Galileo

[grannymh]

What needs to be understood

is that cardinals, saints, you and I as individuals can give our opinions/pronouncements on all kinds of topics. Throughout history, some individuals get around to calling people nasty names.

What needs to be remembered is that even popes and other high ranking theologians can speak as individuals. They are not excluded from the foot-in-mouth club.

My point is that when high ranking officials of the Catholic Church address issues of science in scientific terms, they are speaking as individuals, qualified yes, infallible no. When they address issues where “science” is not used in a moral way, they certainly can proclaim basic moral truths, e.g., human life is worthy of profound respect.

As far as scripture interpretation. Obviously it is extremely important. Even so, the Catholic Church has never been considered sola scriptura regardless of individual opinions.

Blessings,
granny

 

[mchale]

Forgive me, the i and l are close and my bi-focals are a problem.

I am not going to do the math for you. Others have and I accept their conclusions.

I guess you are right - why should modern day scientists redo Airy’s failure? (better?)

In other words, you are accepting the authority of others that the math works. You don’t actually know for yourself? So can I ask who it was who did the math? After all, it would be nice to see it for ourselves.

It seems to me, personally, that certain maths work regardless of what reference frame we choose (i.e., if we deal with everything as if it were non-inertial reference frames). We can use mathematics to describe a slightly modified form of Tycho Brahe’s conception of the Universe that works pretty well. As far as I know, however, the geocentric models don’t have a unifying theory to explain it all. They are more akin to Kepler’s laws of planetary motion than Newton’s laws of motion and gravity.

–
Bill

 

[buffalo]

In other words, you are accepting the authority of others that the math works. You don’t actually know for yourself? So can I ask who it was who did the math? After all, it would be nice to see it for ourselves.

It seems to me, personally, that certain maths work regardless of what reference frame we choose (i.e., if we deal with everything as if it were non-inertial reference frames). We can use mathematics to describe a slightly modified form of Tycho Brahe’s conception of the Universe that works pretty well. As far as I know, however, the geocentric models don’t have a unifying theory to explain it all. They are more akin to Kepler’s laws of planetary motion than Newton’s laws of motion and gravity.

–
Bill

I really don’t know much myself. Accumulated knowledge is what I am referencing. I try not to engage at the detail level, for others can debate these. I look for the summaries.

I have not done any experiments myself. My guess is neither have most people. So we are dependent on others.

What I try to do is put together from a macro point of view a synthesis and try to decide what I will believe. I will not disregard Revealed truths and continuous teaching of the church protected by the Holy Spirit.

In the areas where science and Revelation intersect they must reconcile because faith and reason flow from the same God and cannot be opposed.

Now - a question - if we all just pretended evolution theory did not exist ( we just ignored the science) , what would be the consequences to human and eternal life?

 

[mchale]

I really don’t know much myself. Accumulated knowledge is what I am referencing. I try not to engage at the detail level, for others can debate these. I look for the summaries.

I have not done any experiments myself. My guess is neither have most people. So we are dependent on others.

With respect, this kind of undermines your arguments. Without looking into the details, without at least examining the experiments, you essentially trying to argue a position without really understanding what it is you are supporting.

When I took physics in college, and as an amateur astronomer, I have examined much of the data involved myself, and have see some of the predictions of General Relativity and Orbital motions with my own eyes.

What I try to do is put together from a macro point of view a synthesis and try to decide what I will believe. I will not disregard Revealed truths and continuous teaching of the church protected by the Holy Spirit.

No one here, at least not me, is asking you to disregard Revealed Truth, the question is, does the Church really regard everything you believe to be revealed truth to be actual “Revealed Truth”.

In the areas where science and Revelation intersect they must reconcile because faith and reason flow from the same God and cannot be opposed.

Yes they must be reconciled, but sometimes I think people mistake their interpretation of the Revelation for the Revelation itself and therefore expect Science and Reason to bend when in fact it is the interpretation that needs to change.

Now - a question - if we all just pretended evolution theory did not exist ( we just ignored the science) , what would be the consequences to human and eternal life?

Well, we are jumping here, but if we ignore evolutionary theory, biological science would essentially be stabbing in the dark. We wouldn’t understand why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, or have a way of explaining new diseases. We also wouldn’t have a reason for animal testing or other techniques that biology uses to advance science and knowledge.

