Thank God that the Catholic church quickly realized their mistake and pardoned him in 1992.

Galileo was an extraterrestrial.

Teach the controversy, biatches.

Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

Link (new window)

Only 375 years? Jesus, it seems like yesterday.

Magnifico!

Well, I'm sure this will become quite an interesting thread so to provide a focus for the discussion, I present the full speech by Pope John Paul II.

Faith can never conflict with reason

The 'Galileo case' teaches us that different branches of knowledge call for different methods, each of which brings out various aspects of reality

"If Scripture cannot err, certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways" ~ Galileo

Ilmarinen: Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

Link (new window)

By your explanation, Paris Hilton should have her own solar system by now.

SnarfVader: By your explanation, Paris Hilton should have her own solar system by now.

Well, she sucks more than the entire planet.

quadropheniac: Thank God that the Catholic church quickly realized their mistake and pardoned him in 1992.

Actually the pardon was a PR formality. Given that big bang theory traces directly back to a Jesuit priest, it's safe to say the Catholic church was long ago fine with Galileo.

What rarely gets brought up are the real reasons why Galileo got in trouble. The first, was his dad. His dad had already irked the church clarifying the Pythagorean system for tuning. So when the son comes along flouting convention and authority too, well he sneezed wrong and someone would have a problem with it.

But that just got eyes watching him. What really got him in hot water was parodying a Pope in a text written in Italian. Had he skipped parodying the Pope and written in Latin? Nothing happens. Indeed the text was initially published with permission of the inquisition and the pope. Also Galileo had defenders, wasn't like he was out there on his own. And that it was a case of personality conflicts and hurt feelings, was brought up at the time. The science itself, wasn't actually the issue.

Ilmarinen: Link (new window)

dear god, the stupid, it burns.

Two Dogs Farking: Well, she sucks more than the entire planet.

Or a black hole, even.

That is the most contrived and round-the-houses ad hominem I have ever read.

Knowledge is power. Go get yourself some.

ninjakirby: Faith can never conflict with reason

The 'Galileo case' teaches us that different branches of knowledge call for different methods, each of which brings out various aspects of reality

I like JP2, at least in papal terms, but this is nonsense idea. For 2 reasons:

1) Can anyone name a single verifiable aspect of reality which *only* religion gives us access to?

2) No religious person acts like this. It's a pick and choose thing, saying that science always works but religion does all the rest, so the moment science says something, it just becomes off the table in religious terms. The problem is nothing is ever purely religious and so never holds its ground against science.

Here's an analogy. I say "certain types of women will never refuse me for a date." But I never tell you what those "types" are, specifically, and every time I am turned down for a date, I simply exclude that 'type' of woman from what I meant. Now, would you think of my boast?

I'm sure this will be a highly rational discussion of the interaction of science and religion and their effects on the world.

Screw it, even if it actually was, I'm still going to bed.

Trollrific headline subby!


+1

DamnYankees: Now, would you think of my boast?

I'd think you, like me, are a typical man. ;)

meekychuppet: That is the most contrived and round-the-houses ad hominem I have ever read.

Hard to be contrived when it's true.

BEVETS

On this day 375 years ago, Galileo Galilei was forced to recant his claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Take comfort in living in a more enlightened era where science is no longer under threat from religious global warming fanatics

FTFY Subby.

Bevets: The Great Galileo Myth

But the bible says the earth does not move. So don't you believe that is true too?

Why do you not believe in the bible Bevets?

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Why are you saying the bible lies???

Why are you denying God?

Ilmarinen: Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them...These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

Mountains are fixed and subject to the Earth's law of gravity. That's why people don't orbit them.

Not sure how you can not believe in gravity in the classic sense, yet, you assign a gravitational property to sin - something without mass. I mean, I get the analogy, but seriously, you can resolve science v Christian belief if you consider that The Big Bang was God (we were created in his image, or of him) and he created gravity in order to make his plan work.

/I'm just saying...

well... the sun orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun... it makes more sense to consider the earth orbiting the sun, what with the sun having orders of magnitude greater mass than the earth. however, purely theoreticaly, they orbit their center of mass (if we ignore the gravitational pull between the sun and the planets including earth etc) which due to the aforementioned sun's greater mass is basicaly located at the sun.
meh.

i am an orthodox christian yet i do not think like most GAWD WARRIERRRRs who take the teachings by the letter. besides, we are christians, not jews. philosophical deliberations about god's nature yadda yadda yadda won't make you a better person. as christians we are supposed to follow christ's teachings. pretty much like what a farker said: christ could be my buddy. a christian, not really. with you buddy.

