science and faith

[cassini]

cassini

*Do you not think Moses was taken into heaven by Jesus AFTER the foundation of the Church? *

Moses was not a Catholic. At the heart of the Catholic Nicene creed is the doctrine of the Trinity. Moses had not the foggiest notion of the Trinity. You say, “OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION.” Does this apply to all who lived before Jesus and the founding of his Catholic Church?

Now if you had said that anyone who rejects Christ is not saved, I would be with you.

Anyway, Pius XII did not have to announce his enthusiasm for the Big Bang theory. And I’m sure that he did not regard that theory as vital to Catholic thought, though he must have felt at last science was going to have to serious question the existence of an uncreated universe. After all, that was the single thought that comforted atheists for centuries … a thought now blasted by evidence quite to the contrary.

Now,now Charlie, Moses’s ‘non-Catholicity’ got him into LIMBO - not Heaven. That only happened when Christ died and TOOK him into heaven.

‘Anyone who rejects Christ is not saved’ yes, very same dogma, Moses never rejected the true Redeemer.

I believe Pius XII fell hook, line and sinker for the Big Bang theory, so much so, he THOUGHT it confirmed the creation, no matter what the consequences. Here is one article I found in minutes to send you:

Pope Pius XII and the Big Bang

In 1951, Pope Pius XII asserted that the Big Bang supported the long-standing and accepted doctrine of creation ex nihilo – creation from nothing. In an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Pius XII wrote: “In fact, it seems that present day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial ‘Fiat lux’ [let there be light] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies … Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, therefore, God exists!” John Paul II has however shown more caution – in an address to the same group in 1988 he warned against “making uncritical and overhasty use for apologetic purposes of such recent theories as that of the Big Bang in cosmology.” Despite this caution religious apologists have continued to push the Big Bang theory at the expense of other possibilities. IBM

 

[Anselm33]

As regards the Big Bang theory. I could quote a** few pages of objections by physicists to Hubble’s interpretation of light-shifts of stars**

 

[cassini]

Okay I don’t understand why people keep trying to prove the existence of God. I mean I am sure there are worse things to do with your time, and I doubt it is a sin unless you are in doubt of God. Yet, if you accept that God is omnipotent and infinite, then would you not understand that we cannot fully understand God except for what God has revealed to us? There are two types of revelation: general and special. General is consciousness and nature; special is what someone receives directly from God, as in the Stigmata St. Francis received or when someone receives divine messages from Christ. Why waste time proving God to others when you can be helping others? That is the question. Don’t you guys know the quote “I know that i know nothing?”

Also

Quote makes a lot of sense and harbors on what I was thinking when I first saw this. If it helps you to believe in God then that is great; but once you find whatever you consider proof, then you should definitely just believe and have faith.

“Pray, Hope, and Don’t Worry”–Padre Pio

Couldn’t agree with you more futurtheologian. And if ever there is a clash, theology, not metaphysical assumption, should decide the TRUTH for Catholics.

 

[edwest2]

It is sad that this issue is brought up again and again. Why? Is someone hoping for an answer that is different from all that have gone before? There is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church is not just concerned with faith and morals but with new discoveries and scientific matters as well.

The primary fact is this: there are no peer reviewed, scientific papers about God, the soul, or the Book of Genesis.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Anselm33]

Today is the feast day for St. Augustine, and I think his comments about taking the Genesis story of creation literally (rather than allegorically) are appropriate in terms of some of the posts in this thread
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."(De Genesi ad litteram; the Literal Meaning of Genesis, an unfinished work.)

 

[cassini]

cassini;6984399:

cassini;6984399:

Quote:
As regards the Big Bang theory. I could quote a few pages of objections by physicists to Hubble’s interpretation of light-shifts of stars. One of these contradictory theories could some day turn out to be correct and thus the basis for a Big Bang false.

I had previously asked for those references…do you have them or are they missing unfortunately? Do you really believe that as the Ptolemaic theory predicts, the earth revolves around the sun? Please let us know where you stand on that, whether the earth is round or flat, and whether (contrary to St. Augustine’s strictures on Genesis) that both accounts of creation in Genesis are LITERALLY true.

