Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

As I recall, asking asked you Sunday what you make of the fossil record. Maybe we can get back on track with that.

---

I have thought about how to answer this a great deal - the problem is that entire volumes of books have been written answering this question and you expect me to provide an answer to a very general question in a short message. As about the fossil record in generalities is like asking someone to describe what you think about the findings regarding astro-physics and astronomy.

The fossil record is simply the remains of animals and plants which have fossilized. It is not clear exactly what you are getting at, so rather than asking me a question which is far too broad, why don't you kick off the discussion by telling us your views of the fossil record, specially the area that you are interested in discussing. BTW, just a reminder, we have been through this process before so as a pre-emptive comment and reminder so we don't go down the wrong path, I do not play 20 questions, so please take this opportunity to kick off the discussion on the fossil record by presenting your views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Again, it appears to me that you are just being argumentative. what exactly do you think will move the earth?

---

Am I being argumentative if I answer your question? Gravity moves the earth (I've said it about a dozen times). Apparently you disagree. Which, as I've also said repeatedly, if fine by me. It just puts your relation to modern science in a rather different light, which helps me better to understand where you're coming from in your denial of evolution. Now, as I've also already suggested, let's return to asking's question of you regarding the fossil record.

Tom,
I think Akoue's point is very relevant. The question of the infallibility of the Bible (and the infallibility of its major interpreters) is central to this discussion.

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible. I don't see how the Church's interpretation of the passages cited by Akoue can be considered less legitimate than a 20th century American's. If the Vatican said it didn't move, I assume they knew how to read the Bible. (Only recently has the Church itself formally recanted on this issue.)

The Catholic church thought that the passage,

Quote:

---

He set the earth on its foundations,
So that it should never be moved.

---

Meant the earth did not move and the Church was prepared to argue the point.

How can a man set himself above both the Vatican in interpreting the Bible and all of modern biology in interpreting the fossil record? It seems you are saying the Bible is infallible in one respect but not in another and to defend that you deny it says something that it does say repeatedly and clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Am I being argumentative if I answer your question? Gravity moves the earth (I've said it about a dozen times).

---

Gravity keeps the earth in its place.

Quote:

---

Now, as I've also already suggested, let's return to asking's question of you regarding the fossil record.

---

Why don't you read my post before constantly repeating the same question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Tom,
I think Akoue's point is very relevant. The question of the infallibility of the Bible (and the infallibility of its major interpreters) is central to this discussion.

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible.

---

No, it was that Galileo did not consider the earth the center of the universe. As for it contradicting the Bible, no it was because it contradicted the teachings of one denomination.

This, in any case, has zero to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is accurate when taken at face value, without man's private interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Why don't you read my post before constantly repeating the same question?

---

Come one, you know how the site works. You posted yours while I was writing mine, so I hadn't seen it yet. (And I just knew you would do this!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

Come one, you know how the site works. You posted yours while I was writing mine, so I hadn't seen it yet. (And I just knew you would do this!)

---

Perhaps a little patience would help. Give one a chance to post and for you to see if one has posted an answer. I am not here at your beck and call to answer questions at the crack of your whip. And I see somehow, your lack of patience in waiting for my answer has now become somehow my fault.:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

No, it was that Galileo did not consider the earth the center of the universe. As for it contradicting the Bible, no it was because it contradicted the teachings of one denomination.

This, in any case, has zero to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is accurate when taken at face value, without man's private interpretation.

---

The topic of the thread concerns the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. The compatibility of the Bible and other scientific domains is quite relevant--and the OP has registered his own interest in the present question.

So gravity keeps the earth "in its place" as you say. The earth stays in place. It neither rotates on its axis nor orbits the sun. This is your view. We've got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

So gravity keeps the earth "in its place" as you say. The earth stays in place. It neither rotates on its axis nor orbits the sun. This is your view. We've got it.

---

Do you take joy in mis-representing me? Why do you think that anyone should even engage in discussion with you with you refuse to interact in a respectful manner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Perhaps a little patience would help. Give one a chance to post and for you to see if one has posted an answer. I am not here at your beck and call to answer questions at the crack of your whip. And I see somehow, your lack of patience in waiting for my answer has now become somehow my fault.:confused:

---

That's right. Because I was replying to your *previous* post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

That's right. Because I was replying to your *previous* post.

---

Again, perhaps a little patience would help avoid this issue, so just exercise patience after you ask questions and allow time for others to reply.

Also keep in mind that no one is required to answer your questions. Engaging in a respectful exchange (i.e. not mis-representing others) will help encourage response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible.

