[...]
No I didn't, you just did.-a To paraphrase myself, the materialist
believes the answer to origins started with the Big Bang with no help
from anything supernatural, and have succeeded in gaining consensus that they are correct for a variety of reasons.
On 11/10/2025 7:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 19:12:23 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 11/6/2025 3:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 18:01:20 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
I am snipping quite a lot here for focus; if there is anything I have
taken out that you think would have been better left in, please
indicate or restore it.
On 11/5/2025 8:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 10:44:39 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> >>>>>> wrote:
[...]
I'm sure you'll love my sig
It's one of those soundbites that seems very clever until you think >>>>>> about what it is actually saying.
Nice backhand.-a But, do you really think I haven't thought about the >>>>> meaning of what I wrote?
If you have thought about it, perhaps you can explain why you think
that non-scientists understand science better than scientists.
Of course, I've said nothing of the kind.
Your sig is "Science doesn't support Darwin.-a Scientists do.". Who is
concluding that science doesn't support Darwin?
If you want to get pedantic, obviously me since it is my sig.-a But are
you really saying you have not heard this before?-a Would you feel better
if my stance on this was this instead:-a The Evidence Doesn't Support Darwin.-a Scientists Do.
With respect, that is where your thinking starts to get confused.
First of all, you treat "materialist" and "scientist" as
interchangeable synonyms but they are not. A scientist does not have
to be materialist and many aren't. Just to take one example; you're
talking here about the Big Bang, are you aware that the original Big
Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest with a passionate
interest in science but utterly faithful to his religious beliefs? Do
you know that scientists, particularly Einstein, initially scorned his >>>> ideas but then realised that they actually stood up to scrutiny?
You have a penchant to somehow read into other people's words meaning
that is simply not there.-a I have no idea how you came up with your
conclusion on this interchangeability.
You have used "materialist" right through your arguments with no
reference to the scientists who came up with the various explanations
and theories. What distinction do you make between materialist and a
scientist and do you accept the validity of the work done by
scientists?
A scientist can be a materialist, naturalist, atheist, theist, etc.
Those characteristics are irrelevant to me.-a The validity of their individual work has to be assessed the same way for all of them.-a As far
as their results and subsequent interpretations, of course that will
differ among those looking at the work.-a That's how it has always worked.
A materialist can be a scientist, a philosopher, a teacher, a writer, or even just a common Joe.-a What sets them apart is that they believe there
is nothing supernatural in play, has never been, and what you see is
what you get.
On 11/16/25 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip]
I think too that when you look back at historic events, you have to
take into context the time and culture in which they happened. Back in
the 17th century, churches and other bodies such as governments
weren't in the business of publicly admitting mistakes and apologising
for them. I see echoes of that, for example, in how long it is taken
various governments including the USA to get around to apologising for
slavery. [more snip]
This brings the subject back to evolution and intelligent design.
One point few people appreciate is that intelligent design is
evolutionary. It did not happen that some ancient Mycenaean designed and built a rocket that could get to the moon. No, people first had to
design simple tools, writing, arithmetic, government, more complicated tools, money, libraries, research methods, more complicated technical procedures, banking, ever yet more complicated tools and techniques, and
so on. Each designer built upon the designs that came before.
And an essential part of this design is discarding ideas that are found
to be wrong. If you can't admit mistakes, you are a complete failure as
an intelligent designer.
One of Darwin's insights was the importance of selecting out the bad,
and noting that it happens naturally. This is why mindless evolution is
an intelligent designer, infinitely more intelligent that someone like Donald Trump who can never admit to doing anything wrong.
On 11/17/25 12:31 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/16/25 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:You have to understand that the dogma of presidential infallibility is dependent on context:-a he must by speaking "ex cathedra" on doctrinal matters of MAGA.-a Otherwise he's just running his mouth. As with papal infallibility, it does NOT imply inability to sin.-a FUther enlightenment may be found in the Book of Dick.
[snip]
I think too that when you look back at historic events, you have to
take into context the time and culture in which they happened. Back in
the 17th century, churches and other bodies such as governments
weren't in the business of publicly admitting mistakes and apologising
for them. I see echoes of that, for example, in how long it is taken
various governments including the USA to get around to apologising for
slavery. [more snip]
This brings the subject back to evolution and intelligent design.
One point few people appreciate is that intelligent design is
evolutionary. It did not happen that some ancient Mycenaean designed
and built a rocket that could get to the moon. No, people first had to
design simple tools, writing, arithmetic, government, more complicated
tools, money, libraries, research methods, more complicated technical
procedures, banking, ever yet more complicated tools and techniques,
and so on. Each designer built upon the designs that came before.
And an essential part of this design is discarding ideas that are
found to be wrong. If you can't admit mistakes, you are a complete
failure as an intelligent designer.
One of Darwin's insights was the importance of selecting out the bad,
and noting that it happens naturally. This is why mindless evolution
is an intelligent designer, infinitely more intelligent that someone
like Donald Trump who can never admit to doing anything wrong.
Having said that, it always strikes me as somewhat ironic that those
wish to attack the Church for its dealings with science have to go
back 400 years to find one stupid mistake.
Martin Harran wrote:
Saint John Henry Newman has been mentioned else-thread.
I see I am behind the times. I thought he was "merely" a doctor of the >church.
I must apologize to the spirit of my great-grandfather. A cousin
informs me that it was Cardinal Manning who was the subject of his ire.
But it might have been both.
W. Somerset Maugham would advocate for Newman on the basis of his prose >style alone. When WSM was teaching himself to write Newman was one of
his exemplars.
What a strange world that was, when busy atheist doctors (WSM was a >practicing MD at that point) took the time to read the theological
musings of a Cardinal.
William Hyde
Martin Harran wrote:
(big snip)
Having said that, it always strikes me as somewhat ironic that those
wish to attack the Church for its dealings with science have to go
back 400 years to find one stupid mistake.
There have been several officials (bishop, archbishop or cardinal) who
made horribly incorrect claims about HIV and AIDS. The ones I recall
were all made out to be attacks on the use of condoms.
The church never
repudiated these claims, that I heard, and I never heard of the
officials being disciplined.
People died because of what they said.
Chris
...and no I'm not going to go searching for them; I'm too tired. So yeah >this is an unsupported assertion.
I get your underlying point and I agree that the church took far too
long admit to its errors in dealing with Galileo but the Church
generally is a very slow moving body. Someone once said, man thinks in
years, the Church things in centuries. I do think that is a serious
problem for the Church nowadays; we live in a fast-moving world
nowadays and the Church is simply not keeping up. We can see that most >obviously in its treatment of women and LGBT+; I'm sure they will get
things right eventually but they will do a lot of harm by taking so
long to do it.
I think too that when you look back at historic events, you have to
take into context the time and culture in which they happened. Back in
the 17th century, churches and other bodies such as governments
weren't in the business of publicly admitting mistakes and apologising
for them. I see echoes of that, for example, in how long it is taken
various governments including the USA to get around to apologising for >slavery.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 15:44:02 -0500, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Saint John Henry Newman has been mentioned else-thread.