As for eternal life, personally, I can’t imagine God gave Man reason so that Man could reject reason. Rather, like all gifts, we will need to answer for how we used it or not on the last day.

–
Bill

 

[buffalo]

With respect, this kind of undermines your arguments. Without looking into the details, without at least examining the experiments, you essentially trying to argue a position without really understanding what it is you are supporting.

When I took physics in college, and as an amateur astronomer, I have examined much of the data involved myself, and have see some of the predictions of General Relativity and Orbital motions with my own eyes.

No one here, at least not me, is asking you to disregard Revealed Truth, the question is, does the Church really regard everything you believe to be revealed truth to be actual “Revealed Truth”.

Yes they must be reconciled, but sometimes I think people mistake their interpretation of the Revelation for the Revelation itself and therefore expect Science and Reason to bend when in fact it is the interpretation that needs to change.

Well, we are jumping here, but if we ignore evolutionary theory, biological science would essentially be stabbing in the dark. We wouldn’t understand why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, or have a way of explaining new diseases. We also wouldn’t have a reason for animal testing or other techniques that biology uses to advance science and knowledge.

As for eternal life, personally, I can’t imagine God gave Man reason so that Man could reject reason. Rather, like all gifts, we will need to answer for how we used it or not on the last day.

–
Bill

I have examined the experiments. Many many times. I look at the conclusions. I do understand what I am discussing. What I mean as I am not going to tangle in the details of the science, others can do this. I do not want to focus my discussions on this. There is plenty enough of it here, and I have learned a lot from the discussion. It hones my understanding.

As have I. Actually I grew up with a completely secular admiration of science. I still admire science and the pursuit of knowledge. It is only lately that I have broadened my field of inquiry, as science (by its own admission) has such a limited view and say on the universe.

The undeniable truth is that the Church has taught these things for a very very long time. That has been well established and cannot be doubted. Many post that it is not the case, trying to muddy the waters. The facts are clear about what the Church has taught and believed.

Science doesn’t need to bend. It is what it is. I agree, the conclusions are where the problems lie. The conclusions must harmonize. That is what I look for. The conclusions cannot eliminate God.

Is the use of reason going to get us into heaven or is living God’s call going to do it? Now God gave us reason and the responsibility to use it for good and not against Him.

I really find it hard to believe we need evolution to advance science.

 

[cassini]

Actually, I just read that whole thread, just to be sure, you didn’t answer any of my scientific arguments. Ultimately, if it could be shown that there was a coherent, logical theory built around the idea of a Geocentric Universe that explained what we had have observed in the Universe as well as Newton’s and Einstein’s theories have, I would be perfectly willing to toss out the current model of the Universe in favor of one that was supported by the Church 400 years ago. However, you have not shown that to be the case.

Bill

mchale, if you read the thread deny G - deny the VB, then you missed a very important part of the history of the Galileo affair. The Church’s official scope is not to be found in the development of mere human knowledge but in the preservation of divine knowledge. Now there are times when in order to protect divine knowledge the Church has to correct or prohibit false philosophy (Vatican I).

When the Church defined the Scriptures reveal Geocentricism the pope and theologians did not indulge in any scientific falsification of H, or any scientific defence of Geocentricism. They followed the Church teaching that what the Bible says is the truth of it and therefore no science can or will prove this divine protection wrong. This is called Catholic faith, absolutely. So far in my investigation of Catholic response to the paradigm that investigation of the ‘scientific’ history of the falsification of the Church never actually proved anything, I have discovered that not one poster has this faith. The Copernican heresy was so successful that it really did eliminate Catholic faith. For over two hundred years men’s faith is in ‘science’. I see no difference between a Catholic Copernican today and the atheist Dawkins, for both place their alligence in what science indicates rather than the word of God as defined by the Church.

You begin your reply above asking for scientific data first, your first source for truth, not the canonical, theological, philosophical and traditional basis for truth upon which the Church committed itself absolutely with the 1616 decree. Never once on this forum did I hear from anyone willing to even consider if the Church should be given the benifit of any scientific doubt. No Galileo is given the status of a pope with his defiance. Read what one guy posted on my other thread on Galileo’s statue:

'Why do you think Galileo’s statue should be erected in the Vatican? ’

‘Because he helped lead the Church out of error and into truth, even if it took many years.’

Soon another poster agreed.

