Sunday, March 7, 2010

Why Galileo was Wrong, Even Though He was Right

In the early seventeenth century a courageous and brilliant scientist, Galileo Galileo, confirmed heliocentrism, the idea first proposed a century earlier by Nicolaus Copernicus that the sun was at the center of the universe. Heliocentrism challenged geocentrism, the religiously motivated idea that a stationary earth was at the center of the universe. Galileo explained why heliocentrism was true and not surprisingly the church strongly opposed and persecuted the scientist. Ultimately, however, the truth could not be denied and church was forced to, once again, reluctantly give in to the objective truths of science.

That was the false history of the Galileo Affair according to later revisionists who promoted the view that science and religion were in conflict. In fact while Galileo indeed was brilliant, he also made it difficult for friendly voices to support him. Furthermore he did not confirm heliocentrism, and heliocentrism was not the only viable alternative to geocentrism. And geocentrism was hardly religiously motivated. The church had little objection to heliocentrism when Copernicus wrote of the model in the sixteenth century, and Copernicus was not the first to consider the idea.

The Galileo Affair is far more complex than the simple-minded warfare thesis supposes. Yes Pope John Paul II issued a declaration in 1992 acknowledging the church's errors. And the church was no doubt mistaken. But the church's action in the Galileo Affair was far more complex than simply opposing a scientific finding out of religious conviction (Galileo's trial focused on his insubordination, not heliocentrism). In fact, there were at least four reasons why the church opposed Galileo's heliocentrism which confound the naive warfare thesis.

First, in Galileo's day internal church politics had made it less receptive to new ideas such as heliocentrism. Second, Galileo's disobedience and style--such as satirizing his friend Pope Urban VIII who had been a supporter--fomented opposition. Third, it was understood that science could devise models that, on the one hand fit the data but on the other hand were not true or approximately so. In fact, geocentrism modeled the celestial motions quite accurately. And finally, in some cases where geocentrism did fail, another alternative--Tycho Brahe's hybrid model--succeeded.

An important failure of geocentrism were the phases of Venus which indicated it circled the sun, not Earth. Galileo expounded upon this point, but what he failed to mention was that the Tychonic system, in which the sun circles the earth and the inner planets in turn circle the sun, handled the phases of Venus just fine.

In fact new research reported on this week indicates another problem with Galileo's firmly held views. When observing stars through a telescope, as Galileo did, they do not appear as points of light, as they should, but as a small extended area, or disk, as did the planets. This disk appearance is due to the diffraction of light which was unknown at the time.

Of course the stars were assumed to be like the sun, and therefore much larger than the planets. Given their larger size the observed small disk meant they must have been much farther away than the planets. But the calculated distances to the stars were thousands of times less than what we now calculate. Yes the stars were far away, but those small disks were misleading. The diffracting light made the stars appear closer than they actually are.

Galileo was therefore assuming the stars were much closer than they actually are. Why is this important? Consider objects you observe out the window as you sit in a moving train. A nearby tree may be behind a closer tree, but as the train moves you will see the farther tree emerge as your angle changes. Two stars in the sky, on the other hand, do not move in relation to each other as you move along, because they are so far away.

Because Galileo calculated the stars to be much closer than they actually are, he would necessarily expect to see some change in their relative positions as the earth circled the sun in his heliocentric model. But no such relative change was observed. It was an important failure of Galileo's model which, again, he did not mention. And again, it was an observation that the Tychonic system handled just fine.

What the new research points out is that a contemporary of Galileo, the German astronomer Simon Marius, famous for naming the moons of Jupiter, was aware of these implications and followed them to their logical conclusion.

While Galileo was making high claims for heliocentrism, Marius had made clear in his 1614 book Mundus Iovialis (The Jovian World), that the observations confirmed the earth-centered Tychonic system.

The new paper, aptly entitled "How Marius Was Right and Galileo Was Wrong Even Though Galileo Was Right and Marius Was Wrong," is another example of how not just science, but the history of science, is more complicated than self-serving black-white renditions would have it.

115 comments:

  1. According to some historians, the Pope was afraid that the King of Spain would be offended by Galileo Heliocentric theory. This is because Bruno, some years earlier, used heliocentricism to support his idea that the Vatican should support Protestant England against Catholic Spain. It was all politics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Nature link is broken at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius Hunter: That was the false history of the Galileo Affair according to later revisionists who promoted the view that science and religion were in conflict.

    Of course they were in conflict. Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition for Heaven's Sake. The question is who decides the merit of scientific ideas. The Church insisted they were the final arbiter, and that makes it a conflict between science and religion.

    Cornlius Hunter: Yes Pope John Paul II issued a declaration in 1992 acknowledging the church's errors.

    That would be hilarious if it didn't concern putting the greatest scientist of the age, an old blind man, under house arrest, and banning his books.

    Cornelius Hunter: First, in Galileo's day internal church politics had made it less receptive to new ideas such as heliocentrism. Second, Galileo's style--such as satirizing his friend Pope Urban VII who had been a supporter--fomented opposition.

    Yes, Galileo was a cranky and arrogant old man. Put him to the Inquisition!

    Cornelius Hunter: In fact, at the time it would not have been clear, without intuitive preference which Galileo seemed to have, that heliocentrism was obviously superior to geocentrism.

    The science is irrelevant to the point about the conflict between science and religion. Even if Galileo should have been wrong (and he was wrong about many things), the Church decided they should be the final arbiter, under the authority of the Inquisition.

    The "intiutive preference" was based on specific observations...

    Cornelius Hunter: And finally, where geocentrism did fail, another alternative--Tycho Brahe's hybrid model--succeeded.

    You can construct a model centered on any arbitrary point in the Solar System, e.g. we prefer Europa. Galileo debunked quintessence, discovering strong evidence that the Earth was just another planet.

    Cornelius Hunter: Because Galileo calculated the stars to be much closer than they actually are, he would necessarily expect to see some change in their relative positions as the earth circled the sun in his heliocentric model. But no such relative change was observed.

    That's right. It's called an anomaly. It could mean that Galileo's theory was wrong, but the bulk of evidence supported Heliocentrism. Most scientists knew this, and worked to resolve the anomaly. Indeed, by treating the observation of stellar disks as an limit to the size of Sun-like objects, it indicates that stars are at very great distances from the Solar System, and therefore, their rotation as a giant sphere became increasingly implausible. This is a far more important fact than the missing parallax.