I see I am behind the times. I thought he was "merely" a doctor of the
church.
I must apologize to the spirit of my great-grandfather. A cousin
informs me that it was Cardinal Manning who was the subject of his ire.
But it might have been both.
Not sure about Cardinal manning but I doubt if Newman would have been
too upset as he was a great believer in the necessity of conflict in
opinion being a great source of growth in knowledge:
"the energy of the human intellect 'does from opposition grow'; it
thrives and is joyous, with a tough elastic strength, under the
terrible blows of the divinely fashioned weapon, and is never so much
itself as when it has lately been overthrown."
[Apologia Pro Vita Sua, C5]
I think I have observed previously that I often learn more from
debating with those who disagree with me than those who agree.
W. Somerset Maugham would advocate for Newman on the basis of his prose
style alone. When WSM was teaching himself to write Newman was one of
his exemplars.
What a strange world that was, when busy atheist doctors (WSM was a
practicing MD at that point) took the time to read the theological
musings of a Cardinal.
And scientists were often gentlemen of wealth and leisure!
On 11/15/2025 3:32 AM, jillery wrote:The context here is not what you, RonO, say about the Bible, but is
On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:07:29 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2025 9:26 AM, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 08:41:09 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2025 3:04 AM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 17:51:59 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 10:15:16 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[...]
The Bible is just wrong about a lot of things.
More accurately, the Bible is factually incorrect about a lot of
things.
Same thing.
"Factually incorrect" is a verifiable, objective error ex. 2+2=33.
"wrong" can be an opinion, ex. slavery is acceptable, or an
irrelevance, ex. vegans like Beethoven. There are many ways
statements can be factually correct and wrong, or factually incorrect
and truthful.
Just like I said, same thing, your opinion differs. It doesn't matter if "wrong"
could be an opinion when it was not meant as an opinion.
Who decides when "it" was not meant as an opinion? Who decides what
"it" is?
The author, obviously. What examples have I always put up as the Bible >being wrong about? None of them were opinions.
You claim above "factually incorrect" is the same as "wrong". MyThe
Bible is just wrong about a lot of things. These are factually
incorrect statements. Anyone should have understood that I wasn't
talking about opinions like whether some god exists or not. The Bible
has just been found to be wrong about a lot of things that can be
checked out. These have always been the things that have had to be
reinterpreted or claimed to be metaphorical.
Consider: X says I owe X a bazillion dollars. In fact, I owe X a
thousand dollars. X's statement is factually incorrect as to the
precise amount. Nevertheless, X's statement is true that I owe X
something.
Consider the context, and what I have always claimed. Your example is
off base.
Ron Okimoto
To X, the relevant part is the fact I owe X; the amount isn't relevant
to X. X might even consider a thousand dollars and a bazillion
dollars equivalent. That makes X's statement entirely accurate to X.
So you say the Bible is wrong about a lot of things. Others say what
you say the Bible is wrong about, isn't relevant to them.
Ron Okimoto
There are so many "factually incorrect" statements in the Bible about >>>>> nature (the creation) and a lot of them are unnecessarily included in >>>>> the "metaphorical" presentation that it makes the Bible pretty muchNo it's not - it's people who read the Bible wrong.
The Bible begs to be read wrong. More to the point, those who decide >>>>>> the "correct" reading of the Bible historically are the ones who read >>>>>> it wrong.
impossible to use as any type of narrative providing accurate depictions >>>>> of nature.
Saint Augustine was correct that no one should use the Bible to deny >>>>> things about nature that we can figure out for ourselves.
Ron Okimoto
On 11/13/25 9:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Gee, that sound a lot like something I wrote. It's a problem for
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 10:15:16 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
The Bible is just wrong about a lot of things.
No it's not - it's people who read the Bible wrong.
One thing wrong about the Bible is that it is so easy for people to read
it wrong.
On 11/15/2025 3:01 AM, jillery wrote:All of the threads where Sticks contributed conflate philosophical
On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:44:15 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/14/2025 4:58 AM, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:44:19 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 11/12/2025 10:20 AM, RonO wrote:
On 11/11/2025 5:38 PM, sticks wrote:
On 11/10/2025 7:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
---snip---
Your sig is "Science doesn't support Darwin.-a Scientists do.". Who is >>>>>>>> concluding that science doesn't support Darwin?
If you want to get pedantic, obviously me since it is my sig.-a But are >>>>>>> you really saying you have not heard this before?-a Would you feel >>>>>>> better if my stance on this was this instead:-a The Evidence Doesn't >>>>>>> Support Darwin.-a Scientists Do.
This is actually a lie.-a Natural selection has been demonstrated to be a
fact of nature, and that is basically all that Darwin added to
evolutionary notions.-a He just came up with one of the known mechanisms >>>>>> for producing the diversity of life on earth.-a Darwin's grandfather is >>>>>> known to have advocated the evolution of life on earth.-a What Darwin >>>>>> proposed was a means of evolving the diversity of life that we currently >>>>>> observe, and he turned out to be correct, and science consistently >>>>>> vindicates his hypothesis.
Everyone acknowledges micro evolution. I am unaware of anything
vindicating his natural selection mechanism being able to create another >>>>> anything. From a new limb, wings, anything, but especially a new family >>>>> of animals. Of course there are changes from gene mutation copying
errors, but most all are harmful. But as far as I'm aware there is
absolutely no proof of macro evolution where one form turns into
another. I have no problem with people who believe natural selection >>>>> has the type of powers the evolutionist claims. I'm sure they will put >>>>> out their evidence when they get it.
What creationists are lying about when they put up such nonsense is the >>>>>> notion that natural mechanisms of evolution are all that there ever was >>>>>> or is.-a Darwin never held such beliefs, and he understood that natural >>>>>> selection was likely only one way that life could be changed by descent >>>>>> with modification.
Yes, he kept inserting references to his deistic Darwinism in every
edition as a means of preempting his opponents. I believe he had many >>>>> doubts of his theory, with good reason. But in the end he held onto >>>>> materialistic thinking.
As has been noted in this thread the notion that life has evolved on >>>>>> this planet solely by natural means has never been part of the
scientific theory of biological evolution.-a It wasn't initiated by >>>>>> Darwin, and never became part of the scientific theory.-a The scientific >>>>>> theory of biological evolution only consists of what we have been able >>>>>> to determine about it.-a It does not include things that have not been >>>>>> scientifically demonstrated to be so.
You might feel what you say to be true, but it is quite evident that the >>>>> entire consensus today in the evolution crowd is everything happened >>>>> with only natural means. I don't see how you can say otherwise to be >>>>> honest.
