I Think That I Chose My Parents.

by Englishman 124 Replies latest jw friends

  • dark clouds
    dark clouds

    It felt like a waste to see my post doubled up so i wrote up a little something to fill the space that was already occupied. . . .

    QUOTE: People knew the earth was spherical centuries, perhaps millennia, before anyone came up with anything resembling science

    Aristotle believed in a geocentric universe where the sun, moon and planets revolved around the earth in precise circular orbits. Discrepancies, such as planets appearing to change in size and their tendency to stop and reverse their courses (retrograde) were explained in the 2nd century AD, by Claudius Ptolemy. In his theory of "epicycles," each planet revolved around a point in its orbit around the earth, and it was actually the point rather than the planet, which was in a perfectly circular orbit around the earth.

    Ptolemy, an Egyptian living in Alexandria around 150 AD, gathered and organized the thoughts of the earlier thinkers. His findings were that the earth was a fixed, inert, immovable mass, located at the center of the universe, and all celestial bodies, including the sun and the fixed stars, revolved around it. It was a theory that appealed to human nature, because it fed man's ego.

    This view of the universe was not questioned until the beginning of the 16th century, when difficulties in moon phase calculations arose. The Julian calendar needed help deciding on which date Easter was to be commemorated. This brought about a call from the Roman Catholic Church for calendar reform. In 1514 a Polish mathematician named Nicklaus Kopernig received a papal request to look into the problem. Kopernig replied that nothing could be done concerning calendar reform until the relationship between the sun and the moon was resolved. Kopernig, today known as Copernicus, produced the first feasible model of a heliocentric (sun-centered) system. Over the next several decades, Copernicus’ model was considered fiction, though it was reliable in the prediction of the movements of celestial bodies.

    In 1530, Copernicus completed and gave to the world his great work De Revolutionibus, which stated that the earth rotated on its axis once daily and traveled around the sun once yearly. Up until this time the "accepted view" of the western world was in the Ptolemiac theory that the universe was a closed space bounded by a spherical envelope beyond which there was nothing. Copernicus died in 1543 and never witnessed the controversy he began. It went against all the philosophical and religious beliefs that had been held during those medieval times. An apostate one might say.

    Among those who admired the logic and the accuracy of the Copernican model but could not accept a theory that took such a departure from Aristotelian cosmology was a Dane named Tycho Brahe. In 1582 Brahe developed a compromise between Copernicus and Aristotle. In his model, the planets orbited the sun, but the sun and moon still circled a stationary earth. Thus, giving an explanation to the inconsistencies in planetary movement, yet remaining "legal" according to Aristotle and the church.

    Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered at the hands of the church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno called and raised Copernicus. He suggested, that space was boundless and that the sun along with its planets, were but one of many number of similar systems. He even proposed that there might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal and/or possibly superior to humans. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600.

    In 1609 Galileo heard of a "spy glass" which had been designed by a Dutch spectacle maker. He constructed several of his own designs based on the device. By January of 1610 Galileo had built about thirty-power telescopes and used them in several discoveries. He found previously unknown stars, four bodies orbiting Jupiter, mountains and craters on the moon and sun spots. This last discovery, led him to track the spots across the face of the sun, he concluded that the sun itself also rotated on an axis. In December 1610, Galileo watched through his telescope as Venus underwent a series of phases similar to those of the moon. This provided him with another piece of observational evidence in support of Copernicus and contradictory to Ptolemy’s epicycles.

    Mostly due to Galileo’s work in support of Copernicus, the Vatican, on recommendation from a group of assembled experts decreed on February 24, 1616, that Copernican ideas were not to be taught or defended. Mainly because Copernicus' ideas were found to be philosophically and formally heretical and erroneous in faith.

    Galileo obtained permission to publish a dialogue which discussed the two main philosophical systems of the universe, as approved by Pope Urban VIII in 1630. Soon after it was published in 1632, its sale was suspended and Galileo was ordered to stand trial by the Roman Inquisition. On June 22, 1633, under the threat of torture and death, he confessed to failure to comply with the decree of 1616, and was forced to renounce all belief in Copernican theories. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, which later was commuted to permanent house arrest due to his age and health. He died in 1642.

    The complete trial record was not released until 1870, and in 1984 a Papal commission admitted that the church had been in the wrong. Regardless of his lack of acceptance at the time, today Galileo’s influence is felt in all scientific fields because he discarded dogmatic metaphysical principles in favor of precise measurement and direct observation, which is the strongest foundation of the scientific method as we now know it. Furthermore, all of the sciences today rely on what is known as the calculus, which was originally developed by Isaac Newton. Years after inventing calculus, Newton said that in effect much of the work had already been done for him, mainly by Galileo Galilei.

    After such a winded statement most will understand the direction that this is heading, discoveries and acceptance take a very long time, what is the "mainstream view" is not always correct nor is the view of the church, always correct. Indeed it does take time for some theories to be proven, but it also takes the courage of a few to stand behind it.

    CHUCK
    of the X-files Class (the truth IS out there)

  • rem
    rem

    Esmeralda,

    I am secure enough in my own ideals not to have to defend them to you, or anyone else.

    I understand that and that is great. I think the benefit of discussing these things is not so much for ourselves, but for others who are lurking and want to learn something. I understand your health concerns as I've followed your posts for a long time now. Please understand that we are not (intentionally) trying to pick on anyone - we are just trying to have a discussion that will (hopefully) benefit someone. That someone doesn't neccessarily have to be the discussers, but I think we've all learned some things we hadn't known before this discussion started.