    But to repeat, even if Galileo was wrong, it was still a conflict between science and religion—because the Inquisition made it so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course, no one ever expects the Inquisition.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Church insisted they were the final arbiter, and that makes it a conflict between science and religion.

    The way you use the term religion is like the way you use the term evolution, it's relatively meaningless and open to equivocation. Religion could mean anything from all truth believed by groups of people to be known based on tradition and history, to the claims of Buddhists or in this case the beliefs of Catholics circa the 1600s. I suspect that you will equivocate on the term religion just as you do on the term evolution in order to prop up a mythology of progress. That seems to be the overriding goal of progressives and the end that their specious claims and propaganda are always directed toward. In this case, do Galileo's interactions with the Aristotleans actually support a conflict with "religion" and progress? Only in the sense that religion was the established knowledge of the day and progress is the enemy of all established knowledge. So one could just as easily cite the case as an example against any current consensus in scientia/knowledge, including the manufactured consensus of modern biologists on origins which has about the same epistemic value of the established knowledge of the eugenicists in their day.

    Unlike the modern interpretation that many Darwinists seem to believe of science constantly undermining or destroying religion Galileo saw himself as a reformer of the Catholic Church and not a destroyer.

    E.g.
    Galileo’s first writings about the process of creation appear in a series of untitled and unpublished manuscripts on motion that were mainly, if not entirely, composed while he was teaching at Pisa, before he left in 1592 to take a new position at the University of Padua. The creation theme is first touched on in the manuscript now known as Galileo’s Dialogus, and it is then developed in a long essay today known as the De motu antiquiora, which is followed by some brief revisions of the first two chapters and then by a much revised and shorter essay in ten sections. Although Galileo never published any of these materials, they reflect a deep and lasting interest in God’s creation, and some twenty years later, after his discoveries with the telescope so greatly enlarged the world, Galileo’s concern with what he now saw as the true constitution of the universe seems to have become an obsession. It was imperative to him that the Church accept the true (that is, Copernican) system of the universe, for she must not be in error concerning such matters.
    (Galileo and God's Creation
    by Winifred Lovell Wisan
    Isis, Vol. 77, No. 3. (Sep., 1986), pp. 473)


    You are making it into a conflict between science and "religion" thanks to your ideology of progress but it's worth noting that Galileo did not agree:
    “The holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”
    --Galileo Galilei

    If it all fits so simply into a narrative of scientific progress, which just happens by happy happenstance to also fit into naturally selected progressive creation myths then one wonders why Galileo did not see progress as you see it. The early anti-Nazi Karl Kraus commented that progress will make purses of human skin. Here is something else he said that those with the Darwinian urge to merge all things into mythologies of progress might take note of: When someone has behaved like an animal, he says: 'I'm only human!' But when he is treated like an animal he says: 'I'm human too!'
    (Half-Truths and One-and-A-Half-Truths :108)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zachriel: The Church insisted they were the final arbiter, and that makes it a conflict between science and religion.

    mynym: The way you use the term religion is like the way you use the term evolution, it's relatively meaningless and open to equivocation.

    The Church is a religious institution. Church officials appointed themselves as the final arbiters of scientific issues. Therefore this was a conflict between science and religion.

    I don't see how you can deny this unless you attempt to argue that the Church is not a religious institution. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What is important here is not the facts, but the control of the distribution of information in our society. The main stream media, and many book publishers, choose the false history because it furthers their agenda of secularization. The secularists have been remarkably successful thanks to the monopolization of the media. The outcome of this social fact can be seen through out our society. Most people think evolution is a fact and only crackpots disagree. The catholic church has even succumbed to this campaign. That is why they accept evolution. The leadership of the catholic church is as brain washed as everyone else by this false history. Disclaimer: I am a catholic

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter: "The leadership of the catholic church is as brain washed as everyone else by this false history."

    Do you think they are just incorrect on evolution, or was the Church correct to condemn Galileo, and that the inquisition was virtuous? The apology from John Paul II was an apology based on a 'misunderstanding,' and there are some unoverturned Papal decrees on the subject, so I'm not even sure what Church doctrine on this is...

    Overall, I think the subject is a credit to the triumph of science and the scientific method. Both Galileo and Marius were correct in realizing moons orbited the planets, and the planets orbited the sun. The difference in interpretation of stellar disks led to divergence in the theories. Neither was fully falsifiable, as there was mixed evidence against both. For example, Brahe's model would have the Sun and Mars intersecting-except he explained this as a greater "parallax" in Mars than should have been observed. Galileo believed the stars were too close, and should have observed aberration (which was actually confirmed much later).

    At any rate, going beyond the data allowed the development of theory. All but one of the competing theories was later fully falsified, but having the models allowed astronomers to search for evidence for and against said theories.

    The show-stopper was the conclusion by the Church that only one theory could be correct for religious reasons, and banning of one theory for astronomers in the Catholic church.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Church is a religious institution. Church officials appointed themselves as the final arbiters of scientific issues. Therefore this was a conflict between science and religion.

    Only propagandists are intent on being vague in order blur everything together based on arguments of association and stigma words. What are we really supposed to make of it? To use a specific example, if the Catholic church is a religious institution does that mean there is a conflict between science and Buddhism?

    Reality is usually more complex than simple mythologies of progress taught to ignorant school children by progressives for ideological reasons. Galileo is one example, the flat earth error is also common. And so on, it has nothing to do with an accurate understanding of history.

    At any rate, many Catholics were great scientists and this instance was generally a conflict between the established Aristotlean consensus and emerging science. There were scientists on both sides. The same thing could happen to the current "consensus" of supposedly established knowledge in biology.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The show-stopper was the conclusion by the Church that only one theory could be correct for religious reasons, and banning of one theory for astronomers in the Catholic church.

    There were religious reasons as well as scientific reasons. They were not separated because they cannot be and they still are not today. Most at that time combined some form of anthropocentrism with an Aristotlean model (the science of their day), yet today many Catholics argue that God cannot be a "tinkerer" while many others make theological arguments about panda's thumbs and so on. So what? It seems to me that everyone knows that theological arguments are not the epistemic equivalent of empirical facts, therefore they are not a science stopper. A science stopper is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. For example saying that "evolution," whatever it is, is the equivalent of basic empirical facts like the earth being round is a science stopper. There is no need to investigate or question because it is already known.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Zach:

    "Of course they were in conflict."