Sticks, RonO, and Harran are all here conflating philosophical
principles with consensus scientific theories. The latter necessarily >>>> seek to explain observed material evidence, but in no way restrict all >>>> possible explanations to those scientific theories. That's a
difference ignored in conversations with posters like sticks who
obsessively focus on origins.
You wanted to include solely by natural means as a philosophical
principle. I did not. I just stated the fact that it is not and never
has been part of the scientific theory of biological evolution. That is >>> fact, not a philosophical principle. It is due the scientific notion
that we should stick to what we can determine to exist, and not include
things that we can't support.
I presume your first sentence above refers to a previous but recent
thread between you and I. Scientific theories are necessarily based
on natural phenomena. That does *not* mean scientific theories are
the only possible explanations. It *does* mean that theories based on
supernatural phenomena are not scientific. That's the difference
Sticks here doesn't recognize.
There never was any conflating philosophical principles with consensus >scientific theories on my part.
You were the one doing that in that case.That's is a mindlessly defensive retort. You would know this if you
Ron Okimoto--
A philosophical problem arguments like Sticks presents here is, they
*assume* their initial uncaused cause is supernatural, but refuse to
consider an initial natural uncaused cause. IOW they change the rules
depending on whose cause they're talking about; a juvenile word game.
OTOH scientists recognize that an uncaused cause logically doesn't
explain anything. They recognize that *all* origin narratives
*necessarily* begin with an *unknown* cause. Unknown does not mean
supernatural or natural. It just means it's not known at this time.
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 6:52 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 18:25:18 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/16/2025 4:40 PM, Martin Harran wrote:[rCa]
The links that I put up were from the Catholics that continue to be >>>>>>>>> geocentric creationists, and the Catholics that are trying to refute >>>>>>>>> them. Both sides do not agree with you. What does your continued >>>>>>>>> denial of reality tell you?
You gave no such links. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give >>>>>>>> them again.
Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by claiming you >>>>>>>> gave links but cannot repeat them?
Why lie about something so stupid. One of the links was your own >>>>>>> trusted Catholic site, and you initially gave that link.
That was this site:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
The one where the Catholic Church states:
" In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities >>>>>> committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether >>>>>> false principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
The one that cites Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) >>>>>> declaring
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who >>>>>> knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not >>>>>> of the body which calls itself the Church."
The one that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the >>>>>> Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
It beats me how you figure out that site and the people referred to in >>>>>> it somehow back your claim that heliocentrism really was a heresy. I >>>>>> guess you have to convince yourself in order to maintain your delusion >>>>>> as you clearly can't find a reputable source that actually does back >>>>>> you up.
Yes, everyone admits that they were wrong about geocentrism except for >>>>> the Catholics that are still geocentrics. This source called what
Galileo faced both times a charge of heresy. They did not make a
distinction between formal heresy and heresy like the anti geocentric >>>>> site, but it was still a heresy.
What part of "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at >>>> all" did you not understand?
It was true until it became a lie after the Council of Trent. The
Inquisition based their condemnation on the church claims stated in
their publications. Both geocentric and anti geocentric Catholics claim >>> that this is true. You have known this for a very long time so why do
you persist on putting up an obvious lie about "never" when it only
applies to the period of time before the Council of Trent made their
claims. The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy charge against
Galileo and banned Copernican writings after the Council of Trent. That >>> is agreed upon by both sides of the Catholic argument and they support
what was claimed in the Wiki about the Inquistion making it a formal
heresy case. It is just nuts that you want to try to deny what cannot
be denied. Catholics that want to preserve papal infallibility by
special pleading and lying are wasting their time. What could possibly
be scripturally sound about any pope being infallible when any such
position is never mentioned in scripture? The Pope was just wrong about >>> this issue, just because it should never have been the issue that it
was, doesn't matter. It was the issue that it was, and the Pope along
with the rest of the church was wrong about it. Even if they could make >>> such an argument from scripture the reliance on the church fathers for
scriptural interpretation was found to be erroneous when it turned out
that the chruch fathers were wrong about geocentrism.
The geocentrists claim that the decree by the Pope in the 19th century
did not recind the influence of the church fathers on scriptural
matters, and that heliocentrism remains a heresy in the Catholic church. >>> The geocentrics claim that the Pope only made it OK to publish
heliocentrism for the purposes of telling time and planetary motions.
They claim that he did not recind the restrictions on using
heliocentrism to challenge the beliefs of the church fathers. The anti
geocentrists published the entire decree and noted that the Pope did not >>> state what restrictions were left in place only that authors had to ask
the church to determine if what they wanted to publish was OK. The Pope >>> only noted what could be published. So that question is still open.
They know that the Council of Trent is a sticking point, but my guess is >>> that there are no publications that can resolve the issue. My guess is
that somewhere there is a document that has the information on what
restrictions still held after 1820.
Vatican Observatory on the
issue:https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
Your source seems to be wrong about "never".
The only place that formal comes into all this is in the judgement
issued after Galileo's first trial where the verdict stated that the
proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe
is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
That, however, is t the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to where it
says:
"it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a
grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false
principle as to the proper use of Scripture."
Note also that the words "formally heretical" are wrong - I'm not sure >>>> whether it was the Inquisition using weasel words or whether it was a
bad translation from the Latin.
The word "heresy" can be used in two ways; it can apply to the
rejection of a specific doctrine of the Church or it can refer to the
act of committing heresy. The word "formal" applies to the latter -
the act of committing heresy - and is used to categorise the degree of >>>> guilt of the person committing the heresy. "Formal heresy" means they
knew they were going against doctrine and are therefore guilty of
mortal sin; "material heresy" means they did not know they were going
against doctrine so they are not guilty sin.
It's a bit like first degree versus second degree murder and Galileo's >>>> trial was like him being charged with first-degree murder without a
murder being established in the first place.
Both Catholic sides of the issue acknowledge that Galileo faced a charge >>> of formal heresy in 1616. You were given the links, and they supported
the Wiki claims.
The Inquisition made it into a formal heresy after the Council of Trent. >>>>> They were supposedly wrong, and a couple centuries later things got >>>>> reversed to what they had been at the time that the findings of the
Council of Trent were published.
The holy office (the inquisition) had Galileo facing a formal heresy >>>>> charge in his first encounter. When the pope got involved they just did >>>>> not call it a formal heresy in the sentencing. Galileo's views were >>>>> still condemned. They claimed that Galileo was facing a charge of
heresy. His heliocentric notions were still considered to be heresy and >>>>> the heresy that he was guilty of was clearly defined in the sentencing. >>>>> The anti geocentrics admitted that the pope had the Galileo case
published and disseminated throughout the church in order to quash the >>>>> heliocentric notions that were becoming an issue for the church. They >>>>> just want to claim that, that was not an official act. That is just >>>>> stupid. The pope did it for known reasons, and who cares if they want >>>>> to plead that he was not acting as pope?
There is no doubt that the actors were wrong, and that is the issue. >>>>> They do not want it to reflect on papal infallibility. That in itself >>>>> should be considered to be a non scriptural unjustifiable claim.
The Inquisition had Copernican writings banned and made heliocentrism >>>>> into a formal heresy because all the church fathers were geocentrics, >>>>> and that meant that Copernicans were in conflict with the beliefs of the >>>>> church fathers. Both the geocentric Catholics and the anti geocentric >>>>> Catholics claim that the Inquisition did this because of what the church >>>>> came up with at the Council of Trent where they made the beliefs of the >>>>> church fathers as a legitimate and necessary authority for interpreting >>>>> scripture. Both Catholic sides of the geocentric issue understand this >>>>> to be true.
QUOTE:
Council of Trent
Session IV, April 8, 1546, Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of >>>>> the Sacred Books:
... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council >>>>> of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in
matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses, >>>>> presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense >>>>> which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense >>>>> and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or >>>>> even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such >>>>> interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.
Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished >>>>> with the penalties by law established."
END QUOTE:
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unanimous-consent.htm
Both Catholic sides of the issue claim that the Council of Trent caused >>>>> the Inquisition to ban Copernican writings and start treating
heliocentrism as a formal heresy because it went against the geocentric >>>>> beliefs of the church fathers.
You are taking all that crap from your geocentric hero; if you want to >>>> persist in taking his opinion against that of the Church's own
theologians then that is you just acting like Spikes rejecting the
opinion of scientists in favour of people who play to his confirmation >>>> bias.
The anti-geocentrics acknowledged that the formal heresy charge was due
to what had been decided during the Council of Trent. They agreed with
the geocentrists. The anti geocentrists did not what the formal heresy
charge to have been adopted by the later case when the Pope was
involved. Even though the heresy was clearly defined in the sentencing
it was only called a heresy and not a formal heresy. Lying about
reality just does not change reality. Even the guys against the
geocentrists have to admit that the facts are just what they are.
It was a mistake and the actors were in error only because of our
current understanding of nature. The Pope was wrong about it. He was >>>>> one of the mistaken actors.
The Pope was not a "mistaken actor", he was pissed off with Galileo
presenting the Pope's views as those of a simpleton and misused his
powers to hit back at Galileo. Again, the Catholic Encyclopaedia
spells that explicitly:
It doesn't matter why the Pope did what he did, he did it and was in error. >>>
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
"It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian
Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope - who
knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not
of the body which calls itself the Church."
The Galileo affair was a shameful episode in the Church's history but
was all about the animosity between the Pope and Galileo, it had
nothing to do with heliocentrism being a heresy, that was just the
vehicle that the Pope used to attack Galileo.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
You should just stop lying about the issue and accept reality.
Anyway, I'm giving up on this. Having received such a wonderful
education from your geocentrist hero, you are now convinced that you
understand Catholic theology better than the Church's own theologians
and you understand history better than some of the most highly
regarded historians and as far as you are concerned, nothing is going
to change your damned mind.
Christianity has been wrong about a lot of things about nature. There
are still flat earth creationists and some of them are Catholics, there
are still geocentric creationists and some of them are Catholics. I
don't know if anyone still believes in the Biblical firmament, but
Kepler was likely the last one messing with the issue when he came up
with eliptical orbits and gave up on his notion of crystal spheres.
There are still young earth creationists and some of them are Catholics.
Behe is a Catholic ID perp. Most of the other ID perps are not
Catholic, but Christians of one stripe or another. Even Denton
eventually admitted to being raised Anglican, and that he was probably
still a Christian. He published his deistic views in his second book at
the turn of the Century, and none of the other ID perps supported his >beliefs. Denton quit the ID scam and missed the other ID perps starting
the bait and switch. Denton did come back to support the bait and
switch effort, and published 5 or 6 other deistic books that no one ever >hears about because they are not supported by the other ID perps.
Denton has pretty much given up on all the creationist denial. He just >claims that his designer set things up with the Big Bang and it all
unfolded into what we have today. Geocentrism is so far back in history
for something that creationism should have given up on that your
stupidity about the issue is just unwarranted. The ID perps don't care.
All creationists are welcomed under their Big Tent of denial.
Biblical creationists have been wrong about a lot of things for a very
long time. You should just accept that and move on. My guess is that
the majority of modern Christians are not any type of Biblical
literalists, and gave up on the Bible telling them anything about the >creation long ago. The Bible was simply written by authors that did not >understand what they were describing. Even if we wrote the Bible today
the Top Six should tell anyone that we can still get things wrong, and
just have to wait for a better understanding of reality.
Ron Okimoto
I've only stuck with this stupid argument because I find it incredibly
sad that someone so highly regarded around here for his scientific
skills should make himself look so foolish by bringing himself down to
the level of the ID'ers he fights so hard against, but the Serenity
Prayer kicks in and I accept what I cannot change.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
A philosophical problem arguments like Sticks presents here is, they
*assume* their initial uncaused cause is supernatural, but refuse to
consider an initial natural uncaused cause. IOW they change the rules depending on whose cause they're talking about; a juvenile word game.
OTOH scientists recognize that an uncaused cause logically doesn't
explain anything. They recognize that*all* origin narratives
*necessarily* begin with an*unknown* cause. Unknown does not mean supernatural or natural. It just means it's not known at this time.
On 11/15/2025 3:01 AM, jillery wrote:
A philosophical problem arguments like Sticks presents here is, they
*assume* their initial uncaused cause is supernatural, but refuse to
consider an initial natural uncaused cause.-a IOW they change the rules
depending on whose cause they're talking about; a juvenile word game.
Nah, I didn't assume, I followed the science.-a You just don't like my conclusions.-a You're blind to it and repeat the usual in an effort to diminish me, even saying it is just a "juvenile word game".
OTOH scientists recognize that an uncaused cause logically doesn't
explain anything.-a They recognize that*all* origin narratives
*necessarily* begin with an*unknown* cause.-a Unknown does not mean
supernatural or natural.-a It just means it's not known at this time.
There, you finally get to the point.-a You do not have an answer, and
cannot believe anything but materialism, so the search goes on and
anyone suggesting different is being unscientific.-a It's not an unknown, it's an impossibility if you follows the laws of science.-a Which of
course, you will deny.-a At least here, you've come close to actually answering the topic under discussion.-a Usually you just ignore it and go off on these silly tangents.-a By at least saying it is "not known at
this time," I can put you in the camp that believes is has always
existed somehow.-a That sounds kind of supernatural to me.
All of the threads where Sticks contributed conflate philosophical
principles and scientific theories wrt origins. That's what he does.
He argues origins presuming an uncaused cause, a philosophical POV,
while scientific theories make no such presumptions.
On 11/19/2025 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:
All of the threads where Sticks contributed conflate philosophical principles and scientific theories wrt origins. That's what he does.
He argues origins presuming an uncaused cause, a philosophical POV,
while scientific theories make no such presumptions.
