Excerpt 1:
From: http://jameshannam.com/literature.html
"With the aimed destruction of any thought that went against religious dogma, the Christians tried to destroy every pagan and scientific literature including the great libraries of the world. The destruction of the library of Alexandra (the greatest learning center in the world) and the murder of Hypatia by Christians in 415 C.E. marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As Ruth Hurmence Green once wrote, "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages."
Thankfully James Hannam, a wise and knowledgeable man in my opinion, knows a bit or two about his history. His response to the idea that Christians of the earlier days destroying the most well known and respected library in all of history greatly enourages me. James accurately proves this statement to be false and claims that it has no strong evidence, or rather no proof at all. He says that there is no real credibility shown in the evidence that the avid believers of the statement above refer to constantly in arguments and debates. The statement made of crucifixion is strongly prooved to be incorrect; for instead of crucifying they disreguarded their claims as truth and classified them as superstitious and fictional.It is almost unbelievable how valuable art is, even today. In some cases it has been said that it is more valauble than a human life in people's opinions. If this were true, which would likely be so, why on earth would the church seek to destroy the beautiful and classis pieces?
Excerpt 2:
From: http://jameshannam.com/conflict.htm and some of The Flat Earth Myth
"As for those who began to think scientifically, Christians burned the priest Giordano Bruno to death for the charge of holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith. They imprisoned Galileo for his heretical ideas of heliocentric solar system, and rejected his science (by the way, The Greek thinker, Aristarchus, developed the first heliocentric theory in 270 BCE, not Copernicus as many Christians falsely believe)."
Galileo's intented argument and controversary was not toward the Christian church, but to the many scientists that held geocentric views. He was not put in prison for Science versus Religion, instead he was placed there for Science versus Science. In Giordano Brunos case, that Walker so istutely speaks about, his scientific views did not bring upon his death, but rather his heretical views. The cause of his death is still questioned but people believe that he wanted to create some type of religion that the Christian church highly opposed of (There is a difference between these two men and I would argue that some tend to mix up the two in certain situations, non-intentionally. In which case, myths and rumors may possibly be started, but that is solely an observation).
Excerpt 3:
From: http://agnesscott.edu/lriddle/women/hypatia.htm
"I don't know about you but when I search for a doctor to cure me, I don't want one who believes in superstitions, miracles, or divine intervention (for how could I ever know if he resorts to his faith rather than his medical training?). I want a doctor who uses the best scientific medical knowledge and that means a doctor who doesn't hold Christian or any religious beliefs."
When I read this excerpt the first thing that comes to mind is the ongoing packet that Mr. Yeh most recently handed out and classified as our "notes". Based on his two week lecture, I feel that Christians do believe in an orderly and rational earth and universe. It has been perfectly created by the Maker of all the laws of man and nature. Christians did not just solely limit their beliefs to the scripture, but saw beyond the book and into the world of mystery. They saw what scientists were hungry and eager to know more about and explore into depth. Nature has not only been an extremely valued source in all kinds of studies, but has inhanced believer's faith and allowed them to see how majestic God is. Of course Christians then, and even Christians now believe in silly superstitions and miracles, but that does not take away from their solid beliefs and foundation in Christ.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Hello, I am the Sun and the World Revolves Around Me"
http://reasonableanswers.blogspot.com/2009/01/galileo-against-scientists-dispelling.html
1. What is geocentrism and what is heliocentism? What was the name for the primary geocentric model in use for over a thousand years? Who proposed the heliocentric system (ie who is it named after)?
What is geocentrism you ask? It is the idea that the sun moves around the earth, therefore the earth is the center of the universe; whereas heliocentrism is the idea that the earth moves around the sun, therefore making the sun the center of the universe. Now, according to our knowledge which one would make more sense? The primary geocentric model that was used in the second century was created by a man named Ptolemy. His famous model was known as the Ptolemic system, an extremely original name don't you think? Around the same time Nicolas Copernicus presented his established heliocentric system.
2. According to the article, who were the chief opponents to Galileo and the heliocentric model of the solar system?
The first time reading it through and thouroughly I thought that the Christian Church of the time was the chief opponent of the heliocentric model, but then once I read it over again I realized that it was originally other scientists (more specifically the Aristotelean scientists) who were against Galileo's model. It is true that the Church opposed the idea, but that does not speak for all of the people. Scientists who strongly believed in the geocentric system were the strongest of the opponents (ie "the fact that heliocentrism was first opposed by the scientists of Galileo’s time, and that Galileo’s fight was with other scientists, not the Church").
3. What were the two astronomical observations that Galileo made that supported heliocentrism? Why were these observations not considered conclusive proofs that the heliocentric system was correct? What did most scientists of the time consider to be conclusive evidence that the geocentric model was correct?
