It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

proof against evolution

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza


This only shows that the cause of evolution is god. This is a philosophical argument not a scientific argument,







It dies not refute evolution ... it supports evolution.


here again I am going to keep you honest horza, what exact type of evolution are saying it supports?



The study of evolution is the study of how we evolved from a common ancestor not the study of the origin of life. That is more the realm of cosmology, biology and even biogenesis.


This suggest more that we came from a common designer NOT McGilla Gorrila nor some slime thing that crawled out of the primordial ooze and became horza millions of years later

This video shows me that whether something has religious implications or not it should be science not philosophy and the one reason I can think of for a group of people having a problem with that is one reason and one reason only

ATHEISM

- Con

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Conspiriology]




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


After dragging its feet for nearly 400 years, the church still cannot make a decent apology for its error about Galileo and Bruno and still bitterly resents it's demise as the singular authority on ultimate truth. It was not a "mutual misunderstanding." They are still right and the church is still wrong. It continues to represent a severe


oooooooops


ignorance abounds

Galileo An Atheists Bed Time Story



Galileo got in trouble for lying in open court. Galileo taught Copernicanism - which was highly debated issue among the scientists of the time - not just with the church. In fact, His equations contain many errors. Galileo was asked by the Church authority too not teach it - no threats - he agreed to it. He signed an agreement. Then a new Pope came into power and he thought he could violate his contract. When he was caught and accused of heresy for teaching it - he pretended like he had never made the agreement. Then they found it and he was busted for lying.

So is your argument that science == dishonesty? I strongly disagree.He wasn't punished for science. Maybe you are just ignorant of history then? He was punished for dishonesty.




In 1633 Galileo returned to Rome, where he was again treated with respect. He might have prevailed in his trial, but during the investigation someone found Cardinal Bellarmine's notes in the files. Galileo had not told the Inquisition—actually he had not told anyone—of his previous agreement not to teach or advocate Copernicanism. Now Galileo was viewed as having deceived the church as well as having failed to live up to his agreements. Even his church sympathizers, and there were several, found it difficult to defend him at this point.

But they did advise him to acknowledge that he had promoted Copernicanism in violation of his pact with Bellarmine, and to show contrition. Incredibly Galileo appeared before the Inquisition and maintained that his Dialogue did not constitute a defense of heliocentrism. "I have neither maintained or defended in that book the opinion that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary but have rather demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion and shown that the arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive.”

Contrary to what some atheist propagandists have said, Galileo was never charged with heresy, and he was never placed in a dungeon or tortured in any way. After he recanted Galileo was released into the custody of the archbishop of Siena, who housed him for five months in his magnificent palace. Then he was permitted to return to his villa in Florence. Although technically under house arrest, he was able to visit his daughters at the convent of San Matteo. The church also permitted him to continue his scientific work on matters unrelated to heliocentrism, and he published important research during this period. Galileo died of natural causes in 1642. It was during subsequent decades, Kuhn reports, that newer and stronger evidence for the heliocentric theory emerged, and scientific opinion, divided in Galileo's time, became the consensus that we share today.
Galileo
Gaileo




From the University of Kansas City Law School:



April 1611 Cardinal Bellarmine aske Jesuit mathematicians to confirm Galileo's astronomical discoveries. They do so, but offer interpretations for what they see that differ from Galileo's.

February 26, 1616 Cardinal Bellarmine warns Galileo not to hold, teach, or defend Copernican theory. According to an unsigned transcript found in the Inquisition file in 1633, Galileo is also enjoined from discussing his theory, either orally or in writing.

1623 Pope Gregory XV dies. Cardinal Baberini is named Pope Urban VIII. Galileo publishes The Assayer, which offers his explanation for sunspots and comets.

February 1632 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is printed.

October 1632 Galileo receives a summons to appear before the Inquisition. Galileo asks that his trial be moved to Florence

www.law.umkc.edu...

Galileo made an agrement not to teach heliocentrism then he pretended it never existed - and published his theories. As verified by the records. He then violated his agreement and lied about it in open court The document below is the original interrogations of Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition . It is the final part of Galileo’s testimony, given on the 12th April 1633 with his signature,




[edit on 7/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


You get trounced on your Biblical ignorance repeatedly and you move the goal posts... forget it dude.. its a waste of bandwidth. It's also off topic. So start a Bible bashing thread with Andre18... or jimbo666... oooops there's already like 10,000 of them. All pwned by Christians as well.