Now I want all to read this outrageous statement above. Galileo was a man with three children out of wedlock. He was a hypocrite who held heliocentricism as a truth for years while he fooled all with his support for geocentricism. He was an arrogant pup. He betrayed Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIII. He lied at his trial, coward that he was, not like Bruno, who had the courage of his false principles, and he probably committed perjury at the end of his trial.
Now see how adherence to the Copernican heresy can lower Catholics to utter such blasphemy as above. The Church is the spotless bride of Christ and has no error. It does not need a heretic to ‘lead it out of error’.

I could also ask, has anyone any idea that the battle of Principalities and Powers is ongoing and will last until the last soul is won or lost? Anything that damages the Church is of the devil. Anything that can get humanity to ridicule the Church is of the Devil. Anything that can lessen trust in the Church is of the devil. Anyone who cannot see that the great Copernican revolution wherein man’s belief in God by the things that are was transfered to a belief that supports a rejection of God instead is of the devil has no claim to Catholic faith.

I

 

[Shlomey]

Dear Shlomey,

For your great statement of absolute truth, these are for you :flowers:

Blessings,
granny

Thanks for the flowers

God bless

 

[cassini]

Simple:
a) St. Thomas is not infallible
b) He was speaking not about an issue of faith/morals
c) He had no access to the evidence we are presented nowadays

my conclusion: I think he would not have denied it if you knew of the evidence science presents…

For all I think: the location of our planet is rather irrelevant. God is still God and the Catholic Church is the one true Church guided by the Holy Spirit in terms of faith & morals.

peace

Here also is another poison fruit of the Copernican heresy, the contempt for anyone who stands in the way of Galileo’s sainthood. Shlomey quoted St Thomas trying to undermine my defence of the 1616 Church and its decree. When I informed him that St Thomas was not only a geocentricist, completely supporting the interpretation of the Bible and the Fathers, and who developed the doctrine of geocentricism to perfection, what does he do. He tells all, well St Thomas was not infallible so what would he know about theology and philosophy. Shlomey here undermines one of the greatest saints the Church ever had. Rather than considering the merit of his theology he renders the man so fallible that any of his theology and philosophy could be suspect. When the Popes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries recommended all priests study St Thomas, they should have instructed them to ignore his doctrine on geocentricism because it was ‘not infallible’.

This ‘not infallible’ has become the catch word of Copernicanism. Anything that is ‘not infallible’ in Catholicism, and that amounts to a huge amount of centa certa doctrine, is for the BIRDS, yes Copernicans?

 

[buffalo]

Here also is another poison fruit of the Copernican heresy, the contempt for anyone who stands in the way of Galileo’s sainthood. Shlomey quoted St Thomas trying to undermine my defence of the 1616 Church and its decree. When I informed him that St Thomas was not only a geocentricist, completely supporting the interpretation of the Bible and the Fathers, and who developed the doctrine of geocentricism to perfection, what does he do. He tells all, well St Thomas was not infallible so what would he know about theology and philosophy. Shlomey here undermines one of the greatest saints the Church ever had. Rather than considering the merit of his theology he renders the man so fallible that any of his theology and philosophy could be suspect. When the Popes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries recommended all priests study St Thomas, they should have instructed them to ignore his doctrine on geocentricism because it was ‘not infallible’.

This ‘not infallible’ has become the catch word of Copernicanism. Anything that is ‘not infallible’ in Catholicism, and that amounts to a huge amount of centa certa doctrine, is for the BIRDS, yes Copernicans?

That is the way of scientism.

 

[cassini]

What needs to be understood

is that cardinals, saints, you and I as individuals can give our opinions/pronouncements on all kinds of topics. Throughout history, some individuals get around to calling people nasty names.

What needs to be remembered is that even popes and other high ranking theologians can speak as individuals. They are not excluded from the foot-in-mouth club.

My point is that when high ranking officials of the Catholic Church address issues of science in scientific terms, they are speaking as individuals, qualified yes, infallible no. When they address issues where “science” is not used in a moral way, they certainly can proclaim basic moral truths, e.g., human life is worthy of profound respect.

As far as scripture interpretation. Obviously it is extremely important. Even so, the Catholic Church has never been considered sola scriptura regardless of individual opinions.

Blessings,
granny

The above information is absolutely true in every regard, But there is one exception, the 1616 decree of the Holy Office.
Here once again is the authority it worked under;

The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

Now if anyone thinks the above Holy Office in union with the pope ‘are not excluded from the foot-in-mouth club’ then the Church is a joke. Once again dear readers you can see more fruits of the Copernican heresy. In their defence of this heresy, nothing and nobody that ever uttered their belief in the Fathers interpretation of the Scriptures shall not be undermined.