Paging Bevets to the thread...Thats Bevets to the Religion vs. Science thread stat!Bevets to the-

Damn! Wouldn't you know it he's already here. Although I'm surprised that it took him 3 hours to make an appearance. His persecution detector must be out of alignment.

Galileo got in trouble because he was couldn't keep his damn mouth shut about anything BUT his farking theories regarding the Earth revolving around the sun.

He wasn't even the first one to vouch it. It was a very tame opinion in his day. Hell. It was a priest who really explored the idea.

Galileo got built up into a martyr by 18th and 19th century writers.

History repeating itself.

JamesBong: On this day 375 years ago, Galileo Galilei was forced to recant his claim that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Take comfort in living in a more enlightened era where science is no longer under threat from religious global warming fanatics

Yeah those "fanatics" of the mass majority of all scientists.

Which one is it this week for you guys? that global warming does not exist at all? or is it that it exists but it is not man made.

Can you explain how you guys believe in two theories that contradict each other?

People who believe in religion: Your wrong. Get over it.
People who understand and accept science and reason: Ding ding ding! Correct!

Corvus: Which one is it this week for you guys? that global warming does not exist at all? or is it that it exists but it is not man made.

Oh I forget there is the "It does exist, it is man made, but it won't be bad" and the "It does exist, it is man made, but it won't be bad, but there is nothing we can do about it".

You guys use 4 hypothesis (sorry I called them "theories" they are not) that all contradict each other and believe them all at the same time.

Ilmarinen: Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

So is that why there are so many fat people in America?

Great link Ilmarinen. That's funny shiat.

Bevets: The Great Galileo Myth

Bevets is this in the bible true or not?

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Subby forgot about evolution. Booooooooo. :(

Keep this image in your head while you read the following:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children, or to save children already born.

The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.

Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life. And the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge. Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.

And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

Goddamned funny photo of Bush got bounced... just use any old one.

holy shait!! a Bevets sighting!!!! Alert the presses!!!

E pur si muove

Fear not, for there are still some crackpots out there: Link (new window)

Makes for some pretty entertaining reading.

hatch500: speech


All I got out of that was "HAHAHAHA STEM CELL RESEARCH MIGHT CURE LOTS OF THINGS BUT YOU CAN NOT HAZ IT, NOT YOURS, CAUSE G-D AND STUFF!!!"

(Yawn) I had my fun in the other Religeous\Atheist war thread. I have to say I laughed at the "some blasphemer" linky.

+1 Subby if that was your call!

The whole stem cell thing, kind of a different debate don't ya think. Unlike the Big G who demonstrated his evidence that the Earth Revolved around the Sun, I've yet to see a scientist provide Evidence of when "Life" truly begins. When someone does, then we can whip out the Big G comparisons.

Shouldn't Bevets be in church?

hatch500: Keep this image in your head while you read the following:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

You successfully doubled the entire thread length with a single post.

Why do you hate us so?

CanisNoir: (Yawn) I had my fun in the other Religeous\Atheist war thread. I have to say I laughed at the "some blasphemer" linky.

Believing in science does not automatically make someone an "Atheist"

CanisNoir: (Yawn) I had my fun in the other Religeous\Atheist war thread. I have to say I laughed at the "some blasphemer" linky.

+1 Subby if that was your call!

The whole stem cell thing, kind of a different debate don't ya think. Unlike the Big G who demonstrated his evidence that the Earth Revolved around the Sun, I've yet to see a scientist provide Evidence of when "Life" truly begins. When someone does, then we can whip out the Big G comparisons.

That's because there is no such thing. It's an arbitrary point, and depends on who you ask. Ask me?? It's life when it has the ability to puke on me. Ask my neighbor?? It's life when the sperm buries itself in the egg. Ask a hundred other people?? A hundred other different points in time. That's why this debate will probably never be settled.

CanisNoir: (Yawn) I had my fun in the other Religeous\Atheist war thread. I have to say I laughed at the "some blasphemer" linky.

+1 Subby if that was your call!

The whole stem cell thing, kind of a different debate don't ya think. Unlike the Big G who demonstrated his evidence that the Earth Revolved around the Sun, I've yet to see a scientist provide Evidence of when "Life" truly begins. When someone does, then we can whip out the Big G comparisons.

Weren't you the guy saying that the doctrine of separation of church and state first appeared in a JFK speech?? Yeah, we're gonna take you seriously.

Nevertheless... it moves.

Amusingly enough, today you can see Galileo's middle finger straight up in Florence's Science History Museum.

pencil-man: Shouldn't Bevets be in church?

Indeed. Matter of fact, he can be put to death if he decides to go to work rather than attend (Exodus verse 35:2).