Reopening the case against Galileo

[dad]

I haven't noticed humanity becoming less civilized since the 17th century. Quite the opposite, actually.

Even if that was true ( looking at Isis and etc I hedge my bets) WOMD in the hands of slightly more civilized savages is no comfort.

 

[JacksBratt]

Dodge noted. How do you know not to drink bleach?



We don't, and they do, respectively. The night sky is different depending on the season.

I already acknowledged that the constellations move, somewhat, during the seasons, and the night.

That's not what I'm talking about here.
Pretend your house is a planet. It spins once a day and orbits your neighborhood once a year.
The sun is at the center of your neighborhood.
Look out a window in your house. See all the view? How much of the whole horizon can you see? How many of your neighbor's houses out of the total. Pretend there Is a Blue tower far off on the horizon. This is the east Tower, It's daytime because you can see the tower. At night, you have spun one half way around. The tower on this horizon is Red. It's the west Tower. You can only see it because of it's red blinking beacon.


Now, your house orbits the neighborhood as it spins. When you are half way through your orbit of the neighborhood, your window will face the Blue, East tower at night as the sun is on the your west now, behind you. You can only see it due to it's blue beacon. The Red tower is the one you now see during the day because the sun is in the center of your neighborhood and the Red tower is to the west now.

There is no way you can see the Blue tower every night year round.

On our globular earth I see the big dipper go through it's rotation in the same area of the sky throughout the night and changing more during seasons, BUT it's always there.

How can I see it AND the people of Europe and Japan see it too? Same goes for all constellations. The middle of Russia is pretty close to half way around the world from us. How can their night sky show the same as ours if the stars never set. They just spin in one place in the night sky. They will continue this same rotation during the day when I cannot see their dim light, but they never set. They are always in that part of my sky. Russia would have to look through the earth to see them too.

 

[The Cadet]

No need to get nasty just because some of us won't drink the cosmology kool aid.

I'm not getting nasty, and it's not about cosmology. I'm asking you, if uniformitarianism is wrong and inapplicable, how do you know not to do these things which empiricism (grounded in uniformitarianism) would tell you will kill you? How do you know that if you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, that the result will be bad for you? How do you know that the fastest way to get your kids to school isn't throwing them out the window from their room on the second floor? How do you know any of these things?

And you just won't answer me for some reason. Why not? Why won't you give me an answer? You just dodge and dodge. It's my contention that you aren't answering because you can't answer. Because without empiricism, which fundamentally is both grounded in uniformitarianism and works, you have no reliable means of investigating reality. By all means, tell me - how do you know not to drink bleach? But if you can't, then maybe you should spend a minute thinking about why you were so hesitant to admit that.

I already acknowledged that the constellations move, somewhat, during the seasons, and the night.

That's not what I'm talking about here.
Pretend your house is a planet. It spins once a day and orbits your neighborhood once a year.
The sun is at the center of your neighborhood.
Look out a window in your house. See all the view? How much of the whole horizon can you see? How many of your neighbor's houses out of the total. Pretend there Is a Blue tower far off on the horizon. This is the east Tower, It's daytime because you can see the tower. At night, you have spun one half way around. The tower on this horizon is Red. It's the west Tower. You can only see it because of it's red blinking beacon.


Now, your house orbits the neighborhood as it spins. When you are half way through your orbit of the neighborhood, your window will face the Blue, East tower at night as the sun is on the your west now, behind you. You can only see it due to it's blue beacon. The Red tower is the one you now see during the day because the sun is in the center of your neighborhood and the Red tower is to the west now.

There is no way you can see the Blue tower every night year round.

On our globular earth I see the big dipper go through it's rotation in the same area of the sky throughout the night and changing more during seasons, BUT it's always there.

How can I see it AND the people of Europe and Japan see it too? Same goes for all constellations. The middle of Russia is pretty close to half way around the world from us. How can their night sky show the same as ours if the stars never set. They just spin in one place in the night sky. They will continue this same rotation during the day when I cannot see their dim light, but they never set. They are always in that part of my sky. Russia would have to look through the earth to see them too.