---

Just being a stickler for detail (without commenting on the discussion here); Galileo was seen as a heretic because he denied that God was the cause of creation. Not because he supported a heliocentric universe.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I have thought about how to answer this a great deal - the problem is that entire volumes of books have been written answering this question and you expect me to provide an answer to a very general question in a short message. As about the fossil record in generalities is like asking someone to describe what you think about the findings regarding astro-physics and astronomy.

The fossil record is simply the remains of animals and plants which have fossilized.

---

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

So then, tell us what you think the patterns in the fossil record do suggest. Why is it there? Why did God lay it down precisely as He did? Why are there no fossil sharks 2 billion years ago, but yet they appear in rocks that are 400 million years old? Why are there no palm trees in 600 million year old rocks, but there are in 360 million year old rocks? Why do modern birds have hips that look like those of reptiles that lived 70 million years ago? Explain the pattern of increasing complexity and diversity in the fossil record in a way that is consistent with what the Bible says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

---

Large numbers of scientists disagree. I might add that the fossil record is not as clear as you would like to present it. The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have see myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Just being a stickler for detail (without commenting on the discussion here); Galileo was seen as a heretic because he denied that God was the cause of creation. Not because he supported a heliocentric universe.

JoeT

---

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

---

Turns out the whole thing was really complicated. It wasn't the "holding" that was the problem so much as the "teaching". There is some evidence that he was instructed to delay teaching it because it was so radical and there was concern that the dissemination should proceed slowly. He went ahead anyway. The most recent comprehensive work by Ernan McMullin shows that the situation was handled badly on all sides.

Yes. It sounds like Galileo was rather provoking. He was also writing in Italian instead of Latin (right?), which made everything he wrote so much more accessible. Annoying guy.

Joe, maybe you were thinking of Bruno?

Science says the earth moves.
It rotates and obits the sun.
I believe that.
I also believe that the author of those passages believed that it did not move and did so because of his personal observation.
A;so if the earth sit still on a foundation where is it?
I've never seen a view from any satalite or spce station that shows a foundation of any sort including the giant turtle some folks once believed the world sat on.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, thanks for reminding us of the giant tortoise. I had forgotten about that.

Like Copernicus before him, Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism got him into trouble, as we all know, due to a perceived conflict between it and the Bible. The Biblical verses that, taken on their face, affirm a stationary earth are:

Ps.93.1: "The world will surely stand in place, never to be moved."
Ps.96.10: "The world will surely stand fast, never to be moved."
Ps.104.5: "You fixed the earth on its foundation, never to be moved."
I Chronicles 16.30: "he has made the world firm, not to be moved."

Now, read metaphorically or allegorically, these passages present no obvious problem to anyone who accepts heliocentrism. Read literally, they do present a problem, since each clearly affirms that the earth does not move. This clearly does not comport with either the earth's rotation nor its orbit of the sun. There can be no question, though, that accommodating heliocentrism requires some hermeneutic finessing of Scripture, and this, again, means that a supine literalism forces a choice upon the reader: Either accept the prima facie meaning of the passages and reject heliocentrism or accept heliocentrism and interpret these passages non-literally. This much is clear.

As anyone who has been following this thread knows, I have brought this up not to change the subject away from evolution, but rather to attempt to get a clearer view of the conflict many claim to find between the Bible and modern evolutionary theory. If, as many are inclined to do, we are to adopt a non-literal reading of the passages cited above in order to accommodate heliocentrism, I can see no good reason not to adopt a non-literal reading of Gen.1-2 in order to accommodate the findings of evolutionary theory. If, on the other hand, we are to adhere to a literal interpretation of Gen.1-2, and so reject evolution as it is now understood, then we are obliged to adhere to a literal interpretation of the above passages and so reject heliocentrism. To do otherwise is to be inconsistent in our reading of Scripture. In other words, I have sought to offer a deflationary alternative to the perceived conflict between Scripture and science.

Since the earth is in fact moved (it isn't a self-mover), we have good reason to suppose that the above passages are best read non-literally. And this seems to me to provide us reasonable grounds for supposing that other passages of Scripture that are perceived by some to conflict with science ought also to be read non-literally. The notion that we are to adhere to a supine literalism, according to which the words of the Bible "speak for themselves" (a phrase which is itself little more than a rhetorical flourish) obliges the rejection of celestial mechanics.

In like fashion, a supine literalism obliges one to reject evolutionary biology, not on the merits, but just in virtue of its failure to reflect the surface meaning of Gen.1-2. This is to say, then, that the rejection of evolution carries with it the rejection of heliocentrism, which is rather more, I suspect, than many evolution opponents bargained for.

