Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[Shemtov]

Evolution should shake your belief. All science should.

And one day, we won't have any more need for belief, because we will know everything.

Soooo, wait, does the water cycle contradict the Bible?
How about Photosynthesis?
The existence of Bacteria?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not to that specific degree.

But botany as a whole does. The evolution of plants. The age of some trees alone, contradicts what you believe. As does the nature of the Sun and the Earth (remember that whole thing with Copernicus and Galileo).

I do wish the holy texts would have told us more about bacteria. And how they, you know, evolve to be resistant to bacteria.

I hope no creationists out there are "wasting" their money on new anti-biotics.

 

[Shemtov]

As does the nature of the Sun and the Earth (remember that whole thing with Copernicus and Galileo).

Maybe to Catholics in the Middle Ages/Early Renaissance.

I do wish the holy texts would have told us more about bacteria. And how they, you know, evolve to be resistant to bacteria.

We do not reject Evolution. We reject speciation.
Whoever denies evolution (any change across successive generations in the inherited traits of a population)is a fool.

 

[rodhulk]

I'm not dismissing evidence, but saying that visual impression without further confirmation that a supposedly prehistoric artwork depicts dinosaurs isn't evidence, especially in light of paleontological evidence stating the humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist. The number of impressions based on interpretation counter to the paleontological evidence does not make it more convincing. Same with UFO "evidence" -- without hard data to back it up, simply having a lot of claims does not make the claims more credible. (I don't know if UFO data isn't credible, knowing little about the phenomenon -- only that if it isn't backed up by anything more than the number of claims, the number itself does not lend it more credence.) What do the guys in the video say about the paleontological evidence, if anything?

There's no "if" about the science, which is more than a mere collection of data, and any look at the theory shows it to be too strong to dismiss in favor of the alternative, which has little if any evidence backing it up. For example, if animals merely go "after their kind" as the scriptures put it, how does the Bible explain speciation, which is incontrovertibly evidenced? The lab tests are things we can confirm and verify independently; the supposed claims of people "who were there" without credible evidence to back that up cannot be. The Bible is not understood to be informative in that way by anyone but believers -- as are the Quran and other scriptures which contradict the Bible. Job being written in a "serious" way is not evidence of anything but that the writer(s) took their work seriously, particularly when we cannot know the intention of the poet anyway, whether he intended to write a historical event or a mythological one. Nothing in the book itself even makes that claim.

Exactly. But why is Satan supposedly deceiving Muslims and pagans but not Christians? Because Christians say so? Based on what? What makes your claims any better than theirs? If people who believed in Zeus are only seeing ghosts, why aren't Christians? What about the claims of Muslims today concerning their religious experiences -- are they all "being deceived" and "seeing ghosts"? And Christians aren't? Why?

Visual impressions that a drawing, etc looks like a dinosaur is not evidence, particularly when we don't know if the art was intended to depict historical events, what the conventions of the artists may have been, etc. And there is as much evidence for Zeus existing as there is that the artists were depicting dinosaurs or other long extinct creatures.

The video shows nothing of the kind. It's assuming that the striped creature depicted was a dinosaur, as opposed to some other striped creature real or imagined, and assumes that the artist intended it to be taken as real. The similarity in appearance between the art -- which, again, the video shows no evidence of its prehistoric nature -- and real dinosaurs is not evidence. Are all the artworks of unicorns evidence that such a creature existed? What about leprechauns, brownies, other creatures of fairy tale and myth?

The creature not being that old to begin with counters paleontological evidence too strong to be countered by the writings of a likely mythological document. In any event, if the creature was real -- no evidence for this -- it was likely a mythological heightening of an animal contemporaneous with the poet, not a prehistoric animal, according to the latest scholarship, and nothing in the poem indicates otherwise. If creationism cannot back up its claims with scientific evidence, it should be dismissed as "science," because it is not. Job is not an example of literature depicting dinos existing with man, particularly since nothing in the poem itself makes any claims for historicity or justifies any assumptions that it was trying to depict its creatures as real.

The similarity is a visual impression without any evidence to back it up. Carnivores killing by the neck does not indicate that prehistoric humans saw a dinosaur doing the same thing -- only that some art depicts a predatory creature killing by the neck. What is there beside this as evidence, and how do the guys in the video counter the existing actual evidence from paleontology, etc?

I still must disagree with you and say the pictures and carvings are not only evidence but even strong evidence. Evidence only points to something, it doesn't make that "something" a fact. Just liek the UFO footage, we've got tons of videos and photos, this is evidence (not facts) that something could be out there. To dismiss all the UFO evidence and dino evidence in the carvings and artworks is not being honest with the possibility that there just might be something more than our current science is telling us.

From my searching, I have seen no proof that something like a dolphin or a fox can change to something completely different so that it is not of "it's kind" anymore, whether it would belong to a different family all of a sudden... I know the changes take perhaps thousands of generations, its not something that we will see occur naturally in our lives, but I do not believe from my searching that this has happened or been poven to happen... evidence, perhaps, but not factually shown. As for speciation and the Bible, as just mentioned, I do not believe science has shown this, at least not to the way evolution presents it. From what I have researched, it does seem like a type of speciation may have occurred, but not to creating something completely different as mention above. I believe a video that I will post at the end might go into it. I could be mistaken, I should rewatch it.

As you mentioned, we have results from science tests but the people who were there are not here anymore, you are correct, however, they still left us with something, very highly possible real world info from their time in the form of carvings, artwork, and some literature. This bears weight.

As for Job, outside of religion, you can say it might be mythological, but by the Bibles own claims (and as a believer of the book), it is all truth. But you are correct, it could be myth, but it could also be the real deal. The idea that Job was so descriptive in Job 40 and 41, from the animals/dinos themselves to how man can approach them (which was best not to approach them), Job goes into great detail in this explanation and the possibilities of it being literal must be taken into account.

You are mistaken about christians not being deceived. Christians are being deceived, you should know that. Does not the Catholic Church believe in evolution. The Catholic Church is the biggest christian Church out there, the biggest/most popular religion out there, so the argument about satan deceiving everyone except christians is completely false. In fact, I even went to a Catholic school for many years as a kid and I was taught evolution.

Christians claim to see things like ghosts and the virgin Mary often, there is a neat Youtube video out that includes such a "supposed" appearing of Mary seen by many. I'll try to dig it up. My frined, christians are not immune to anything.

As for the pictures and stories on Zeus and dinos, etc.... this was kinda answered at the top of my post about the dinos, they are remarkable, too many with such clear similarities as to how we see dinos today. As for Zeus, same as I mentioned before, people may have seen supposed Gods, look at the mayans and all the talk about them seeing/being visited by Gods/aliens, the various drawings/carvings found around the world of supposed UFO's/aliens, God/type beings, etc..... strange things may have happened and even if science doesn't back it up, it can't prove it wrong either.

The striped dino, I must continue, simply gives what I said before, a real possible piece of evidence of stripped dinos. It may not be but "equally," it could. Unfortunately this doesn't give it enough weight to change the education system around, but with all the other art/carvings, it's something to consider that maybe there's something more than our current science thought.

Back to Job for a moment, it seems like science dismisses the scriptures of Job simply because it wasn't written in the way they "want" it to be written to consider it legit. But Job (or God from a christian viewpoint) wasn't writing it to please science, it was written as a simple account of life back at the time and the power of God. That is the way I see it. It tells us of a couple of creatures that were very mighty but God himself was mightier. There could also be that message that I have been saying here for a bit now (and perhaps meant for modern day), that there were mighty beasts/dinos that did in fact exist with man since all creatures were created at the same time and so had to co-exist. Again, we have no creature living today that can fit the description of he two creatures in Job 40-41.

And killing by the neck, it's an easy fatal blow and if I'm not mistaken, it's one done by instinct. If not instinct, then strategic, I suppose. It's what you might expect to see with dinos and if so, then the artwork got it right (but the most impressive thing about that dino or two, it was how similar they looked to our understanding of what they would look like). As I said before, very remarkable.

