Posts by jcb8199

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Bill Maher challenged to intelligent-design debate

    05/10/2006 3:31:56 PM PDT · 26 of 67
    jcb8199 to WestVirginiaRebel
    God Doesn't Believe in Atheists sounds like an intelligent read... Nothing like presupposing the Will or Mind of the Creator of the Universe...
  • Brighter sun adds to fears of climate change

    03/26/2006 8:36:19 AM PST · 9 of 52
    jcb8199 to aculeus

    Don't forget that it was our fault all those iceages started and ended (you know, the ones where there were gigantic, billion-ton sheets of ice sliding around on the continents, carving valleys and whatnot, that melted somehow...).

  • Brighter sun adds to fears of climate change

    03/26/2006 8:35:00 AM PST · 8 of 52
    jcb8199 to aculeus

    Weird, that orb which warms our planet has an effect on the temperature of this planet... Imagine that!

  • The Michelangelo code: The genius of the Sistine Chapel was rude, puerile and a tad pornographic

    03/18/2006 7:38:40 PM PST · 94 of 133
    jcb8199 to billorites

    Weird, an insecure, vain gay man...

  • Bush Gets Reminder of Gulf Coast Damage

    03/08/2006 9:23:18 AM PST · 1 of 12
    jcb8199
    Let's play a little game called "spot the bias." Can you do it?
  • US knew about al Qaeda in 1990s, FBI agent says (BREAKING NEWS!!!)

    03/07/2006 1:44:30 PM PST · 31 of 103
    jcb8199 to montag813

    Which is why it's so funny... I added the "breaking news" myself, as it is clearly anything but (though the Media doesn't seem to think so).

  • US knew about al Qaeda in 1990s, FBI agent says (BREAKING NEWS!!!)

    03/07/2006 12:21:41 PM PST · 1 of 103
    jcb8199
    As usual, the MSM is first on the scene with this breaking news... Strange how they don't mention whose Administration it was under...
  • Abortion-rights advocates threaten to boycott S.D.

    03/01/2006 12:55:40 PM PST · 1 of 37
    jcb8199
    Time to plan a trip to South Dakota!
  • South Dakota Abortion Bill Passed

    02/24/2006 3:14:32 PM PST · 167 of 178
    jcb8199 to Rushmore Rocks

    Y'all are doing it right, up there! God Bless!

  • South Dakota Abortion Bill Passed

    02/24/2006 3:13:22 PM PST · 165 of 178
    jcb8199 to Tim Long

    TIME TO MOVE TO SOUTH DAKOTA!

  • South Dakota Abortion Bill Passed

    02/24/2006 3:13:05 PM PST · 164 of 178
    jcb8199 to Baynative

    Why?

  • South Dakota Abortion Bill Passed

    02/24/2006 3:12:50 PM PST · 163 of 178
    jcb8199 to Tim Long

    And of course the whiners want to circumvent the democratic process by going to a court to overturn an OVERWHELMING action by the legislature...

    If the whiners are all so concerned (Planned Parenthood, say), they should set up a "transportation" fund to take women seeking those 800 abortions a year out of state.

  • In The Face Of Evil..

    02/21/2006 1:41:43 PM PST · 14 of 19
    jcb8199 to Onelifetogive

    Forget about renting it-- BUY IT! It is phenomenal, not just for its showcasing of Reagan's work, but also for the historical footage used to create it.

  • Jury sets bondage lady free: ‘Liberals’ hit in slay verdict

    01/31/2006 11:14:38 AM PST · 43 of 50
    jcb8199 to MassRepublicanFlyersFan

    "Some of those New Englanders are pretty wise but a lot are liberals. I sort of expected it."

    The best line in the whole story.

  • Vatican may have found late pope's 'miracle'

    01/30/2006 12:12:11 PM PST · 67 of 237
    jcb8199 to ksen

    From CNN...THERE'S a reliable source...

  • Vatican may have found late pope's 'miracle'

    01/30/2006 12:11:09 PM PST · 66 of 237
    jcb8199 to Almondjoy

    Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you, or a sick relative, or anything of that sort? Maybe your brother lost his job, so you asked people with whom you go to church to "pray for my brother"? That is what Catholics do when we "pray to saints." We recognize that NO ONE on this side of Heaven can do it alone, and so ask for all the help we can get--read the Creed:

    And so I ask the Blessed Mary, ever virgin,
    All the angels and saints,
    and you, my brothers and sisters,
    to pray for me, to the Lord our God.

    Doesn't get much simpler than that--we recite that every Sunday with the Confiteor.

  • Stone slams US for ignoring AIDS

    01/30/2006 12:00:30 PM PST · 64 of 73
    jcb8199 to Millee

    Even though we give more money than any other country in the world...

    Stupid bimbo...

  • Vatican may have found late pope's 'miracle'

    01/30/2006 11:58:36 AM PST · 62 of 237
    jcb8199 to marshmallow

    Well put. I love it how Protestants say we are going to hell for praying to someone "other than Christ," and then turn right around and say "Please pray for my mother, she's got cancer." We don't just ask those who are with us now, we ask those who obviously got it right - saints - in addition.

  • To Kill an American

    01/26/2006 8:23:02 PM PST · 12 of 37
    jcb8199 to GeekDejure

    Great post!