Have a zeitgeist keg party and eat some ergot fungus with your buddy eyeball. After your done if you ever get tired of the wild life. God will forgive you. He's forgiving like that. I am not angry - but frustrated ...you are terribly misled. It's a product of our times. It's spiritual warfare.

Every so called error you have pointed too is just a misconception or misunderstanding on your part. Their all refuted if you just Google them. I doubt you really want the truth. In all of history there has never been found one "error" that isn't well explained. It would be one thing if if the Bible said 1+1 = 5. But no such errors occur

So you use hate websites for sources to nit pick cheap shots using 20th century ideas to dispute the descriptions of BC Hebrew language. Have you ever talked to a hebrew scholar or read a book by one? I have. i just mailed a book to someone on Genesis by Dr Sallihammer. Your hostile non scholarly approach leads to nothing but cherry picking misconceptions. At it's roots it's a pathetic way to dismiss morality and go play like children.

By all means!

go play.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Eyemagistus
 

Uhh that video pwns Darwinism dude. Nobody is really denying micro evolution anyway. Which all you have evidence of anyway. The Cambrian explosion dismisses the common ancestor fallacy anyway.

I don't say evolution from a common ancestor is impossible and the idea does not really conflict with the Bible anyway. Just unlikely and not supported by evidence. The Bible says man is made from clay -dust - in modern terms carbon. Which is true - all life is carbon based. So if macro evolution turned out to be true -- would it refute the Bible? --NO-- it would change some ideas about how many folks interpret it. The catholics accept evolution. So I am not threatened or afraid of it at all.

I don't buy it because the evidence is shoddy and based on a lot of a conjecture. The proponents of darwinism use it to prop up atheist religion. That's not science.

Here's one I got from BBC. It has different perspectives from evolutionists.

Darwinism the Atheist Religion





posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Galileo made an agrement not to teach heliocentrism then he pretended it never existed - and published his theories. As verified by the records. He then violated his agreement and lied about it in open court The document below is the original interrogations of Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition . It is the final part of Galileo’s testimony, given on the 12th April 1633 with his signature,


But, of course, this is fairly controversial and disputed. Galileo stated he was told not to 'hold or defend', that's what the agreement with Bellarmine was, it is clear in writing. But there are minutes in the official documents, unsigned and potentially unknown to Galileo or even simple additions, that suggest the stronger suggestion not to hold, teach, or defend.


However, the Inquisition file on Galileo contains a memorandum or minute of this meeting, which states that besides Bellarmine, the Commissary of the Inquisition and a notary were present. Presumably they were supposed to deliver a formal warning with the authority of the Inquisition only if Galileo demurred after Bellarmine informed him of the decree. But according to the minute, after Bellarmine told Galileo that the decree forbade anyone to ``hold or defend'' the Copernican doctrine, immediately, without giving Galileo a chance to respond, the Commissary gave him a stronger injunction ``not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.'' This minute is not a formal judicial document. It is not signed by any of the participants. Some commentators have speculated that it was forged and placed in Galileo's file to incriminate him later. Others suppose that the Commissary took it upon himself to make sure that Galileo received the stronger injunction regardless of his response to Bellarmine's informing him of the decree.

Galileo took the precaution of obtaining from Bellarmine a certificate describing what occurred during their interview. This certificate only mentions Bellarmine's warning not to ``hold or defend'' the Copernican theory, and not the stronger injunction recorded in the minute.

linky

So was Galileo told not to teach? His own document from Bellarmine didn't order this. But there is a note in the official documents that say otherwise. He was charged for teaching it, they had official documents, he had Bellarmine's order outlining the restrictions not to 'hold or defend'. But Bellarmine had kicked the bucket by then.

Thus, the claims he lied etc are just, well, lets say d'Souza propaganda...


Contrary to what some atheist propagandists have said, Galileo was never charged with heresy


He was charged with vehement suspicion of heresy. That's pretty much accepted. If he didn't recant under threat of torture, then he would have been charged with heresy and gone the way of Bruno.


One can imagine Galileo's shock on 16 June 1633, when he found that the agreement had been overruled and the following sentence was entered in the Book of Decrees: `Galileo Galilei...is to be interrogated concerning the accusation, even threatened with torture, and if he sustains it, proceeding to an abjuration of the vehement [suspicion of heresy] before the full Congregation of the Holy Office, sentenced to Imprisonment....' He was also forbidden to write further on the mobility of the earth, and the Dialogue was banned.