Oh, and here's a debate between a creationist and evolutionist. The creationists does sometimes bring up the big bang which I know evolution does not go into but personally, I understand the creationist reasons for doing so. Anyhow, here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww

 

[chaseter]

I have a genuine question for Christians who believe in evolution. How do you view the Holy Bible?

A non literal guide on how to live a better life through a source of inspiration and hope. Some people also felt that way about Avatar. It's a book with fiction and non fiction mixed in with obvious signs of man who corrupted the text. While I have zero problem with faith...I have faith...I have a ton of problems with religion.

 

[rodhulk]

Rodhulk, you say that religion isn't meant to be scientific, and that one should trust god...but then you go on to say how science is "the devil" as if science, evolution in particular, is something that could over throw God. That's two wildly contradicting beliefs.

Look, I'm a Christian. I would lie if I didn't say I had my crisis of faith on occasion, but that just pushes me to try and understand more. Just like with scientific subjects, I don't wallow in ignorance or lack of understanding, and I certainly don't have any fear that one can trump the other because despite what people on both sides of the subject might want to shout from the roof tops, the two are NOT in a race nor mutually exclusive.

Evolution is our heliocentric universe. 200 years from now, kids will laugh in their classrooms at the idea that we once dismissed evolution purely because it doesn't fit with our tightly molded view of life. Evolution, like the earth not bein the center of the universe, does not negate or threaten my faith. If you believe in a higher power, you should therefore believe that he/she/it is in no way at risk of being affected negatively by our better understanding of the universe. Wouldn't you WANT to better understand how the life/universe that God created works?

The problem is, I really don't believe in it, so it wouldn't teach me how God created the universe and specifically life because I don't believe he used evolution. In fact, since I started my debates here years ago on this evolution subject, I am now even farther away from evolution. The question I can leave for you is, what if evolution isn't true, then wouldn't you want to have the proper understanding of life (and the universe) that the God you believe in actually created?

 

[chaseter]

The problem is, I really don't believe in it, so it wouldn't teach me how God created the universe and specifically life because I don't believe he used evolution. In fact, since I started my debates here years ago on this evolution subject, I am now even farther away from evolution. The question I can leave for you is, what if evolution isn't true, then wouldn't you want to have the proper understanding of life (and the universe) that the God you believe in actually created?

What is your proof that God didn't use evolution to the life we see today?

A think a more shattering question for you would be...what if evolution is true? Science will adapt...will you?

 

[rodhulk]

I believe animals use the jugular attack to bring down animals which are usually much BIGGER ore weigh more than themselves, as one bite in any one place alone won't do it, they need to slowly hang on and asphyxiate or slowly bleed the much bigger animal to actually bring it down.

The idea pictured in that artwork that a giant T-Rex or Cryolophosaurus or whatever they are pretending is pictured there, would have to use this slow hang on for your life method to bring down a much smaller horse it could probably tear in half or carry away, seems odd.

Actually, it may be instinct and/or strategic. The neck is always an easy point to get a great grip (even if the attacking animal is much bigger providing the mouth of the attacker isn't so big so as to be hard to bite into the neck). Just my POV. But it is a decent pioint you raised nonetheless.

 

[rodhulk]

What is your proof that God didn't use evolution to the life we see today?

A think a more shattering question for you would be...what if evolution is true? Science will adapt...will you?

Let science prove evolution, that man came from the ocean after so many generations and changes, then we'll talk about me adapting.

 

[chaseter]

Let science prove evolution, that man came from the ocean after so many generations and changes, then we'll talk about me adapting.

Oh my goodness. Why do I have a tail bone? Why did God give me a tail bone?

 

[Lighthouse]

Science does not deal in proof.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Let's be honest here. We could build a working time machine (somehow). Go back in time X amount of years. And literally watch the gradual evolution of humanity, and creationists would still be in denial.

But the fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, they still have wisdom teeth.

So, we win, and they wonder why they have useless vestigial organs.

 

[Shemtov]

Science does not deal in proof.

Can people use, like, colloquial language around here?

 

[Lighthouse]

Can people use, like, colloquial language around here?

It's not colloquial.