I get where you're coming from, but again, we see exactly what you expect in the night sky. You have to keep in mind one significant difference from your example: the universe is three dimensional, and when we're in the northern hemisphere, a lot of the sky is going to be the same year after year. Case in point:

It doesn't matter how you spin the earth on its axis or where it is on its procession around the sun; its axis points towards Polaris, so as long as you are on the northern hemisphere, you will always be able to see Polaris in the night sky (lower or higher in the sky depending on latitude). Similarly, the big dipper is also very close to the pole - you will always see it in the northern hemisphere above a certain latitude, and never see it close to the south pole. Also, given the spin of the earth, we would expect the big dipper to rotate around the sky and to be in a different orientation depending on the season, and this is precisely what we see. The southern cross is analogous.

http://www.space.com/15346-big-dipper-southern-cross-skywatching-guide.html

To see Crux, one must go at least as far south as latitude 25 degrees North. In the continental United States, that means heading to the Florida Keys, where you’ll see it just lifting fully above the southern horizon. A slightly better view is afforded to those living in Hawaii, where the Cross appears several degrees higher.

For Southern Hemisphere dwellers who want to see the Big Dipper, you must go north of latitude 25 degrees South to see it in its entirety. Across the northern half of Australia, for instance, you can now just see the upside-down Dipper virtually scraping the northern horizon about an hour or two after sundown. In fact, it’s the opposite effect as that observed by people who live in north temperate locations like New York. They see the Dipper at a similar altitude above the northern horizon on early evenings in late November or early December — except the Dipper appears right-side up!

Meanwhile, at the equator, no constellation is visible year-round. This is exactly what we would expect, and this is essentially where your comparison is completely accurate, and describes exactly what we would expect from a heliocentric model.

https://blogs.nrao.edu/askanastrono...isible-all-year-long-from-the-earths-equator/

Answer: There are no constellations visible all-year from the Earth’s equator. By the same token, all constellations are visible at some point during a given year. This is due to the fact that since the Earth rotates on an axis that points north, which would be on the horizon from a person at the equator, all stars and constellations rise and set. To see what this looks like if you could stand at the equator during an entire night, see the images of star trails from Ecuador posted by Stephane Guisard.

 

[katerinah1947]

Ha. So let's see the basis for this as applicable in the far universe?
"Seems" to be that energy controls time?? A good article would say why.
That says a lot.

Don't assume that for a minute!

1. The basis for this is the far universe, and the close up universe. Like gas, where the pressure and therefore the gas density is uniform thoughout a vessel, the vessel that we are in, which contains the entire know and unknown parts of the universe, would have the same energy density everywhere, because that is the way God probably did it.

2. Since Matter is nothing more than congealed energy, as in MC**2=E, yes it looks like energy and in this case maybe those words of God, Let there be light, may indeed be what stretched out the casing of the universe in which Creation exists, both what we can see and what we cannot see. Light is a form of energy.


2.1) Science is merely finding out what God has done. The idea you accidentally or on purpose presented of, 'a good artilcle would say why', should never be true as science is not God, Science merely is a command of God. It is from His Blessing to us in Genesis 1:28, to subdue the earth.
Going on with that idea, of God commanded us to do science and now the Bible. As difficult for us, as it is, to handle the Bible, without study, reflection and then finally God telling us the answers, yes He who gave us the job to study the Bible in the first place. Such it is, with Science.
Such it is with science to me, merely means that what God Commanded us to do,,, as every Blessing by God is also a command, like spreading, filling the earth, and as such proven by God to us in His Word, The Bible, at Babylon,,, it is He God, who helps us to do science, also.

3. Yes, the density of energy, maybe in the form of light, says a lot. It suggests to those that have the job by God of Science and God, God Biblically, that indeed it means something in Creation terms, as that energy might be lessening, thus time is getting faster, but we don't know that yet, just like we know more now, Biblically, than we did 1000 years ago, so with God does He seem to work that way with our knowledge of science, meaning, it is our goal to know about God, but it takes time and for Him to let us know more and more.
It is the same with science, the science He Commanded us to do, with His Blessing of subdue the earth, it takes time for us to know things, know thing more now, than we did 1000 years ago.

4. To assume the energy density, falls, with the Big Bang, or from Let there be light, or in what ever way God did this creation thing, but is now telling us from His request for us to do science and what we have learned, it is they, The Scientific Community, working for God honestly, that tells us that energy density, has been falling since the beginning of our Universe.
Using their accuracy, from their work for God, even if they do not know they are working for God yet, time would have been near what we call infinite, but to God is fininite, at the first instant in The Big Bang, which we in Bilical Terms would say is "Let there be light."

5. It is the addition of Science (Our best attempts to find out, What God has actually done), that has battled Religion and Religious Zealots from lack of knowledge, that has increased my and everyone's knowledge of God. In an indirect way, or in a direct way, God lets the religious bigots know that He is in other places and to stop being bigoted. Non bigots, in Religion, are not a problem as you know. And you know we have seen and can't wait for the few bigots in religion to go away.

6. Galileo. He obeyed God. He obeyed Genesis 1:28, the part that says, subdue the earth. He worked for God.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[DaisyDay]

How can I see it AND the people of Europe and Japan see it too? Same goes for all constellations. The middle of Russia is pretty close to half way around the world from us.

Because we're all at pretty much the same latitude. Cadet explained it, but think about how astrology (supposedly) works: your sign depends on which constellation was on the horizon when you were born - which constellation will be on the eastern horizon, where the sun rises, changes month to month as you know. Those twelve constellations regularly appear, travel over the arch of the sky and then disappear in the west according to season in the northern hemisphere. On the other hand, the North Star seems fixed in its spot because the Earth's axis is fairly aligned with it.

 

[dad]

1. The basis for this is the far universe, and the close up universe. Like gas, where the pressure and therefore the gas density is uniform thoughout a vessel, the vessel that we are in, which contains the entire know and unknown parts of the universe, would have the same energy density everywhere, because that is the way God probably did it.

No. Iions see no reason that He made the universe all the same. We are special and need certain things. Demons and angels dwell in space, apparently they need other things. The modelss science draws from uniformitarian assumptions lead to anti bible conclusions which have to

2. Since Matter is nothing more than congealed energy, as in MC**2=E, yes it looks like energy and in this case maybe those words of God, Let there be light, may indeed be what stretched out the casing of the universe in which Creation exists, both what we can see and what we cannot see. Light is a form of energy.

No again. Einstein's relativity is only relative physics as we know it, in other words this present nature or state. In heaven, the light is different and energy. It also could be somewhat different in deep space. Since sizes of stars cannot be known if time is not the same or doesn't exist at all as we know it....all so called distances are merely statements of faith that time and space are the same in the unknown far universe. That means stars could be bigger...or a lot smaller. They could fall to earth!

2.1) Science is merely finding out what God has done.

Not really they are doubting God and inventing a new universe based on earth rules.

The idea you accidentally or on purpose presented of, 'a good article would say why', should never be true as science is not God, Science merely is a command of God.

What I mean is that an article should say why things it claims are that way...not just rattle off a story as if it were true.

It is from His Blessing to us in Genesis 1:28, to subdue the earth.
Going on with that idea, of God commanded us to do science and now the Bible. As difficult for us, as it is, to handle the Bible, without study, reflection and then finally God telling us the answers, yes He who gave us the job to study the Bible in the first place. Such it is, with Science.

No. Science does not study His creation, they invent fables of alternate creations and bible opposing universes.

Such it is with science to me, merely means that what God Commanded us to do,,, as every Blessing by God is also a command, like spreading, filling the earth, and as such proven by God to us in His Word, The Bible, at Babylon,,, it is He God, who helps us to do science, also.

Maybe real science like building a bridge or computer etc. NOT with evilution dreams of man coming from animals etc.

Sorry post was too long this should be enough...

 

[katerinah1947]

No. Iions see no reason that He made the universe all the same. We are special and need certain things. Demons and angels dwell in space, apparently they need other things. The modelss science draws from uniformitarian assumptions lead to anti bible conclusions which have to
No again. Einstein's relativity is only relative physics as we know it, in other words this present nature or state. In heaven, the light is different and energy. It also could be somewhat different in deep space. Since sizes of stars cannot be known if time is not the same or doesn't exist at all as we know it....all so called distances are merely statements of faith that time and space are the same in the unknown far universe. That means stars could be bigger...or a lot smaller. They could fall to earth!

Not really they are doubting God and inventing a new universe based on earth rules.


What I mean is that an article should say why things it claims are that way...not just rattle off a story as if it were true.

No. Science does not study His creation, they invent fables of alternate creations and bible opposing universes.

Maybe real science like building a bridge or computer etc. NOT with evilution dreams of man coming from animals etc.

Sorry post was too long this should be enough...

Hi,

Sir your post is not long enough to discern much. And Iions?, did you mean lions?

1. Science does study what God has done.

2. And why are you fighting God on this, Whom you claim to believe in?

3. I am old. You may be old. So, I will be nice, and I will be gentle, if I can be with you. I will try anyway.

4. I am a scientist, maybe not the best, but I am a scientist. I only studied what God has done, only it is not called that, but that is what science is. I have even used God in science. Many of the people who are Christian seem to hate science, even though they are commanded by God to do science. How is that possible?

5. If you did not understand that article as you seem to say you don't, when to me it is entirely clear, the problem is your expertise lies eslewhere. It is not that article.

6. I know God is Real. Therefore I cannot believe in Him.
7. I know the Bible is Real. Therefore I cannot believe in It.

Realize those last two statements mean that if the Bible says this, then the Bible is correct. Historically though, in science items, theologians and ministers did not understand their own book, where it said to do science. Theologians also do not understand science, even though in Genesis 1:28, under the Blessing of God, it says to do Science. That is a large mistake in understanding.

The problem is that lots of people think they know what the Bible says, and therfore the words to stop Galileo, are incredibly unfortunate, as they totally convict the church as being at fault.

The apologists are quick to say, that it was Galileo's attitude, not his science. The words say other wise. Look up The Galileo Affair, in Wikipedia. At the very least if one still wants to say, Galileo's attitude was at fault, then the church is caught in bold faced, public lie and lies then. I do not think they lied. I think they were just afraid and not understanding.

The problem is that a scientist, translated the Bible properly and correcty, and it has been proven to be so, when at the time the church, they claimed they were the Biblical experts. Instead on that item, it was Galileo.

And an exception is not the rule. Again, Science is the study of What God has done. The ones who get science wrong, are the exceptions.

I am a scientist, who knows God is Real, and The Bible is Real, you have a distorted view of what I posted, and you shouldn't. We actually are on the same team in a way. We are as long as truth is more important than being right, to you. And I do mean sounding or seeming to be right, rather than truly right.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[dad]

Hi,

Sir your post is not long enough to discern much. And Iions?, did you mean lions?

Looks like a typo.

1. Science does study what God has done.

Yet they claim a first life form, God did not do that.

2. And why are you fighting God on this, Whom you claim to believe in?

Jesus.

4. I am a scientist, maybe not the best, but I am a scientist. I only studied what God has done, only it is not called that, but that is what science is. I have even used God in science. Many of the people who are Christian seem to hate science, even though they are commanded by God to do science. How is that possible?

No we are not commanded to invent first lifeforms and big bang idiocy, we are told to believe what He said.

5. If you did not understand that article as you seem to say you don't, when to me it is entirely clear, the problem is your expertise lies eslewhere. It is not that article.

No the problem is the article is a crock. It also does nothing but rattle off a fable as if it were true, without showing the whys and wherefores.

6. I know God is Real. Therefore I cannot believe in Him.

?

7. I know the Bible is Real. Therefore I cannot believe in It.

?

Realize those last two statements mean that if the Bible says this, then the Bible is correct. Historically though, in science items theologians and ministers did not understand their own book, where it said to do science. Theologians also do not understand science, even though in Genesis 1:28, under the Blessing of God, it says to do Science. That is a large mistake in understanding.

The scientists misunderstand not me.

The problem is that lots of people think they know what the Bible says, and therfore the words to stop Galileo, are incredibly unfortunate, as they totally convict the church as being at fault. The apologists are quick to say, that it was Galileo's attitude, not his science. The words say other wise. Look up The Galileo Affair, in Wikipedia. At the very least is one still wants to say, Galileo's attitude was at fault, then the church is caught in bold faced, public lies then. I do not think they lied. I think they were just afraid and not understanding.

The world and sun may revolve or move differently in the future when the new heavens are here. They even may have moved somewhat differently in the pre flood age for all we know. The problem with the Galileo era folks may be that they had heard old accounts of something and assumed it was still so.

The problem is that scientist, translated the Bible properly and correcty, and it has been proven to be so, when at the time they claimed they were the Biblical experts. Instead on that item, it was Galileo.

Maybe. Or maybe you still have it wrong and the past actually was not like now.

And and exception is not the rule. Again, Science is the study of What God has done. The one who get science wrong, are the exceptions.

Real science maybe. Evolution (claiming we came from animals) and cosmology are not real science.

I am a scientist, who knows God is Real, and The Bible is Real, you have a distorted view of what I posted, and you shouldn't. We actually are on the same team in a way. We are as long as truth is more important than being right, to you. And I do mean sounding or seeming to be right, rather than truly right.

So called science is different than actual science. No actual science opposes anything in the bible.

 

[katerinah1947]

Looks like a typo.
Yet they claim a first life form, God did not do that.
Jesus.

No we are not commanded to invent first lifeforms and big bang idiocy, we are told to believe what He said.
No the problem is the article is a crock. It also does nothing but rattle off a fable as if it were true, without showing the whys and wherefores.
?
?
The scientists misunderstand not me.


The world and sun may revolve or move differently in the future when the new heavens are here. They even may have moved somewhat differently in the pre flood age for all we know. The problem with the Galileo era folks may be that they had heard old accounts of something and assumed it was still so.
Maybe. Or maybe you still have it wrong and the past actually was not like now.
Real science maybe. Evolution (claiming we came from animals) and cosmology are not real science.
So called science is different than actual science. No actual science opposes anything in the bible.