    To me, it's a good thing to share knowledge and I'm pretty confident that you feel the same way. Thanks for providing your point of view - it is appreciated (even from a cold, sterile, logical type like me). :)

    rem

  • unanswered
    unanswered

    to all doubters-i think some of you are missing the point of this thread. some of us have certain beliefs that you don't. this topic wasn't started to argue some of our beliefs, only to share them. i really have no idea why you have the need to tell us we are wrong. also i think like esmerelda in that i don't discount the possiblity that science could have an explaination for the things that have been talked about on this thread. i posted on this thread to share some of my experiences/thoughts. period.

    am i back at the kingdom hall? why is it so hard to be tolerent of others beliefs? it seems some here are having a hard time letting those of like opinion discuss a topic without having to try to beat it down. this dissapoints me. i'm not proving why i feel the way i do simply because that wasn't the reason i posted my thoughts. not every discussion here needs to be a debate, does it? if any of you doubters are vegetarians, do you go up to someone at the supermarket and lambast them for being meat eaters? it's not a great comparison, but i think you get what i mean. if someone on the board says something hurtful, tell them what you feel. if someone on the board brings up a topic for debate, debate it, but if someone shares an opinion, why try to discredit them? this kind of unasked for criticism will only bring negativity to a place almost all of us come for positivity. please take these thoughts into consideration, i know that probably most of you that criticized are nice people.:)

  • rem
    rem

    Unanswered,

    Was this a believers only thread? Geez - I think we are not communicating here. In the Kingdom Hall only one belief was allowed to the exclusion of all others. Is that what you want here? Only people who agree with you are allowed to post on this thread? That is the whole point to open discussion and free thought - we can talk about these things openly. You can't do that in a Kingdom Hall.

    This is a public discussion board. Usually people have different points of view - obviously mine is different than some of yours. Why should I not be allowed to voice my views? Do you just want posts that continually reaffirm your beliefs without any challenges? What kind of world is that? That is the Kingdom Hall, my friend.

    I don't remember hindering anyone else's posting priveleges. I was only pointing out my own opinions, known scientifc facts, and further references for others to look into. Is that not allowed? How, exactly is that like the Kingdom Hall?

    Anyway, I know this message probably looks like I'm ticked off - I'm not. I'm having a lot of fun with this thread. I just think that people are throwing accusations around that are unwarranted. It doesn't really bother me, but I don't have much going on at work today, so I figured I'd chime in a bit here.

    Thanks for lending your ear!

    rem

  • mommy
    mommy

    I have to say I am going to go if Englishman decides to throw a party
    Jan,
    I think the biggest problem I had with you coming into this thread was that you felt that since you read some books on this matter and that you came to a conclusion about it, this is your facts.
    Now I ask you again, science has been wrong in the past. People with hormonal(chemical) imbalances were thought to be demon possessed. Is it possible that the technology is not there yet that enables science to prove these feelings? Is it possible that there is some things that aren't explained yet?
    wendy

  • unanswered
    unanswered

    rem-i don't know why you think i am trying to say that everyone isn't welcome to express their views. i just don't know why other views have to be discredited. i have ABSOLUTELY no problem with you expressing yourself. i think if you had seen most of my posts since i first got here not long ago, it would be apparent to you that i have no wish to censor anyone. i think opinions can be expressed, however, without trodding all over the opposing view. did you see my posts? did i ever say that you or any with your opinion are wrong? when you read my posts-try to see the real motive behind it. i think it's obvious that i don't have a problem with your views, only how some presented them.-nate

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    Mommy:

    I think you've hit the nail on the head, here.

    While I'm one of those labelled "doubters" on this subject, I'm certainly not going to state categorically that these types of phenomena do not exist. I suspect other doubters will not as well.

    It is entirely possible that, at a future date, science will quantify these feelings etc. It is also entirly possible that science will disprove them. Until then, they will merely be an intriguing curiosity to me, not something that I will give any weight to in my daily decision making processes.

    If other people wish to, fine and dandy. I hope that they add success to you!

    Dogmatism is folly, in whichever direction it flows.

    And if Englishman throws a party, you definitely should go. He can introduce you to West-country scrumpy!

    Expatbrit

  • unanswered
    unanswered

    expat-just wanted to clarify that when i said "doubters", i didn't mean it to be negative.:) i happen to think a certain way, i'm not closed off to new ideas. i wouldn't want to get to the point where i was dogmatic about my views, and wasn't trying to with my post.:)-nate

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    Unanswered:

    Right-o, old chap!

    I'm probably a bit touchy about words like "doubters" right now. Can't think why that could be......

    Expatbrit

  • Esmeralda
    Esmeralda
    To me, it's a good thing to share knowledge and I'm pretty confident that you feel the same
    way. Thanks for providing your point of view - it is appreciated (even from a cold, sterile,
    logical type like me). :)

    You're right there, Rem. I have really enjoyed our exchanges in this thread. I don't think you're cold
    or 'sterile' at all.

    If you have followed my posts in the past then you know that I, like you, have a special place in my
    heart for the lurkers. I too think about those reading who don't post, and consider them when I write.

    All in all, it's been an interesting day :) I look forward to reading your posts in the future.

    All the best,
    Es

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit