your objections to the theory of evolution?
** Evolution is a scientific theory. What I call evolutionism is an ideological view that says evolution can explain everything in the whole development of the cosmos, from the Big Bang to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. I consider that an ideology. It’s not good for science if it becomes ideological, because it leaves it own field and enters the area of philosophy, of world views, maybe of religion.
This is not primarily a religious question, but one of reason. Can one reasonably say the origin of man and of life can be explained only by material causes? Can matter create intelligence? This question cannot be answered scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it. Here we can only argue philosophically, metaphysically, or religiously. Reason can recognize that matter cannot organize itself. That it at least needs information, and information is an expression of intelligence.
C
cassini
Guest
oriel 16, I cannot make head nor tail of much that you write. From the sun the planets are seen as one-on-one orbits. From the earth the planets appear as though they are going backwards and looping at times. For centuries it is known they don’t actually do this but have constant orbits around the sun.
Is there a problem with this, or do you know something none of us know? What the heck are you actually saying?
O
oriel16
Guest
There is no mystery,the geocentrists who had the Earth immobile at the center of the solar system observed that periodically,the planets would stop,move backwards and then move forwards again and concluded that a planet had some sort of spiralling motion -
apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Copernicus came along and explained that we ourselves are orbitally moving around the central Sun in the same direction as the other planets but like a car in an inner lane,overtaking a car in an outer lane going around a traffic island,the car in the outer lane will appear to go backward temporarily.You do not need to stand in the center of the traffic island to know what is going on no more than you need an observer on the Sun to explain retrogrades and that is where Isaac jumped the tracks or rather,distorted the insight of Copernicus for his own Arian/empirical agenda -
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct…” Newton
So,anybody actually like the basic outlines of what Copernicus did or do they go along with Newton’s idiotic approach ?.
C
cassini
Guest
oriel16, are you aware that Tycho de Brahe’s geocentric sixteenth century system also explains how the planets orbiting the sun appear to move backwards and loop the loop as they orbit the sun? Are you aware that Copernicus also had to devise epicycles necessary to plot planets.
The ‘simplicity’ of Copernicus’s scheme is usually presented in the following way: ‘Of course the motion of a planet around the sun is not strictly circular, and so Copernicus added epicycles to his [circles]. Nevertheless, he was able to reduce the number of circles required from seventy-seven to thirty-four to “explain the whole dance of the planets.” ’ (Morris Kline: Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge, p.71). Koestler however, shows that there is always something fishy about the supposed simplicity of Copernicus’s model. In his Commentariolus, written before De revolutionibus, Copernicus had indeed stated his system required only thirty-four circles compared with Ptolemy’s eighty. But a proper count, according to Koestler, shows Copernicus needed forty-eight epicycles to Ptolemy’s forty. Elsewhere we read Copernicus needed ‘46 circles to explain the ballet of the planets compared to 27 for Ptolemy.’ Was Copernicus’s model ‘simpler’ then? Of course not, and to prove this I suggest you do the counting yourself.
That was my point. If we lived on the sun he would not have needed to us epicycles. Again I ask, who but you places any significance in what Copernicus quotes above. Are you trying to say this shows Copernicus proved heliocentricism? I still cannot understand what you hold to be the basis for your posts. What is the Newtonisn approach that you find idiotic?
O
oriel16
Guest
Thank you for that fine empirical commentary but retrogrades and their resolution have nothing whatsoever to do with the equant and epicycles in terms of the main heliocentric argument,it is just that the dumb empiricists never understood the enjoyable solution for retrogrades in the first place and still do not even with modern time lapse footage.
apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
I could not make it any easier by using the analogy of two cars traveling around a traffic circle with the motion of the car in the inner lane overtaking the car in an outer lane as a means to appreciate what Copernicus did,in that heading in the same direction around the Sun,the 'backward /retrograde motion is simply resolved by the orbital motion of the Earth between Venus and Mars.
As nobody has shown the slightest bit of interest in the major astronomical achievement and how the Newton tried to wreck it,it does not take much to see how Darwin managed to get so far,if you can get away with destroying the major advancement of Western astronomy via the ‘scientific method’ then anything goes !.
Out of false approach to retrogrades,Newton created his absolute/relative space thingie which his followers never understood.All it reflects is the illegal point of view he give himself (observer on the Sun) in distorting the original insight of Copernicus and in the present day empirical language that point of view is now called ‘the frame of reference’.
I ask again - who finds the means by which Copernicus resolves the apparent 'backward/ retrograde motion of the planets magnificent ?.If there are any questions as to how he figured out that the Earth orbits the central Sun between Venus and Mars then just ask.
As for you Cassini,I am afraid you are just infected with the empirical view that the resolution of retrogrades can be mixed up with orbital refinements which relate to epicycles or the equant.To understand where go wrong requires that you comprehend that the refinements are based on orbital comparisons and not hypothetical observers on the Sun or any other mutation.It is effectively just as simple as the main argument,at least with a bit of practice so do not bother me with modern commentators .