 

[childeroland]

I still must disagree with you and say the pictures and carvings are not only evidence but even strong evidence. Evidence only points to something, it doesn't make that "something" a fact. Just liek the UFO footage, we've got tons of videos and photos, this is evidence (not facts) that something could be out there. To dismiss all the UFO evidence and dino evidence in the carvings and artworks is not being honest with the possibility that there just might be something more than our current science is telling us.

The UFO stuff is not evidence unless backed up by something that is objectively verifiable. Pictures and carvings are not strong evidence without corroboration that does not rely on mere visual impressions, particularly if we cannot know whether or not the artist intended said pictures or carvings to be seen as historical events as opposed to, say, mythological narrative. Evidence is a lot closer to making something a "fact" than an impression of whether an artwork resembles a creature in a way that happens to fit our beliefs. Otherwise, what about art depicting unicorns, brownies, etc.

From my searching, I have seen no proof that something like a dolphin or a fox can change to something completely different so that it is not of "it's kind" anymore, whether it would belong to a different family all of a sudden... I know the changes take perhaps thousands of generations, its not something that we will see occur naturally in our lives, but I do not believe from my searching that this has happened or been poven to happen... evidence, perhaps, but not factually shown. As for speciation and the Bible, as just mentioned, I do not believe science has shown this, at least not to the way evolution presents it. From what I have researched, it does seem like a type of speciation may have occurred, but not to creating something completely different as mention above. I believe a video that I will post at the end might go into it. I could be mistaken, I should rewatch it.

There are numerous resources (for example, the books of Dawkins, Gould, Coyne, etc) detailing the evidence for evolution and speciation which is stronger than the lack of evidence for creationism and that bring to light much phenomena creationism cannot answer. Science has shown it so strongly that IMO anyone not seeing it must have simply ignored the evidence or has not seen it. In the very least, this evidence raises questions that cannot simply be ignored. For example, as I asked before, how do the scriptures square "after their own kind" stuff with the clear and observed phenomena of speciation. Speciation is documented and on record, and not knowing about it can only mean the evidence was not seen by those who deny it or is deliberately ignored by them. Macroevolution is evidenced just as strongly.

As you mentioned, we have results from science tests but the people who were there are not here anymore, you are correct, however, they still left us with something, very highly possible real world info from their time in the form of carvings, artwork, and some literature. This bears weight.

We do not know that "these people" left us something, as there is no evidence for it that has been corroborated by hard scientific data, as opposed to visual impressions of artwork and unjustified conclusions about mythological documents -- for example, the dating of dinosaur fossils vs. guesses about what the Job poet MIGHT have intended to portray in an ancient, uncorroborated writing. These impressions are not highly possible because they have nothing to corroborate them strongly and numerous examples of these do not make them stronger.

As for Job, outside of religion, you can say it might be mythological, but by the Bibles own claims (and as a believer of the book), it is all truth. But you are correct, it could be myth, but it could also be the real deal. The idea that Job was so descriptive in Job 40 and 41, from the animals/dinos themselves to how man can approach them (which was best not to approach them), Job goes into great detail in this explanation and the possibilities of it being literal must be taken into account.

The claims of the Bible themselves are themselves often uncorroborated, and in the case of Job, we cannot know that the poet's work is used by the canonizers in a way the poet intended. Nothing in that poem and frame tale convincingly claims historicity. It is not truth simply because believes assert it. Where is the evidence outside of the book? Mere elaboration of description is not evidence -- unless we are to believe the tales of Gilgamesh and the claims of the Quaran -- much of which contradict the Bible -- also.

You are mistaken about christians not being deceived. Christians are being deceived, you should know that. Does not the Catholic Church believe in evolution. The Catholic Church is the biggest christian Church out there, the biggest/most popular religion out there, so the argument about satan deceiving everyone except Christians is completely false. In fact, I even went to a Catholic school for many years as a kid and I was taught evolution.

I did not claim Christians are being deceived; YOU claimed Satan is deceiving people who make rival claims to Christianity. I only asked if Satan is deceiving people (a thing I certainly don't believe, and for which you provide no evidence) why is he deceiving them but not Christians. On what basis? As for the size of the church, Islam has a billion followers also. So why are they being deceived but not you? On what basis are your claims about God true but people who believed in Zeus, etc were only seeing ghosts or are being deceived?