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/26/2006 11:53:02 AM PST · 602 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    That it clashed with their theology is secondary to the fact that the accepted, "proven" fact was that the Earth didn't move; the Church didn't say that, SCIENCE said that and the Church read the Bible in such a way that they agreed. Ptolemy worked in the 2nd century AD, when it was still illegal, in the Roman empire, to be Christian. So for the next 150 years or so, scientists agreed; then the Catholic Church was given official recognition and became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Then, more than 1200 years later, after nearly 1500 years of accepted SCIENTIFIC "fact," Galileo said the Earth moved, and provided compelling evidence (but not FINAL evidence).

    What more needs be said? I keep exhorting you to look at this from the historical perspective--when will you?

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/25/2006 1:15:03 PM PST · 600 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    Why should the Church have to prove that which had been accepted and "proven" for nearly 1500 years? The burden of proof was on Galileo, as he was challenging the scientific standard.

    --Reason:
    The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence
    --Common Sense;
    Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment

    So, 500+ years ago, if I were to logically, rationally, and analytically think about it, it would seem that the Earth didn't move; Common sense would back up that assertion, as I don't feel like I am moving, and the Earth doesn't show it, so it must be that I am still. Again, HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE is useful...

    Galileo peered through a telescope, right. Then when he was challenged, he offered no concrete evidence, something which would have been helpful, to say the least, as it flies in the face of REASON and COMMON SENSE that he was right, not to mention it was contrary to 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific knowledge. Now, if he had said look, this telescope backs me up, as does this and this, and this law of Gravity that Newton will develop in 100 years, and this idea about orbits Kepler has already developed &c... we'd not be having this discussion.
    Perhaps I shouldn't have said it so simply--a telescope alone does not do the trick because you can't see the Earth moving, you can see everything around the Earth moving. Reason would say, OK, this is compelling, I wonder what other evidence I can find.

    Again, GALILEO WAS RIGHT--he was not wrong in his Copernican assertion. The ONLY issue I see here, and the only thing with which I have a problem is that you seem to think he should have been showered with accolades for NOT proving his assertion--he made a compelling case, but not until Newton 100 years later and parallaxes &c even later was he DEFINITIVELY vindicated. He submitted himself to the Church's authority, so that is a non-issue. He was criticized by his fellow scientists. He had not presented sufficient evidence to overturn 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific "fact". Why do you require the Church prove that which had already been "proven"?

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/25/2006 12:49:33 PM PST · 597 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    Osiander, Schoenberg, and Copernicus all had an intro to the book. The one that called it "hypothetical" was Osianders. Copernicus wrote his own intro. We have, to this point, been referring to Osiander's.

    No, REASON says the Earth is stationery. See, here is where "historical perspective" is nice. Common sense and reason were simpatico 400+ years ago. Common sense said that the Earth didn't move, and reason, as they investigated it, concurred. The Earth doesn't feel like it is moving, all the heavenly bodies seem like the are, so REASON, if you just sit and stare, tends to indicate that you are right. But if you peer through a telescope (something that they didn't have 500+ years ago) REASON shows you are wrong.

    Why are you requiring the Church, which relied on biblical interpretation as much as it relied on 1500 years of "proven" and accepted scientific fact to prove its case, while at the same time dismissing Galileo's lack thereof?

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/25/2006 12:18:02 PM PST · 595 of 606
    jcb8199 to Fester Chugabrew

    Boxes are blue.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/25/2006 12:10:47 PM PST · 594 of 606
    jcb8199 to highball
    I have already addressed this--in my estimation, they were slow to accept it because A) it was not sufficiently proven for nearly a century, B) the Church is made up of men, and after the stink of the whole thing, they were loathe to admit fault, as any man is.

    You say "Church" dogma like it was only the Church in opposition to Galileo--Protestants as well as his fellow scientists, astronomers, and mathematicians were by and large opposed to it. They weren't so much holding to "dogma" as they were holding to "accepted scientific fact."

    Read a book--starting with How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and you will see how WRONG your comment about "anti-science zealots" actually is. Seriously. Read it. Educate yourself.

    And the Church hasn't "accepted" evolution. It has just said it is not incompatible with the story of creation or the idea that God implemented it. If evolution is removed from the realm of Divine Inspiration then the Church DOES NOT accept it.
  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/25/2006 12:06:18 PM PST · 593 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    1) Research the Inquisition. It is far less intrusive than modern history has led you to believe.

    2) So since we haven't pinpointed the exact orbits, the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun? In which case Galileo wasn't right after all?

    3) He submitted himself to the authority of the Church. The Church was the religious and secular authority in his region; he could have moved out of such influence. He still would have been under pressure from the scientific crowd, but he did not have to submit himself to their power.

    4) Copernicus wrote an intro just the same. I included it in the post, you might see. His beliefs WERE well known. It was not until Galileo taught those beliefs as FACT that Copernicus' work came under fire. He wrote the book, as you will see, after prompting by CATHOLIC friends, including a priest and a cardinal. You have some really misguided perceptions about the age of the Scientific Revolution if you think that Copernicus was alone with his thoughts, that no one else knew them.

    5) ...a "state" to whose power the "silenced" submitted himself...

    6) I agree only with the desire to protect truth; the Church, while wrong (as I have said repeatedly), was, simply, motivated out of a desire to protect truth. It is hardly science if one man can come along claiming proof of something not only fairly revolutionary (an idea 70 years old vs. an accepted "fact" nearly 1500) but counter-intuitive and beyond the grasp of reason and everyone just says "Hooray for you! You did it!" Science is not that--science is observing, testing, analyzing, recording, and holding your work out to be refuted. Galileo taught it as fact before it was established as such.
    And again, he submitted himself to the authority of the Church.