Wow, with my extremely limited participation here, you sure jump to big conclusions. When I joined this thread, I clearly stated it was a
Metaphysical question, but did then note the laws of thermodynamics tell
you you can't get something from nothing.
I did the exact opposite of
what you claim I do. First, I looked into the Big Bang theory and the associated inflation theory to help get past some of the problems with
it. I'm a huge fan of Tegmark, and he writes in a way that get you to question everything.
I had big problems with just how this happened, as so many do today, and
the research goes on. Everywhere I looked for an acceptable answer to
where the initial matter, energy, and space came from led to only two choices. Note that even if future quantum research comes up with a
theory on something, the same question remains. If there was literally nothing, where did the stuff come from, and if there was something that
went bang, where did that come from. Either way the laws of
Thermodynamics says it had to come from somewhere.
Either something unknown created it, or it has always existed. That is
not philosophical, and doesn't get philosophical until you answer what
the former unknown might be.
Science tells me it is impossible, and for
everything else you would agree. But on the origins of the stuff that
went big bang, you can't and that has to be an unknown.
If you're like me and can't believe that something has always existed,--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
that doesn't mean you automatically believe in God or something. It
means that you simply have followed the science and think something else might be in play. This is where you can start asking the why questions
and get philosophical. I have not encountered an unknown, I have gotten
to a point where science cannot go any further. I believe you simply
cannot get something from nothing. Search all you want, and I believe
it will only increase the difficulties for materialism.
By choosing this tactic, like so many in the materialist realm do, you produce straw man arguments, claim false motivations, and by ignoring evidence do the exact thing you accuse others of all in an effort to not have to deal with supernatural talk. It's like what is done to Behe
with the continual lying about what he is claiming with IC. He gets put
off first as a kook because he is said to be claiming things could only
have resulted from a supernatural agent. When of course he has done no
such thing. He repeatedly explains scientifically why things do not
appear to be able to arise from Darwinian evolution, because they show
all the signs of being designed. The difference might be nuanced, and
yes he believes God did the designing, but that is not what his work
claims. But it is people like you who use these tactics to make him
look foolish. Look in the mirror.
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy >charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The >Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when >Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the >Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a >formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to >change.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:01 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 14:40:05 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/17/2025 11:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:57:31 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
Oops, the Pope was not infallible.
So papal infallibility is another thing you don't understand.
I am just repeating what the anti geocentrist want to claim about it.
The "anti-geocentrists" of whom you cannot identify even one. Mind
you, when you first brought in the website of your geocentrist mentor,
it was anonymous and you didn't even know who the author was until I
figured out; the fact that he is a declared geocentrist and you knew
nothing about him didn't stop you placing high value on his opinions
and continuing to do so.
Weird to say the least.
[...]
You were given the links before,
Nope
so stop lying about it. Why should I
look up that junk again.
So you can prove I'm lying. But you can't because I'm not lying, you
gave no links except to the geocentrist idiot whose opinion you value
so highly.
You just denied that it was valid and kept
lying. Even your own trusted source backed up the anti geocentric site.
The anti geocentrists were on your side in terms of denying that it
was a formal heresy that Galileo faced the second time, but they agreed
with the geocentrists that the Inquisition had made it a formal heresy
charge the first time Galileo faced it and agreed with the Wiki. The
Vatican Observatory article that you have run from and snipped out of
this post backs up the geocentrists and anti geocentrists.
Just stop lying about the issue.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
They admit that helicentrism was condemned 400 years ago. 1616 is when
Galileo faced the formal heresy charge.
They do not consider the heresy cases, but they were based upon the
Inquisitions opinion of the topic.
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
Both the geocentrists that you don't like, and the anti geocentric
catholics that do not agree with geocentric beliefs agreed that it was a
formal heresy charge the first time that Galileo faced the issue.
Now you seem to be trying to worm your way out of it by admitting
there was a *charge* without retracting that there was an actual
heresy which is what you have been claiming all long.
You can't just keep refusing to deal with reality and expect anything to
change.
You can't keep claiming support from "anti-geocentrists" about
heliocentrism having been an actual heresy without being able to
identify even one and expect people to take you seriously.
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to
be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were
all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to >interpret scripture.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to >>>> be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it
explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people
like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion
you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com ========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never condemned it.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
snip for focus #2]
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were
all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to
interpret scripture.
That is just another lie that you have bought from your geocentrist
mentor. The Church Fathers said nothing whatsoever about geocentrism
or heliocentrism. The Inquisition charging Galileo with heresy made no reference whatsoever to the Church Fathers.
On 11/20/2025 10:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to >>>>> be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >>>>> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did
was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me
who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people >>>> like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion >>>> you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up
and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com
========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
Guess what the Vatican Observatory claims otherwise.
What you ran from originally and snipped out of this post. >https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
This if from that link.
QUOTE:
Four hundred years ago, on Saturday March 5, 1616, Father Giacinto
Petroni, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace, as instructed by Paul V on >Thursday March 3, published the following decree containing the censure
of CopernicusrCOs De Revolutionibus. Considering that this is RomerCOs one >and only public act against heliocentrism in 1616, let us quote it here
in extenso:
END QUOTE:
So the Pope obviously sanctioned the Inquisition's banning of Copernican >writings and condemning the heresy. The Holy Office (Inquisition)
banned the Copernican writings before Galileo was brought before the >Inquisition, and faced the charge of formal heresy in 1615. This decree >came after that and supported the Inquisition.
Your reference lied.
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
You put up the lie.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never
condemned it.
And he obviously lied.
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
Why did you post the lie to begin with? Just running from the Vatican >Observatory link and snipping it out doesn't mean that you did not post
a lie.
On 11/20/2025 11:32 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
snip for focus #2]
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were
all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to
interpret scripture.
That is just another lie that you have bought from your geocentrist
mentor. The Church Fathers said nothing whatsoever about geocentrism
or heliocentrism. The Inquisition charging Galileo with heresy made no
reference whatsoever to the Church Fathers.
The anti geocentrists admitted that it was true and even had the Council
of Trent citation. All that the Anti geocentric Catholics claimed was
that it may have been a formal heresy when Galileo faced the charge in
1616, but it was not a formal heresy charge when the Pope got involved.
The anti gencentric Catholics admitted that the Inquisition had banned >Copernican writings and made heliocentrism into a formal heresy due to
the Council of Trent.
You got the Council of Trent quote, so you know that both sides are correct.
Why would the Inquistion reference the Church fathers when they
referenced the Council of Trent when they banned the Copernican writings >before they brought Galileo up on heresy charges?
You are a third party
Catholic that is just wrong about this issue. It is a stupid thing to
be wrong about. You know for a fact that Biblical creationist Catholics >have been wrong about a lot of things. It isn't just heliocentrism.