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
I know this is a topic that stirs deep feelings. But are we not being told that our body is made of the materials of this physical universe, while our souls are directly from God, and instilled into our body? We have not been shown a video of this happening.
cassini suggests Occam’s Razor. a valid method. But it works both ways. Suppose that the elements of our body really WERE synthesised in a fraction of a second inside exploding stars? And gathered into a dust cloud that became the sun and the Earth? Whereas our soul is a pure spirit, indivisible and immortal, joined to our physical bodies at conception, when the sperm & ovum combine? Just suppose it were true. How would God instruct the contemporaries of Abraham and Moses, who had never seen a microscope? Surely in the very words of Genesis.
When a birthday card arrives through the letter-box, and a child asks, “Where did that come from?” We could reply, “Well, there’s a postal service of paid employees, and a general sorting office, and mechanical reading of the zip code, and postmen in vans with sacks, and they read the address and deliver it” … or we could say, “It came from Grandma, because she loves you”.
Surely both are true.
It seems to me that the real sticking point with Darwinism is the gratuitous use of the word “random”, which begs the question. In the Providence of God there is no randomness.
G
Geneticsguy
Guest
Theory as used commonly != theory as used in science
Gravity is still a theory. Does that make it “not a fact?” Also, what is your case against evolution?
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Copernicus’ difficulty came from his conservatism. He still could not believe anything but circular motions. This necessitated epicycles, just as it had done for everybody from Ptolemy onwards. Once you can accept elliptical orbits, epicycles disappear from the picture. They are simply an arbitrary method of what the Ancients called ‘saving the theory’ - just like the far-fetched ‘explanations’ of why certain structures in biology make the organism ‘fitter’. It is not adding to knowledge, it is merely ‘saving the theory’.
O
oriel16
Guest
To discuss the orbital refinement by Kepler,you must reject the approach Newton took to the main argument for the motion of the Earth between Venus and Mars around the central Sun -
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct…” Newton
I will even provide the time lapse footage of apparent retrogrades relating to Earth,Jupiter and Saturn -
apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
If you take Newton’s view I know that you will be bluffing with everything else because Kepler’s refinement is based on orbital comparisons which happens to be the main argument Copernicus used for the orbital motion of the Earth and other planets around the central Sun.
I still require people who actually like the reasoning of Copernicus and commentators like Galileo and Kepler who understood how geocentricity went to heliocentricity through very specific arguments.
M
MamaZona
Guest
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. "
You’re not using the proper definition of the word “theory”. Go look it up.
FAIL
P
Peccavi
Guest
Latest from the Vatican
Speaking to the press on Tuesday, Cardinal William Levada who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said there was a “wide spectrum of room” for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.
“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,” he said.
But while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God, he said.
“Of course we think that’s absurd and not at all proven. But other than that … the Vatican has recognised that it doesn’t stand in the way of scientific realities.”
Conference participant Fr John McDade SJ, who is principal of the University of London’s Heythrop College and a lecturer in systematic theology said there were many ways science and religion are compatible.
He said: "Whatever someone like Darwin or any other scientist comes up with, that shows the complexity and the processes that work in the world, and is perfectly compatible with the Christian belief that the world is sustained by God…
“When Galileo was condemned in 1770, it was forbidden to teach Galilean theories in the area of astronomy and the Church observed that,” he said.
"It went on teaching Galileo’s theories in the area of natural philosophy because in the end the evidence spoke for itself and religion was simply wrong in all those areas.
“For religion to actually recognise the autonomy of science within its particular area is I think for the good of both disciplines.”
So as Catholics we are free to believe in evolution so long as we recognise it as part of God’s creation
Speaking to the press on Tuesday, Cardinal William Levada who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said there was a “wide spectrum of room” for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.
“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,” he said.
But while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God, he said.
“Of course we think that’s absurd and not at all proven. But other than that … the Vatican has recognised that it doesn’t stand in the way of scientific realities.”
Conference participant Fr John McDade SJ, who is principal of the University of London’s Heythrop College and a lecturer in systematic theology said there were many ways science and religion are compatible.
He said: "Whatever someone like Darwin or any other scientist comes up with, that shows the complexity and the processes that work in the world, and is perfectly compatible with the Christian belief that the world is sustained by God…
“When Galileo was condemned in 1770, it was forbidden to teach Galilean theories in the area of astronomy and the Church observed that,” he said.
"It went on teaching Galileo’s theories in the area of natural philosophy because in the end the evidence spoke for itself and religion was simply wrong in all those areas.
“For religion to actually recognise the autonomy of science within its particular area is I think for the good of both disciplines.”
So as Catholics we are free to believe in evolution so long as we recognise it as part of God’s creation
- Status