We do not typically feel that we need to await a complete scientific description of the physical universe in order to accept the findings of astronomy; neither should we feel the need to await a complete biological description of all life in order to accept the findings of evolutionary biology. Scientific theories are all, by their nature, provisional descriptions of physical phenomena. The absence of completeness is not evidence of falsehood. Were we to impose completeness as a demand on the acceptance of the findings of science, we would be left in a perpetual cognitive limbo, and this would imperil the viability of applied sciences such as engineering and medicine. I can see no plausible grounds for adopting such a stance.

As I see it, then, the burden of proof rests not with the proponents of evolution, but with those who claim to find a conflict between evolution and Gen.1-2. It is for them to provide a compelling case for a supinely literal interpretation of Gen.1-2, taking into account the high price they pay for their literalism in the form of the rejection of heliocentrism. I am aware that others will not accede to my assessment of the burden of proof, and I am fine with that. So long as we are all clear about the options that are available to those who would adduce Scripture as grounds for rejecting the findings of evolutionary biologists.

It is important to keep in mind that as soon as one reads the passages I cited above in such a way as to accommodate heliocentrism one has already abandoned a supine literalism that claims to take the words of the Bible at face value.

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.

---

I'm with you. And tortoises are such comforting creatures. They have such an even measure about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.

---

That is why it is good to know God and know that He has established a our place in space and holds us in a fixed orbit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

---

It's a long story not normally told - it's just easier to blame it on his Copernicus theories (not only easier, the Protestants love the propaganda), if I have the time, I'll tell it tonight. I need resources I don't have here.

JoeT

P.S. But now I see where Akoue has done it. I'll see if I can find a few blanks to fill in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I do not interpret it. I let it speak for itself.

---

This is a transparent attempt to escape your personal responsibility for interpreting it as you do. Ink on paper does not speak or convey meaning unless it is read and interpreted by a human being. You have chosen a literal interpretation, others choose a metaphorical or allegorical one. In either case, it is a personal choice, and yours is no more binding on them than theirs is on you.

Akoue
You are right. It is either or.
To compound the problem is the fact that there are many verses in the bible which taken literally do not make sense such as kings of the whole world coming to Solomon for advice which includes the American continents or all of the people of Judea going John the Baptizer.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

So then, tell us what you think the patterns in the fossil record do suggest. Why is it there? Why did God lay it down precisely as He did? Why are there no fossil sharks 2 billion years ago, but yet they appear in rocks that are 400 million years old? Why are there no palm trees in 600 million year old rocks, but there are in 360 million year old rocks? Why do modern birds have hips that look like those of reptiles that lived 70 million years ago? Explain the pattern of increasing complexity and diversity in the fossil record in a way that is consistent with what the Bible says.

---

Again, where in the fossil or the genetic record does it prove that gene mutaion, not to mention no one can prove the selective factors involved, led to NEW GENETIC INFORMATION that led from reptiles to birds, or to a back bone or to a complex circulatory system?

Macro evoultion, diversity relies on NEW INFORMATION, where is the proof.

You can look at the fossil record and the similarities betwenn living creatures but it is FAITH/ BELIEF that humanity had a common ancestor with apes, a common ancestor with mammals, a common ancestor with bacteria.

Does homology really equal proof of evolution?

A plane has seats, a movie theater has seats, did they have a common ancestor?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't read the bible to find out where fish came from or if black holes exist, the bible tells is we are created, not a product of impossible chance. We are so important that the being that created us, loves us enough to send His only son to die and resurrect for us.:)



G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

I don't read the bible to find out where fish came from ...

---

So do you want to explain the existence and pattern of the fossil record?
I'm interested to hear how you account for it. Tom hasn't had time to answer this question yet.
Just Asking

inthebox,
I like to believe that some of those huge meat eating dinosaurs did evolve into the much smaller birds that now live on insects, seeds and berries.
Since the fossil record does show some of the later dinosaurs with wings and feathers, it is easy to believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

asking,
Apparently inthebox does not or can not.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The fossil record indicates a biological "big bang" during the Cambrian period. How does evolution take into acoount that?

This is more consistent with , creation.

Again the fossil record, with the above and lack of "missing links" and a lack of transitional forms is more a problem with Darwin's account than it is for creation or ID.

The fossil record is also a diversion from the real question of how NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, that enhances survival and or reproduction, comes about to lead to major, macro if you will, development like the eye or flight or organ systems or art or backbones or warm blood.

We do know for a fact that mutations has led to thousands of human disease. Is this the means by which we came from single celled organisms?