    7) "Reason" says that the Earth is stationary--it doesn't feel like its moving, it doesn't look like it's moving, and (apparently) hasn't been proven its moving. Galileo said the opposite, albeit with compelling evidence, but not concrete and final evidence (which apparently still hasn't come...)
    As for separation of Church and state, I agree with you. I, however, am capable of looking at it from the historic perspective without the taint of our modern sensibilities.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/24/2006 4:36:02 PM PST · 589 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman
    1) The Inquisition was to root out people within the Church. Persecution of Jews or witches is another matter entirely. Heresy is teaching something other than accepted doctrine or beliefs; of course Jews or whomever had different beliefs, and taught them. The Inquisition was aimed at Catholics (and even then was not nearly on the scale that modern historians like to make it seem).

    2) So since there "never will be absolute proof for a scientific theory," then we HAVEN'T proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Galileo had a HYPOTHESIS. His HYPOTHESIS had to be proven, something he couldn't definitively do, which Newton did, and more advanced telescopes proved. So if his "theory" can't be proven...what, we don't revolve around the Sun, or we need more evidence, or it is something that can be DISproven?

    3) I never said he had no evidence, I said he couldn't PROVE it. He had evidence, and quite compelling evidence at that. Had he stuck with THAT, and laid it out as a HYPOTHESIS, there never would've been any issue. But he taught as FACT that which he could not prove WAS fact.

    4) I fail to see the issue--the Church, acting within its power (Galileo submitted himself to it, after all) both theologically, in interpreting the scriptures, and legally (as we have already discussed) told Galileo to not teach as fact that which was hypothesis. Copernicus' ideas were well known and were not scorned or forbidden until Galileo started teaching them as fact--something that wouldn't be definitively proven for some time. End of story.

    5) Again bringing up the intro that someone ELSE wrote? Or are you speaking of the intro in which he dedicated De Revolutionibus" to Pope Paul III?

    I can readily imagine, Holy Father, that as soon as some people hear that in this volume, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the universe, I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will shout that I must be immediately repudiated together with this belief For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgement of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God. Yet I hold that completely erroneous views should be shunned. Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its center would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves. Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish the volume which I wrote to prove the earth's motion or rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophy's secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis' letter to Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose, because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken.

    But while I hesitated for a long time and even resisted, my friends drew me back. Foremost among them was the cardinal of Capua, Nicholas Schönberg, renowned in every field of learning. Next to him was a man who loves me dearly, Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chelmno, a close student of sacred letters as well as of all good literature. For he repeatedly encouraged me and, sometimes adding reproaches, urgently requested me to publish this volume and finally permit it to appear after being buried among my papers and lying concealed not merely until the ninth year but by now the fourth period of nine years. The same conduct was recommended to me by not a few other very eminent scholars. They exhorted me no longer to refuse, on account of the fear which I felt, to make my work available for the general use of students of astronomy. Ile crazier my doctrine of the earth's motion now appeared to most people, the argument ran, so much the more admiration and thanks would it gain after they saw the publication of my writings dispel the fog of absurdity by most luminous proofs. Influenced therefore by these persuasive men and by this hope, in the end I allowed my friends to bring out an edition of the volume, as they had long besought me to do.

    However, Your Holiness will perhaps not be greatly surprised that I have dared to publish my studies after devoting so much effort to working them out that I did not hesitate to put down my thoughts about the earth's motion in written fcrm too. But you are rather waiting to hear from me how it occurred to me to venture to conceive any motion of the earth, against the traditional opinion of astronomers and almost against common sense. I have accordingly no desire to from Your Holiness that I was impelled to consider a different system of deducing the motions of the universe's spheres for no other reason than the realization that astronomers do not agree among themselves in their investigations of this subject. For, in the first place, they are so uncertain about the motion of the sun and moon that they cannot establish and observe a constant length even for the tropical year. Secondly, in determining the motions not only of these bodies but also of the other five planets, they do not use the same principles, assumptions, and explanations of the apparent revolutions and motions. For while some employ only homocentrics, others utilize eccentrics and epicycles, and yet they do not quite reach their goal. For although those who put their faith in homocentrics showed that some nonuniform motions could be compounded in this way, nevertheless by this means they were unable to obtain any incontrovertible result in absolute agreement with the phenomena. On the other hand, those who devised the eccentrics seem thereby in large measure to have solved the problem of the apparent motions with appropriate calculations. But meanwhile they introduced a good many ideas which apparently contradict the first principles of uniform motion. Nor could they elicit or deduce from the eccentrics the principal consideration, that is, the structure of the universe and the true symmetry of its parts. On the contrary, their experience was just like some one taking from various places hands, feet, a head, and other pieces, very well depicted, it may be, but not for the representation of a single person; since these fragments would not belong to one another at all, a monster rather than a man would be put together from them. Hence in the process of demonstration or "method", as it is called, those who employed eccentrics are found either to have omitted something essential or to have admitted something extraneous and wholly irrelevant. This would not have happened to them, had they followed sound principles. For if the hypotheses assumed by them were not false, everything which follows from their hypotheses would be confirmed beyond any doubt. Even though what I am now saying may be obscure, it will nevertheless become clearer in the proper place.

    For a long time, then, I reflected on this confusion in the astronomical traditions concerning the derivation of the motions of the universe's spheres. I began to be annoyed that the movements of the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most systematic Artisan of all, were not understood with greater certainty by the philosophers, who otherwise examined so precisely the most insignificant trifles of this world. For this reason I undertook the task of rereading the works of all the philosophers which I could obtain to learn whether anyone had ever proposed other motions of the universe's spheres than those expounded by the teachers of astronomy in the schools. And in fact first I found in Cicero that Hicetas supposed the earth to move. Later I also discovered in Plutarch that certain others were of this opinion. I have decided to set his words down here, so that they may be available to everybody:

    Some think that the earth remains at rest. But Philolaus the Pythagorean believes that, like the sun and moon, it revolves around the fire in an oblique circle. Heraclides of Pontus, and Ecphantus the Pythagorean make the earth move, not in a progressive motion, but like a wheel in a rotation from west to east about its own center.