    Agreed, the failure of the warfare thesis does not mean there was no conflict. There definitely has been conflict, in the Galileo Affair and elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Making accusation that the term "religion" is open to equivocation is a multi-edged sword.

    If "religion" is a personal metaphysical belief system and "science" is the acquisition of knowledge, then conflicts between the two should be constructive. When done at a personal level, it usually means growth (i.e. "progress").

    Unfortunately, history shows that "religion" doesn't generally restrict itself to a personal level. Organized religion results in membership rules which include forced beliefs. The leaders of such groups have significant power; the kind of power that corrupts.

    Why should organized religious groups feel compelled to stop scientists from cloning humans?

    The answer is simple. Some religious organizations attempt to impose their beliefs on others by using and extending their power.

    Of course, they rationalize they are doing it for the general good ("good" being defined by their beliefs).

    I have little doubt the religious powers in Galileo's time thought it would be better if people believed they and the Earth were special. Therefore, for the "public good" Galileo Galilei had to be silenced.

    Zachriel (and other's) point is applicable. If it wasn't for the religious implications Galileo's suggestions, why should the Church get involved?

    ReplyDelete
  14. mynym: The way you use the term religion is like the way you use the term evolution, it's relatively meaningless and open to equivocation.

    The Roman Catholic Church is a religious institution. {What keiths said.}

    mynym: In this case, do Galileo's interactions with the Aristotleans actually support a conflict with "religion" and progress?

    Galileo was prosecuted, condemned and punished by the Inquisition.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Cornelius Hunter,

    First I want to thank you for having an open blog and allowing diverse comments. I don't know how long this will last, but I hope it is for a while.

    From what little I have read, you seem to be critical of ID critics without feeling the need to provide positive arguments supporting ID.

    This is not an unusual tactic. It is a lot easier to throw stones at ideas than it is to forward your own. I used to comment on Telic Thoughts where I called this "shield bashing"; IOW, using a defensive object as an offensive weapon.

    I hope you excuse this comment being arguably off topic, but I suspect the religion versus science question is topical on just about any of the recent threads.

    Is it possible to engage in science without being influenced by metaphysical baggage? Probably not, but we can try. I suggest this is concept behind Gould’s NOMA. We could accept that science and religion are totally separate Magisteria. Even it isn’t true, we can pretend and act like it is.

    Problems arise when organizations decide to declare the Truth (capital “T”) for all. Be it for science or for religion. In 1950 Pope Pius XII declared, as an infallible truth, the Virgin Mary ascended body and soul into heaven. While most scientists won’t claim anything as an infallible truth, there are some that come close.

    Personally, from what I have learned about quantum physics, it is difficult to see how anyone can claim knowledge of an infallible, ultimate Truth. What or who is pulling the levers behind the quantum indeterminacy is anyone’s and everyone’s guess. It could be God, it could be randomness. It could also be a universe that exists because it can. My beliefs tend toward a self-actuating universe that is neither random nor deterministic. However, I don’t know and I doubt we will never know for sure.

    What does that have do about the evolution/ID debate? Well first of all, both evolution and ID could be true. God working at the quantum level could be undetectable while Common Descent unfolds. Quantum Mechanics is where the self-organizing information can come from.

    If the ID Movement would embrace something like this or even Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis, I could maybe take it seriously. However, the evidence coming from the Discovery Institute, Dembski etc point to one goal, a claim to an ultimate Truth; “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (Wedge Document, governing goal)

    For the most part, if religion left science alone both in the laboratories and in science classes there would be little “Warfare” going on.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thought Provoker:

    "Problems arise when organizations decide to declare the Truth (capital “T”) for all."

    So is evolution's use of IFF a problem:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/jerry-coyne-why-embryology-proves.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thought Provoker:

    "First I want to thank you for having an open blog and allowing diverse comments. I don't know how long this will last, but I hope it is for a while."

    People here are expressing their genuine convictions and often giving useful information and citations in the process. That makes for a good exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thought Provoker:

    "For the most part, if religion left science alone both in the laboratories and in science classes there would be little “Warfare” going on."

    But how can we stop them?

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/07/evolutionist-is-shocked-shocked-to-find.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cornelius Hunter:
    "So is evolution's use of IFF a problem:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/jerry-coyne-why-embryology-proves.html"


    As I indicated, it is a lot easier to throw stones and engage in shield bashing than it is to forward your own proposal.

    However, I did check out the post and found your interpretation of Jerry Coyne slanted, IMO. "And this makes sense only if..." usually implies what does and doesn't make sense to the speaker.

    Now, if you want to offer a counter explanation that makes sense to you, please do.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cornelius Hunter:
    But how can we stop them?

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/07/evolutionist-is-shocked-shocked-to-find.html


    I'm not sure what you are proposing here.

    There are plenty of religious scientists (e.g. Ken Miller). They are certainly entitled to speak their opinions in public. Even Darwin wrote in the second printing of Origin of Species "...life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..."

    As I indicated, we probably can't keep metaphysics out of the laboratory or science classroom, but we can try our best.

    For the record, I would agree it would be inappropriate for a science teacher to insist either there is no God, or that there is. I suggest that is a subject children need to figure out for themselves.

    I let my children do that. I am aware there are some people who disagree with me and even think I am a bad parent, but when it comes to public school, I don’t see any other reasonable option.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The subject of "science and religion" is unusual in that everyone is an expert. Several people on this blog have asserted the Galileo affair was a conflict between science and religion. But are they experts in the subject? I don't think so.

    Want to read about this from an actual expert? try Ronald Numbers (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Other-Myths-Science-Religion/dp/0674033272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268014917&sr=8-1)

    David C. Lindberg (http://www.amazon.com/When-Science-Christianity-David-Lindberg/dp/0226482162/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268014917&sr=8-5)

    Dennis Danielson (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Cosmos-Dennis-Danielson/dp/0738204986/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268015094&sr=1-2)

    Ian Barbour (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Science-Gifford-Lectures-Barbour/dp/0060609389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268015201&sr=1-1)

    Heck, even Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis)


    All of these experts agree. The idea of conflict between science and religion is a late 19th century myth intended to discredit Christianity. Galileo's two inquisitions and the resulting ban on his work are the factual centerpieces of this myth.

    I was not science vs. religion, it was science, religion, politics, and personality interacting in a highly defensive manner.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thought Provoker:

    ===
    "So is evolution's use of IFF a problem:
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/jerry-coyne-why-embryology-proves.html"

    As I indicated, it is a lot easier to throw stones and engage in shield bashing than it is to forward your own proposal.
    ===

    I don't follow, my own proposal for what? For how to inject religion into science? I've made my proposal very clear: don't inject religion into science.

