Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex
annalex: "your fellow cultists are also all Galileos.
Who, by the way, proved heliocentrism, — something you cannot do."

Nor could Galileo.
In actual scientific terms, Galileo's telescope observations helped confirm the heliocentric hypothesis, which along with mathematical work of Copernicus and Kepler, made it a scientific theory.

Today we could also call heliocentrism a scientific fact since it has so many times been observed and confirmed (i.e., by space probes launched to photograph the Sun).
But in actual scientific terms, such a theory cannot be definitely proved because it is always possible that some new evidence will be discovered to disprove it.

By the way, we should note that at the time, the Catholic Church correctly considered heliocentrism a "mathematical fantasy", and did not object to it as such.
It was only when Galileo claimed he could confirm it through observation that the Church put its foot down and demanded recantation.
Of course I'm not saying the Church was right and Galileo wrong, only that there's no way Galileo could actually see the Earth revolving around the Sun.

So Galileo's observations did not prove the heliocentric hypothesis, they only helped confirm it, and so made it a scientific theory. QED.

annalex: "I stand by my statements."

Nearly all of your statements have been confirmed false, so wherever you wish to stand is irrelevant.

annalex: "Also, you made this a flame war."

I have merely responded with truth to each of your false statements, FRiend.

annalex: "I will ignore your future rants."

Have a nice day, FRiend. ;-)

262 posted on 06/26/2012 12:22:00 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK

You just keep provide material for good laughs that cannot be passed up.

Heliocentrism is the hypothesis that planets have orbits that are nearly circular with the sun at the center. That is a proven theory: astronomical observations agree with it, the observations do not agree with the geocentric hypothesis, and the laws of gravity explain the mechanism. Nothing even remotely similar can be said of the evolution hypothesis: fossil observations can agree with the similar species being unrelated just as easily; the breeding experience does not speak to the issue; and the genetic mechanism more readily explains why the species remain confined to their own boundary overtime, rather than how they supposedly evolve and cross them.

I agree that at the time of Galileo his hypothesis was not yet duly proven, this is why the Church felt it necessary to censor him. However, the insinuation that fundamental astronomical facts such as the shapes of planetary orbits are all merely relative truths that obtain till found false (”some new evidence will be discovered to disprove it”) is another example of your fellow cultists not having a grasp what science is and isn’t.


263 posted on 06/26/2012 5:36:33 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson