Pope Fires his Chief Astronomer

Originally posted by no1marauder
Maybe Israel would appoint a non-Jewish astronomer if they thought he was the most qualified astronomer. Ditto for Iran.

The "argument" (which is actually a monologue since Palynka refuses to give any reasons for his position) is why would the Vatican think that certain theological views are necessary to be an astronomer at the Vatican Obse ...[text shortened]... about as important as the dishwasher at the Vatican kitchen having the same theological views.

You're not getting my point. Maybe i'm not so good with this "prove the dot in the i" type debating when regarding religious higherarchy, but i'm sure If the the iatolha (spelled correctly ?) had an astronomer, he'd be shiite muslim, and the same goes for whoever the head fo the jewish faith is. . . prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Palynka
My answer to your original question is an obvious "yes" if they are representing the Catholic Church in their work.

Stop pretending you didn't read my previous answers.

And for about 20 posts you've ignored or begged the question of why? I've read your previous posts and they are not answers in any way, shape or form.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
You're not getting my point. Maybe i'm not so good with this "prove the dot in the i" type debating when regarding religious higherarchy, but i'm sure If the the iatolha (spelled correctly ?) had an astronomer, he'd be shiite muslim, and the same goes for whoever the head fo the jewish faith is. . . prove me wrong.

You made the assertion; present SOME evidence it is correct. And more importantly, provide some rationale for why it should be correct.

Originally posted by no1marauder
And for about 20 posts you've ignored or begged the question of why? I've read your previous posts and they are not answers in any way, shape or form.

I'll repeat it for you:

Because the Vatican wants to have a voice that officially represents the Church's views with some scientific credibility.

There.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You made the assertion; present SOME evidence it is correct. And more importantly, provide some rationale for why it should be correct.

This isn't the debates forum. I would guess that everyone working in the Vatican is a catholic, and the same would go for the Iatohla and muslims. . . Don't insult my intelligence by asking for proof, it doesn't suit you mate.


edit. you only have to look at the rhetoric coming from each camp to guess that they don't have a jewish barber. . . 😛

Originally posted by Palynka
I'll repeat it for you:

Because the Vatican wants to have a voice that officially represents the Church's views with some scientific credibility.

There.

Thanks for the stupid answer. I'll wait for one of a less idiotic nature. As I already stated, this isn't a PR job and I'm not aware that making PR statements is the primary focus of the job responsibilities of the chief astronomer for the Vatican Observatory (which, again, is not a job in the RCC).

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
This isn't the debates forum. I would guess that everyone working in the Vatican is a catholic, and the same would go for the Iatohla and muslims. . . Don't insult my intelligence by asking for proof, it doesn't suit you mate.


edit. you only have to look at the rhetoric coming from each camp to guess that they don't have a jewish barber. . . 😛

Get lost, moron.

Originally posted by Palynka

Because the Vatican wants to have a voice that officially represents the Church's views with some scientific credibility.

I'm afraid you can't have the best of both worlds.

A scientist can have no credibility if he is not free to report on what he observes or concludes based on his observations.

A scientist can have no credibility if his conclusions are artificially constrained by dogma.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Get lost, moron.

Obviously your debating skills are being used to the max. . .go back to the name calling forum.

Logic wins the day here my friend.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Obviously your debating skills are being used to the max. . .go back to the name calling forum.

Logic wins the day here my friend.

Ignoring posts that would require answers does not make you right huck.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Ignoring posts that would require answers does not make you right huck.

What posts did i ignore? All i did was not try and search for the vatican work roster to find out if there were any non-Catholics in there. . .and lets face it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that all the staff in the Vatican are Catholic for christ sake.


i also know that all imams are Muslim, but i don't have to provide a site link to prove it to marauder. . .some things are a given, yes?

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
What posts did i ignore? All i did was not try and search for the vatican work roster to find out if there were any non-Catholics in there. . .and lets face it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that all the staff in the Vatican are Catholic for christ sake.


i also know that all imams are Muslim, but i don't have to provide a site link to prove it to marauder. . .some things are a given, yes?

What you know is irrelevant in a debate. If you can't provide the evidence then it doesn't matter.

How far would you get in a court of law if when prosecuting you didn't present evidence but instead just told the jury that "everyone knows he did it."?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm afraid you can't have the best of both worlds.

A scientist can have no credibility if he is not free to report on what he observes or concludes based on his observations.

A scientist can have no credibility if his conclusions are artificially constrained by dogma.

Of course you can, this is the real world and many people are gullible.

Besides, credibility is not a binary variable.

Originally posted by Palynka
Besides, credibility is not a binary variable.

The Catholic Church's Chief Astronomer has less credibility than my dog because my dog doesn't have an agenda.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
The Catholic Church's Chief Astronomer has less credibility than my dog because my dog doesn't have an agenda.

Being childish doesn't become you.