    ===
    However, I did check out the post and found your interpretation of Jerry Coyne slanted, IMO. "And this makes sense only if..." usually implies what does and doesn't make sense to the speaker.
    ===

    Slanted in what way? Again, I'm not following. What are you saying, it's OK for evolutionists to make religious claims but no one else?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cornelius Hunter: "I don't follow, my own proposal for what?"

    Your own proposal for explaining embryology evidence. You obviously didn't like what made sense to Jerry Coyne. So what makes sense to you?

    Cornelius Hunter: "Slanted in what way?"

    You're attempted to slant the meaning of Jerry Coyne's words into something he did not say. In context it was obvious he put qualifiers on what he didn't know. He was providing his opinion on what makes sense to him.

    If you disagree, then disagree with a counter suggestion on what makes sense to you.

    Cornelius Hunter: "Again, I'm not following. What are you saying, it's OK for evolutionists to make religious claims but no one else?"

    Religious claims are fine in the public arena.

    I just happen to think the government should avoid "...respecting the establishment of religion..." especially in science classes of public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thought Provoker:

    ====
    Your own proposal for explaining embryology evidence. You obviously didn't like what made sense to Jerry Coyne. So what makes sense to you?
    ====

    What makes sense to me is analyzing biology free of religious beliefs. But if folks feel the need to interpret the evidence in light of their religion, as evolutionists do, then don't lie about it being a fact.



    ====
    You're attempted to slant the meaning of Jerry Coyne's words into something he did not say. In context it was obvious he put qualifiers on what he didn't know. He was providing his opinion on what makes sense to him.
    ====

    Now you are either being disingenuous or you are a die hard evolutionist who won't allow real facts in. What is it about: "And this makes sense only if species have an evolutionary history" that you don't understand? Or what is it about: "But the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution." that you don't understand?

    Sure, he qualifies his statements about evolutionary history because, since the facts don't fit evolution very well, he has to. But he then follows the qualifier with his metaphysical pronouncement, where there is *no* qualifier. But of course I shouldn't have to parse the text for a grown up.

    This is the heart of the problem. Evolutionists are literally blind to their own metaphysics they are so steeped in. They make the statements, and when it is pointed out to them, they deny the statement has any such meaning. You literally cannot have an intelligent discussion with evolutionists, as demonstrated here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/coyne-evolutionary-arguments-not.html



    ===
    If you disagree, then disagree with a counter suggestion on what makes sense to you.
    ===

    My counter suggestion is to drop the religion, but until and unless evolutionsts sober up, counter suggestions are a waste of time.



    ====
    I just happen to think the government should avoid "...respecting the establishment of religion..." especially in science classes of public schools.
    ====

    Of course, so we have a problem. The Establishment clause is violated everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steve: The subject of "science and religion" is unusual in that everyone is an expert. Several people on this blog have asserted the Galileo affair was a conflict between science and religion. But are they experts in the subject? I don't think so.

    It doesn't take an expert to recognize that the Galileo affair was a conflict between science and religion. You had religious officials attempting to suppress a scientific hypothesis for religious reasons. How is that not a conflict between science and religion?

    Steve: All of these experts agree. The idea of conflict between science and religion is a late 19th century myth intended to discredit Christianity.

    The question is whether Galileo's ordeal was an example of conflict between science and religion. The answer is clearly "yes".

    ReplyDelete
  26. keiths:

    ===
    You had religious officials attempting to suppress a scientific hypothesis for religious reasons. How is that not a conflict between science and religion?
    ===

    I know that with 20-20 hindsight it all seems so obvious, but at the time heliocentrism was not the obvious, compelling winner. Read the blog and you'll see Marius was not convinced. Galileo was told that if he proved heliocentrism then religious views would adjust, but he hadn't proved it. He then continued to make his point (good), but was insubordinate on instructions of how to temper his claims (bad). His trial focused on his insubordination, not heliocentrism.

    Is this the interaction model we want? Of course not. Is it the cut and dried science vs religion you say it is? No, it is more complex than that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cornelius Hunter: I know that with 20-20 hindsight it all seems so obvious, but at the time heliocentrism was not the obvious, compelling winner.

    That's irrelevant. Galileo was prosecuted for aruging a scientific hypothesis by the religous authority of the Inquisition, and condemned for being "vehemently suspected of heresy," a religious crime.

    Abjuration: I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Galileo canard:

    In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.

    Confusion persists to today in that nearly every textbook that discusses the Galileo affair claims that it was a matter of religion vs science, when it actually was a matter of science vs science. Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming. This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang, billions of years, or biological evolution.11 Therefore, any evangelical Christian misinformed of this history who opines that the Bible is geocentric is hardly any more credible a source on this topic than an atheist or agnostic.


    IOW it was never Galileo against the Church/ scripture. Not on geo vs helio anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The geocentric position was the scientific position at the time of Galileo.

    The scientists who held that position convinced the Church that the Bible also told of the geocentric position.

    The Church bought it because what the heck did they know.

    Then along comes Copernicus and then Galileo.

    The geo scientists rallied behind the Church and forced them to deal with Galileo because they knew they could not.

    How do you stfle descent when you don't have the science to do it with?

    Call upon the highest power of the day- as long as they are on your side.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thought Provoker,

    Why don't evolutionists put forward positive evidence for their position?

    You do realize that all they have to do is to actually start supporting their claims and ID would fade away- right?

    But to date they can't even muster a testable hypothesis pertaining to blind, undirected processes- ie cumulative selection of genetic accidents.

    So what do you have- anything?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cornelius Hunter:
    "But if folks feel the need to interpret the evidence in light of their religion, as evolutionists do, then don't lie about it being a fact."

    More shield bashing.

    If you want to interpret the evidence in light of your metaphysical beliefs, go ahead. But to be convincing scientifically, it needs to include a understandable hypothesis. The more detailed, the better.

    Ken Miller is an "evolutionist" who doesn't hide his presumption God is behind it all, probably at the quantum level.

    I have been justifiably called a Quantum Quack for my belief the self-organizing information for life comes from interconnected quantum effects.

    Even Behe isn't shy about believing in a "...designer of life [be it] a dope, a demon, or a deity" while also embracing Common Descent.