On the next page the results of the interrogation are recorded. In Italian are Galileo's words: `I do not hold and have not held this opinion of Copernicus since the command was intimated to me that I must abandon it.' Then he was again told to speak the truth under the threat of torture. He responded: `I am here to submit, and I have not held this opinion since the decision was pronounced, as I have stated.' Finally, there is a notation that nothing further could be done, and this time the document is properly signed in Galileo's hand. Galileo was sent back to his house at Arcetri, outside Florence, where he remained under house arrest until his death in 1642. Partly as a consequence of his persecution, the center of creative science moved northward to the Protestant countries notably the Netherlands and England.

faculty.uccb.ns.ca...

So, he might have been officially ordered not to teach or not. That is not clear. He was charged with suspicion of heresy, he was threatened with torture, forced to recant his ideas, placed under house arrest, and his worked banned.

All because the dogmatic church had issues with new and controversial ideas about the natural world. If you think there's something positive to take from that, then wow...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Who is being ignorant and dishonest?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy:
The Bible says man is made from clay -dust - in modern terms carbon. Which is true - all life is carbon based.


Clay is composed of Phyllosilicate minerals, not carbon! Go ahead, just make up whatever you need.

Galileo was already an old man and knew well what they had done to Giordano Bruno. Just the sight of the implements of torture as a threat would be enough to make anyone say whatever the Church wanted to hear. The good Christians in charge of GITMO still don't understand that.

Why didn't you show the rest of the chronology?


November 1632 Galileo's request to have his trial transferred to Florence is refused.

December 1632 Three physicians declare that Galileo is too ill to travel to Rome. The Inquistion rejects the physician's statement and declares that if Galileo does not travel to Rome voluntarily he will be arrested and taken in chains.

February 1633 Galileo arrives in Rome. He is allowed to stay at the home of the Tuscan ambassador, but is forbidden to have social contacts.

April 1633 Galileo is interrogated before the Inquisition. For over two weeks he is imprisoned in an apartment in the Inquisition building. Galileo agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence. He declares that the Copernican case was made too strongly in his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, and offers to refute it in another book.

June 22, 1633 Galileo is sentenced to prison for an indefinite term. Seven of ten cardinals presiding at his trial sign the sentencing order. Galileo signs a formal recantation. Galileo is allowed to serve his term under house-arrest in the home of the archbishop of Siena.

December 1633 Galileo is allowed to return to his villa in Florence, where he lives under house-arrest.

April 1634 Galileo's daughter, Maria Celeste, dies.

January 1638 Galileo is now totally blind. He petitions the Inquisition to be freed, but his petition is denied.

September 1640 John Milton visits Galileo.

1641 Galileo, in his last major contribution, proposes using pendulums in clocks.

January 8, 1641 Galileo dies in Arcetri.

1820 Papal Inquisition abolished..

September 11, 1822 College of Cardinals announces that "the printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted." Two weeks later, Pope Pius VII ratifies the Cardinals' decree.

1835 Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is taken off the Vatican's list of banned books.

1992 Catholic Church formally admits that Galileo's views on the solar system are correct.


Oh, because it would only make my point.


The war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini preached a sermon from the text, ``Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?'' and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer's name ushered in sharper weapons; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that ``geometry is of the devil,'' and that ``mathematicians should be banished as the authors of all heresies.'' The Church authorities gave Caccini promotion.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

Mel? does all this stuff really look like it has anything to do with,, well,, It looks very political to me. One thing I think is rather idiotic is to say someone was "vehemently" "suspicious" of heresy lol I mean c'mon. He wasn't just suspicious he was VEHEMENTLY suspicious which is one notch away from what? reading him his rights and incarcerating him? Was this against the law to look suspicious?

NOPE YOu say he was "Charged" with it though. Good thing he wasn't beaty eyed with a handle bar moustache huh. It's just silly because it is meaningless. The coercion part now that is interesting stuff too lol.


- Con



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Mel? does all this stuff really look like it has anything to do with,, well,, It looks very political to me. One thing I think is rather idiotic is to say someone was "vehemently" "suspicious" of heresy lol I mean c'mon. He wasn't just suspicious he was VEHEMENTLY suspicious which is one notch away from what? reading him his rights and incarcerating him? Was this against the law to look suspicious?


Heh, don't ask me, con. Not my lingo. I think the church was being idiotic full stop.

I think religion and politics have often been very cosy bedfellows. So, yeah, perhaps a chunk of politics. Hard to separate them sometimes in their actions and reach.