Christians claim to see things like ghosts and the virgin Mary often, there is a neat Youtube video out that includes such a "supposed" appearing of Mary seen by many. I'll try to dig it up. My frined, christians are not immune to anything.

That only strengthens my question -- on what basis are people who make rival religious claims being decieved by Satan or are seeing ghosts but Christians are not being deceived when they make their claims?

As for the pictures and stories on Zeus and dinos, etc.... this was kinda answered at the top of my post about the dinos, they are remarkable, too many with such clear similarities as to how we see dinos today. As for Zeus, same as I mentioned before, people may have seen supposed Gods, look at the mayans and all the talk about them seeing/being visited by Gods/aliens, the various drawings/carvings found around the world of supposed UFO's/aliens, God/type beings, etc..... strange things may have happened and even if science doesn't back it up, it can't prove it wrong either.

There are similarities with much artwork concerning unicorns, dragons, pagan myths. We don't believe in them because they provide no corroboration. Without evidence outside a piece of artwork, mere similarity -- perceived "clear" similarity -- between paintings and fossils is not evidence of anything more than visual similarity. And again, what do these people say about the paleontological evidence countering their claims. They seem to be ignoring hard scientific data in favor of uncorroborated sense impressions that tell them what they want to hear. Strange things are said to have happened all the time; they cannot all be dismissed, but without corroboration they cannot be taken seriously either -- not as seriously as hard scientific evidence.

The striped dino, I must continue, simply gives what I said before, a real possible piece of evidence of stripped dinos. It may not be but "equally," it could. Unfortunately this doesn't give it enough weight to change the education system around, but with all the other art/carvings, it's something to consider that maybe there's something more than our current science thought.

That's just assuming too many things -- that the art is intended to depict a striped dinosaur as opposed to some other creature. Without corroboration it is not a real possibility -- which just seems to be a special pleading in favor of a visual impression that tells the guys in the video what they want to be true -- nor is it something to consider.

Back to Job for a moment, it seems like science dismisses the scriptures of Job simply because it wasn't written in the way they "want" it to be written to consider it legit. But Job (or God from a christian viewpoint) wasn't writing it to please science, it was written as a simple account of life back at the time and the power of God. That is the way I see it. It tells us of a couple of creatures that were very mighty but God himself was mightier. There could also be that message that I have been saying here for a bit now (and perhaps meant for modern day), that there were mighty beasts/dinos that did in fact exist with man since all creatures were created at the same time and so had to co-exist. Again, we have no creature living today that can fit the description of he two creatures in Job 40-41.

Whether Job was written to please science is irrelevant. Fossil evidence wasn't "created" to "please" science; it is indicative of what actually happened -- as opposed to the claims about the Job poem, which claims a likely mythological document might have been historical, despite the fact that the document itself appears to make no such claim and the evidence of its intended fictional nature is too strong to be ignored. That there are no living creatures fitting Job's description is actually a good indication, along with the known time of the poem's composition and the fossil record that prehistoric creatures died millions of years before that time, that the poem is not historical nor meant to be. In any event, it is likely, as some of the latest scholarship says, that the creatures are fictionalized contemporaneous animals, not prehistoric creatures.

And killing by the neck, it's an easy fatal blow and if I'm not mistaken, it's one done by instinct. If not instinct, then strategic, I suppose. It's what you might expect to see with dinos and if so, then the artwork got it right (but the most impressive thing about that dino or two, it was how similar they looked to our understanding of what they would look like). As I said before, very remarkable.

It's behavior you see in a lot of predators, not just what you'd "expect" to see with predatory dinosaurs. Without fossil corroboration, that is not evidence at all. And the similarity of the creature "in our understanding" without corroboration does not change this. Hard fossil data vs. "They really look alike,"

Oh, and here's a debate between a creationist and evolutionist. The creationists does sometimes bring up the big bang which I know evolution does not go into but personally, I understand the creationist reasons for doing so. Anyhow, here you go:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww

I'll look at it. Equally I would encourage you to look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA debate with Dawkins, one of those authors whose books provide numerous evidence, actual evidence.