    It is easy to throw stones and say "but you don't know that for a FACT!"

    None of us know for a FACT the world existed prior to last Thursday.

    None of us even know for a FACT we exist beyond information processing in a giant computer (ala the Matrix).

    BTW, my beliefs tend towards thinking of the Universe as a digital computer where we and everything in it are wavefunctions (i.e. mathematical algorithms).

    Cornelius Hunter:
    "Of course, so we have a problem. The Establishment clause is violated everyday."

    Would you agree coercing children in government run schools to pledge allegiance to "one nation, under God" is a violation of the Establishment Clause?

    If not, we are probably destined to talk past each other.

    As I indicated, I agree it would be just as inappropriate for a science teacher to insist there is no God as it would to insist there is.

    ReplyDelete
  32. So it is OK for Coyne to interpret the evidence in light of his metaphysical beliefs?

    Coyne doesn't have an understandable hypothesis for blind, undirected processes.

    The current theory of evolution is void of details.

    Why do people embrace Common Descent?

    What is the genetic evidence that demonstrates the transformations required are even possible?

    How can we test something that is unrepeatable, takes eons of time and requires magical mystery mutations?

    Why don't you guys apply your "skepticism" equally?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joe G:
    "So what do you have- anything?"

    Whether as "Joe G" or your sock, "ID Guy" I have learned I would be wasting my time replying to you.

    However, for the benefit of those in this blog, here is a link of what your idea of a "level playing field" is.

    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/10/level-playing-field_14.html

    For all I know, Cornelius Hunter's idea of a level playing field is also just throwing stones at an enemy of his own definition.

    If that's the case, I won't be sticking around for long.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dave the "thought provoker/ stone thrower",

    No one cares if you leave.

    You don't have anything to add.

    All you do is throw stones.

    Thanks for linking to my blog. I don't think you have helped your case by doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thought Provoker:
    I have learned I would be wasting my time replying to you.

    Translation:

    Dave is just a mere stone thrower who cannot support anything.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Keiths,

    You are arguing a reductio ad absurdum. Please read a book by one of the experts I gave you and educate yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Steve,

    Please educate yourself on the meaning of reduction ad absurdum.

    Meanwhile, how about answering the question I posed to you earlier:
    It doesn't take an expert to recognize that the Galileo affair was a conflict between science and religion. You had religious officials attempting to suppress a scientific hypothesis for religious reasons. How is that not a conflict between science and religion?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Steve: Want to read about this from an actual expert? try Ronald Numbers (Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion)

    The blurb refers to the myth (defined as a false claim) that "the church imprisoned and tortured Galileo." That is certainly a myth. The threat of imprisonment and death existed, but his enormous stature made such an outcome unlikely.

    Ironically, it also refers to the modern myth of Intelligent Design.

    Steve: Heck, even Wikipedia (Conflict thesis)

    They quote Gary Ferngren, about the complex relationship between science and religion, saying, "If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule."

    ReplyDelete
  39. keiths:
    It doesn't take an expert to recognize that the Galileo affair was a conflict between science and religion.

    No it takes one ignorant of history to make such a claim.

    You had religious officials attempting to suppress a scientific hypothesis for religious reasons.

    Because the geocentric position was the scientific position of the time.

    It was the scientists who held the geocentric position who were the real issue.

    So how is that a conflict between science and religion?

    Please be specific. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Zachriel:
    Ironically, it also refers to the modern myth of Intelligent Design.

    Unfortunately for you the "modern myth of Intelligent Design" refers to the straw man you and your ilk have erected.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Joe G: Because the geocentric position was the scientific position of the time.

    Papal Condemnation: We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;

    The crime was suspicion of heresy because he *believed* the Earth moves "contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures."

    ReplyDelete
  42. Zachriel and Keiths,

    Zachriel,

    If you read Numbers (he has more than one book, so his stuff is easy to find) you will learn about something called the White-Draper thesis. This is where the idea of conflict you are espousing came from. Please read his books, not just the amazon blurb. The same goes for Ferngren who also wrote an excellent book about the conflict thesis. If you read his books you will see what he meant.

    Keiths,

    You have reduced the Galileo affair to absurdity in the classic White-Draper sense. But you have no expertise in this area so you can't tell. Please educate yourself about this area of history.

    Both of you,

    My whole point is that you are out of your field and are asserting ideas historians long ago abandoned to the trash can. Is it really that hard to accept?

    Until you actually read the history behind these claims there is no point talking to you about them.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Steve,

    I notice that you have avoided my question again, preferring to wrap yourself in the mantle of "expertise".

    Please read the papal condemnation quoted by Zachriel above, in which Galileo's scientific views are labeled "heresy" by the Church. Then explain to us, using your considerable expertise, how this does not constitute a conflict between science and religion.

    Please present an actual argument. Saying "you're not experts!" doesn't cut it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Steve:Both of you,

    My whole point is that you are out of your field and are asserting ideas historians long ago abandoned to the trash can.


    Steve,

    If you read the thread, you'll see that Zachriel and I are not espousing the White-Draper thesis. We are simply pointing out that the Galileo affair was an instance of conflict between science and religion. Cornelius Hunter acknowledges this. Ferngren affirms it. The papal condemnation makes it obvious. Is it really that hard for you to accept?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Steve: This is where the idea of conflict you are espousing came from.

    The idea comes from reading the Papal Condemnation. We're not discussing the Draper-White thesis, that conflict between science and religion is inevitable, or attempting an overgeneralization concerning the relationship of science and religion, or even that politics was not a factor in the Trial of Galileo. Rather, the question is whether the Trial of Galileo is an instance of conflict between science and religion.

    And it appears you hold a position for which you can't muster an argument. Indeed, you seem to be arguing for something not at issue.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Steve,

    One of my key goals in commenting on blogs is to provoke independent thinking, especially in myself (i.e. Thought Provoker).

    It would be an antithesis to let authoritative figures or a consensus of opinion do my thinking for me. Sure, I will read and consider other people's evidence and logic, but it has to make sense to the one person I know exists, me.

    I think, therefore I am.

    It makes sense to me that religion and science are NOT inherently in conflict. They could and should be considered separate magisteria. Also was Gould's position...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria


    However, in the practical application there is an inevitable conflict via the corrupting influence of power; the power to create political reality.

    This power exists because most (if not all) people can be manipulated by others.

    Steve, are you going to try and tell me I need to defer to experts to realize organized religion is applying its influence (i.e. power) to curtail scientific research in stem cells and human cloning?