Hi,
This is getting better. I am a scientist, at least I hope I am one. It is the field I worked in. Yes, Science truly is the Study of what God has Actually done. That is what it is.

So called science is not science. So called science is not science it lies, or it is done by non scientists masquerading as the real thing. The same types mentioned in Matthew 7:15-16. They even have the same disgagreeable personalities, that hurt other. The thorny personalities. The briar personalities.

God, your God had me use science to prove the Bible is Real, by this definition. It is True, where It says It is True and It is False where It says It is False. And you know God told us that two of Jobs friends did not speak rightly about Him, so all that his two friends said, is to be taken as false. You know Jesus said the devil is a liar, so all the words of the Devil are to be taken as false. And, if God says or causes anything to be said that He said, then that is always true.

At least 15% of the scientists, are dishonest. I and other scientists get rid of each of them, when we find them. They possibly produce all of that so called science you are talking about.

There is only doing the devils work by accident, if you throw out all of science, as the science that lasts, is typically what God has done. That is all it is. False science doesn't last and is proven wrong, eventually but by scientists.

Yes, I would love to have all the religious know what Science says and what the Bible says. Most Christians only know some of what is true in both fields.

Please discuss with me. Please do not contend. The church in Galileos time said that Galileo was wrong in several places scripturally, while simultaneously refusing to listen to their own scientists, and refusing to look at any of Galileos results. The Jesuits, looked at his results, by doing what Galileo had merely done. He looked. They then got telescopes and looked. Within a year they did not oppose him.

It was the council of Trent's words, that Galileo could not translate scripture properly, and their translations showed that Galileo was wrong, as in several places Scripture disagreed with his statements.

Four hundred years later, that same church investigated their findings on Galileo. They recanted their original position, and apologized. I think it was in 1995 or so.

Did you not know this? Yes, you are right, if you know this. Science and God cannot be in disagreement as long as we understand what God actually said, and the science is question is proven to be correct.

LOVE, (My best recollection of the way God actually loves)
...Mary., .... .

 

[dad]

Hi,
This is getting better. I am a scientist, at least I hope I am one. It is the field I worked in. Yes, Science truly is the Study of what God has Actually done. That is what it is.

Not when you try to squeeze in evilution and cosmological alternate creation stories and etc. That is falsely called science.

So called science is not science. So called science is not science it lies, or it is done by non scientists masquerading as the real thing. The same types mentioned in Matthew 7:15-16. They even have the same disgagreeable personalities, that hurt other. The thorny personalities. The briar personalities.

The ones that change the creation of God into a lie are what I am talking about...regardless of personality.

God, your God had me use science to prove the Bible is Real, by this definition. It is True, where It says It is True and It is False where It says It is False. And you know God told us that two of Jobs friends did not speak rightly about Him, so all that his two friends said, is to be taken as false. You know Jesus said the devil is a liar, so all the words of the Devil are to be taken as false. And, if God says or causes anything to be said that He said, then that is always true.

OK

At least 15% of the scientists, are dishonest. I and other scientists get rid of each of them, when we find them. They possibly produce all of that so called science you are talking about.

No. I am talking about whole fields of science like paleontology, theoretical astrophysics, evolutionary biology that deals in anything pre mankind...etc etc.

There is only doing the devils work by accident, if you throw out all of science, as the science that lasts, is typically what God has done. That is all it is. False science doesn't last and is proven wrong, eventually but by scientists.

No they cannot police their own lies and claims. They are steeped in assumptions and beliefs and godless methodologies.

Please discuss with me. Please do not contend. The church in Galileos time said that Galileo was wrong in several places scripturally, while simultaneously refusing to listen to their own scientists, and refusing to look at any of Galileos results. The Jesuits, looked at his results, by doing what Galileo had merely done. He looked. They then got telescopes and looked. Within a year they did not oppose him.

Galileo was wrong in effect anyhow. The present arrangement of the stars and cosmos need not and probably does not reflect the ancient realities! It just happens to be how it now works and exists in this present state and nature that we live.

It was the council of Trent's words, that Galileo could not translate scripture properly, and their translations showed that Galileo was wrong, as in several places Scripture disagreed with his statements.

The big mistake for all of them was thinking that how the cosmos now is had to be the way it was in Adam and Noah's day. It was not the bible that was wrong.

Four hundred years later, that same church investigated their findings on Galileo. They recanted their original position, and apologized. I think it was in 1995 or so.

"The" church" never had anything to do with the Catholics or other denominations, it is people...believers. The pope now embraces evilution I hear, no? Who then would care about anything he says on science or anything else for that matter?? The church so called was wrong long ago, but so what, they were killing people in the Inquisition and all sorts of things. How would we expect them to be right or in tune?