 

[Bill]

We do not reject Evolution. We reject speciation.
Whoever denies evolution (any change across successive generations in the inherited traits of a population)is a fool.

The same could be said of speciation since it has been shown to occur. Perhaps you meant Evolution at above the species level? If that is the case, then explain the fossil record from a Creationist viewpoint beginning with what methods you employ to date it, the various types of layers, and the organisms that appear and disappear throughout.

 

[Breogan]

Anyway when you actually look at more of the pillar (not just the piece they show you) it looks more like a big cat taking down some kind of dear or gazelle, not a dinosaur.

And who exactly are these guys? So called cryptozoologist pitting their "keen intellect" against actual scientists?
T-Rex? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2rmkVDmNs4&feature=player_detailpage#t=36s
That just by looking at a blurry cropped picture of a pillar, convince themselves they see a freakin dinosaur? And proclaim - "...that means evolution is bankrupt, that means it never occurred!" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2rmkVDmNs4&feature=player_detailpage#t=8s
Seems pretty presumptuous and self aggrandizing.

Allot of these supposed Ica stones, where he gets the name of his book from - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nsZ6-t3pHY&feature=player_detailpage#t=116s
Have been shown to be a modern hoax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

Here they proclaim a supposed "...pedestal smashing blow to evolution" ..."proof positive" while holding up a kid's poncho with what could just as easily be stylized Llamas and not dinosaurs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF01TUsXPaQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=148s

 

[chaseter]

This is why I don't like religion. Evolution does not contradict the Bible yet evolution is the boogie man in religion today. Why? For the exact same reason Galileo was persecuted....ignorance from man.

It's pretty sad when a cartoon like Futurama can present an issue like evolution and religion better than actual real live action people.

 

[Spider-Who?]

This is why I don't like religion. Evolution does not contradict the Bible yet evolution is the boogie man in religion today. Why? For the exact same reason Galileo was persecuted....ignorance from man.

I think half the problem is that many religious people feel they need to step away from evolution because atheists try to use evolution as evidence of there not being a God. It’s a vicious cycle, and both sides are wrong on that front. And as I stated on another page, it’s a misconception that Galileo was “persecuted for his beliefs” by the Church. For one, most scientists of the day laughed at him (primarily because he couldn’t prove his theory and it went against Aristotle’s highly regarded theory) - in other words, his scientific colleagues were just as ignorant as the church officials who condemed him. Secondly, the Church had more of an issue with HOW he went about expressing himself, and less about WHAT his theory was (remember, Galileo was not an atheist). There were several other popular scientists who were beginning to come around to Galileo’s ideas and offering their own theories at that time who were not smacked on the wrist because they were less controversial in their delivery.

It's pretty sad when a cartoon like Futurama can present an issue like evolution and religion better than actual real live action people.

Yes, that is a fantastic episode. They've got a lot of great "meaningful" episodes like that.

 

[chaseter]

The Church funded science back then. They had their hands in many pots. The Church found him guilty of heresy and put him under house arrest where he died.

 

[Spider-Who?]

The Church funded science back then. They had their hands in many pots. The Church found him guilty of heresy and put him under house arrest where he died.

Galileo was convicted of heresy for insulting the Pope (they were friends), and for going back on he promise he made to not claim the heliocentric model to be true without actually proving it. You have to remember that in that time, the scientific evidence supported the geocentric model and comparatively, Galileo had very little evidence to support his claims (most of which was wrong: earth's rotation causing the tides, for example) – to the point that many people even in this forum would have laughed at him for stating the heliocentric model to be without actually proving it. Yes, Galileo would be proven mostly right in the future, but it was his claiming the unproven as fact and breaking his promise of not doing so without definitive proof that was the issue. It had NOTHING to do with the Church fearing his discoveries, otherwise other scientists like Kepler who were preaching similar theories would have been tried as well.