    Believe it or not, I can even understand how independent thinking people can argue the Climate Change issue is an example of science running amok. Scientists may be providing accurate information, but that doesn't give them the right to dictate global policy.

    Unless I am missing something, I think we are generally agreed on the facts of the Galileo affair. Galileo did not have uncontroversial proof for his heliocentric hypothesis; therefore, the religious charge of heresy was used for the purpose of creating a political reality consistent with the desires of the Catholic Church.

    I suggest this is old news. Do you have a counter argument other than suggesting I let a group of experts do my thinking for me?

    ReplyDelete
  47. If anyone would rather watch a seminar by Numbers, instead of buying his book, check here:

    http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Lectures_old.php

    There are a number of good lectures on that site.

    My thoughts on Numbers from the two or three lectures of his that I've seen, is that he is pretty even-handed. He discussed the development of the science-religion conflict as a late-developing narrative. He discusses how Galileo's politics contributed to the issue.

    However, I don't know how one could ever deny that Galileo was accused of heresy for a scientific hypothesis, that that hypothesis was banned, and several Popes wrote letters confirming this. Numbers might argue that latter historians inflated the circumstances-but at the core, is there not conflict?

    Moreover, Numbers seems to suggest that there is a lively science-religion conflict today. He mocks the oft-repeated notion that there was anything special about Christianity that led to the development of science. For a historian, he also takes a lot of shots at modern creationism, and its spread outside the US. So perhaps where White and Draper fostering conflict from the scientific side, we see consistent rabble-rousing from the creationist side today.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Oh, Numbers also vigorously dislikes ID:

    "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action."

    http://www.jci.org/articles/view/28449/version/1

    Contents:
    "The “teach the controversy” hoax."
    "The “just a theory” hoax"
    "The “persecuted scientist against the establishment” hoax."
    "Why ID is a threat to science"

    It seems he dislikes the interjection of false narratives on both sides.

    Interesting that a balanced historian who found the Church to be relatively non-threatening to Galileo finds ID to be threatening to science.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Roman Catholic Church is a religious institution. {What keiths said.}

    I'm not about to make up my mind about all "religion" or religions based on what a religious institution did in the sixteenth century. Nor would I conclude because a religious institution was or is wrong that scientific institutions must always be right and religious institution always wrong or that they must always be in conflict.

    History shows that scientific institutions in any given culture can be wrong and religious institutions correct, for example:
    The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populance as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations.
    (The German Churches Under
    Hitler: Backround, Struggle, and Epilogue
    by Ernst Helmreich
    (Detriot: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) :303)


    mynym: In this case, do Galileo's interactions with the Aristotleans actually support a conflict with "religion" and progress?

    Galileo was prosecuted, condemned and punished by the Inquisition.

    And that leads to no conclusion about Buddhist monks who establish an institution based on religion and its relationship to or any conflict with science. It says something about Catholicism or the relationship between a religious institution in the sixteenth century and the scientia/knowledge of their day, it says nothing of all religion and science.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Would you agree coercing children in government run schools to pledge allegiance to "one nation, under God" is a violation of the Establishment Clause?

    Theism is not a sectarian religion and any doctrine that makes the Declaration and Constitution themselves "unconstitutional" is obviously based on ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  51. mynym,

    All Zachriel and I have claimed is that the Galileo affair is an instance of conflict between science and religion.

    Do you disagree? If so, please justify your answer. If not, then who are you arguing with?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Numbers might argue that latter historians inflated the circumstances-but at the core, is there not conflict?

    Of course there was but if it is illustrative of an inherent conflict between Catholicism and science then one wonders why history is full of examples of successful Catholic scientists (including Galileo). I'm not Catholic but it would be an interesting question to compare progress in science in cultures of established atheism, materialism and naturalism (the Communists, Nazis, etc.) with progress in science among Catholics.

    The irony of the ignorance of the bigots who promote the warfare meme is that the idea of "evolution" itself would never have come about without the support of religion.

    E.g.(Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought
    by David N. Livingstone)

    Many would even be called "fundamentalists" or creationists by orthodox Darwinists, e.g.:
    The most notable evolutionist contributor to The Fundamentals was George Frederick Wright, a renowned glacial geologist and professor of the harmony of science and revelation in Oberlin College. Wright had been a Darwinian for more than forty years when The Fundamentals appeared. In the mid-1870s he joined with Darwin’s most prominent American supporter, Asa Gray, in publishing a collection of Gray’s essays on Darwinism and natural theology.
    (The Post-Darwinian Controversies
    by James Moore :72-73)


    The conflict and warfare propaganda is actually subservient to an ideology of progress, so any religious institution or religious person who supports it will not be portrayed as a primitive barrier to progress.

    ReplyDelete
  53. All Zachriel and I have claimed is that the Galileo affair is an instance of conflict between science and religion.

    And all I have claimed is that the notion of conflict is complex even in relatively clear instances such as that and that it is not one example among many because conflict between "religion" and science is not widespread.

    Do you disagree? If so, please justify your answer. If not, then who are you arguing with?

    Why would you think that I disagree that it is an example of conflict between a sixteenth century religious institution and sixteenth century science?

    I've merely been arguing against a general mythology of progress that is very common. I've always wanted to ask the imbeciles that actually believe such a mythology why reality and the actual relationship between science and religion seems so complex yet their beliefs about "evolution" and so on all seem to fit together so perfectly by some happy happenstance. If you happen to come across an imbecile of that sort then point them in my direction.

    ReplyDelete
  54. nynym:
    "Theism is not a sectarian religion and any doctrine that makes the Declaration and Constitution themselves "unconstitutional" is obviously based on ignorance."

    Do you know when the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance?

    I will give you a hint "McCarthy era and the Red scare".

    How, pray tell, would the constitution be "unconstitutional" under a doctrine which remedies an errant congressional action?

    As for the Declaration of Independence, it predated the constitution. Besides, our government is made up of fallible humans. They can and have violated written laws, often with the best of intentions. However, having a good intention and getting away with it doesn't change the fact a violation is a violation.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Robert:


    ==================
    Oh, Numbers also vigorously dislikes ID:

    "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action."

    http://www.jci.org/articles/view/28449/version/1

    Contents:
    "The “teach the controversy” hoax."
    "The “just a theory” hoax"
    "The “persecuted scientist against the establishment” hoax."
    "Why ID is a threat to science"

    It seems he dislikes the interjection of false narratives on both sides.

