Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

And again in post #17508, you repeat that Galileo was unable to prove something that was proven by a man who had died long before Galileo was born. ANOTHER editing mistake

Where? If you are reffering to Aristotle as refuting the concept of the earth revolving around the sun, it is in the link you read. Galileo had no way to prove Aristotle's argument against the heliocentric system and Ptolomey's planet system wrong. Science, at that time accepted Aristotle's refutation and Ptolomey's system. Concepts do not necessarily die with the man. Aristotle's argument was alive and kicking and Galileo could not overcome it with the scientific method, as Galileo did not have the tools to prove the necessary Parallax effect.

It wasn't hasty, I had this link before and read it before when I made my 13672 post. As there was no need to mention why Galileo did not prove Copernicus' theory.

This time it was needed. That is why I asked you who empirically proved the earth revolved around the sun.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes editing, too much cutting and pasting. If you don't think I know Copernicus came before Galileo, look at my post 13672 responding to Actor. You brought up Galileo before about when the Church officially accepted the heliocentric theory.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...hlight=Galileo

I responded to Actor saying why Galileo got in trouble with the Church. Actor thought the Church accepted Copernicus' theory when he published it. Which the Church did as a theory, but not a fact ( which was not in my post to Actor) but it was established Galileo came after Copernicus and Galileo got in trouble for trying to interpret Scripture, not because of his observations.

The Church accepted the theory from the beginning as a theory and accepted it as a scientific fact way before the Church officially pronounced it a fact.

Why you won't admit to making a simple mistake is beyond me. And you are picking on BOXCAR for putting words in people's mouths, and tip-toeing around issues? No-where in post 13672, nor in the Actor post which elicited it, is it spelled out that Copernicus died before Galileo was born. From Actor's post, and your response, one could easily assume that Galileo and Copernicus lived and worked at the exact same time.

Please enlighten me...WHERE in your response to Actor (#13672) is it implied that you knew Galileo came along AFTER Copernicus?

You have re-read your post #17501...and still you come back here denying that you simply didn't know that Copernicus preceded Galileo. UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE!!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Where? If you are reffering to Aristotle as refuting the concept of the earth revolving around the sun, it is in the link you read. Galileo had no way to prove Aristotle's argument against the heliocentric system and Ptolomey's planet system wrong. Science, at that time accepted Aristotle's refutation and Ptolomey's system. Concepts do not necessarily die with the man. Aristotle's argument was alive and kicking and Galileo could not overcome it with the scientific method, as Galileo did not have the tools to prove the necessary Parallax effect.

It wasn't hasty, I had this link before and read it before when I made my 13672 post. As there was no need to mention why Galileo did not prove Copernicus' theory.

This time it was needed. That is why I asked you who empirically proved the earth revolved around the sun.

Enough! You only brought up Newton AFTER I MENTIONED HIM!! Before that...you were fixated on Copernicus, and how his theory was EMBRACED by the church when he published it...while Galileo was the incompetent astronomer...who could not even refute the cosmological theories of ARISTOTLE...who had lived 2,000 years prior, and had never even DREAMT of a telescope.

I can't debate you anymore, SMTW. I can no longer take you seriously.

I never thought I'd say this...but I'd rather argue with Boxcar. At least he sticks to what he believes in.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes, I did know Copernicus came first. It was an editing mistake. I reffered you to a link
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/f...heliocentrism/ which plainly states the first theory was proposed by Aristarchus and refuted by Aristotle. It also states Aristotle's and Ptolmey's view the sun revolved around the earth was the accepted scientific fact. Also, Newton is the key due to his laws of motion.

But believe whatever you want. But remember Galileo, Kleper and Newton validated Copernicus. When his work was valdated it was accepted as a scientific fact. Galileo, provided mountains of observation, but he did not have the tools to prove the Parallax effect, nor did he provide the math needed from Newton. There was nothing obvious in Galileo's work to overturn the scientific view that the sun revolved arond the earth.

Galileo by himself proved nothing, he supplied observational data for a theory which was already accepted as a theory by the Church. Nothing was obvious as you claimed until Newton.

Btw the link you supplied is the link, I gave you in my original post. I know what is in that link because I cited first to you. That link clearly states Copernicus came before Galileo. I told you I made an editing mistake.

Here, in your post #17518, NEWTON was the "main man" in the heliocentric debate. I was the one who first mentioned Newton, in post #17517. Where was Newton in your post #17501...when you were gushing over Copernicus? You only mentioned Newton's Laws of Motion in passing...to refute Aristotle's 2,000 year old findings.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Why you won't admit to making a simple mistake is beyond me. And you are picking on BOXCAR for putting words in people's mouths, and tip-toeing around issues? No where in post 16672, nor in the Actor post which elicited it, is it spelled out that Copernicus died before Galileo was born. From Actor's post, and your response, one could easily assume that Galileo and Copernicus lived and worked at the exact same time.

Please enlighten me...WHERE in your response to Actor (#13672) is it implied that you knew Galileo came along AFTER Copernicus.

You have re-read your post #17501...and still you come back here denying that you simply didn't know that Copernicus preceded Galileo. UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE!!

Okay you win, if that is what you believe. Yes, I saw what I said as a result of all my editing done from my tablet. I admit I said Copernicus improved Galelio's theory. I tried to edit it but time ran out. It is my fault for not clarifying with another post.

Great even accepting I didn'tdidn't know Copernicus (didn't in twice because tha is an examplevof how my tablet is adding words and the examplevof is an example too).