NOPE YOu say he was "Charged" with it though. Good thing he wasn't beaty eyed with a handle bar moustache huh. It's just silly because it is meaningless. The coercion part now that is interesting stuff too lol.

- Con


Well, someone can be charged with murder, taken to trial and found not guilty. Galileo was charged (or you can say accused if you like it better) with 'vehement suspicion of heresy' taken to a court, sent to the inquisitors, threatened with torture, forced to recant, and put under home arrest. So he was still sentenced for being a naughty boy, even when he recanted - probably guilty of vehement suspicion of heresy, lol. If he was deemed guilty of heresy, would have had a different more toasty ending (mmmm, BBQ).

[edit on 8-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 




Here is an excellent explanation of the Cambrian explosion. I highly recommend the videos of thunderf00t, cdk007, and donexodus2. They do an excellent job of dismantling creationist rubbish.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Do your own Darwinian Evolution experiments with the Random Mutation Generator



The written sentence represents genetic code. here is a computer driven random mutation the natural selection is you the observer waiting to select the lyrics to the next hit song.

Random Mutation Gnnerator

Get busy you might the write a great piece of literary history.

[edit on 7/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Nice attempt at sophistry. Most of the major animal phylum did appear. That's a known fact. No there are no bunnies. But there was a chordate which is the mammals phylum. So he was right. Bunnies were created later later. Hey maybe even by evolutionary means. We do not know. It's all speculation. But there's no proof bunnies evolved from fish either. So using this guys logic...

Where are the fish-Bunnies?

He deceitfully avoids the entire point of the argument by cherry picking and nit picking and calling him a "creationist". All scientists are creationists if they believe in General relativity. The universe had a beginning so there was a creation event. So creationists are the majority of scientists. The main point made by the Cambrian argument is: Where is the evidence that life evolved gradually from a common ancestor. It is non existent.

But of course he avoided the... real point.

typical atheist evangelism






[edit on 7/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Eyemagistus
 


Thanks for proving my point again eye! Your sooo right it doesn't say clay. I was thinking of the potter analogy for sanctification. See it just says dust. My bad. So I made a mistake and the Bible is still right. (see people are fallible and Gods word is not)


he LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
# Genesis 2:7


Dust of the ground... which is largely carbon & minerals dude. Organic building blocks with the minerals needed for bones too eh? it's all in da dirt.

My point stands. You again look like a


Theology class is now over. Eyemagistus please report to the principals office



Why didn't you show the rest of the chronology?


I know atheists don't like anything that even appears like the 10 commandments but...


originally posted by SimonGray site owner

Please edit the quoted portion to the salient material needed to make your point! There is no need to repeat entire posts within the body of your response. Too many and too large quotes hampers the readability of our busy and populated message threads. Also, it adds unnecessary file size to the download of a thread page for members who are browsing ATS on modems (not everyone is on broadband, we're a very diverse global community).

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I didn't post the whole thing because the ATS T&C do not allow you to cut and paste entire web pages like you just did Eyemagistus. :shk:

It appears you don't like to follow rules but we do have some basic guidelines:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The spanking is over now you can leave the principals office and return to history class

Galileo the Atheists Fairy Tale Has Been Thoroughly Debunked

But really that's all you got? You use my source
big deal... Proves I wasn't afraid to use a source that has bias against me. But doesn't refute any of my facts.

It's only the sequence of events that matters. Which no one addresses.

You can't. Because I am right.

Also his equations have numerous math errors. Proven fact. The Jesuits saw his numbers didn't crunch. It wasn't just a disagreement with the church. Most scientists in his day did not accept it either. Peer review. He was expelled.

NOTE: It was about not teaching heliocentrism. Exactly like what you guys are doing to ID science. Maybe Michael Behe is the Galileo of the future... ever think of that?


The time line proves he was warned and agreed to not teach it and that he lied and published it anyway. That is actual crime dude. Stop twisting history to conform to your fairy tale atheist world. :shk:

He presented the science he wasn't punished for it. No the point is if he hadn't had lied and been deceitful he would have never had been charged with anything. He pissed off the authorities. It was not about science as much as Galileo's dishonesty. Sorry to ruin your bedtime story. Oh yeah...

Gosh golly darn - gee willikers! I hate to break it to you on top of the first blow. The whole thing your mom told you about the the tooth fairy...
it doesn't exist either.


ding ding schools out!