    Interesting that a balanced historian who found the Church to be relatively non-threatening to Galileo finds ID to be threatening to science.
    ===================

    Good points Robert. Regarding that paper though, let's see why the blackballing is a hoax. Here's what they say:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The “persecuted scientist against the establishment” hoax. Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document, a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So there you have it. Straight from inquisition itself, there is no blackballing. It's all just a big hoax.

    The fact that evolutionists would create and propagate such lies (in a journal paper no less), for other evolutionists to read and nod their heads, is telling.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "So there you have it. Straight from inquisition itself, there is no blackballing. It's all just a big hoax."

    More precisely, the argument is that there is no, nor ever has been, any scientific ID community to actually blackball.

    Regardless of the merits of that one paragraph of an extensive paper that makes devastating points against ID, my argument stands.

    That is, historians of science who go so far as to advocate your position on Galileo (religion not impinging on science in that case) find ID a dangerous incursion of religious doctrine into science.

    Isn't that telling?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Robert:

    "Isn't that telling?"

    Yes, it is telling, I agree.

    What is also telling are the lies they tell themselves about no blackballing (the Pubmed search argument is self-serving). In fact, they are simply creating and propagating lies.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Galileo was persecuted by Orthodoxy. An abuse of Civil Power, similar to Scopes and Dover.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Zachriel and KeithS-

    Are you that dishonest that you have to try to rewrite history?

    Are you that ignorant- willfully so seeing I have provided a reference- that the geocentric position was the scientific position of Galileo's time?

    What is wrong with you?

    ReplyDelete
  60. keiths:
    All Zachriel and I have claimed is that the Galileo affair is an instance of conflict between science and religion.

    And history proves that you are wrong.

    The geocentric position was the scientific position at the time.

    And your ignorance cannot change that historical fact.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Silly Joe. Do you even bother to read the sources you cite?

    Follow your second link and you'll find this statement:

    As new observations poured in, evidence grew supporting a Copernican view. The Roman Catholic Church leadership looked like fools, opening a wedge between science and religion that has increasingly widened to today.

    A "wedge between science an religion"? Sort of sounds like a conflict, doesn't it, Joe?

    Oops.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Do you know when the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance?

    I will give you a hint "McCarthy era and the Red scare".


    Shield bashing against your favorite enemies TP? Who would have thought?!

    How, pray tell, would the constitution be "unconstitutional" under a doctrine which remedies an errant congressional action?

    Because writing things like "In the year of our Lord..." would be unconstitutional if a statement like "under God" are. Therefore the Constitution itself would be "unconstitutional" if we allow for a supposed principle that apparently has more to do with ideological "shield bashing" of your own sort (i.e. straight out of the supposedly provocative yet surprisingly banal 60s) than with what the Constitution actually says.

    As for the Declaration of Independence, it predated the constitution. Besides, our government is made up of fallible humans.

    Exactly, so why play pretend? But since you did play pretend about caring about what they meant for a moment there it's worth pointing out that they and everyone else viewed the Declaration as the preamble to the Constitution. Indeed, the Constitution was and is merely a means to the ends laid out in the Declaration, ends which have an inalienable and unchanging foundation in the Creator.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The fact that evolutionists would create and propagate such lies (in a journal paper no less), for other evolutionists to read and nod their heads, is telling.

    Mendacity leads to a contradiction, many will even argue on the one hand "ID creationism" should be censored from scientific discussions while on the other act as if it has not been censored. Often the same people who argue that ID should be censored also cite the consensus of established scientia/knowledge as if it arose based on freedom of thought within the scientific community.

    You can't have it both ways, if ID should be censored from scientific discussions then a lack of discussion of it means little.

    For those that argue that "Expelled" is all just a myth thanks to their ideology or ignorance I would simply note that many openly argue that "ID creationism"* should be censored, so it would be no surprise that there are examples of censorship. Ironically if proponents of censorship actually believed in their principles they wouldn't try to deny that it takes place.

    *Definitions vary, generally if you support a mythology of progress of some sort ("evolution") then you can even make theological arguments in support of it without fear of censor. It's only if you're not a true believer in progress that you should be expelled from scientific discussions. (Science, after all, inevitably leads to progress!)

    E.g.
    ....many educators have stated in print that they feel that it is irresponsible for a university to grant a creationist a Ph.D. degree. Flacks, openly concludes that:
    “‘It is a pathetic commentary on our universities that grant doctorate degrees … without fully determining a candidate’s true understanding of universal knowledge and logic … The alleged concept of “scientific” creationism is not only an illogical contradiction in terminology but an absurd fiction.”
    Thus, he concludes, creationists should not be awarded advanced degrees. The reason for this discrimination, many of its proponents claim, is not concern over religion, but competency.

    http://creation.com/contemporary-suppression-of-the-theistic-worldview#f65

    You have to laugh at evolutionists calling for scientific competency. They probably need to take a look at the competency of biologists because every one I've ever talked to has been an imbecile merely following the Herd. Some have even shown such ignorance that they'll cite Haeckel's forged embryos approvingly. This may not be their fault given that they've been in textbooks for over a century but it calls into question their training and competence.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Silly Keith-

    You can quote-mine all you want but all you are doing is playing the fool.

    Yes they looked like fools for putting their "money" on the wrong horse!

    They bet on Ptolemy/ Aristotle because that is what the scientists had sold them on.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Keith and Zachriel-

    Let's just get down to it:

    Was the geocentric position always based on the Bible?

    Or

    Was the geocentric position a scientific position?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hi mynym,

    More hints...

    What were the Articles of Confederation?

    What do the letters AD stand for in "2010 AD"?

    Does the first amendment prohibit respecting "a religion" or "religion"?

    see you around

    ReplyDelete
  67. mynym,

    Responding to or trying to have a discussion with thought provoker is a waste of time.

    But it is your time and you can do with it as you please.

    I am just letting you know- as you have seen it is obvious that he cannot stay on topic. That should tell you quite a bit right there...

    ReplyDelete
  68. ID Guy asserts:

    Responding to or trying to have a discussion with thought provoker is a waste of time.

    Richer irony is hard to imagine!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hi Alan,

    Thanks for the heads up. If you hadn't emphasized it, I would have missed it.

    It was definitely good for a smile.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hi Alan,

    Thanks for showing up to fart.