There were two astronomical observations that Galileo made to support heliocentrism that included the telescopic observation and the phases of planet Venus. This showed that planet Jupiter had it's own series of moons which provided valuable information to Galileo's studies that not all significant bodies or water were required to orbit directly around the earth. The Tychonian theory proved that the other theories were not conclusive. This theory centered in both primary ideas: geocentric and heliocentric. Interestingly this theory concluded that the sun revolved around the earth, but proposed that all other planets orbited around the sun which would create an almost impossible explaination.
4. Was the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism primarily a theological, Scriptural, or scientific argument? What does the author state is the primary reason that the Church continued to hold to a geocentric system?
The majority of the debate was carried out by Galileo and the Aristotelean scientists. Both sides argued for what they believed was the correct observations. The Church did not continue to stay put with their original position about the earth being immovable therefore making the planets orbit around the earth. The church lacked the evidence that was needed for believing in the heliocentric idea, it was not so much that they knew everything about it and opposed it.
5. According to Augustine's hermeneutic, what is needed before we can conclude that a re-interpretation of Scripture may be required?
According to Augustine's hermenuetic, we must somehow declare the need for a conclusive demonstration before anyone comes to the final conclusion that a re-interpretation of scripture must be required in order to finally determine what is fact and what is fiction.
6. What was the "killer proof" that Galileo proposed demonstrated the motion of the Earth, and what did other scientists think of this "proof"? When did true observational proof for the motion of the Earth come about, and what were these two observations?
Galileo first presented the "killer proof" in his book, Testise on the Tides. He proposed that it is the earth that moves around the sun (heliocentrism). The two observations didn't make sense to the scientists: stellar abberation and late on the stellar parallax.
Stellar parallax-observation that stars in the sky shift positions with the movement of the earth as it orbits around the sun.
Scientists later proved his killer proof wrong because Galileo stated that there was only one tide per day, but in reality there is one every 12 hours or so.
1. What is geocentrism and what is heliocentism? What was the name for the primary geocentric model in use for over a thousand years? Who proposed the heliocentric system (ie who is it named after)?
What is geocentrism you ask? It is the idea that the sun moves around the earth, therefore the earth is the center of the universe; whereas heliocentrism is the idea that the earth moves around the sun, therefore making the sun the center of the universe. Now, according to our knowledge which one would make more sense? The primary geocentric model that was used in the second century was created by a man named Ptolemy. His famous model was known as the Ptolemic system, an extremely original name don't you think? Around the same time Nicolas Copernicus presented his established heliocentric system.
2. According to the article, who were the chief opponents to Galileo and the heliocentric model of the solar system?
The first time reading it through and thouroughly I thought that the Christian Church of the time was the chief opponent of the heliocentric model, but then once I read it over again I realized that it was originally other scientists (more specifically the Aristotelean scientists) who were against Galileo's model. It is true that the Church opposed the idea, but that does not speak for all of the people. Scientists who strongly believed in the geocentric system were the strongest of the opponents (ie "the fact that heliocentrism was first opposed by the scientists of Galileo’s time, and that Galileo’s fight was with other scientists, not the Church").
3. What were the two astronomical observations that Galileo made that supported heliocentrism? Why were these observations not considered conclusive proofs that the heliocentric system was correct? What did most scientists of the time consider to be conclusive evidence that the geocentric model was correct?
There were two astronomical observations that Galileo made to support heliocentrism that included the telescopic observation and the phases of planet Venus. This showed that planet Jupiter had it's own series of moons which provided valuable information to Galileo's studies that not all significant bodies or water were required to orbit directly around the earth. The Tychonian theory proved that the other theories were not conclusive. This theory centered in both primary ideas: geocentric and heliocentric. Interestingly this theory concluded that the sun revolved around the earth, but proposed that all other planets orbited around the sun which would create an almost impossible explaination.
4. Was the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism primarily a theological, Scriptural, or scientific argument? What does the author state is the primary reason that the Church continued to hold to a geocentric system?
The majority of the debate was carried out by Galileo and the Aristotelean scientists. Both sides argued for what they believed was the correct observations. The Church did not continue to stay put with their original position about the earth being immovable therefore making the planets orbit around the earth. The church lacked the evidence that was needed for believing in the heliocentric idea, it was not so much that they knew everything about it and opposed it.
5. According to Augustine's hermeneutic, what is needed before we can conclude that a re-interpretation of Scripture may be required?
According to Augustine's hermenuetic, we must somehow declare the need for a conclusive demonstration before anyone comes to the final conclusion that a re-interpretation of scripture must be required in order to finally determine what is fact and what is fiction.
6. What was the "killer proof" that Galileo proposed demonstrated the motion of the Earth, and what did other scientists think of this "proof"? When did true observational proof for the motion of the Earth come about, and what were these two observations?
Galileo first presented the "killer proof" in his book, Testise on the Tides. He proposed that it is the earth that moves around the sun (heliocentrism). The two observations didn't make sense to the scientists: stellar abberation and late on the stellar parallax.
Stellar parallax-observation that stars in the sky shift positions with the movement of the earth as it orbits around the sun.
Scientists later proved his killer proof wrong because Galileo stated that there was only one tide per day, but in reality there is one every 12 hours or so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)