There are still flat earth Catholics, young earth Catholics, geocentric >catholics etc. These people still exist to make your position a stupid
one to maintain.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 19:52:10 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 10:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 4:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:55:52 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Your claim of "never" having been condemned seems to be a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
QUOTE:
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to >>>>>> be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it >>>>>> explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture". >>>>>> END QUOTE:
Now YOU are the one lying about me. I never said it was never
condemned; on the contrary, I gave that exact same quote. What I did >>>>> was to point out that what it said was a FALSE CLAIM and it wasn't me >>>>> who came to that conclusion, it was the Catholic Church who came to
it, supported by every historian I know of who investigated it, people >>>>> like De Morgan and von Gebler. The only person I have ever known to
say there actually was a heresy is the geocentrist idiot whose opinion >>>>> you value so highly.
You put up the quote that said it had never been condemned. Go back up >>>> and check. It was your quote.
Here is verbatim what I quoted:
Message-ID: 2gkkhk9bvctolude5jf6b6e0kothd5723d@4ax.com
========================================
<quote>
The [site] that cites von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):
"The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the
Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
==========================================
Guess what the Vatican Observatory claims otherwise.
Refusing to retract the lies I have just shown and trying to divert
away by reposting the same rubbish you posted before is just doubling
down on your lies. ThatrCOs just pathetic.
And the Vatican Observatory do not rCLclaim otherwiserCY, they simply acknowledge what is a matter of record, that *the Inquisition* claimed heliocentrism is a heresy; they do not claim that the Inquisition has
the authority to declare that on behalf of the Church.
What you ran from originally and snipped out of this post.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/heliocentrism-condemned-400-years-ago-on-march-5-2/
This if from that link.
QUOTE:
Four hundred years ago, on Saturday March 5, 1616, Father Giacinto
Petroni, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace, as instructed by Paul V on
Thursday March 3, published the following decree containing the censure
of CopernicusrCOs De Revolutionibus. Considering that this is RomerCOs one >> and only public act against heliocentrism in 1616, let us quote it here
in extenso:
END QUOTE:
So the Pope obviously sanctioned the Inquisition's banning of Copernican
writings and condemning the heresy. The Holy Office (Inquisition)
banned the Copernican writings before Galileo was brought before the
Inquisition, and faced the charge of formal heresy in 1615. This decree
came after that and supported the Inquisition.
Your reference lied.
I canrCOt make up my mind whether you are a compulsive liar or whether senility is settling in and you struggle to understand stuff. The site
I referenced explicitly deals with that involvement of the Pope:
rCLAs to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a
dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope
approved the Congregation's decision rCyin forma communirCO, that is to
say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to
prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful.rCY
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
#1: it was von Gebler who said rCLnever condemnedrCY, not me as you
claimed two posts ago.
You put up the lie.
It must be senility, you surely canrCOt be that stupid.
#2 he did not say it was never condemned, he said *the Church* never
condemned it.
And he obviously lied.
Ditto
Why do you post lies that are so easily shown to be lies?
Why did you post the lie to begin with? Just running from the Vatican
Observatory link and snipping it out doesn't mean that you did not post
a lie.
Please post the lie you claim I posted rCo exact quote required, not handwaving.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 20:02:04 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 11:32 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
snip for focus #2]
You just need to stop lying and face reality. The church fathers were >>>> all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to
interpret scripture.
That is just another lie that you have bought from your geocentrist
mentor. The Church Fathers said nothing whatsoever about geocentrism
or heliocentrism. The Inquisition charging Galileo with heresy made no
reference whatsoever to the Church Fathers.
The anti geocentrists admitted that it was true and even had the Council
of Trent citation. All that the Anti geocentric Catholics claimed was
that it may have been a formal heresy when Galileo faced the charge in
1616, but it was not a formal heresy charge when the Pope got involved.
The anti gencentric Catholics admitted that the Inquisition had banned
Copernican writings and made heliocentrism into a formal heresy due to
the Council of Trent.
You got the Council of Trent quote, so you know that both sides are correct.
Trying to divert from the Church Fathers to the Council of Trent does
not hide the fact that your geocentrist mentor sold you a pup about
the Fathers.
And the reference to the Council of Trent is just another pup he sold
you rCo the Council too said nothing whatsoever about geocentrism or heliocentrism.
Why would the Inquistion reference the Church fathers when they
referenced the Council of Trent when they banned the Copernican writings
before they brought Galileo up on heresy charges?
Because if they thought Church Fathers had supported their case for
heresy then they would most certainly have referenced it.
It also wasnrCOt the Inquisition who referenced the Council of Trent, it
was the people who first complained to the Inquisition about Galileo.
Also, their reference was not to geocentrism, it was to the CouncilrCOs general rules on the interpretation of Holy Scripture which they
claimed Galileo was offending.
You are a third party
Catholic that is just wrong about this issue. It is a stupid thing to
be wrong about. You know for a fact that Biblical creationist Catholics
have been wrong about a lot of things. It isn't just heliocentrism.
There are still flat earth Catholics, young earth Catholics, geocentric
catholics etc. These people still exist to make your position a stupid
one to maintain.
What is stupid is you trying to claim that the opinions of such idiots overrule the ChurchrCOs theologians and reputable historians.
I also note that you still canrCOt identify even one rCLanti-geocentristrCY who supports you as you continuously claim.
On 11/21/2025 3:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 20:02:04 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/20/2025 11:32 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 09:38:56 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
snip for focus #2]
You just need to stop lying and face reality.-a The church fathers were >>>>> all geocentrists, and that is the way that the Inquisition wanted to >>>>> interpret scripture.
That is just another lie that you have bought from your geocentrist
mentor. The Church Fathers said nothing whatsoever about geocentrism
or heliocentrism. The Inquisition charging Galileo with heresy made no >>>> reference whatsoever to the Church Fathers.
The anti geocentrists admitted that it was true and even had the Council >>> of Trent citation.-a All that the Anti geocentric Catholics claimed was
that it may have been a formal heresy when Galileo faced the charge in
1616, but it was not a formal heresy charge when the Pope got involved.
The anti gencentric Catholics admitted that the Inquisition had banned
Copernican writings and made heliocentrism into a formal heresy due to
the Council of Trent.
You got the Council of Trent quote, so you know that both sides are
correct.
Trying to divert from the Church Fathers to the Council of Trent does
not hide the fact that your geocentrist mentor sold you a pup about
the Fathers.
And the reference to the Council of Trent is just another pup he sold
you rCo the Council too said nothing whatsoever about geocentrism or
heliocentrism.
The anti geocentrists confirmed what was said about the Inquisition and
the Council of Trent.-a They confirmed that Galileo faced a formal heresy charge just as the source that you did not like.-a You were given the
anti geocentrist links last time you had to lie about this issue.