All those foot-in-mouth utterences came from the Copernican apologists trying to worm their way out of the authority of the 1616 decree.

 

[mchale]

mchale, if you read the thread deny G - deny the VB, then you missed a very important part of the history of the Galileo affair. The Church’s official scope is not to be found in the development of mere human knowledge but in the preservation of divine knowledge. Now there are times when in order to protect divine knowledge the Church has to correct or prohibit false philosophy (Vatican I).

As several posters have pointed out, the Church itself has defined itself as limited to defining issues of faith and morals and has generally interpreted that in the last century or so to not include Natural Philosophy.

When the Church defined the Scriptures reveal Geocentricism the pope and theologians did not indulge in any scientific falsification of H, or any scientific defence of Geocentricism. They followed the Church teaching that what the Bible says is the truth of it and therefore no science can or will prove this divine protection wrong. This is called Catholic faith, absolutely…
…
I have discovered that not one poster has this faith. The Copernican heresy was so successful that it really did eliminate Catholic faith. For over two hundred years men’s faith is in ‘science’. …

Augustine and Aquinas both allow essentially for what would now be called a scientific falsification of interpretations of the Bible. Of course you have decided that since they both (reasonable for the time) believed in Geocentric models, that they could not have allowed that upon further data that they themselves might have to revise their interpretations.

Further, science is not about the “falsification of the Church” While some scientists are opponents of the Church and often enough any sort of faith in general, science as a whole and most scientists are interested in developing knowledge of the natural world; they are not trying to falsify the Church or any of its beliefs.

Of course now, you claim that those of us who don’t believe in geocentric models of the Universe are heretics and no better than atheists. In reality I wonder, whose faith in God and the Church is stronger, the one who denies the evidence placed before them because it might falsify their beliefs, or the one who gladly accepts the evidence before them because it is yet another way to know of God and his creation?

You begin your reply above asking for scientific data first, your first source for truth, not the canonical, theological, philosophical and traditional basis for truth upon which the Church committed itself absolutely with the 1616 decree. Never once on this forum did I hear from anyone willing to even consider if the Church should be given the benifit of any scientific doubt. No Galileo is given the status of a pope with his defiance. Read what one guy posted on my other thread on Galileo’s statue:

I ask for scientific proof because we are debating a scientific question. The Church itself has claimed that its authority is limited to matters of faith and morals. I do not see the question of the organization of the Universe to be one that is essential to faith, therefore I turn to one of the tools that God has given us, human reason as expressed in science to find those answers. More over, what I find through reason ultimately builds my faith as I see the beauty and elegance in a Universe far grander than the one that a geocentric model leaves us with.

'Why do you think Galileo’s statue should be erected in the Vatican? ’

‘Because he helped lead the Church out of error and into truth, even if it took many years.’

Soon another poster agreed.

Now I want all to read this outrageous statement above. Galileo was a man with three children out of wedlock. He was a hypocrite who held heliocentricism as a truth for years while he fooled all with his support for geocentricism. He was an arrogant pup. He betrayed Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIII. He lied at his trial, coward that he was, not like Bruno, who had the courage of his false principles, and he probably committed perjury at the end of his trial.
Now see how adherence to the Copernican heresy can lower Catholics to utter such blasphemy as above. The Church is the spotless bride of Christ and has no error. It does not need a heretic to ‘lead it out of error’.

Galileo’s personal life is irrelevant to the Question. Frankly in that day and age, the personal lives of more than one Pope would have been found even more wanting than Galileo’s. All have sinned, all have fallen short of God. The question is about how he was treated for supporting the heliocentric model and what the Church currently holds about the various models of the Universe (including the fact that several of her priests have had key roles in the development of modern cosmological models).

Further, while Galileo in no way found any real evidence of the heliocentric model, his contributions to science (the development of the telescope as an astronomical instrument and the recognition that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent amongst others) had a real impact in taking natural philosophy out of the school of debating Aristotle
and towards real science.

Anything that damages the Church is of the devil. Anything that can get humanity to ridicule the Church is of the Devil. Anything that can lessen trust in the Church is of the devil. Anyone who cannot see that the great Copernican revolution wherein man's belief in God by the things that are was transfered to a belief that supports a rejection of God instead is of the devil has no claim to Catholic faith.