[edit on 7/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


No there is a document where he had agreed not to teach or promote heliocentrism after his theory was first examined. It was produced during his trial after he had pretended it had never existed. Which exposed his dishonesty.

You keep ignoring he presented his findings, and he was not punished. They examined his work. DUDE his math was wrong. We do not use Galileo's work on that today - ot was modified by his predecessors before it was accepted. That is just a fact. His equations did not add up. So they were in the right for holding him off. You never address that one. He was expelled.

Galileo was the Michael Behe' of his day.

[edit on 7/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Here is an excellent explanation of the Cambrian explosion. I highly recommend the videos of thunderf00t, cdk007, and donexodus2. They do an excellent job of dismantling creationist rubbish.


excellent explanation of the Cambrian explosion? Did you watch this video? It doesn't explain how the Cambrian explosion happened at all. In any logical sense anyway. To say that it is more beneficial for an organism to be multicellular is absolute rubbish. Single celled organisms, bacteria, and even viruses are the most efficient organisms on this planet.

Nothing that the creationist scientist said in that video was refuted by the critic. The critic was taking things out of context and at some points completely going off topic. The critic also reiterated what the creationist scientist said several times and then acted as if it was some how valid simply because he repeated it. If you're truly dull witted enough to be manipulated by any of this guys videos; i truly feel sorry for you. If he had made any valid or relevant points i would give him credit. But he didn't.

If i have to listen to one more of this guys childish and derisive filibusters, i'll be forced to make a video of my own which will crucify him irreparably.

Humor is often used to alleviate sadness. Most who laugh at creationists, do so in an attempt to lift their own dejection. (pun intended)

[edit on 7/9/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
www.talkorigins.org...

Here is a more substantial refutation if you'd like. It states that "Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today", which is in direct contradiction to the claim that "most of the major animal forms appear in the form that they currently have in the present," an intentionally misleading statement which suggests the development of critters like amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals at that time (due to the ambiguity of the word "form"). The link lists factors which probably contributed to the rapid development of multicellular life, including the abundance of oxygen mentioned in the video. It is unreasonable to suggest that single-celled organisms formed, then suddenly poofed into many different complex forms, which then continued a predictable evolutionary path (a path which every piece of evidence suggests occurred).
As for your mutation generator, it notably lacks any mechanism for retaining necessary letters, which would be provided in nature by environmental stresses. A sentence will not poof into another, it needs to undergo gradual changes (of course). A response to this may be that this would create fatal syntax errors, which is true in the case of English but evidently not DNA, since "micro-evolution", artificial selection (breeding), and speciation (all observed) are driven by the process of mutation and yield beneficial results. It is simply not plausible to suggest that all random mutations are harmful, and that those that are observed to be beneficial are intelligently guided (as the program's creator suggests.)



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Eyemagistus
 



Thanks for proving my point again eye! Your sooo right it doesn't say clay. I was thinking of the potter analogy for sanctification. See it just says dust. My bad. So I made a mistake and the Bible is still right. (see people are fallible and Gods word is not)


he LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
# Genesis 2:7


Dust of the ground... which is largely carbon & minerals dude. Organic building blocks with the minerals needed for bones too eh? it's all in da dirt.


Why do you need to backtrack on your mistakes by limiting the powers of this alleged god? If he could poof dust into a man, surely he could also poof silicon into carbon, couldn't he? At least Con-job admitted he has a closed mind and is not open to new information. No useful discussion is possible when you have to resort to juvenile rhetoric.
Once you abandon logic, what is the point in pretending to be logical about the absurd?
If the church was correct for punishing Galileo, why did the pope humiliate it by apologizing for it? You are still defending the Inquisition? Michael Behe was never punished, he can still write whatever he wants. He is the one who compared ID and creationism "science" to astrology.

Galileo was already too famous and well respected for them to do anything more serious to him, although Tomasso Caccini hounded him from behind the scenes the rest of his life trying to increase his punishment. Other astronomers with other telescopes in countries beyond the reach of the Inquisition to silence them were already seeing the same things.
I would choose the contributions of Galileo to the intelligence of humanity, over those of the Inquisition.