    Therefore, having obtained the opportunity from these sources, I too began to consider the mobility of the earth. And even though the idea seemed absurd, nevertheless I knew that others before me had been granted the freedom to imagine any circles whatever for the purpose of explaining the heavenly phenomena. Hence I thought that I too would be readily permitted to ascertain whether explanations sounder than those of my predecessors could be found for the revolution of the celestial spheres on the assumption of some motion of the earth.

    Having thus assumed the motions which I ascribe to the earth later on in the volume, by long and intense study I finally found that if the motions of the other planets are correlated with the orbiting of the earth, and are computed for the revolution of each planet, not only do their phenomena follow therefrom but also the order and size of all the planets and spheres, and heaven itself is so linked together that in no portion of it can anything be shifted without disrupting the remaining parts and the universe as a whole. Accordingly in the arrangement of the volume too I have adopted the following order. In the first book I set forth the entire distribution of the spheres together with the motions which I attribute to the earth, so that this book contains, as it were, the general structure of the universe. Then in the remaining books I correlate the motions of the other planets and of all the spheres with the movement of the earth so that I may thereby determine to what extent the motions and appearances of the other planets and spheres can be saved if they are correlated with the earth's motions. I have no doubt that acute and learned astronomers will agree with me if, as this discipline especially requires, they are willing to examine and consider, not superficially but thoroughly, what I adduce in this volume in proof of these matters. However, in order that the educated and uneducated alike may see that I do not run away from the judgement of anybody at all, I have preferred dedicating my studies to Your Holiness rather than to anyone else. For even in this very remote comer of the earth where I live you are considered the highest authority by virtue of the loftiness of your office and your love for all literature and astronomy too. Hence by your prestige and judgement you can easily suppress calumnious attacks although, as the proverb has it, there is no remedy for a backbite.

    Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution also to the Church, at the head of which Your Holiness now stands. For not so long ago under Leo X the Lateran Council considered the problem of reforming the ecclesiastical calendar. The issue remained undecided then only because the lengths of the year and month and the motions of the sun and moon were regarded as not yet adequately measured. From that time on, at the suggestion of that most distinguished man, Paul, bishop of Fossombrone, who was then in charge of this matter, I have directed my attention to a more precise study of these topics. But what I have accomplished in this regard, I leave to the judgement of Your Holiness in particular and of all other learned astronomers. And lest I appear to Your Holiness to promise more about the usefulness of this volume than I can fulfill, I now turn to the work itself.

    6) Had he been "silenced," he wouldn't have done his best work AFTER being put under house arrest. You seem to think that I agree with his "persecution"--from our stand point, the Church was totally wrong; but from THEIR standpoint, he was teaching as fact that which he couldn't PROVE was fact. As you and I have already agreed, the Church had its power in Northern Italy--considerably less than you might like to think, but power nonetheless. So sure, he could've run away, and would've likely found some Protestant patron who would protect him (scriptural interpretation aside, it was a great way to get at the Church less than 100 years after the Reformation). But he didn't--he submitted himself to the Church. So cry me a river for his being "silenced"--he submitted HIMSELF to it.

    7) The Church (as well as every scientist and philosopher that agreed with it) had to prove nearly 1500 years of accepted astronomical, mathematical, philosophical, and (most importantly) scientific "fact"? Because ONE MAN, with compelling evidence (but not COMPLETE and FINAL) evidence said they were wrong? How does that work?

    I am not "defending" their "discarded position;" I, first of all, wanted to point out that the Galileo affair is often mistrepresented, and more often than not misunderstood. Secondly, I was pointing out that in the science of the day (as well as in the science of ours) one must provide EVIDENCE, incontrivertible and final, before one can teach a HYPOTHESIS as FACT. Galileo had evidence, yes--I have never said he didn't. He couldn't PROVE, however, that what he was teaching was, indeed, fact. Newton provided that evidence, and more sophisticated telescopes cemented the FACT. Galileo started the ball rolling with his hypothesis, the Church simply wanted it to remain that until there was enough evidence to solidify it.
    Now, why it took them until the 1800s can be debated, but I would wager that we would agree--it is made up of human beings, and We are often loathe to admit our mistakes, particularly after the fuss the Affair caused. Does that make it right? Nope. But I would be curious for you to find me a quote where I said "the Church was right to do it, and never should have said they were wrong." I've been saying all along--He taught as fact that which he couldn't prove was fact, and the Church just wanted more evidence before it completely reconfigured its view of the Universe (it, along with almost every scientist of the day).
    Now, if we take what someone else said on this board, that, essentially, it still hasn't been proven, we have another discussion entirely...
  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/24/2006 4:34:15 PM PST · 588 of 606
    jcb8199 to PatrickHenry

    Except that Copernican theory requires a parallax, a phenomenon whereby a star seems to shift in position as the Earth moves. Kind of like if I were to hold up a ball directly in front of my face and you were to stand on my left--the ball would obscure my right ear; if you then shifted positions to my right (as the Earth might in orbit) the ball would obscure my left ear. Stars would, in the Copernican model, shift in relation to other stars. Distance also works into the equation--if the Earth is moving, the distance would change, however minutely.