This notion that Galileo – and Science in general – was at the tyrannical mercy of the Catholic Church is actually a fabrication from two books written in the 1800s – two books that any historian worth his diploma laughs at now. Famous biographer Arthur Koestler who wrote on Galileo and his colleagues, said “I believe the idea that Galileo’s trial was a kind of Greek tragedy, a showdown between blind faith and enlightened reason, to be naively erroneous.” But the stories make for good fodder and therefore still permeate the masses (“man stands up to Church and becomes martyr for science” is far more dramatic than “man claims his hole-filled theory is fact without proving it and is lightly punished for having a fit over it&#8221. To quote Alfred North Whitehead: “the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed.”

 

[chaseter]

That doesn't answer the question of why the Church cared about his theory that the Earth was round and not the center of the Universe. This was during the times of the Inquisition. If the Pope said the Earth was flat and he said no it's not...that's heresy.

 

[Spider-Who?]

That doesn't answer the question of why the Church cared about his theory that the Earth was round and not the center of the Universe. This was during the times of the Inquisition. If the Pope said the Earth was flat and he said no it's not...that's heresy.

Well, considering the fact that the flat earth was still a commonly held belief at that point is false kind of answers your question in a way. This myth is another falsehood thanks to the misconceptions of Western Europe that was predominant in the 1800s. People have known the earth to be spherical since the time of the Greeks. Galileo’s trial had nothing to do with the flat earth theory since it was a universally accepted fact (minus a few nut cases that have always and will always exist).

The Church cared about what he had to say because the Church considered science and the study of “God’s Creation” to be extremely important and had a LOT of time and money invested. The Church also had a lot vested in Galileo, after the discovery of Jupiter’s moons, Galileo was the Church’s favorite son. Cardinal Francesco Mari del Monte even said “If we were still living under the ancient Republic of Rome, I verily believe that there would be a column on the Capital erected in Galileo's honor.”

We also have to remember that Galileo’s beliefs on the Earth’s rotation was not popular with many of his contemporaries, not just for the holes in his evidence, but also because much of science at the time hung on Aristotle’s ideas – they were afraid of having the basis of their scientific foundations changed. At the time, it was like someone now finding evidence that evolution was wrong – people would fight that tooth and nail. It didn’t help that Galileo’s personality in general caused him to have many bitter scientific rivals (he was sarcastic and frequently insulting to those whom he disagreed with – a character trait that caused the rift between him and the Church).

It was actually another scientist who told the Medici family – Galileo’s partons, that the heliocentric theory was “heretical”, as a way to hinder Galileo’s studies. His scientific enemies forced the Church (one overzealous priest in particular) to claim a stance based on masses claiming Galileo was wrong with a sermon damning his heliocentric studies (remember his theory went against everything that science considered true at that point in time). This is were Galileo went wrong and attacked the priest’s sermon with fervor. The Church as a whole was not against the IDEA that Galileo was right – claiming that “we should rather have to say that we do not understand the scripture, than to say that something is false which could be proven true”. But the damage was done and Galileo was forced to say that he would not represent his incomplete heliocentric model as fact without proof, which he promised, but eventually broke.

 

[chaseter]

So you agree with my post that the Church funded science and if what came out didn't meet their view point then they were quickly shut down. Which is Galileo 101.

 

[Spider-Who?]

So you agree with my post that the Church funded science and if what came out didn't meet their view point then they were quickly shut down. Which is Galileo 101.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. It's not "Galileo 101", unless you're studying fiction. Twice he was actually charged with heresy based on his actual ideas and both times the Church dismissed the charges. Galileo was eventually found guilty of heresy not because of his beliefs. He was charged with heresy due to breaking an oath - that oath being not to publicize an as-yet-unproven scientific idea as fact, which is something that scientists would be lambasted for doing today. The pledge stated that he could talk about it, offer arguments for and against, but unless he actually PROVED it, he could not claim it to be truth (and as I stated before, the Church was actualy open to the idea, something that many fellow scientists were unwilling to do...so long as he would stop proclaiming it as fact and actually prove it). He was found guilty for going back on his pledge, not for the idea itself (further proof being that Copernicanism itself and other like-minded scientists did not have the same "heretical" label put upon them).