Anselm, you really do try to undermine my integrity with your ‘refereces please’. The first came in a book by Robert V. Gentry, a nuclear physicist called Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Sciences Association, Tennessee, 1986. In it he quotes numerous physicists’s arguments that totally reject the big bang theory. I could go get them but for you, even thats too much trouble.

Oh by the way, the hard fact is that the only ‘flat-earthers’ around exist in the sceptics’ prejudices, for it is a long time since that notion was seen off. One ancient science-lesson as to the shape of the earth appeared in the Old Testament, the Bible itself.

‘It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth:’ (Is. 40:22.)

That the earth is a globe was also the conclusion of ancient reasoning. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also demonstrated to them a sphere and of course the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon illustrates the curved nature of the earth. So no, nobody had to show the Church or the philosophers and astronomers of 5,700 years something they didn’t know already, as many Copernican propagandists would have us believe.

 

[Anselm33]

Anselm33;7003475:

cassini;6984399:

Anselm, you really do try to undermine my integrity with your ‘refereces please’. The first came in a book by Robert V. Gentry, a nuclear physicist called Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Sciences Association, Tennessee, 1986. In it he quotes numerous physicists’s arguments that totally reject the big bang theory. I could go get them but for you, even thats too much trouble.

When you’re talking about science you want to know whether the person who speaks about something has any authoritative standing. I’d like to know the names of those physicists so I could judge whether they have any standing or got their science degrees from Oral Roberts University or the equivalent. This is standard operating procedure in science, otherwise you get a lot of ignorami spouting off about things they know nothing about. And if you want to maintain your authority and integrity as someone qualified to speak about scientific matters, then, you’d do well to cite your authorities rather than referring to “pages”…
By the way, you haven’t answered my question fully: do you believe, since you have such a thing against Copernicus, that the earth goes around the sun, and do you believe, as do the Young Earth Creationists do, that the Genesis stories of creation are literally, not analogically true? Answering those questions will let me and the other readers of this thread know the context of your beliefs.
PS–reading the reviews of the cited book posted on Amazon.com, it’s evident Gentry is a Young Earth Creationist. He misuses and makes mistakes in talking about radioactive decay evidence for the age of rock strata, so I discount the book and all the references in it. The use of this reference indicates that you are a Young Earth Creationist, and so I discount everything you’ll say in this and other threads… But you might get something out of St. Augustine’s stricture posted above.

 

[Abu]

As Cassini has been quite unable to support his assumption that:

the doctrines and dogmas have been readjusted so much to comply to an evolutionary scenario that they have lost their credibility

anything from him concerning doctrine or dogma can be ignored.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cassini

Pope Pius XII and the Big Bang

In 1951, Pope Pius XII asserted that the Big Bang supported the long-standing and accepted doctrine of creation ex nihilo – creation from nothing. In an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Pius XII wrote: “In fact, it seems that present day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial ‘Fiat lux’ [let there be light] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies … Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, therefore, God exists!” John Paul II has however shown more caution – in an address to the same group in 1988 he warned against “making uncritical and overhasty use for apologetic purposes of such recent theories as that of the Big Bang in cosmology.” Despite this caution religious apologists have continued to push the Big Bang theory at the expense of other possibilities. IBM

Do you have a source for this?

In point of fact, Antony Flew, world renowned atheist, gave up on atheism as a result of learning more about the Big Bang theory and Intelligent Design. So I think it is legitimate to use these scientific developments, not as absolute proofs for the existence of a Creator, but more so as pointers indicating the plausibility of a Creator, whereas at one time science offered relatively little in the way of such pointers.

This article may interest you, though it requires membership to read the article in its entirety.

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0510-sundell

 

[Anselm33]

In point of fact, Antony Flew, world renowned atheist, gave up on atheism as a result of learning more about the Big Bang theory and Intelligent Design. So I think it is legitimate to use these scientific developments, not as absolute proofs for the existence of a Creator, but more so as pointers indicating the plausibility of a Creator, whereas at one time science offered relatively little in the way of such pointers.

 

[cassini]

cassini;7003571:

Anselm33;7003475:

cassini;6984399:

When you’re talking about science you want to know whether the person who speaks about something has any authoritative standing. I’d like to know the names of those physicists so I could judge whether they have any standing or got their science degrees from Oral Roberts University or the equivalent. This is standard operating procedure in science, otherwise you get a lot of ignorami spouting off about things they know nothing about. And if you want to maintain your authority and integrity as someone qualified to speak about scientific matters, then, you’d do well to cite your authorities rather than referring to “pages”…
By the way, you haven’t answered my question fully: do you believe, since you have such a thing against Copernicus, that the earth goes around the sun, and do you believe, as do the Young Earth Creationists do, that the Genesis stories of creation are literally, not analogically true? Answering those questions will let me and the other readers of this thread know the context of your beliefs.
PS–reading the reviews of the cited book posted on Amazon.com, it’s evident Gentry is a Young Earth Creationist. He misuses and makes mistakes in talking about radioactive decay evidence for the age of rock strata, so I discount the book and all the references in it. The use of this reference indicates that you are a Young Earth Creationist, and so I discount everything you’ll say in this and other threads… But you might get something out of St. Augustine’s stricture posted above.

Sorry Anselm, I cannot answer the ‘what do you believe’ questions you ask me for I have made a promise to the Administrator that I would not pursue that line on a certain subject. I can however speak as a neutral and perhaps show you I am not the ‘know nothing’ you ‘puffed up’ intellectuals like to call those who do not follow the ‘god of science’ you obviously follow.

Yes, today SCIENCE has become an INSTITUTION, as can be seen above on Anselm’s posts. It began when the Freemasons decided to take science under their belt and set out the path for its future. Thus they formed what they called ‘SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES’ like the Royal College of London.

‘Let it not be forgotten either that the driving force behind the Invisible College, the Academie… and the Royal Society were all Rosicrucians and Freemasons – Fludd, Boyle, Wren, Ashmole, Lake, Sir Thomas Moray, etc… When we consider that the real title of New Atlantis was The Land of the Rosicrucians, with it’s ethical symbolisms and it’s experimental marvels for the uplift of humanity by applied science, and that a masonic authority like Haughan declared that the New Atlantis seems to be, and probably is, the key to the modern rituals of Freemasonry… we can see how the ‘‘Advancement of Learning’’ was established not merely by writing a book in 1603. The basis for a great attack on the citadels of ignorance and intolerance [THE CATHOLIC CHURCH] had been laid already, and secret phalanxes of enthusiastic warriors were slowly moving up the pedantry of the Aristotelian quidnuncs who thought they knew everything, the dogmas of learned theologians saturated in all but charity, and the consensus of vulgarity of the common people. Although Francis Bacon knew it would ‘‘take many years for the ripening of the seeds’’ he had sown, yet he had made provision that the assault should continue through the generations until victory was assured, for he had left the keys of his particular knowledge to a ‘‘succession of hands’’ who would carry his truths forward to the eternities.’ —Andrew Dodd (33dMason), Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, Rider & Co., 1949, p.158.

Once they got as many natural philosophers, scientists, call them what you like, under their roof, the real work began. Sience could now be controlled, by them of course, all freemasons. Now a bias towards the god-less science could be given approval and the theologically-based science eliminated slowly. Note above (shown here) how Anselm decides which science readers of CA MUST FOLLOW, and any I quote must be eliminated as ignorant

“”""“When you’re talking about science you want to know whether the person who speaks about something has any authoritative standing. I’d like to know the names of those physicists so I could judge whether they have any standing or got their science degrees from Oral Roberts University or the equivalent. This is standard operating procedure in science, otherwise you get a lot of ignorami spouting off about things they know nothing about. And if you want to maintain your authority and integrity as someone qualified to speak about scientific matters, then, you’d do well to cite your authorities rather than referring to “pages”…”"""

 

[cassini]