    It is OK to call it a fact--the Earth revolves around the Sun. There will not be any other evidence that shows otherwise, unless we get into wormholes or quantum theory or some other such discussion. Satellites revolve. Are you telling me that we can't have any other experiments to set as FACT or LAW that the Earth revolves, and so thus it is a "theory"?
    Mind you, I don't dispute the definition of a theory--I don't confuse it with hypothesis. But you are saying that it is supported by evidence and makes useful predictions but is not conclusively proven? Forgive me if I sound incredulous, but I fail to understand your argument--the Earth has been "evidenced" to revolve around the Sun, not "proven"? Please clarify...

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/24/2006 4:27:15 PM PST · 587 of 606
    jcb8199 to ml1954

    In this age of satellites and Hubble telescopes, you ask what other proof there has been?

    As I mentioned, the viewing of parallaxes pretty much settled the case.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/24/2006 3:54:42 PM PST · 586 of 606
    jcb8199 to highball

    I never said the Church handled it properly (in my opinion). All I pointed out is that the Church wasn't "anti-science," it was "pro-truth." Galileo couldn't convince his scientific contemporaries, let alone the Church, that what he was teaching as fact WAS fact. He had compelling evidence, yes; Newton is the one that had the PROOF. Galileo had a Hypothesis (a hypothesis which included that the orbits are circular, rather than elliptical-as Kepler proved- and that tides are caused by the movement of the Earth and not the Moon)...

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 2:48:35 PM PST · 412 of 606
    jcb8199 to highball

    Galileo was saying the scientists for the previous 1500 years and the Biblical interpretation of Catholics and Protestants alike were wrong, yet offered insufficient evidence to prove it. He persisted in teaching as fact that which he could not prove, without doubt, was fact. It is for that reason that he got in trouble.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 2:46:03 PM PST · 411 of 606
    jcb8199 to PatrickHenry

    Being that I am a historian and not an astronomer or physicist, I wouldn't know what evidence to produce. Given the history, doubt was removed when Newton developed his laws of planetary motion. Parallaxes work into it, something which was not observed until 1838 (Copernican theory holds that you would observe a shift when viewing a star, though supporters explained the lack of one as being that the stars were too far away to see). It was Newton's work, ultimately, that proved the heliocentric model.

    Fact remains he couldn't provide the mathematical, physical, or observational PROOF necessary. He observed compelling evidence ("experimental evidence"), but the evidence he provided couldn't prove he was right--among the evidence, he said the tides were caused by the motion of the Earth (dismissing other evidence to the contrary); he said the orbits are circular, despite Kepler's work.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/
    http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~hanes/p014/Notes/Topic_020.html#PART%209
    http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

    As for my personal feelings on the topic, obviously the Church was wrong in holding to steadfastly to the (incorrect) interpretation of Scripture. As a Modern Catholic, I can apprecaite that the Bible is a guide, not a end in an of itself. I agree with Galileo (and the modern Church)--the interpretation of the Bible is correct only insofar as it doesn't contradict what is scientifically proven; then, it is not the science that is faulty, but the interpretation. Cardinal Bellarmine said the same thing 400 years ago, but Galileo was unable to sufficiently prove that the interpretation was wrong as shown by science. Newton did that, and the Church should have corrected its position. I'm not sure what else you are looking for...

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 2:21:48 PM PST · 406 of 606
    jcb8199 to PatrickHenry
    The Galileo affair is the inevitable background to understanding the current position of the Church on such issues.

    And the ONLY background often mentioned...

    The Church is never credited for fostering and growing science and education, only for standing in its way as "proven" by the Galileo affair. As I said a second ago, it can be said that the Church was acting in the interests of science in insisting the heliocentric model be taught as hypothesis, since not enough evidence was available to prove it. Scientists (good ones, anyway) don't make claims they can't back up--they make hypotheses that are subject to change or affirmation with the discovery of new information.
  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 2:18:11 PM PST · 403 of 606
    jcb8199 to PatrickHenry

    But the whole image of being 'anti-science' is fallacious (at least you knew to mention Bruno--most people hold up the Galileo issue as the definitive "proof" of the anti-science leanings of the Church and fail to come up with even ONE other instance). The Galileo affair can be taken as evidence of the PRO-science leaning of the Church--turning 1500 years of accepted scientific fact over because one man said he had proof but couldn't produce any, makes no sense no matter WHAT age you live in. Galileo taught as fact that which he couldn't prove was fact. Proof was all the Church was after. As you mentioned, the disconnect comes in the speed with which the Church acknowledged the proof. There was not sufficient proof until Newton, at which time the Church should have reversed, which it didn't.

    As for the Letter to the Grand Duchess, it is actually something I am going to be giving my students on Tuesday...

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 2:11:59 PM PST · 401 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    Inquisition, now there's another original argument. Yet another misrepresented and misunderstood topic (which, by my saying so, will undoubtedly cause you to assume that I advocate the Inquisition, or approve of its tactics...)

    As for evidentiary proof, the Church (along with Protestants and professors and scientists...) relied on centuries-old ideas and the (faulty) biblical interpretation of the day. Galileo said they were wrong, but offered no proof. THERE'S a strong argument... "Your Honor, my client is not guilty." "Have you any evidence?" "Well, no, but he isn't!"

    I don't know what else to say. You single out the Church because it put him on trial, you criticize it because it was wrong, standing in the way of "free thought" and so on, and yet you ignore the fact that the Church was not alone in their opposition to Galileo. Copernicus said the very same thing (yes, he published the year he died, but his ideas were well known) and nothing happened to him. Galileo was on trial not just with the Church but in the minds of EVERYONE, because he taught as fact that which he could not prove as fact--scientists, professors, and theologians alike all looked at him the same; it just happened that he was under the Church's jurisdiction.