So lets see here, by trying to insist that to be properly Catholic, you have to hold a position that is essentially irrelevant to faith or morals, it could be claimed that you are in fact damaging the Church and making it an object of ridicule.

–
Bill

I

 

[cassini]

A Cardinal, no matter how good of a theologian, is going to make mistakes from time to time, particularly considering that he can only work with the knowledge he has at the time. His pronouncement on this issue is in no way binding on Catholics of the current time.

This of course doesn’t say anything about whether the Earth is the center of the Universe or not.

So lets see here…belief in a non-geocentric universe is, according to you Heresy. Yet most in the Church, including the Popes of the last century or so, have almost certainly believed it. Last I checked, a Pope who was guilty of formal heresy was actually not valid as a Pope. But if most if not all of the Church’s leaders have been heretics, then wouldn’t that mean that the Church has failed?

Bill

So, Now we have Bellarmine dismissed as a foot-in-mouth theologian who couldn’t tell the difference between faith and science.

Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England, while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world.

So, to defend the Copernican heresy we see St Thomas rubbished, Bellarmine rubbished and the Holy Office of 1616 rubbished. Pathetic isn’t it. Well you know when it comes to accepting the word of the above or the make it up as you go along Modernists on this thread, my salvation shall be with those great saints and not the heretics.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding these statements originally posted by Shlomey

a) St. Thomas is not infallible
b) He was speaking not about an issue of faith/morals
c) He had no access to the evidence we are presented nowadays

While this “granny” may be older than dirt, she still has
a bit of common sense between her ears.

a) St. Thomas is not infallible

True. Even though he was gifted with great intelligence, St. Thomas Aquinas considered himself a humble servant of the Lord. He would spend hours in prayer before he lifted a pen. Being or not being infallible has nothing to do with his pursuit of theological and philosophical knowledge nor with his gift of communication. His tremendous contribution to Catholicism stands on its own merit.

b) He was speaking not about an issue of faith/morals

True. So give the man a break. He was leading a balanced life, looking into all aspects of the world around him. Of course, he could have opinions in the scientific area. Baseball hadn’t been invented.

c) He had no access to the evidence we are presented nowadays

True. Not only was he not infallible, he was also not immortal.

General Information: As my Irish mother would say: The truth is in the pudding." In other words, over time, many learned people studied St. Thomas’ writings and eventually some of them were used as a way of understanding the truths of Catholicism. It is truth in the areas of faith and morals which can be declared, in very prescribed official ways, infallible.

So please, let’s not read extra stuff [post 68] into the very clear statements above. It’s not nice to confuse a granny.

 

[mchale]

So, Now we have Bellarmine dismissed as a foot-in-mouth theologian who couldn’t tell the difference between faith and science.

So, to defend the Copernican heresy we see St Thomas rubbished, Bellarmine rubbished and the Holy Office of 1616 rubbished. Pathetic isn’t it. Well you know when it comes to accepting the word of the above or the make it up as you go along Modernists on this thread, my salvation shall be with those great saints and not the heretics.

My goodness, I can only be glad that St. Thomas and St. Robert have thicker skins than you! Lets put it in simple terms, every one, even the holiest man (save of course Jesus and the Virgin Mary) is subject to sin and error. I am not saying and have never said that any of the above were fools or less than intelligent or competent. However, any individual, no matter how smart is going to make mistakes from time to time, particularly when it comes to drawing conclusions from insufficient data. This is not rubbishing them, it is a simple statement of fact.

–
Bill

 

[hecd2]

I am not going to do the math for you. Others have and I accept their conclusions.

In other words you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. It’s not that you won’t do the maths for me - it’s that you haven’t got the faintest idea how to begin. You don’t even know who the “others” are who you say have done it. That’s typical creationist/geocentrist obfuscation.

Let’s recap: you claimed that the maths works for a geocentric universe. I asked you to show me the maths that underpins the Coriolis force, the launch of satellites eastwards, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the poles and the equator and the rotation of Foucault’s pendulum on a stationary earth and you tell me that others who you can’t even name have done it and you believe them. That’s pathetically lame.

I guess you are right - why should modern day scientists redo Airy’s failure? (better?)