    That is about all you are good for- that and to laugh at.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I beg to differ from all theories. I'll show you!

    http://impshum.co.uk/?p=134

    x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quickly this site will indisputably be famous among all blogging people, because of its fastidious articles or reviews.church audio equipment

      Delete
  72. I agree. You have made the nice blogs with the great info in the contents.american cash loans

    ReplyDelete
  73. This blog is absolutely useful; I love the piece of informative writing.
    direct payday lenders

    ReplyDelete
  74. You have discusses incredible points that sounds good, keep up the great work.
    auto insuarnce comparison

    ReplyDelete
  75. This post is worth for me, this is the great source of great information. insurance rates

    ReplyDelete
  76. These are truly amongst the wonderful informative blogs.orogold

    ReplyDelete
  77. This is quite fascinating blog; the stuff has really allured me. Thanks a lot ENGINE REPAIR TROY

    ReplyDelete
  78. Great information, thanks a lot for this informative blog. Folsom auto repair

    ReplyDelete
  79. You have really discussed several good points here. I did a little search on your website and got that majority of the people are agree with your blog. Cary electricians

    ReplyDelete
  80. Excellent blog here. It’s out-of-the-way quality writing. If truth be told I appreciate the people like you! Take care Charlotte landscaping

    ReplyDelete
  81. Greetings! Very supportive opinion on this article! This is the modest changes which make the greatest changes. A big Thanks for sharing this! ac repair Sierra Vista

    ReplyDelete
  82. These are the great blogs; I assure you that I really enjoyed a lot in reading.online payday loans

    ReplyDelete
  83. Oh guys you have really done the nice job, Thanks for the splendid post…… Auto repair in Overland Park

    ReplyDelete
  84. Oh yes!! This was the thing I was searching for, pretty great…. kitchen remodel showroom Moore

    ReplyDelete
  85. This is quite impulsive post, I liked the way you write and explain all the things clearly. Thanks triton tank

    ReplyDelete
  86. Really thought provoking post! Quite interesting things and have enjoyed immeasurably. Thanks sigelei 150w tc box mod

    ReplyDelete
  87. This text is really worth everyone’s concentration. It sounds really go0o0d. Chino Hills Auto Pros

    ReplyDelete
  88. Thanks for the effort, keep up the good work Great work, the thoughts you state are truly awesome. I expect you will write several more posts. pediatric dentist in Jupiter

    ReplyDelete
  89. "The religious are the firsts that not belief in God, thus the Inquisition, thus they abuse of the innocents, thus they mislead to the foolish and thus they buy to the folks (Galileo Galilei)"... IT´S TRUTH THAT RELIGION IS LIE

    ReplyDelete
  90. "The religious are the firsts that not belief in God, thus the Inquisition, thus they abuse of the innocents, thus they mislead to the foolish and thus they buy to the folks (Galileo Galilei)"... IT´S TRUTH THAT RELIGION IS LIE

    ReplyDelete
  91. Thanks for compiling such nicest information in your blogs. Articles are very informative and hope again I’ll find more like that.Businessman

    ReplyDelete
  92. Your blog! What should I say in its praise… relevant, lastly something which surely helped me? Thanks car insurance quotes

    ReplyDelete
  93. Nice efforts guys, your work is truly appreciative. Thanks a lot for this payday loan

    ReplyDelete
  94. The stuff in this blog is in not only incredible but also providing the great knowledge to the people. niche profit full control

    ReplyDelete
  95. Superb way of explaining, and great blog to get wonderful information. car insurance rates

    ReplyDelete
  96. ...interstellar travel (astronomy in schools)... It´s truth that religion is lie...no more "holy" things. Have to eradicate the lie that is religion from schools and put, finally, compulsory the truth which is the Astronomy from elementary school, so the good people of the Peoples of the Earth, once and for all free from the religious yoke, begin to rise their eyes at the nocturnal sky to contemplate the awesome spectacle of the Universe...then, goodbye religion and its lies. But...who will be able to do that?, the Evil Empire: religion, armies, monarchies and politicians...they unable are, of course. We have to do it, because the World is not to be so, the World is like we do it...religion out from the schools!...(a Planetary Convention to create a New Humanism with dignified selected basic rules for necessay moral education of Human Being, and to select the true beginning of Humankin´s History...no more religious lying "2,015 a.c.". New Humanism (wheat)...religion (darnel)). FUTURE NEW HUMANISM AND ASTRONOMY WELLCOME TO SCHOOLS. Come on...it´s time.

    ReplyDelete
  97. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Good quality info. Lucky to me I came to your website not on purpose, but now I have bookmarked it. compare auto insurance quotes

    ReplyDelete
  99. Finicky post! I am too surprised to see this blog; I want to get more information can you please add more things? payday loans online

    ReplyDelete
  100. that "why Galileo was wrong?", is a miserable ask. Galileo was damned by the miserables Inquisition religious, pontifices, etc, to remain inside his home for the rest of his life and without go out. "The religious are the firsts that not belief in God, thus the Inquisition, thus they abuse of the innocents, thus they mislead to the foolish, and thus they buy to the folks (Galileo Galilei)"...IT´S TRUTH THAT RELIGION IS LIE

    ReplyDelete
  101. I want more and more articles and blogs please post soon such informative information. New York City car accident lawyers

    ReplyDelete
  102. Extremely energetic blog, I loved that a lot because of attracting info. CallMD

    ReplyDelete
  103. Awesome work! That is quite appreciated. I hope you’ll get more success.forklift training

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hmmm informative post, what actually I was looking for! personal injury attorney NYC

    ReplyDelete
  105. Hey guys! I love your blog too much. I am waiting for more cool postings to read! Cheers… new york city motorcycle accident attorney

    ReplyDelete
  106. Please, will you really post some more things about the same issue; I am actually a great fan of your blog... Paul Dansker Lawyer

    ReplyDelete
  107. Really it is quite edifying article just that I was on the lookout for. medical alert systems

    ReplyDelete
  108. The information you have given in the blog really marvelous and more interesting.
    multi payment payday loans

    ReplyDelete
  109. Hi, just essential you to know I have added your site to my Google bookmarks due to your latest and inspiring information. payday loans san diego 92104

    ReplyDelete
  110. I was on rummage around for the sites related to provide good information, so I came up to your site. insurance statistics most common type of vehicle involved in accidents statistics surveys insurance

    ReplyDelete
  111. Great post guys, you have done the nice job, and solved my problem I was in trouble. Thanks a lot. residential tint

    ReplyDelete