    I'm at a loss for words. If you would just do some cursory reading, you would see what I am saying. It is not that hard to find the meat of the matter--it was failure of all parties, not just the Church. If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 1:18:22 PM PST · 386 of 606
    jcb8199 to PatrickHenry

    Nice work. Thanks for the compilation!

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 1:05:41 PM PST · 383 of 606
    jcb8199 to jcb8199
    Here are the summary points from the website:

    SUMMARY POINTS

    *The trial of Galileo in 1633 has been an anti-Catholic bludgeon aimed at the Church. Galileo has become an all-encompassing trump card, played whether the discussion is over science, abortion, gay rights, legalized pornography, or simply as a legitimate reason for anti-Catholicism itself.

    *The myth of Galileo is more important than the actual events that surrounded him. Galileo represents the myth of the Church at war with science and enlightened thought.

    *Most of the early scientific progress in astronomy was rooted in the Church. Galileo would attempt to prove the theories of a Catholic priest who had died 20 years before Galileo was born, Nicholas Copernicus. Copernicus argued for an earth that orbited the sun, rather than a fixed earth at the center of the cosmos.

    *Copernicus died in 1543 and the Church raised no objections to his revolutionary hypothesis as long as it was presented as theory. The difficulty that both the Church – and the leading Protestant reformers – had with the theory is that it was perceived as not only contradicting common sense, but Scripture as well.

    *The myth we have of Galileo is that of a renegade who scoffed at the Bible and drew fire from a Church blind to reason. In fact, he remained a good Catholic who believed in the power of prayer and endeavored always to conform his duty as a scientist with the destiny of his soul.

    *In 1615, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine noted that if the Copernican theory was ever proven then it would be necessary to re-think the interpretation of certain Scriptural passages.

    *In February 1616, a council of theological advisors to the pope ruled that it was bad science and quite likely contrary to faith to teach as fact that the sun was at the center of the universe, that the earth is not at the center of the world, and that it moves. *Galileo’s name or his works were never mentioned in the edict, nor was the word "heresy" ever employed. This led Galileo to believe that he could still consider the Copernican theory as hypothesis.

    *Galileo met with Pope Urban VIII and believed he had permission to re-visit the Copernican debate.

    *In 1632, Galileo published the Dialogue. The Dialogue could be read as a direct challenge to the 1616 edict, as it forcefully argued the truth of the Copernican system. It was greeted with skepticism from the Church and the scientific community of the day.

    *In his trial in 1633, Galileo was found "vehemently suspected of heresy" in teaching as truth that the earth moves and is not the center of the world. He was found guilty in persisting in such teaching when he had been formally warned not to do so in 1616. His book was prohibited, he was ordered confined to formal imprisonment, to publicly renounce his beliefs, and to perform proper penance.

    *The finding against Galileo was hardly infallible. The condemnation had little to do with defining doctrine. It was the finding of one canonical office, not a determination by the Church, that set out a clear doctrinal interpretation.

    *While Galileo would continue to conduct important scientific studies – and publish books on those studies – the fact remains that his condemnation was unjust. The theologians who interrogated him acted outside their competence and confused the literary nature of Scripture with its theological intent.

    *Galileo died in 1642. In the 19th century, "scientism" became its own religion. In an era where intellectuals viewed science and scientific method as the only means to attain truth, Galileo was resurrected and canonized a martyr.

    *The trial of Galileo is most often portrayed in terms that it clearly was not: Galileo the scientist arguing the supremacy of reason and science over faith; the tribunal judges demanding that reason abjure to faith. The trial was neither. Galileo and the tribunal judges shared the view that science and the Bible could not stand in contradiction.

    *The mistakes that were made in the trial came from Galileo’s own personality and acerbic style, the personal umbrage of Pope Urban VIII who believed Galileo had duped him, jealous competitive scientists, and tribunal judges who erroneously believed that the universe revolved around a motionless earth and that the Bible confirmed such a belief.

    *Galileo had not succeeded in proving the double motion of the Earth. More than 150 years still had to pass before such proofs were scientifically established.

    *"Theologians…failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they describe the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith." (Cardinal Paul Poupard in his presentation to Pope John Paul II on the results of the papal-requested Pontifical Academy study of the Galileo trial.)

    *If there is a war between science and religion, it is not a battle based on any denial from the Church of the need for scientific progress. Rather, it is from certain segments of the scientific community that have adopted a religion of science that scornfully disregards religious faith. It is far more common today for certain scientists to declare war on faith, than faith to object to science and its search for truth.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 1:04:00 PM PST · 382 of 606
    jcb8199 to jcb8199

    "outdated and false..." ideas and making the same arguments that a 15 minute Google search could easily refute...

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 12:59:48 PM PST · 381 of 606
    jcb8199 to PatrickHenry

    He didn't deserve it (speaking from a 21st century perspective), but it was bad science. He said he could prove it and couldn't. He taught as fact that which was not provable as fact. He ticked off everyone he came into contact with, churchmen to professors to scientists, which is never a good course of action. He was right (partially--the Sun is the center of our solar system, not the Universe) but tried to make his case in the worst way possible.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 12:56:32 PM PST · 380 of 606
    jcb8199 to b_sharp

    It is pretty much a dead thread anyway--Guitarman and I are debating Galileo, the article is about the Church "accepting" evolution, something anyone with a brain can see is misleading. The Church has no official position on the matter, and the article doesn't state that, in typical MSM fashion. I HOPE we haven't killed it...