Do you know that only geocentrists (and flat-earthers!) call Airy’s stellar aberration experiment “Airy’s failure”? What was the failure? That it failed to confirm the existence of an aether that we now know does not exist. Indeed, the results of the experiment are perfectly compatible with a modern understanding of physics, astronomy and optics, if the earth is moving with respect to the star field in an ellipse with the same axes as its rotation around the sun. Doesn’t seem much like a failure to me. More evidence that you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. You have been duped.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Critique%20of%20Humphreys%20article.htm

 

[hecd2]

I don’t know, (others make the arguments) but I will sell my gold at the north pole, since it will weigh more.

You don’t know? Par for the course.

Whether your gold weighs more at the north pole depends on how you measure it, don’t you know?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[MarcoPolo]

My goodness, I can only be glad that St. Thomas and St. Robert have thicker skins than you! Lets put it in simple terms, every one, even the holiest man (save of course Jesus and the Virgin Mary) is subject to sin and error. I am not saying and have never said that any of the above were fools or less than intelligent or competent. However, any individual, no matter how smart is going to make mistakes from time to time, particularly when it comes to drawing conclusions from insufficient data. This is not rubbishing them, it is a simple statement of fact.

–
Bill

I have posted this pertinent paragraph in threads with cassini before, so he has seen it but I’m not sure how many other people have. But Cardinal Bellarmine said in his 1615 letter to Father Foscarini the following:Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. - Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 1615.So in 1615, we see the possibility for new science to show otherwise still existed. Cassini says the issue was “defined” in 1616. However, the requirements for a dogma to be defined do not include tribunals. And I appreciate his zeal for defending the Church fathers on this matter, but I cannot support the claim that the Church ever dogmatically defined geocentrism in a physical sense.

So even after the tribunal, Cardinal Bellarmine’s hypothetical would still apply. There’s no reason why it suddenly wouldn’t. The Church simply was not convinced that Gallileo’s presentation was a “true demonstration.” And the Church should be given some credit, given Gallileo’s claim of a heliocentric universe, on which current science supports the tribunals on the matter.

 

[buffalo]

In other words you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. It’s not that you won’t do the maths for me - it’s that you haven’t got the faintest idea how to begin. You don’t even know who the “others” are who you say have done it. That’s typical creationist/geocentrist obfuscation.

Let’s recap: you claimed that the maths works for a geocentric universe. I asked you to show me the maths that underpins the Coriolis force, the launch of satellites eastwards, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the poles and the equator and the rotation of Foucault’s pendulum on a stationary earth and you tell me that others who you can’t even name have done it and you believe them. That’s pathetically lame.

Do you know that only geocentrists (and flat-earthers!) call Airy’s stellar aberration experiment “Airy’s failure”? What was the failure? That it failed to confirm the existence of an aether that we now know does not exist. Indeed, the results of the experiment are perfectly compatible with a modern understanding of physics, astronomy and optics, if the earth is moving with respect to the star field in an ellipse with the same axes as its rotation around the sun. Doesn’t seem much like a failure to me. More evidence that you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. You have been duped.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Critique%20of%20Humphreys%20article.htm

No clue. Put me on ignore then.

 

[wildleafblower]

**ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II **
TO INTERNATIONAL Conference on Space Research,
University of Padua, Italy
Saturday, 11 January 1997

Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. I am pleased to welcome the distinguished participants in the International Conference on Space Research which has just concluded its meeting at the University of Padua on the theme, “The Three Galileos: The Man, the Spacecraft, the Telescope”. You have concentrated your attention on recent scientific results from the spacecraft Galileo and on your expectations of future findings both from that spacecraft and from the Italian National Telescope, also named for Galileo and inaugurated just eight months ago at a site in the Canary Islands. I congratulate the scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration whose achievements have been solemnly recognized by the University of Padua, where the great physicist himself spent many fruitful years.
2. The spacecraft Galileo and the Italian National Telescope are both making significant contributions to the formation of a more comprehensive vision of the universe. Building on well-established experimental results, you and others around the world are perfecting a model which traces the whole evolution of the universe from an infinitesimal instant after the starting-point of time up to the present, and beyond, into the distant future. As never before man’s gaze is open to the wonders of the universe. And the marvel of it all is a constant call to ponder ever more seriously the greatness of man’s own destiny and his dependence upon the Creator. Thus, while we stand in awe before the vastness of the cosmos and the dynamism which pervades it, our hearts echo with certain fascinating and fundamental questions which continue to challenge humanity at the dawn of the new millennium.
3. The participation of the Vatican Observatory in your work is a practical sign of the Church’s appreciation of the particular genius, objectivity, self-discipline and respect for truth which scientists bring to the exploration of the universe. Your dedication to scientific research constitutes a veritable vocation at the service of the human family, a vocation which the Church greatly honours and esteems. That vocation is all the more fruitful when it helps us to ac- knowledge the link between the beauty and order of the universe and the dignity of the human person — reflections of the creative majesty of God. The more men and women of science engage in rigorous research to penetrate the laws of the universe, the more insistent becomes the question of meaning and purpose, the more pressing the demand for contemplative reflection which cannot help but lead to a profound appreciation of the sense of man’s transcendence over the world, and of God over man (cf. Address at UNESCO, 2 June 1980, n. 22).