I am a dummy. I concede.

So you win, h timelinthehow does my ignorance of when Copernicus lived prove your assertion Galileo scientifically proved the earth revolved around the sun? Is the link wrong on the timeline too?
(I left the last typos in because I tired of trying to correct them)

This post took me at least 35 minutes to type. Its brutal on my tablet, my fault for using it.

Goodnight, I am tired of trying to type on this thing.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here, in your post #17518, NEWTON was the "main man" in the heliocentric debate. I was the one who first mentioned Newton, in post #17517. Where was Newton in your post #17501...when you were gushing over Copernicus? You only mentioned Newton's Laws of Motion in passing...to refute Aristotle's 2,000 year old findings.

He was the last component needed to prove Copernicus theory. I was gushing over Copernicus because it was his theory.

If you noticed I left in another mistake, when I said Galileo revived the heliocentric theory. That mistake I definately made. I admit to mistakes and when I am wrong, which you should know from other posts in the past. I even admitted to boxcar when I erred.

Based on past history, I thought you know I try my best to be trmuthful.

Goodnight again.

blessings upon you.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Okay you win, if that is what you believe. Yes, I saw what I said as a result of all my editing done from my tablet. I admit I said Copernicus improved Galelio's theory. I tried to edit it but time ran out. It is my fault for not clarifying with another post.

Great even accepting I didn'tdidn't know Copernicus (didn't in twice because tha is an examplevof how my tablet is adding words and the examplevof is an example too).

I am a dummy. I concede.

So you win, h timelinthehow does my ignorance of when Copernicus lived prove your assertion Galileo scientifically proved the earth revolved around the sun? Is the link wrong on the timeline too?
(I left the last typos in because I tired of trying to correct them)

This post took me at least 35 minutes to type. Its brutal on my tablet, my fault for using it.

Goodnight, I am tired of trying to type on this thing.

OK...now I see the typing problems that you are experiencing. And, since you admit that you got the dates of Copernicus and Galileo wrong...I apologize for the outbursts in my last two posts. And I withdraw my comment about not debating with you again.

I don't know what's happening to me here lately...I am a lot more excitable than I usually am. I think a break from this site is in order...at least for a while.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

"If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation.
"Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication."

Printing press, photography, video, literacy of the masses. If he had to come in 4 B.C. he could at least have come to China where more people could read.

I was talking in terms of man's moral-spiritual condition. But then I can understand how you would have missed my meaning since you can't possibly think you are moral being, as you have no understanding of what good and evil is.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't know what's happening to me here lately...I am a lot more excitable than I usually am.

Query male menopause?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I've given you the opportunity to give your definition of good and evil and you've declined. So be it.

Why are you posting this over and over and over? I have given you a suggested definition. Love. Remember? Love. I asked you if it would be a good thing to love our fellow man? To love our neighbor as we do ourselves? Do you think Hitler would have baked Jews in ovens if he loved them? Do you think the Arabs who flew those airplanes on 9/11 loved their intended victims? Do you think Jeffery Dahmer was loving his victims as he chopped them up for dinner, notwithstanding the fact, of course, that he might have loved what was on the menu for dinner. Again, see my post 17447.

But apparently, you despise the thought of pure love as much as you do the thought that you are accountable to your Maker. The only kind of love you care for is the conditional kind -- the kind that lets you take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, etc. The kind that allows you to hate your enemies and to repay evil for evil. The kind that lets you esteem yourself higher than others.

I even asked you: On what conditions do you love yourself?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I can't debate you anymore, SMTW. I can no longer take you seriously.

I never thought I'd say this...but I'd rather argue with Boxcar. At least he sticks to what he believes in.

Ahh...there is something to be said for consistency. Thank you.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why are you posting this over and over and over? I have given you a suggested definition. Love. Remember? Love.

Your definition of good is love?
Virtue is good.
Honesty is good.
Of course unconditional love is good.
But it is not an all encompassing definition of good.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Your definition of good is love?
Virtue is good.
Honesty is good.
Of course unconditional love is good.
But it is not an all encompassing definition of good.

Okay, let's run with what you have posted with this syllogism:

Virtue is good.
Love is a virtue.
Therefore, love is good.

First of all, Actor never asked me for an "all encompassing definition". He just asked me for A definition. And I gave him one. That being said, I believe my very short, succinct definition is all-encompassing; for love as defined in scripture embraces many virtues. Love is actually the overarching virtue of them all. Love is the Queen of all virtues.

Funny how the people of the world don't seem to embrace this virtue very willingly. Actor didn't. Apparently you don't. Hcap to this day thinks that sympathy or empathy or compassion is the highest virtue, etc. (He even once tried to equate compassion with love.)

The highest virtue in the universe is unconditional love. If everyone had this kind of love for one another in this world, would there be wars? Would we need armed forces? Would we need law enforcement agencies? Would we need locks on our doors? (Here's a novel idea: Honesty might actually be a by-product of love.) Would not sympathy, compassion and empathy also flow from this kind of love? In fact, would not unconditional love be the fount from which all the other virtues flow? Would not kindness and patience and protectiveness flow from this kind love?

John 15:13
13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
NASB

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Suffice to say Galileo was treated well.

Sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and serving 9 years of house arrest?
You and I have different ideas of being treated well.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and serving 9 years of house arrest?
You and I have different ideas of being treated well.

Well..."treated well" is relative. Compared to the treatment that Bruno got...Galileo was "treated well".