CONTINUED

Their god-less scientific institution decides the basis upon which you can accept a codswallop theory or not - AUTHORITATIVE STANDING Aslem calls it, in other words has the approval of the boys, the freemasons in the back room. No doubt Aselm will now retort with his conspiracy ploy, calling me a nutter. They have it all figured out. But go read the history of the Royal Society and see how SCIENCE was/is run. For example, beside Newton there was another claiming to be the true originator or inventor of calculus, G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716). As the row grew as to which of them got there first, Leibniz appealed to the Royal Society to resolve the dispute. Poor Leibniz must have thought the Society was an impartial body with a purely scientific agenda. Later, when made President of the Royal Society, Newton appointed a ‘neutral’ committee to investigate, filling most of the committee with his friends of course. But not satisfied with that, he then wrote up the report of the committee’s findings himself and had the Royal Society publish it. As you might guess, the Committee’s official conclusion accused Leibniz of plagiarism.
Now the PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES is a body made up of APPROVED scientists - NO ANTI_Es ALLOWED no matter what degrees, books, research or papars they have to their name. This bunch advise the popes who accept what they say to make up their new theology based on new findings

‘It is necessary to repeat here what I said above. It is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching.’ —Pope John Paul II, speech to PAS, L’Osservatore Romano, 4 Nov, 1992.

Finally Anselm and you too abu:

You appear to know nothing of what Galileo proposed, his faith,
or the ecclesiastic politics at the time he was put under house arrest.

I accept your challenge here in front of all readers of this post. Remember he, Galileo, is the one I quote Pope John Paul II saying was full of the Holy Spirit guiding him - TO WHICH YOU NEVER REPLIED OR DENIED -. What do I not not know about him or his life or his beliefs or his anything?

Let me start. This guy committed PERJURY before the Inquisition.
This guy is and remains a suspected heretic, found guilty by 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. In order to be loosed from this he needs a retrial, an official one, not a sham-one to fool the world as we had in 1981-1992.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Let me start. This guy committed PERJURY before the Inquisition.

Perhaps he hoped to avoid coming under the hook and scalple of their torturers?

This guy is and remains a suspected heretic, found guilty by 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. In order to be loosed from this he needs a retrial, an official one, not a sham-one to fool the world as we had in 1981-1992.

His hersey being proving that the Earth has no special place in the Universe?

Is it quite legal to try someone centuries after their death when they can offer no plea nor testimony?

 

[Anselm33]

QUOTE=Moonstruck888;7006086]Perhaps he hoped to avoid coming under the hook and scalple of their torturers?

His hersey (sic) being proving that the Earth has no special place in the Universe?

Is it quite legal to try someone centuries after their death when they can offer no plea nor testimony?

I think this reply to Cassini’s post shows the point of St. Augustine’s advice about taking Holy Scripture literally rather than analogically.

“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”(De Genesi ad litteram; the Literal Meaning of Genesis, an unfinished work.)

 

[buffalo]

His hersey being proving that the Earth has no special place in the Universe?

But here we are again years later marveling at the unique place the earth sits in the universe.

 

[Abu]

I see that Cassini still is unable to backup, the falsehood that dogmas and doctrines have been contradicted!
BTW Galileo was never declared a heretic by any Pope. The Church enabled the development of science, and gave Galileo a fair hearing

Galileo was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible. He was wrong in his physics. From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities – that most Catholic innovation. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. Buridan, Oresme, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, all developed empirical science from Catholic theology. The system of Copernicus was never denounced.

Galileo got in trouble for presenting heliocentrism as more than just a hypothesis, as absolute truth. Nicolaus Copernicus had no problems at all, and even dedicated his *De Revolutionibus *to the Holy Father.

 

[cassini]

Perhaps he hoped to avoid coming under the hook and scalple of their torturers?

His hersey being proving that the Earth has no special place in the Universe?

Is it quite legal to try someone centuries after their death when they can offer no plea nor testimony?