Through you, who have kindly wished to share the deliberations of your conference with me, I address an appeal to all your colleagues in the various fields of scientific investigation: Make every effort to respect the primacy of ethics in your work; always be concerned with the moral implications of your methods and your discoveries. It is my prayer that scientists will never forget that the cause of humanity is authentically served only if knowledge is joined to conscience.

1. Ladies and gentlemen, in concluding these brief remarks I confide to you my hope that the research which brings you so close to the marvellous mysteries of the universe will enkindle in you an ever deeper appreciation of God’s power and wisdom. May your discoveries contribute to the building of a society ever more respectful of all that is truly human. May the Lord of heaven and earth bless you all abundantly!
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1997/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19970111_congresso-spazio_en.html
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...f_jp-ii_spe_19970111_congresso-spazio_en.html

 

[wildleafblower]

JUBILEE FOR SCIENTISTS
ADDRESS OF PROF. NICOLA CABIBBO
TO THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II
25 May 2000

Holy Father,

Coming from the land which gave birth to Nicolas Copernicus, You have engaged in a process of reconciliation between the world of Science and the world of Religion. Some of the many important contributions You have given to this process are:

• The conclusion, in Your solemn address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1988 of the Galilei controversy which for centuries had marred the relationship between the scientific world and the Church.
• As a fitting consequence of this, the opening-up of the secret archives to all interested scholars.
• The recognition of the theory of evolution, and the acknowledgement that the recent discoveries in molecular biology represent an “impressive manifestation of the unity of nature” (Co-88).

In re-establishing a discourse between the world of science and that of religion, Your aim goes beyond mere reconciliation, it delineates a process towards a new unity. In your letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory, in 1988, you clearly define the scope of this process:
“As dialogue and common searching continue, there will be growth towards mutual understanding and a gradual uncovering of common concerns which will provide the basis for further research and discussion… **Each discipline should continue to enrich, nourish and challenge the other to be more fully what it can be and to contribute to our vision of who we are and of who we are becoming”. **

As the focal point for the meeting of science and religion You thus pose the sapiential dimension, which in the Encyclical Letter “Fides et Ratio” You define as “a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life”. To this You add: “This sapiential dimension is all the more necessary today, because the immense expansion of humanity’s technical capability demands a renewed and sharpened sense of ultimate values”. In the conclusion to the Encyclical You urge scientists “to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person”.

The science driven advancement of technical capabilities poses ethical problems, which can only be clarified through an intense and open dialogue between science and religion. This is certainly true of the new methods for the modification of living beings, with their promise of improved cures for many diseases, but which may in some cases endanger the integrity of the human person.

Other ethical problems are of a more global nature, threats to the well-being of entire populations and of humanity as a whole. Ethical problems of this scale, be it those arising from nuclear weapons or from possible alterations in the natural balance of the environment, require decisions at the level of national and international public policy, and on these themes You have generously offered your advice and the authority of Your voice.

The rapid advance of scientific knowledge and technical capabilities poses a problem of justice and equity. Most of the scientific knowledge is produced in the rich counties, and it is these counties which most enjoy the economic fruits of the new technologies. **The gulf between rich and poor widens, and the poor become more and more dependent on the rich for their basic necessities. The problem is wider than science, and You have even recently raised Your voice against this injustice. The poor contries must become able to contribute the advancement of scientific knowledge and to partake equitably in the fruits of progress. **

Holy Father,

We are deeply grateful for this great occasion to celebrate in Your presence the Jubilee for men and women from the world of learning. This ceremony and Your words will remain forever in our memory. For this and for your work and guidance we are grateful.

Thank you.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html