    As for being nice, my only problem with Guitarman is that he is holding outdated and false. The Galileo affair is far too complex (and misunderstood) to be summed up "The Church was wrong, they are oppressive towards science."

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 12:53:28 PM PST · 379 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    -Perhaps I should clarify--you keep saying "used force." I see force as being torture, death, etc. He was not forced in that sense. You must see that the Protestant Reformation drastically changed things, and that he COULD have left the Church, and the Church WOULDN'T have been able to try him. I brought up Luther because he managed to dissent from the Church (he and countless others) and the Church did what? Sure there were religious wars from both sides. How can the Church arrest and jail someone for heresy if that person is not Catholic? They can call them heretics all they want--where is the force? What happened to Luther--shouts of heresy and...? He could easily have gone to a symapthetic Protestant country, but he still would have had the academics and scientists to contend with.

    -He had EVIDENCE but not PROOF. He couldn't PROVE that the evidence showed he was right. And don't get into the "theory isn't fact" argument (particularly on this thread). that is a whole other can of worms. The FACT is he couldn't PROVE he was right--there's lots of evidence for evolution, that doesn't make it a FACT. There's lots of evidence against evolution, doesn't make it fact (or not a fact, as it were)...

    -Ah, so the Church had supreme temporal power in the AREA, not on the Continent as you first asserted (I'm reading into what you said--you never said continent, you just said "law of the land" or somesuch). Fact remains it was in power. Was it right? Nope--the Sun is the center of our solar system. Was it within its rights at that time? Yep. Was it a mistake--depends on how you look at it. It was right to not want to take 1500 years of scientific and religious teachings and toss them out because of the (unproven) writings of one man. You also keep forgetting that professors, scientists, and religious alike opposed Galileo. Professors and scientists had professional power over him, the Church had temporal. And, tying in with another point, the Church was a patron (no, not THE patron, A patron) of science and as such had every right to say what its money paid for--Galileo was teaching AS FACT something he could not PROVE and which was contrary to the Church's teaching. It's not only about money, but you are questioning their "right" to put him on trial. And what you seem to miss is that he was put ON TRIAL. If it was half as oppressive and angry as you make it out to be, he'd have been locked away and burned at the stake...

    -Given the history, it's fair to assume that Protestants would've reacted the same way, as would've Muslims (well, maybe not Muslims...) If he was Protestant and in England, he likely would've felt the same fury as he felt in Italy. The Church was not alone in its opposition to his assertions!!! He was teaching as fact that which was not clearly proven as such--NO ONE accepted it. Copernicus' work was well know, and the Church had not problem with it being taught or written about as long as it was presented as hypothesis, that which needs to be proven, not FACT.

    The rest of your post is hardly worth response--I am not a theocrat. I am just able to recognize circumstances as they applied at that time. You apply our conception of the world, of mankind, to a world vastly different and hundreds of years old. The biggest problem I have with the "Galileo Affair" is people who use it as PROOF that the Church is hostile to science (who, when pressed, can only come up with Galileo as the PROOF that the Church is hostile to science...) We can apply whatever norms or beliefs we want to their action, but they will be inaccurate if they are not compatible with the age. We can speak with moral indignation about all sorts of things but have to look at how people of the day viewed them as well. Was the Church wrong? Of course. Should it have more speedily accepted Copernicus' theory and Galileo's work? Yep. Did it have the right to defend its teachings? Yep. Was it alone in its criticism of Galileo? Nope.

    PleasepleasepleasepleasePLEASE go to this site:
    http://www.catholicleague.org/research/galileo.html

    It mentions that "The Hammer" Bellarmine said himself that if Galileo was right then interpretation of Scripture was wrong. But it had to be PROVEN that Galileo was right, something Galileo was unable to do.

    I am of the same mine--the Bible is a blueprint for morality, not science. They misinterpreted it and acted on the faulty interpretation. The Church was not alone in that, but is also not innocent. But, again, if we take the worldview of the day, the Church was suffering from the schism of Protestantism, the 30 Years' War, and the various challenges to its authority, so it is understandable that they were...hyper...in their defense of their teachings. Does that make the Galileo trial right? Nope. But it is understandable. THAT is all I am after--recognition that it was a different age in every way conceivable.

    Singling out the Church is anti-Catholic--who cares if your family's Catholic. EVERYONE, religious and secular alike, who dealt with this issue opposed Galileo. The Church was not alone, so cannot, therefore, be singled out. They merely acted on the matter within their realm of power.

  • Censoring Liberal Professors

    01/20/2006 11:42:02 AM PST · 18 of 92
    jcb8199 to flixxx

    Are there more liberals than conservatives teaching in America's top universities? Yes.

    Are there more conservatives than liberals running America's top companies? Yes--which is why we are the economic powerhouse that we are.

  • Top 10 Things You Should Know About Ronald Reagan

    01/20/2006 11:40:41 AM PST · 7 of 54
    jcb8199 to Reagan Man

    Great post! Thanks!