I see you are an atheist Moonstruck. To me this means you have but one opinion based on the atheistic faith that there was/is no Creator. I say faith for the Big Bang, that is all the matter and space that exists today came from one ting fat atom, that in turn has to find an atheistic existence from nothing, certainly cannot be said to be based on reason. Everything you say is dictated by this one belief. It could be objective and have respect for the likes of me whose faith has to deal with the rather complicated matter of both Catholic faith and science, but you prefer to use your opinions in a manner that tries to ridicule the Church of billions. That said you cannot be accused of being a hypocrit, that is, trying to have your cake and eat it as occurs now in Catholicism, sadly to say.
You have to hold a Big Bang as true and a natural phenomenon, no matter how stupid it looks in the light of reason. You have to hold to a heliocentric world because a geocentric one could only have been created directly by God. You have to believe in absolute evolution for all living creatures. You have no choices Abu, I have. You have chosen a straight-jacket for all your sciences, your own reasoning. I have two sources, Revelation and Reason. I can dip into both until I find the absolute truth.

Galileo perjurered himself because he was a coward and a liar. Bruno found himself in the very same position - being accused of holding a heresy in one’s heart - but he stuck to his guns even though he was burned for them. Galileo never proved the earth was ‘not a special place in the universe.’ All Galileo proved was that planets have moons and orbit the sun. Anyone living on earth, especially those who know how barren the rest of the universe has been found to be, has to recognise the earth is indeed a very special place. I plonk you on the moon Moonstruck and you will see how special it is and how badly you would want to be back on it.

You then ask ‘Is it quite legal to try someone centuries after their death when they can offer no plea nor testimony’. I stated that Galileo will remain a suspected heretic until he is loosed from it legally in the same court in which he was tried. Given his statue is now in a church in Rome among the saints, you would think a church is the wrong place fora suspected heretic. Why dont they retry him so, if they all think he was never a suspected heretic? He won’t have to offer any plea or testimony because even the popes in Rome agree with him now. Strange is it not in an institution that has its own laws and courts and insist all adhere to them,

 

[cassini]

I see that Cassini still is unable to backup, the falsehood that dogmas and doctrines have been contradicted!
BTW Galileo was never declared a heretic by any Pope. The Church enabled the development of science, and gave Galileo a fair hearing

Galileo was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible. He was wrong in his physics. From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities – that most Catholic innovation. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. Buridan, Oresme, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, all developed empirical science from Catholic theology. The system of Copernicus was never denounced.

Galileo got in trouble for presenting heliocentrism as more than just a hypothesis, as absolute truth. Nicolaus Copernicus had no problems at all, and even dedicated his *De Revolutionibus *to the Holy Father.

OK , Abu, I’m tired of your ‘Cassini still is unable to backup, the falsehood that dogmas and doctrines have been contradicted!’ The contradictions come in the form of confusion, in the form of incomprehension, in ambiguity, in the fact that some Catholics totally reject the basis upon which popes have placed the dogmas of the Catholic Church. You cannot have the dogma
*The First Man was created by God *(de fide) and then try to get a monkey as his father.
The whole human race stems from one human pair. (sent. certa). Now where in God’s name did Eve come from, the jungle?

Now when books are written (such as Cardinal Ratzinger’s In the Beginning trying to explain how Catholics can still hold these dogmas under the new evolved humans theories, we come to the big big dogma: Original sin. Now Catholics are expected to believe these monkey children Adam and Eve commit a sin so terrible that God decided to die on a cross to make up for it.
Next the dogma that death and misery entered the world of man because of Original sin. So, after millions of years of death among Adam and Eve’s ancestors, we are asked to believe they wouldn’t have died if only they hadn’t sinned. But they did, so it was continue as before.
I have said enough surely. But that is how I envisage the new science led dogmas of the Church. No thanks I shall keep them as they were, simple, flawless, beautiful, awesome, holy, giving the Creator the omnipotence He is. Creating Adam direct from clay into Paradise, giving him a wife and helper by creating Eve from Adam’s rib. Thus the whole human race comes from Adam as the dogma states. no contradiction whatsoever, no flaw to be figured out. Then our first parents, filled with wisdom, allowed to name animals, commit that serious sin that lost all the promises for us all. The first man according to pope John Paul II in his famous speech ‘E is more than a hypothesis’ would have us believe Adam was a creature whose fossil is found with a weapon, or instrument, (like a club for killing), hardly a ‘man’ God would allow decide the fate of the Human race now, is it?

Does that answer your question Abu?

 

[Abu]

cassini
The contradictions come in the form of confusion, in the form of, in the fact that some Catholics totally reject the basis upon which popes have placed the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

False. A contradiction is not incomprehension, or ambiguity or dependent on “some Catholics” rejecting anything. Christ did not give you or anyone else His authority; Christ gave His Church His authority to bind and loose, protected against the “gates of hell”.

You refer to Pope John Paul II saying that evolution is more than a hypothesis, as though that is even doctrine much less dogma – so you again demonstrate a failure to understand what is dogma and what is doctrine.
“Pope Pius XII’s very qualified openness to human evolution in Humani Generis shows no signs of extending to any hypothesis more radical than that of ‘special transformism’, Pope John Paul II’s principal statement on this issue, his 1996 allocution to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in its strictly doctrinal statements, manifests his intention simply to confirm what his predecessor had already said in 1950.” (Fr Brian Harrison).
rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html

You confuse the charism of infallibility, strictly limited, with all addresses, and your wild speculations that dogma has been changed have no basis in fact.

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

 

[Moonstruck888]

I see you are an atheist Moonstruck.

Your powers of observation do you credit. What a pity they don’t extend to some rudimentary high school reading on the Big Bang Theory.

To me this means you have but one opinion based on the atheistic faith that there was/is no Creator. I say faith for the Big Bang, that is all the matter and space that exists today came from one ting fat atom, that in turn has to find an atheistic existence from nothing, certainly cannot be said to be based on reason. Everything you say is dictated by this one belief. It could be objective and have respect for the likes of me whose faith has to deal with the rather complicated matter of both Catholic faith and science, but you prefer to use your opinions in a manner that tries to ridicule the Church of billions. That said you cannot be accused of being a hypocrit, that is, trying to have your cake and eat it as occurs now in Catholicism, sadly to say.
You have to hold a Big Bang as true and a natural phenomenon, no matter how stupid it looks in the light of reason. You have to hold to a heliocentric world because a geocentric one could only have been created directly by God. You have to believe in absolute evolution for all living creatures. You have no choices Abu, I have. You have chosen a straight-jacket for all your sciences, your own reasoning. I have two sources, Revelation and Reason. I can dip into both until I find the absolute truth.

Galileo perjurered himself because he was a coward and a liar. Bruno found himself in the very same position - being accused of holding a heresy in one’s heart - but he stuck to his guns even though he was burned for them. Galileo never proved the earth was ‘not a special place in the universe.’ All Galileo proved was that planets have moons and orbit the sun. Anyone living on earth, especially those who know how barren the rest of the universe has been found to be, has to recognise the earth is indeed a very special place. I plonk you on the moon Moonstruck and you will see how special it is and how badly you would want to be back on it.

You then ask ‘Is it quite legal to try someone centuries after their death when they can offer no plea nor testimony’. I stated that Galileo will remain a suspected heretic until he is loosed from it legally in the same court in which he was tried. Given his statue is now in a church in Rome among the saints, you would think a church is the wrong place fora suspected heretic. Why dont they retry him so, if they all think he was never a suspected heretic? He won’t have to offer any plea or testimony because even the popes in Rome agree with him now. Strange is it not in an institution that has its own laws and courts and insist all adhere to them,

Sigh…

The Big Bang Theory bears absolutely no resemblence to your educationally subnormal distortion of it. The Big Bang theory makes absolutely know claim to knowledge of what existed before the Big Bang.

I make no claim to any of the knowledge or belief that you have attributed to me. You don’t know me. You don’t know what I believe, you don’t know what I have faith in. This whole post is sentimental drivel. I’d as soon have a preist telling me how to make love to my wife as have you lecture me on Cosmology or what I do or do not believe, since the sound is the same, a person who knows nothing but is in love with his own voice.

Galileo was a coward was he? When some religious bampot of a different faith threatens you with being set on fire, we’ll see how you do.