Did you not know this? Yes, you are right, if you know this. Science and God cannot be in disagreement as long as we understand what God actually said, and the science is question is proven to be correct.

It is very possible that in the days of Adam, the very heavens and earth were different in some big ways that would make the ancient writings true. Something changed probably after the flood time era, and we have a new situation now, I would suspect. It will change again in the future according to the bible, the present heavens are temporary only.
Just like life spans changed and tree growth rates, and evolving rates and processes, and light and all sorts of basic things. Science looks only at the present and tries to model the future and past on this. That is science. That is wrong.

 

[katerinah1947]

Not when you try to squeeze in evilution and cosmological alternate creation stories and etc. That is falsely called science.
The ones that change the creation of God into a lie are what I am talking about...regardless of personality.
OK
No. I am talking about whole fields of science like paleontology, theoretical astrophysics, evolutionary biology that deals in anything pre mankind...etc etc.

No they cannot police their own lies and claims. They are steeped in assumptions and beliefs and godless methodologies.

Galileo was wrong in effect anyhow. The present arrangement of the stars and cosmos need not and probably does not reflect the ancient realities! It just happens to be how it now works and exists in this present state and nature that we live.
The big mistake for all of them was thinking that how the cosmos now is had to be the way it was in Adam and Noah's day. It was not the bible that was wrong.
"The" church" never had anything to do with the Catholics or other denominations, it is people...believers. The pope now embraces evilution I hear, no? Who then would care about anything he says on science or anything else for that matter?? The church so called was wrong long ago, but so what, they were killing people in the Inquisition and all sorts of things. How would we expect them to be right or in tune?
It is very possible that in the days of Adam, the very heavens and earth were different in some big ways that would make the ancient writings true. Something changed probably after the flood time era, and we have a new situation now, I would suspect. It will change again in the future according to the bible, the present heavens are temporary only.
Just like life spans changed and tree growth rates, and evolving rates and processes, and light and all sorts of basic things. Science looks only at the present and tries to model the future and past on this. That is science. That is wrong.

Hi,

Only one statement that you made has any semblance of accuracy or logic. You seem to think you are in a fight, or else why would did you say undefeated.

And if fights result in truth, they would be quite useful.

Only your OK statement is accurate to any degree.

I will not fight with you. I don't have to, and fighting is little removed from debate, which again is not useful to find truth. And truth is anything God said, or had said that was of Him.

In Galileo's case, you have not looked at the facts yet, you have distorted them to versions of your own. I imagine that you are going to keep on doing this, until you win, as that is your primary and only goal.

Although that is a Matthew 7:15 type of action, and if you are Christian that applies, I certainly hope that you do not continue fighting by switches and distortions of the words used, by shifting them over to a set you use, and no one else has access to.

The choice is yours. The church posted words for Galileo. You deny that the church did that. Yet all of us can read those words. Only you say those words do not apply. You say that by changing the meaning of the word church used there, to another definition not used there. You change it to all the people is the chruch. Thus saying the whole topic cannot be talked about, because the church actually said nothing on the issue.

Cult speak. That type of shifting is nomally used by three other groups and the only purpose is to win, and get what they want. The normal definition given there for that is cult speak. FYI.

Back on topic.

Although posted elsewhere, the church's and in your case The Roman Catholic Church, posted a set of words that are very unfortunate for them today. Either guess by anyone today, of a purpose that is benificial, and God like reflecting what we all expect from them, puts them in a bad way.
If they put down Galileo's unruly ways, then they are guilty of a lie and of lies. If they made a mistake then they are guilty of not interpreting sciptures correctly.
I will give you one reference with most of the words, from The Council of Trent, and the verdict against Galileo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

If you need, I will extract the words that they used, which convicts them.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[Astrophile]

On our globular earth I see the big dipper go through it's rotation in the same area of the sky throughout the night and changing more during seasons, BUT it's always there.

How can I see it AND the people of Europe and Japan see it too? Same goes for all constellations.

This is simply not true. Have you ever seen Orion, Sirius or Gemini in June? Have you ever seen Scorpius and Sagittarius in December? Try going outside tonight and looking for Leo and Virgo; you won't see them because at this time of the year they are only above the horizon during the daytime. You can see the big dipper every night of the year because it is near to the north celestial pole and therefore never sets as seen from Europe and most of North America, so that it can be seen at any time of the year. However, constellations farther from the pole do set, and can only be seen at some seasons.