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 11:10:09 AM PST · 367 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    You might listen to the quotes you have on your bio:

    I believe in free markets, both economic and intellectual. Reason is the greatest faculty people possess; any abandonment of the Mind is a moral treason;

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge;

    You have abandoned your search for truth to anti-Catholicism (It's irrelevant that your family is Catholic--Luther's would've been too, had he one). Everything I have said is easily researched. You can verify it very simply. But you don't--you insist on this archaic view of the Church that holds that it has been oppressive of science, which is patently false. Give me another instance where the Church was wrong in this fashion with regards to science, where it was "oppressive" of free thought and inquiry. Galileo is the easiest and most misunderstood. Tell me another.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 11:05:39 AM PST · 365 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    Copy and paste #s 7& till the end then format it, double spacing between items, and submit it. See what happens to the formatting.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 11:04:49 AM PST · 364 of 606
    jcb8199 to jcb8199

    Did it again...

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 11:04:27 AM PST · 363 of 606
    jcb8199 to jcb8199
    7 & 8) Again, he did his best scientific work while under house arrest. He is known for more than heliocentrism--thoughts on gravity, for one. He broke the rules that he was subject to. Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he? Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left. 9) "Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th. 10) Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story. Publication or not, he was well-known BEFORE he published it. 11) It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been. Copernicus wasn't, his ideas weren't, so why would his book have been? It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove. This is the 17th century we are talking about--stop applying 21st century knowledge and assumptions! I can see why you think this way, however--you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy." "PROOF" thereof. I made a mistake--I must've missed that part of your post, as I clicked "respond" and read your response on the POST screen, rather than on the thread screen. 12) So your personal Catholic history means you are right? How about actually RESEARCHING the topic. Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it. We know it is right, but HE DIDN'T, and couldn't prove it. He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof. What more can be said? 13) You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong! Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church--he still would've suffered at the hands of everyone ELSE though (perhaps not in house arrest, but in patronage and reputation). 14) You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ĭt) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education. I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies. I've offered 2 books and how many sites in defense of my argument? You've offered how many? I have far more than what I have posted, as well. What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?
  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 11:03:53 AM PST · 362 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    1) He said it was fact and couldn't prove it. Do you not see the disconnect? You are still in the 21st century frame of mind. The Church WAS NOT ALONE in the belief--scientists and Protestants all shared the same view.

    2) He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous! They said "Don't teach it as fact." He taught it as fact. While we now know it IS fact, HE DIDN'T because he couldn't PROVE it. We can, get it? So remove that frame of reference from your argument--HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that.

    3) You are a few hundred years off. The Protestant Reformation ended the Church dominance in Europe,and that was 100 years before. Even before then, the Plague diminished the power of the Church. In the "Dark Ages," sure, the Church was the be-all-and-end-all. Secular authorities were well in power in the 1600s.

    4) They didn't use force. Period. He wasn't tortured, he wasn't threatened. Cardinal Bellarmine, the "Hammer" of the Inquisition, spoke to Galileo--didn't threaten, didn't burn, SPOKE. Period.

    5) Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe. It would be like President Bush hiring Al Franken to give a speech about how wonderful Liberalism is. And again, PROTESTANTS AND SCIENTISTS WERE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE CHURCH! University professors were some of Galileo's fiercest critics. There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work?

    6) "Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto." More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 11:02:59 AM PST · 360 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman

    Oh right, I forgot I have to spoonfeed you...

    Perhaps Freep compressed it? I had it double spaced in between items when I clicked POST.

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 11:02:05 AM PST · 359 of 606
    jcb8199 to jcb8199

    And don't ask me what happened to the paragraphs--they were there when I clicked "Post"...

  • "Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

    01/20/2006 11:01:03 AM PST · 357 of 606
    jcb8199 to CarolinaGuitarman
    1) He said it was fact and couldn't prove it. Do you not see the disconnect? You are still in the 21st century frame of mind. The Church WAS NOT ALONE in the belief--scientists and Protestants all shared the same view. 2) He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous! They said "Don't teach it as fact." He taught it as fact. While we now know it IS fact, HE DIDN'T because he couldn't PROVE it. We can, get it? So remove that frame of reference from your argument--HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that. 3) You are a few hundred years off. The Protestant Reformation ended the Church dominance in Europe,and that was 100 years before. Even before then, the Plague diminished the power of the Church. In the "Dark Ages," sure, the Church was the be-all-and-end-all. Secular authorities were well in power in the 1600s. 4) They didn't use force. Period. He wasn't tortured, he wasn't threatened. Cardinal Bellarmine, the "Hammer" of the Inquisition, spoke to Galileo--didn't threaten, didn't burn, SPOKE. Period. 5) Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe. It would be like President Bush hiring Al Franken to give a speech about how wonderful Liberalism is. And again, PROTESTANTS AND SCIENTISTS WERE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE CHURCH! University professors were some of Galileo's fiercest critics. There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work? 6) "Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto." More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification. 7 & 8) Again, he did his best scientific work while under house arrest. He is known for more than heliocentrism--thoughts on gravity, for one. He broke the rules that he was subject to. Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he? Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left. 9) "Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th. 10) Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story. Publication or not, he was well-known BEFORE he published it. 11) It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been. Copernicus wasn't, his ideas weren't, so why would his book have been? It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove. This is the 17th century we are talking about--stop applying 21st century knowledge and assumptions! I can see why you think this way, however--you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy." "PROOF" thereof. I made a mistake--I must've missed that part of your post, as I clicked "respond" and read your response on the POST screen, rather than on the thread screen. 12) So your personal Catholic history means you are right? How about actually RESEARCHING the topic. Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it. We know it is right, but HE DIDN'T, and couldn't prove it. He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof. What more can be said? 13) You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong! Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church--he still would've suffered at the hands of everyone ELSE though (perhaps not in house arrest, but in patronage and reputation). 14) You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ĭt) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education. I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies. I've offered 2 books and how many sites in defense of my argument? You've offered how many? I have far more than what I have posted, as well. What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?