In addition, the fossil record is looking at limited evidence in a backward or retrospective view. Nothing can be proved for certain because no scientist was there to observe and measure development. So that approach takes as much faith as it does to believe in creation.
--------------------------------------------

What purpose or meaning is there for us being here by pure [ near impossible ] odds? In this scenario how is humanity any more special than any other species? If you think god is made up by culture or imagination, the question remains.

On the other hand, creation believes God created us with meaning and purpose. A God that elevates us beyond animals and plants.




G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

This is a transparent attempt to escape your personal responsibility for interpreting it as you do. Ink on paper does not speak or convey meaning unless it is read and interpreted by a human being.

---

Really? Then I guess that you don't believe anything that you read - PERIOD!

The Bible specifically disallows manmade interpretations, and whether you believe it or not, it is possible to read something and read what it actually says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

So do you want to explain the existence and pattern of the fossil record?
I'm interested to hear how you account for it. Tom hasn't had time to answer this question yet.
Just Asking

---

I already responded to your post - the fossil record is not what you claim it to be.

Once again you have not read what I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

inthebox,
I like to believe that some of those huge meat eating dinosaurs did evolve into the much smaller birds that now live on insects, seeds and berries.
Since the fossil record does show some of the later dinosaurs with wings and feathers, it is easy to believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

---

Fred, since you bring up the topic once again, where is the evidence for a transition from one species to another?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Fred, since you bring up the topic once again, where is the evidence for a transition from one species to another?

---

Right here.

From New Scientist:

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations -- the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Right here.

from New Scientist:

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations -- the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

---

So, if I took this to its logical conclusion, are you suggesting that humans who are lactose intolerant are another species because they cannot use a common human food source?

Just because something is a characteristic, even a defining characteristic, does not mean that a variant to that characteristic makes that a different species. A defining characteristic of chickens is 2 legs. Periodically chickens are born with 4 legs ( http://www.hemmy.net/images/animals/...dchicken02.jpg ). Are they a different species? No, no one would ever make such a claim. They are called mutants - which is what these bacteria are also called (read in your excerpt from New Scientist above ("... citrate-using mutants")

Back to your point - if you read the actual paper upon which this article is based, you would find that the bacteria that acquired this chjaracteristic was still E-coli. Indeed, this characteristic, though not common in E-Coli, is not unheard of within E-Coli. Let me quote from his paper:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inability to use citrate as an energy source under oxic conditions has long been a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species (35, 36). Nevertheless, E. coli is not wholly indifferent to citrate. It uses a ferric dicitrate transport system for iron acquisition, although citrate does not enter the cell in this process (37, 38). It also has a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, and can thus metabolize citrate internally during aerobic growth on other substrates (39). E. coli is able to ferment citrate under anoxic conditions if a cosubstrate is available for reducing power (40). The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions (41–43). Indeed, atypical E. coli that grow aerobically on citrate (Cit) have been isolated from agricultural and clinical settings, and were found to harbor plasmids, presumably acquired from other species, that encode citrate transporters (44, 45)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try, but no cigar.

inthebox,
I find no difficulty in believing in creation and some form of evolution.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Yes. It sounds like Galileo was rather provoking. He was also writing in Italian instead of Latin (right?), which made everything he wrote so much more accessible. Annoying guy.

Joe, maybe you were thinking of Bruno?

---

As requested, the Galileo debacle:

Galileo published Discourse on Floating Bodies in 1612 along with a book on sunspots in 1613. The first claim that the Copernican theory was heretical was raised by the Grand Duchess Christina at a banquet citing scripture. The Duchess, t he wife of the Grand Duke Cosimo de Medici, a tutor of Galileo's later circulated a letter saying scripture should not be taken so laterally. The conversation was picked-up by a Dominican priest Tommaso Caccini who, from the pulpit, suggested that the Copernican theory should be declared it heretical. In his denunciation Father Caccini pointed to Joshua commanding the sun to stand still at Ajalon. A Copernican theory wouldn't have permitted the motion of the celestial bodies to stop, thus it was heretical; so much for astronomical acumen of Dominican priests. In any event Father Caccini complained to the Roman Inquisition stating that mathematicians along with Galileo should be banished from Christendom. The complaint against Galileo included that he engaged in private interpretation of Scripture. The charges were summarily dismissed by the Inquisition in February 1615. Cardinal Bellarmine wrote in the summary that the Copernican theory was yet to be proven and until such time should not be applied to interpretation of Scripture.

