The stars in the heavens - God promise to Abraham

On Aug 4, 7:19 am, Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:

There was no science until modern times.

That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.

The modern concept of science was invented by Francis Bacon, who
indeed would likely fit the category "Bible-believing Creationist" as
far as anyone knows.

But depending on how one defines a major branch of science, one might
have to consider pagan Greeks in the counting.

John Savard

On Aug 10, 12:27*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:19 am, Pastor Dave wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:54:39 -0600, Chris L Peterson
spake thusly:
There was no science until modern times.
That's not true, but most major branches of what
you call science were invented by Bible believing
Creationists.

The modern concept of science was invented by Francis Bacon, who
indeed would likely fit the category "Bible-believing Creationist" as
far as anyone knows.

But depending on how one defines a major branch of science, one might
have to consider pagan Greeks in the counting.

John Savard

Those who promote the 'scientific method' basically filter everything
through the Greeks in order to create an image of proto-scientists
which shade off into the emergence of empirical scientists in the late
17th century but even the Greeks themselves acknowledged methods and
insights that stretch way back into antiquity.I have no reason to
doubt Stecchini (one of your own) in this specific matter given his
respect for older traditions which found their way into the Greek view
of things -


"Eratosthenes was not the first to measure the circumference of the
Earth, but the first to argue, contrary to the opinion of Aristotle,
that the calculations about the circumference of the Earth could be
accepted as proven in terms of the new scientific style.

A series of ancient authors credits Eratosthenes as having introduced
the calculation of the degree as equal to 700 stadia, but there is not
a single writer who indicates that he based himself on an empirical
survey of the ground. Contemporary scholars exalt Eratosthenes as a
great scientist and as a pioneer in mathematical geography, but none
of the ancient writers who were acquainted with his works indicate
this. If Eratosthenes had been such an innovator, Ptolemy who
discusses at length the problem of the dimensions of the Earth in the
Prolegomena to his Geography would have said at least some words to
this effect. Theon of Smyrna and Proklos, who lived in Alexandria do
not make any reference to the alleged discovery of Eratosthenes in
their extensive commentaries on ancient mathematical science. Strabo,
who had before his eyes the writings of Eratosthenes and discusses
them at length, does not ascribe to Eratosthenes any specific
achievement in the field of empirical geodesy or of theoretical
geography. Strabo mentions repeatedly the figure of 700 stadia to the
degree, but justifies it only in these words: “We suppose as
Hipparchos, that the size of the Earth is 252,000 stadia, a figure
given also by Eratosthenes.” He would not have spoken in these terms
if Eratosthenes had provided a complete mathematical demonstration."

http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm

Stecchini was,of course,ostracised for his views that took into
account a wider and more complex historical and technical picture
than present day empiricists would have it.

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

For those in alt.bible,it is not arguing against the Greek
contribution to investigation of natural phenomena but rather the
limitations of restricting discoveries to individual Greeks as the
empiricist are in the habit of doing,it fits neatly in with their
trajectory of discoveries where they graft people like Newton into
astronomy as an intellectual addition to Copernicus and Kepler.As I
have a talent for spotting enormous differences in methodology
between Copernicus/Kepler on one side and Newton on the other and
subsequently the conclusions drawn,the reasons for promoting a limited
view of the history of discovery becomes more apparent in the worst
possible way.