Both sides agreed that heliocentrism was not a formal heresy until the Concil of Trent and their reliance on the church fathers for scriptural interpretation.-a Both sides pointed to the Inquisition adding Copernican writings to the Index after the Council of Trent and starting their
campaign against the heresy.-a Both sides agreed with the Wiki that
Galileo faced a formal heresy charge in 1615-1616.-a They split when the Pope got involved the second time.-a The geocentric Catholics maintained that it was still a formal heresy charge, but the anti geocentrics did
not want the Pope involved with a formal heresy charge.-a They claimed
that the second court did not adopt the Inquisitions charges, and they
noted that even though the heresy is defined in the sentencing that it
was only written as a heresy and not a "formal heresy".-a Even though the anti geocentrists admitted that the Pope published the Galileo case and
had it desseminated through out the church in order to quash the heliocentric heresy, the anti geocentrists claimed that, that was not an official Papal act.-a What is stupid is that one of the anti
geocentrist's arguments was that the sentencing was poorly written and
that Galileo was not found to be guilty of heresy, but of breaking his
oath to the Inquisition.-a The stupid thing is that Galileo would need to
be guilty of the formal heresy charge in order to break that oath.
Either way the Pope was involved with something that he should have
never been involved with if he wanted to maintain Papal infallibility.
Why would the Inquistion reference the Church fathers when they
referenced the Council of Trent when they banned the Copernican writings >>> before they brought Galileo up on heresy charges?
Because if they thought Church Fathers had supported their case for
heresy then they would most certainly have referenced it.
Both sides of the issue made the claim that you can check out.-a The geocentric beliefs of the Church Fathers has never been denied.-a It was
the reason that the Inquisition could do what they did after the council
of Trent.
It also wasnrCOt the Inquisition who referenced the Council of Trent, it
was the people who first complained to the Inquisition about Galileo.
Also, their reference was not to geocentrism, it was to the CouncilrCOs
general rules on the interpretation of Holy Scripture which they
claimed Galileo was offending.
So what?-a The Inquisition still did what they did because the Council of Trent gave them what they needed to make heliocentrism into a formal heresy.-a Both sides of the Catholic issue agree with that.-a The geocentrists claim that the Council of Trent's findings have never been undone, and heliocentrism continues to be heretical in terms of
questioning the scriptural beliefs of the Church Fathers.-a The crazy
thing is that the geocentrists claim that when the Pope removed
Copernican writings from the Index in 1820 (1820 is an approximation
because I recall both sides using different years but they were always
in the 1820's), and released Copernicanism to be freely published for
the purposes of telling time and things like planetary motion that he
left restrictions on questioning the beliefs of the Church Fathers in place.-a The anti geocentrists quoted the entire decree and could only
say that the remaining restrictions were never stated in the document.
The Pope only wrote that authors had to ask the church offices to
determine if what they wanted to publish was not restricted.-a Isn't that nuts?-a That was nearly 2 centuries after Galileo was convicted and the church still could not admit that they were wrong about that.-a It took until 1992 for the Pope to formally apologize for the mishandling of the Galileo case, and admitted that it was due to scriptural interpretation,
and the improper interpretation of a scientific matter as a threat to
faith.
You are a third party
Catholic that is just wrong about this issue.-a It is a stupid thing to
be wrong about.-a You know for a fact that Biblical creationist Catholics >>> have been wrong about a lot of things.-a It isn't just heliocentrism.
There are still flat earth Catholics, young earth Catholics, geocentric
catholics etc.-a These people still exist to make your position a stupid >>> one to maintain.
What is stupid is you trying to claim that the opinions of such idiots
overrule the ChurchrCOs theologians and reputable historians.
Your side of the issue is the one concentrating on ass saving instead of dealing with reality.-a All your Church theologians and reputable
historians should know that the Church Fathers were all geocentrists,
and that should be the end of this story.-a They were just wrong about
what scripture told them about the world.-a The Inquisition heresy issue
is due to their interpretation of scripture.
Why lie about getting all those links last time?-a They had a whole web
I also note that you still canrCOt identify even one rCLanti-geocentristrCY >> who supports you as you continuously claim.
site and I got multiple links from that web site.-a You just denied
reality and ran.
Look what you are still doing.
Ron Okimoto
Although this is a reply to Ron, I'd also like to include Martin as
well. I respect the opinion of both of these gentlemen in general, but
this conversation has been going on too long and is getting nowhere. I
don't believe either of you are deliberately lying or being obtuse or >stupid. Let it go, please.
No lies to retract. You lied.
Your reference lied.
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
[rCa]
Your reference lied.
What lie are you claiming they told? Again, please quote exactly what
they said that you regard as a lie.
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:28:29 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Although this is a reply to Ron, I'd also like to include Martin as
well. I respect the opinion of both of these gentlemen in general, but
this conversation has been going on too long and is getting nowhere. I
don't believe either of you are deliberately lying or being obtuse or
stupid. Let it go, please.
Sorry, Erik, we all have our flashpoints and one of mine is someone
calling me a liar and persisting with it after they have been shown to
be wrong.
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 19:12:23 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>[rCa]
wrote:
You appear to have the same idea of Intelligent Design and people who >>might think it is evident in creation as Mr. O. I am not one of those >>people. But, I will try and make time to read what you've asked.
Until you get time to read it, I will ask one of the questions that I
posed in it.
I'm assuming that like myself, you believe in God someone with whom we
can have a personal relationship. How do you get from someone tweaking
with atoms and particles to that type of God, the one shown in the
Bible, how does it improve your understanding of God?
I have posed this question to several religious believers who support
ID and reject the Theory of Evolution; none of them have made any
attempt to answer, hopefully you might.
On 11/21/2025 11:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:28:29 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Although this is a reply to Ron, I'd also like to include Martin as
well. I respect the opinion of both of these gentlemen in general, but
this conversation has been going on too long and is getting nowhere. I
don't believe either of you are deliberately lying or being obtuse or
stupid. Let it go, please.
Sorry, Erik, we all have our flashpoints and one of mine is someone
calling me a liar and persisting with it after they have been shown to
be wrong.
If you stopped lying, you wouldn't hit the flash point so often. My references were never deficient, and your own trusted source backed them
up. You know that you have been lying about my sources since you could
not deal with the reality that they presented. What I have had to put
up in this set of posts, just confirms what has been given to you
before, and you can't deal with the new sources, just like you could not deal with to original ones. Why did you run from the Vatican
Observatory citation instead of claim that it was an untrustworthy
source? You had to snip it out (after running from it) before
continuing to prevaricate about "never been condemmned". You should
have just admitted that your quote was wrong instead of prevaricating
about the issue. It turned out that it is your sources that are not trustworthy.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 13:48:37 +0000, Martin Harran
I'm assuming that like myself, you believe in God someone with whom we
can have a personal relationship. How do you get from someone tweaking
with atoms and particles to that type of God, the one shown in the
Bible, how does it improve your understanding of God?
I have posed this question to several religious believers who support
ID and reject the Theory of Evolution; none of them have made any
attempt to answer, hopefully you might.
Looks like yet another IDer has run away from that question. I just
hope they take to time to reflect on why they cannot answer it.
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:33:49 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 11/21/2025 12:29 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:04:37 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
[rCa]
Let's cut to the chase here.
No lies to retract. You lied.
What lie are you claiming I told? Please quote exactly what I said
that you regard as a lie.
The ones that you keep telling.
"Never condemned"
I'm out of here. George Bernard Shaw warned that you shouldn't wrestle
with a pig as you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who thinks it's ok to take two words out of what somebody else said to
give a completely different meaning and then attribute those two words
to me. It doesn't even reach the level of quote-mining.
What beggars belief is that you do it where the exact quote from von
Gerber [1] and what I said about it are preserved just a couple of
posts above for all to see. As I noted earlier, it is really sad to
see this sort of behaviour from someone whose ability as a scientist I respect so much :(
===========================================
[1] "The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for
the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church."
[von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei")]
[..]
On 11/15/2025 3:01 AM, jillery wrote:That's ok; neither do you. A difference is you refuse to admit it.
A philosophical problem arguments like Sticks presents here is, they
*assume* their initial uncaused cause is supernatural, but refuse to
consider an initial natural uncaused cause. IOW they change the rules
depending on whose cause they're talking about; a juvenile word game.
Nah, I didn't assume, I followed the science. You just don't like my >conclusions. You're blind to it and repeat the usual in an effort to >diminish me, even saying it is just a "juvenile word game".
OTOH scientists recognize that an uncaused cause logically doesn't
explain anything. They recognize that*all* origin narratives
*necessarily* begin with an*unknown* cause. Unknown does not mean
supernatural or natural. It just means it's not known at this time.
There, you finally get to the point. You do not have an answer,
and--
cannot believe anything but materialism, so the search goes on and
anyone suggesting different is being unscientific. It's not an unknown, >it's an impossibility if you follows the laws of science. Which of
course, you will deny. At least here, you've come close to actually >answering the topic under discussion. Usually you just ignore it and go
off on these silly tangents. By at least saying it is "not known at
this time," I can put you in the camp that believes is has always
existed somehow. That sounds kind of supernatural to me.
On 11/19/2025 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:I say yours is an incoherent philosophical POV, because you presume an
All of the threads where Sticks contributed conflate philosophical
principles and scientific theories wrt origins. That's what he does.
He argues origins presuming an uncaused cause, a philosophical POV,
while scientific theories make no such presumptions.
Wow, with my extremely limited participation here, you sure jump to big >conclusions. When I joined this thread, I clearly stated it was a >Metaphysical question, but did then note the laws of thermodynamics tell
you you can't get something from nothing. I did the exact opposite of
what you claim I do.
First, I looked into the Big Bang theory and theThe above is a good example of exactly what I say you do, and what you
associated inflation theory to help get past some of the problems with
it. I'm a huge fan of Tegmark, and he writes in a way that get you to >question everything.
I had big problems with just how this happened, as so many do today, and
the research goes on. Everywhere I looked for an acceptable answer to
where the initial matter, energy, and space came from led to only two >choices. Note that even if future quantum research comes up with a
theory on something, the same question remains. If there was literally >nothing, where did the stuff come from, and if there was something that
went bang, where did that come from. Either way the laws of
Thermodynamics says it had to come from somewhere.
Either something unknown created it, or it has always existed. That isYou first.
not philosophical, and doesn't get philosophical until you answer what
the former unknown might be. Science tells me it is impossible, and for >everything else you would agree. But on the origins of the stuff that
went big bang, you can't and that has to be an unknown.
If you're like me and can't believe that something has always existed,
that doesn't mean you automatically believe in God or something. It
means that you simply have followed the science and think something else >might be in play. This is where you can start asking the why questions
and get philosophical. I have not encountered an unknown, I have gotten
to a point where science cannot go any further. I believe you simply
cannot get something from nothing. Search all you want, and I believe
it will only increase the difficulties for materialism.
By choosing this tactic, like so many in the materialist realm do, you >produce straw man arguments, claim false motivations, and by ignoring >evidence do the exact thing you accuse others of all in an effort to not >have to deal with supernatural talk. It's like what is done to Behe
with the continual lying about what he is claiming with IC. He gets put
off first as a kook because he is said to be claiming things could only
have resulted from a supernatural agent. When of course he has done no
such thing. He repeatedly explains scientifically why things do not
appear to be able to arise from Darwinian evolution, because they show
all the signs of being designed. The difference might be nuanced, and
yes he believes God did the designing, but that is not what his work
claims. But it is people like you who use these tactics to make him
look foolish. Look in the mirror.
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 17:48:28 -0600The above crap should have worn through even Erik's tolerance
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/21/2025 11:20 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:28:29 -0800, erik simpsonIf you stopped lying, you wouldn't hit the flash point so often. My
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Although this is a reply to Ron, I'd also like to include Martin as
well. I respect the opinion of both of these gentlemen in general, but >> >> this conversation has been going on too long and is getting nowhere. I
don't believe either of you are deliberately lying or being obtuse or
stupid. Let it go, please.
Sorry, Erik, we all have our flashpoints and one of mine is someone
calling me a liar and persisting with it after they have been shown to
be wrong.
references were never deficient, and your own trusted source backed them
up. You know that you have been lying about my sources since you could
not deal with the reality that they presented. What I have had to put
up in this set of posts, just confirms what has been given to you
before, and you can't deal with the new sources, just like you could not
deal with to original ones. Why did you run from the Vatican
Observatory citation instead of claim that it was an untrustworthy
source? You had to snip it out (after running from it) before
continuing to prevaricate about "never been condemmned". You should
have just admitted that your quote was wrong instead of prevaricating
about the issue. It turned out that it is your sources that are not
trustworthy.
Give it up.
You likely understand that abiogenesis has always been
among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
They don't even expect to figure out how life
actually started on this planet.
SETI had always been viewed as a fishing experiment and not truly
science.
SETI isn't claiming to have a scientific theory that can be taught in
the public schools in order to support anyones religious beliefs.
RonO wrote:
SETI isn't claiming to have a scientific theory that can be taught in
the public schools in order to support anyones religious beliefs.
What you're not saying -- as if you can tell the difference -- is that
SETI insists that their work is unscientific.
-a-a-a ...and nobody can just declare that they've got a "Theory" to
teach. A "Hypothesis," sure, but nobody can just proclaim their
ideas a "Theory."
You are misrepresenting the issues here... or, more likely, simply
fair to comprehend them.
On 11/4/25 4:06 PM, RonO wrote:
You likely understand that abiogenesis has always been
among the weakest of scientific endeavors.
It's not science. And you don't understand what science is,
as you just revealed.
Abiogenesis is "Right" without evidence, and even when
falsified it's still "Right."
That's religion. It's not science.
They don't even expect to figure out how life actually started on this
planet.
I already have figured it out.
SETI had always been viewed as a fishing experiment and not truly
science.
How many threads have you started, attacking pseudo scientific
nonsense like SETI and abiogenesis?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:24:07 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 188,321 |