Case closed? Not exactly. In December that same year Galileo unwisely decided to visit friends in Rome. And, like most men with a new toy (the telescope) and a bright idea (the Copernican theory) went about town troubling the aristocracy with the idea that their secure position in the center of the cosmos had just been usurped with one on an insignificant rock. Consequently the Pope, Paul V called for a formal decision on Copernican theory in February of 1616. Don't forget, at this time there was still little separation from the natural sciences and theology. So a committee of eleven theologians and one natural scientist, a mathematician, pronounced that the Copernican theory was nonsense, after all everyone knew that mankind and his planet was the center of the universe.

Cardinal Bllarmine, a renowned Catholic apologist knew that if the Copernican theory was later to be found correct, it would put the Church in an untenable position of defending a position that is contrary to nature – the Church has held, from Christ, through Peter, that what is true in nature is, in some way, a revelation of nature's creator, God. As a result of the verdict, Galileo's book was put on the index of Forbidden Books. Cardinal Bellarmine convinced the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books to stop circulation until a new preface was written stating that the theory was not proven. Later a document appeared stating that Galileo was enjoined from teaching the theory in any way. Since it was dated February 1616 it is presumed to be to be the back-up if he failed to follow through with re-writing the preface of his book.

As any good Catholic Galieo submitted himself to censure. In an audience with Pope Paul V Galileo was assured support “discouraged and disappointed, but not defeated”, he went to Venice, his home, where he lived and worked freely until 1624.

Publishing his book The Assayer Galileo advocated the atomic theory for the composition of matter. Wisely he avoided the mentioning the Copernican theory. Even still, he was attacked by overzealous critics who saw this theory as an attack on transubstantiation. In 1624, Pope Urban VIII, successor to Paul V stated “that the Church had never declared the works of Copernicus to be heretical and would not do so, “but added “a proof of its truth would ever be forthcoming.” Encouraged, Galileo wrote Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems in 1632 to provide that proof. Looking for an imprimatur, the book was given to the Inquisitor. Father Riccardi said that the Dialogue focused on “the mathematical examination of the Copernican position on the earth's motion, with the aim of proving that, if we remove divine revelation and sacred doctrine, the appearances could be saved with this supposition…so that one would never be admitting the absolute truth of this opinion, but only its hypothetical truth without the benefit of scripture.” Again, bull headedly Galileo continued to insist that his theory was an absolute.

The Dialogue was published by coincidence at the worst possible time, the Thirty years War was raging in Bavaria and the Protestants had succeeded in expelling Jesuits and winning several battles. This forced Pope Urban VIII to prove his orthodoxy and turned on Galileo because of Jesuit denouncement of the Dialogue. This is when the “back-up” document was “found.” In any event Galileo was deposed twice in front of the Inquisition and the charge of disobeying the mystery back-up was dropped, however he was censured for being “vehemently suspected of heresy”. For teaching the heliocentric theories, the Dialogue was banned by the Index for more than 200-years. Galileo was required to make a public abjuration and was placed under house arrest. Petro Redondi said that “this heresy was inquisitorial – that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal – both according to the words of the manuals of criminal heresiology”. In short, Galileo was found guilty of disobedience not heresy. (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

Now you know why I said it was a complicated story.


JoeT

Sorry TJ3 but this shows that evolution can add a benefit to the dna code. It completely changes the direction of a species, I'd say it could be even considered a new species.
Regardless your never going to get the proof your asking for because evolution doesn't work that way. It would be the same as me calling all Christians liars because god had never personally appeared to me.
How it works is..
Say you have duck and that duck gives birth to another duck and then that duck gives birth to another duck. So you have a duck from a duck from a duck from a duck and so on until you look back a few thousand years and you go you know what ducks use to look different but the scale of change in our life time; since the change isn't intelligently directed is minimal.
So you will never get the proof you ask for because if you did get it, it would disprove evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I already responded to your post - the fossil record is not what you claim it to be.

Once again you have not read what I posted.

---

I must have missed where you said what the fossil record is. Can you give me a link or just summarize in sentence or two? To my knowledge, I have read all your posts in this thread attentively.

I'm not asking what you think it's not, but what you think it is. I'm very interested to know what you think.

Thanks,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Sorry TJ3 but this shows that evolution can add a benefit to the dna code.

---

Benefits are rare at best. But the key point is that there is no species change. No one is denying change within a species.

Quote:

---

It completely changes the direction of a species, I'd say it could be even considered a new species.

---

Even the author of the experiment / paper does not make such a claim. He is very clear about that throughout his paper. Your claim is therefore limited to your opinion and perhaps your own personal definition of what constitutes a species. You'd be hard pressed to find any credible biologist who would share your conclusion that this is a new species.