The middle of Russia is pretty close to half way around the world from us. How can their night sky show the same as ours if the stars never set? They just spin in one place in the night sky. They will continue this same rotation during the day when I cannot see their dim light, but they never set. They are always in that part of my sky. Russia would have to look through the earth to see them too.

Russia may be nearly halfway round the world from us, but it is still in the northern hemisphere and in the same latitude range as Europe and North America. If you were to go to Argentina (particularly the south of the country), which is in the southern hemisphere, you would see a different set of constellations, and many of the familiar constellations (e.g. the big dipper, Draco, Auriga) would either not rise at all or would be very low in the northern sky.

 

[dad]

And if fights result in truth, they would be quite useful.

Bingo.

In Galileo's case, you have not looked at the facts yet, you have distorted them to versions of your own. I imagine that you are going to keep on doing this, until you win, as that is your primary and only goal.

Apparently you have not comprehended that no one is questioning Galileo or how earth moves in space now. I simply pointed out that the ancients seem to think it used to be different, and maybe they were right. Not like you know.

Although that is a Matthew 7:15 type of action, and if you are Christian that applies, I certainly hope that you do not continue fighting by switches and distortions of the words used, by shifting them over to a set you use, and no one else has access to.

No idea what you are babbling about.

The choice is yours. The church posted words for Galileo. You deny that the church did that.

Talk about distorting I deny nothing of the silly sort.

Yet all of us can read those words. Only you say those words do not apply. You say that by changing the meaning of the word church used there, to another definition not used there. You change it to all the people is the chruch. Thus saying the whole topic cannot be talked about, because the church actually said nothing on the issue.

That was an aside...the real church is people. Period. Always has been. The called out ones.

Cult speak. That type of shifting is nomally used by three other groups and the only purpose is to win, and get what they want. The normal definition given there for that is cult speak. FYI.

No idea what you are droning on about. If it is news to you what the word translated in the bible for church means, don't blame me.

Although posted elsewhere, the church's and in your case The Roman Catholic Church, posted a set of words that are very unfortunate for them today. Either guess by anyone today, of a purpose that is benificial, and God like reflecting what we all expect from them, puts them in a bad way.
If they put down Galileo's unruly ways, then they are guilty of a lie and of lies. If they made a mistake then they are guilty of not interpreting sciptures correctly.
I will give you one reference with most of the words, from The Council of Trent, and the verdict against Galileo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Right, the Catholic outfit did not accept evidence, and the world actually revolves around the sun. I think we all know that. The point I made is that this is temporary. We do not know that it will be the same orbits in the new heavens coming. Neither do we know it was the same as now in Adam's day. Is that hard to understand?

Now quit fighting imaginary enemies Mary, and try to get the point.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

I guess the point is, you have no pattern of thought, that is recognizable to me.

No offense is intended or meant, but I cannot understand practically anything you say.

If you want, I will take that as my personal failure, and not yours.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[dad]

Hi,

I guess the point is, you have no pattern of thought, that is recognizable to me.

No offense is intended or meant, but I cannot understand practically anything you say.

If you want, I will take that as my personal failure, and not yours.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

No problem. For lurkers, what she could not comprehend was that the bible seems to indicate a change in laws. A state change. A nature change..whatever we want to call it. That change involved the fundamental forces and laws, so that things like orbits could have been greatly affected. That means that perhaps before that change, the earth was not revolving the same as now. The sun and planets also might have been somewhat different than now in the sky.

After all science claims some impact caused the earth to rotate as it does! Ha. Well, what if we assume the state change did it? That could explain why ancients thought things worked differently!?

"
Scientists think that a large object, perhaps the size of Mars, impacted our young planet, knocking out a chunk of material that eventually became our Moon. This collision set Earth spinning at a faster rate. Scientists estimate that a day in the life of early Earth was only about 6 hours long.

The Moon formed much closer to Earth than it is today. As Earth rotates, the Moon's gravity causes the oceans to seem to rise and fall. (The Sun also does this, but not as much.) There is a little bit of friction between the tides and the turning Earth, causing the rotation to slow down just a little. As Earth slows, it lets the Moon creep away."

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/earth-rotation.html

I have been a mechanism for rapid continental separation.e speculated that perhaps a change in the earth spin near the time of this state change could even have even been a mechanism for rapid continental separation?! Who knows?

 

[Gracchus]

"A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" --- Albert Einstein

The difference between Einstein and religious folks is: He could consider both possibilities, because he wasn't crazy.

 

[katerinah1947]

"A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" --- Albert Einstein

The difference between Einstein and religious folks is: He could consider both possibilities, because he wasn't crazy.

Hi,

Your 2nd and your 9th quotes are in error, as understood.