The first important attack on Galileo began in 1610, when he announced that his telescope had revealed the moons of the planet Jupiter. The enemy saw that this took the Copernican theory out of the realm of hypothesis, and they gave battle immediately. They denounced both his method and its results as absurd and impious. As to his method, professors bred in the ``safe science'' favoured by the Church argued that the divinely appointed way of arriving at the truth in astronomy was by theological reasoning on texts of Scripture; and, as to his results, they insisted, first, that Aristotle knew nothing of these new revelations; and, next, that the Bible showed by all applicable types that there could be only seven planets; that this was proved by the seven golden candlesticks of the Apocalypse, by the seven-branched candlestick of the tabernacle, and by the seven churches of Asia; that from Galileo's doctrine consequences must logically result destructive to Christian truth. Bishops and priests therefore warned their flocks, and multitudes of the faithful besought the Inquisition to deal speedily and sharply with the heretic.

In vain did Galileo try to prove the existence of satellites by showing them to the doubters through his telescope: they either declared it impious to look, or, if they did look, denounced the satellites as illusions from the devil. Good Father Clavius declared that ``to see satellites of Jupiter, men had to make an instrument which would create them.'' In vain did Galileo try to save the great truths he had discovered by his letters to the Benedictine Castelli and the Grand-Duchess Christine, in which he argued that literal biblical interpretation should not be applied to science; it was answered that such an argument only made his heresy more detestable; that he was ``worse than Luther or Calvin.''



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No there is a document where he had agreed not to teach or promote heliocentrism after his theory was first examined. It was produced during his trial after he had pretended it had never existed. Which exposed his dishonesty.


He was brought to the trial for writing the book. They said he shouldn't have been teaching it, raising the document they had, which I noted above - unsigned and potentially an addition. Galileo had the document of his agreement with Bellarmine, which he then presented.

They ignored it. He was taken for tea and biscuits with the inquisitor. He then recanted under threat of custard creams.

You want to suggest he did lie. You don't know that. It is very possible that Galileo only knew of the 'hold or defend' restriction. However, Bellarmine was dead and couldn't clarify the issue.

I don't know whether he told the truth or not. And neither do you. We have two documents. An official unsigned document which was not Galileo's, and Galileo's order from Bellarmine. The difference between them was the area of contention.


You keep ignoring he presented his findings, and he was not punished.


I think house arrest is punishment. Given, better than Bruno's fate.


They examined his work. DUDE his math was wrong. We do not use Galileo's work on that today - ot was modified by his predecessors before it was accepted. That is just a fact. His equations did not add up. So they were in the right for holding him off. You never address that one. He was expelled.

Galileo was the Michael Behe' of his day.


Except that we just laugh at Behe, allow him to be fisked by grad students, and to make a fool of himself in court. He can write whatever book he wants.

This is just obfuscation, and not very relevant.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

The main point made by the Cambrian argument is: Where is the evidence that life evolved gradually from a common ancestor. It is non existent.



The Cambrian Explosion


It's important to remember that what we call "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. In order to be available to us, the remains of ancient plants and animals have to be preserved first, and this means that they need to have fossilizable parts and to be buried in an environment that will not destroy them.

It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion".



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS AKA Gigantopithecus
an intentionally misleading statement which suggests the development of critters like amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals at that time


Only a fool would think that was what the creationist scientist was implying. No where does it even suggest that; it's not misleading at all.

Everything the creationist scientist said is congruent within the current scope of human knowledge.

The critic in the video, and yourself, shouldn't chastise the man for not spoon feeding the information to you.

[edit on 7/10/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


I'm not Gigantopithecus, why you would even suggest that is beyond me. Do you really think evolutionists are that sneaky or desperate?

However you apparently missed the rest of my post because the link I provided shows that this individual in the video was wrong. It is far from the point to debate whether the video is misleading. However the ambiguity of the term "major animal forms" coupled with his dramatic portrayal of the (at least) six million years during which the "explosion" took place suggests that he was twisting the facts to make the event seem impossible. He omits the actual length of the event, and fails to mention that the "forms" (phyla) were still solely water dwelling and relatively primitive. This is not "spoon-feeding", it would merely demonstrate his knowledge (necessary to make his claims) and put the event adequately into perspective. His belief that the "branching tree pattern" does not exist suggests that he indeed does believe most modern critters appeared in the Cambrian, as it is necessary that the Cambrian life forms somehow became those of modern times if they weren't already. Of course, this is just speculation.

If you feel that you can make a video which will "crucify him irreparably", I encourage you to do so. He has 13,000 subscribers and is one of the more popular anti-creationists on youtube (but certainly not the most knowledgeable since he is trained in chemistry, not biology). Keep in mind he recently stated he is on vacation, and will therefore not be able to defend himself for a few months.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join