I love Al. Al was both a theist, believed that a god might exist out there that is responsible for all of this, and he was more.

Al, Albert Einstien calibrated God, in some way, it seems. And I recognized it, I think, when I tried to figure out two things he did, but from my point of view. That point of view is experimentation to prove things, which I am better at than the theoretical stuff.

On lasers, it seemed that he said, they would work, because that's just the way it is going to turn out to be. He had no proofs, but I did that one day at work, and I think he did the same thing and for the same reasons. He, knew something about God and used it, but God by his time and mine was the new heresy, so even if his was not as clear a calibration of God as mine and him having that information, I think he knew what God would do and therefore had done.

In my case, I knew it was God, while then not now, simultaneously not having the proof for God completed yet. (That would take another 7 years or so. I think it was 7.)

A photon, a wavelength of light, as I tried to look this up, appears to be much larger than the diameter of an atom and that diameter of the atom is really the effect of the outer electrons pushing away all other electrons to the best of their abilities.

He said, and was later proven right that an incoming particle/beam of light which is much longer than the atom is wide, in atoms with an electron out of it's orbit sufficient upon going back into it's normal orbit, if that electron's change in energy gave off a particle of light that was very similar in wavelength to and entering particle of light, indeed the entering particle of light, would cause that electron to go back to it's normal place in the orbit around an atom, and it would do that, but that the emitted particle/wavelength/photon of light that the electron produced, would be in sync, directionally, and in step/phase with the incoming photon, such that now two photons were going in the same direction, rather than just one, and this would happen atom after atom after atom, until a hugh amount of photons, all were moving to gether, in the same direction and in sync in timing.

He said that with no proofs. Yet it was so. I say, He used God, and either did not know it, or could not quote it at the time. I could not cite my source either at the time. I can now. I could not cite the source for the one and only data point that I used God on, in and amongst all the other data points that I did have massive data on.

Oh, and on his statement of crazy. I have Zero problems with God. I have zero problems with Science. I also have zero problems with what is called Scripture today. I have zero problems with faith today. I actually have problems with all those people who say they have answers, but they have not done the work yet, so they really don't know.

Your Mark Twain also said something like this, but put in modern day langauge. "Most people talk about beliefs and have no idea what they are talking about for real, as they have not done the work themselves. Occasionally you will meet someone who has done the work, and then the conversations become impressive."

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[JacksBratt]

"A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?" --- Albert Einstein

The difference between Einstein and religious folks is: He could consider both possibilities, because he wasn't crazy.

Are you saying I'm crazy?

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

And and are we done yet, with The Roman Catholic Church? It was after all, The Galileo Affair, only an issue with The Roman Catholic Church and Galileo. No one, no other two groups were in the picture.

It was the scientists saying one thing, and the Roman Catholic Church saying another thing, teaching us all a very valuable lesson.

The most valuable lesson to me on this, required me to look at the actual words used at the time, for and against Galileo. They are recorded. They have been released.

To give me a hint and help me out with me figuring this out, it took also the Church apologizing for their errors at the time, along with those words today.

The apologists all want to say, that no this was no error on the church's part.

It was Galileo's attitude that was always the problem. If that were so then, the church violated the rules on lies. They did not say that. They said He violated Scripture, in several places, and that they knew the truth by their scriptural work, and he did not, on this issue.

I think the Galileo affair revisited, only shows us that The Council of Trent is now called wrong by both the Vatican in their 1995 or so apology for their mistakes, and for the verdict, and the written decsions at the time on Sciptural interpretation, in which Galileo was more correct than they were.

Thus, in revistiting the Galileo Affair, the church has really said, No, we are not the final authority on Scripture, as we were proven not to be in 1616 by Galileo, a believer, a scientist, but not one called to be accurate or authoritative Scripturally. Thus they are saying a statement in the Council of Trent is in error.

They are also saying by proof, of Galileo, that thier statement of implied infallibility is now no longer possible, as the statement they made in the Council of Trent in 1616, was a statement about thier infalibility in certain areas, without using that word yet, and Galileo proved that is not right, by the use of science. Science it turns out though, is a Command by God, that the now possibly non infallible church, has not listened to nor understood yet.

Science is commanded in Genesis 1:28. They don't cite that.

The summary of science is found normally in Government laws and rules. That is found in Romans 13:1-5, and Maby Romans 13:1-7. They don't cite that.

In the past they never cited Mark 9:38-42. If they did, could the Inquisition every have taken place?

I think this issue, for the original question is done. What do the rest of you think?

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

P.S. And it seems to point out, that even Apologists are not right all the time.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .