Flat-Earthism vs. Round Earthism

[WinAce]

This is basically a repeat of what I did on another forum some time ago.

You godless communist evolutionist round-earthers will present your best arguments for a spherical globe and I'll promptly shoot them down with ad hoc rationalizations bizarre enough to make Kent Hovind blush.

The more serious purpose of a thread like this is to clearly demonstrate how any amount of overwhelming evidence can be more or less 'refuted' by appeals to ad hoc hypotheses, as long as a pre-existing belief makes such refutations obligatory. In other words, to show how pseudoscience can be used to support any position, no matter how utterly ludicrous.

[RufusAtticus]

If the earth isn't round how come globes are?

[Yog^sothoth]

Oh man rufus! You win!:thumb:

[WinAce]

Today @ 03:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58177#post58177)
RufusAtticus:If the earth isn't round how come globes are?

That's because the media, government, globe-making factories and other institutions are controlled by the round-earthers. Anyone who speaks out against their dogma is censored, fired and eventually lynched, while their children are sold off into slavery in third-world countries.

Scientific journals routinely refuse to accept papers brimming with scientific evidence for a flat earth like surface measurements of lakes done with rulers.

[Butters]

Of course the earth is flat the Bible says so! It is a flat round disk, covered by a solid dome. The sun and stars are set into this dome. God lives above this, and opens Windows to allow in the wind, rain, and hail. If we must take the creation story literally, then we must take it all literally!

[WinAce]

God uses Windows?! No wonder his divine plan crashed when an Apple product was introduced.

[wienerdog]

I realize you're trying to make a point, but I'd just like to point out that every educated person from the third century BC onward knew that the earth was round (Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians). Around 1830, Washington Irving wrote his story of Columbus where he made up the idea that he was trying to prove the earth is round (he was actually trying to find an alternate route to the East Indies). This led to the urban myth that the Bible teaches a flat earth (because of its references to the "ends of the earth" and such), which was used in the Science vs. Religion war.

Now this next part might appeal to you: some Christians decided to defend their faith by defending a flat earth as the biblical position. They came up with all kinds of scientific "proofs" defending their views (it was called "zetetic astronomy"). Basically, they allowed non-Christian elements of society to dictate the tenets of their own faith to them.

[Woman]

WinAce:

Scientific journals routinely refuse to accept papers brimming with scientific evidence for a flat earth like surface measurements of lakes done with rulers.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Hee hee hee hee hee

:rofl:

Good one!

weinerdog:

This led to the urban myth that the Bible teaches a flat earth (because of its references to the "ends of the earth" and such), which was used in the Science vs. Religion war.

Well, for goodness sakes, why bother being offended by the assumption that the Bible teaches a flat earth? Lots of people believed that. I'd use my time trying to explain why it teaches that donkeys and snakes talk and demons routinely inhabit people making them pitch fits.

[WinAce]

Thanks, but I'm well aware of the history of flat-earthism. The reason I chose this topic is because creationism is the almost perfect parallel to it - even the simplest observations from the fossil record refute the YEC version (but I digress).

If you have any evidence for a round earth you want me to refute, please post it :brow:

[Socratism]

Today @ 08:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58457#post58457)
WinAce:

Thanks, but I'm well aware of the history of flat-earthism. The reason I chose this topic is because creationism is the almost perfect parallel to it - even the simplest observations from the fossil record refute the YEC version (but I digress).

If you have any evidence for a round earth you want me to refute, please post it :brow:

Since evolutionists can't come up with any arguments for evolution that Socrates is not able to easily demolish, the next best thing is to change the subject to something that they can defend scientifically.

This is just another variation of the false claim that all scientists believe in evolution.

Why do evolutionists run away from defending evolution when they are losing the scientific argument?

Hint: they are not only wrong but they are also _______.

Fill in the blank so I will not be accused of name calling.

[WinAce]

The more relevant question in this topic is: why do YECs refuse to grant any bizarre hypothesis aside from their own the right to use any amount of ad hoc rationalizations for contradictory data required to make it seemingly fit reality? ;)

I'm betting that no matter the depths of stupidity to which this topic descends, it still won't involve ad hoc rationalizations as awful as those invoked to save the flood from the fossil record. :)

[Socrates]

Maybe WinAce needs to demonstrate that the Bible teaches a flat earth instead of making stupid assertions. Try refuting Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat? (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html).

And as Wienerdog has pointed out, the Church NEVER taught a flat earth -- there was only a handful of obscure writers who ever taught such a thing, while major authors like Augustine, the Venerable Bede and Thomas Aquinas all affirmed the sphericity of the Earth. It would be too much for mythmakers like Butters and Winace to read Dr Russell's book, but maybe his summary The Myth of the Flat Earth (http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
) might be digestible even for them.

Finally, proof's of a round Earth are in the area of OBSERVATIONAL/operational science in the PRESENT, while evolution from goo to you via the zoo is an inference about the unobservable PAST.

[WinAce]

Socrates really needs to either (A) get a life and can the insults (B) learn to read and check mypost above (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=58457#post58457), where I explained this topic had nothing to do with Biblical flat-earthism or (C) actually offer some evidence for his cherished round-earth dogma instead of throwing out his customary http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/red_herring.jpg

Failing that, an exposition of how a round earth isn't any less an inferrence from the data available at present than evolution is an inference from data available at present would be good. Of course, that might actually require defining the non-existent differences between "operational science" and "origins science", which both consist of gathering data, making hypotheses and attempting to falsify them with new data they predict.

[Woman]

OK

A guy with a telescope claims that all the planets are round. Why would earth be any different?

:dufus:

[WinAce]

First of all, that planets are round involves several dubious assumptions:

(1) that heavenly bodies aren't circular flat discs that we can see from earth, as opposed to real spherical thigns
(2) that our telescopes can reliably decipher their shape at a humongous distance, where no one's been to the moons of Jupiter, for example
(3) that no phenomenon exists that can account for their being flat but looking round.

Unless all these assumptions are justified, your puny science is no match for the cold, hard light of reality. Earthballism is as stupid as goo-to-you evolution. (See, I can make stupid yet catchy slogans too :brow: )

But supposing the planets in our solar system and beyond are spherical, what does that tell us of the earth itself? Godless communist evolutionist round-earthers would have you think our planet is no more special than a mere asteroid or gas giant! No wonder our kids are shooting up schools after being fed this nonsense all their lives.

[QED]

(1) that heavenly bodies aren't circular flat discs that we can see from earth, as opposed to real spherical thigns
(2) that our telescopes can reliably decipher their shape at a humongous distance, where no one's been to the moons of Jupiter, for example
(3) that no phenomenon exists that can account for their being flat but looking round.

WinAce, this is wonderful, but I would like to point out that some of these Earthballist Compromisers neglect the most powerful reason for not comparing "other planets" to earth. The Bible clearly says that these "other planets" were created to produce light for us at night, along with the "other stars." The earth, clearly isn't made to be a light in the sky. There can be no comparison between objects that were designed with such different purposes in mind.

These churchian Earthballist Compromisers ignore reliable eye-witness testimony from scripture for their misotheist atheistic God-reviling secular so-called "science."

[Solly]

If the world is flat, then why is it that during an eclipse of the moon, the disk always presents its aspect to the sun, causing a round shadow?

If the world is flat, why don't we fall off the edge?

If the world is flat, why can't we see to the horizon from the top of Mount Everest?

[Socrates]

Winace whinges:Socrates really needs to either (A) get a life and can the insults (B) learn to read and check mypost above, where I explained this topic had nothing to do with Biblical flat-earthism or (C) actually offer some evidence for his cherished round-earth dogma instead of throwing out his customary If WinAce wants to believe in a flat earth, that's his problem. Far be it from me to try to destroy his cherished belief or that of his buddy QED.

[Butters]

Just some quick objections


The Bible teaches that the Earth is a flat disk, covered by a solid bowl of sky, through which God opens doors and windows to allow rain, hail, and wind through. In the sky are small pinpoints of light, stars. This view of the cosmos was held by the Egyptians,
Mesopotamians, Summarians, Babylonians, and Hebrews. Their writings and descriptions of the Earth and the cosmos are almost identical. If you look at all their writings, you can see they all match, they are all describing the same thing in the same terms. In the view of History, anthropology, and archaeology, there is no question that these people all viewed the cosmos the same. All the descriptions fit, the same terms are used, and, in cultures without modern instruments, is actually quite logical. The only problem is,is that it's wrong. Well, that’s no problem for the Egyptians,
Mesopotamians, Summarians, Babylonians, but the Hebrew story is in the Bible, so we can't accept that the Bible is wrong, so we take a reading that fits perfectly with all the evidence we have, and try to shoehorn it to fit with our modern understanding of the cosmos, unfortunately, this does not work, except in the minds of the desperate believer Here is a challenge. If the Bible teaches that the Earth is round, show me any records that the Hebrews believed this prior to the Greeks. Surely, this concept would have been revolutionary, show me the Hebrew writings supporting their position. Show me records of Egyptians,
Mesopotamians, Summarians,or Babylonians contesting this world view. Actually they would have ridiculed the Hebrews for such a stance, as they would have. Show me their arguments of how life could exist upside down on the other side of a globe. (This is always the first argument against a round Earth.) Show me anything other than a tortured interpretations of scripture. The same scripture that has been used over and over IN SUPPORT OF a flat Earth.

Then answer me this. If God inspired the bible to show the true nature of the cosmos, why did he use the same words as the rest of the region used to describe a flat earth? Why use terns like "unmoving earth" "dome of the sky" "windows of heaven" etc., etc. These terms are all used by the other cultures to describe a flat earth. If we read all these texts in isolation, you couldn't even pick out which were from the Bible, and which were from another culture.

Now if the bible had said. The Earth is round, it orbits around the sun, which is just another star, seen close up, etc.etc., well, the Jews would have been laughed at. But with the advent of modern instruments, they would have been vindicated, and we would all be Christians now.


Also. just so there is no confusion,(As there was with the Hitler thread, reread it, I never claimed Hitler was a Christian!) I also accept that the Christian Church never claimed the earth was flat, only that the Bible does. The Christians that don,t accept a literal interpretation of the Bible are simply wrong, they were influanced by the Pagans, and reject scripture!

[Socratism]

Your hatchet job indicates to me that you don't know beans about the astronomical knowledge of the ancients.

It is the same kind of downgrading of past human intelligence that comes from an egotistical view of past civilizations.

[tgamble]

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58980#post58980)
Socrates:

If WinAce wants to believe in a flat earth, that's his problem. Far be it from me to try to destroy his cherished belief or that of his buddy QED.

You DO realize that this is a humourous thread and winace does not believe in a flat earth right?

[wienerdog]

The same scripture that has been used over and over IN SUPPORT OF a flat Earth.
Maybe you missed it, but this is simply false. Very few people in Christian history, five at most according to Russell, argued for a flat earth. Flat earth creationism was invented in the 19th century as a response to secular claims that science contradicted the Bible. For some reason, some people accepted the interpretation that non-Christians were imposing on the Bible to make it contradict science, and sought to defend it.

[WinAce]

Today @ 07:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58975#post58975)
Solly:

If the world is flat, then why is it that during an eclipse of the moon, the disk always presents its aspect to the sun, causing a round shadow?

Round disc = round shadow. Your point was?


If the world is flat, why don't we fall off the edge?

Do you actually think your god would be so incompetent as to make a flat disc with edges you could fall off of? Give the omnipotent guy some credit!

Wormholes strategically placed at the edges would be one way of solving the dilemma - light and objects falling over would simply be transported to the opposite edge and start over. This is implemented in older computer games like Asteroids where the ship can apparently fly off the right edge and reappear at the left. See Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace for a treatise on how wormholes can exist under General Relativity and Superstring Theory. Myriad other explanations for this non-evidence can be put forth.


If the world is flat, why can't we see to the horizon from the top of Mount Everest?

Pffft. The earth weighs a lot. Einstein's relativity predicted that gravity bends light. This was confirmed numerous times, such as when a solar eclipse bent light from surrounding stars a couple of decades ago.

All light from the horizon will thus appear to be going downwards.

Wow... this is the best evidence for a round earth you can muster??

And Socrates is funny.

[bobazilla]

Why are the seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres opposite from each other. Can only happen on a globe. If the earth were flat the seasons would match.

[Woman]

Woman:

A guy with a telescope claims that all the planets are round. Why would earth be any different?

WinAce:

First of all, that planets are round involves several dubious assumptions:

(1) that heavenly bodies aren't circular flat discs that we can see from earth, as opposed to real spherical thigns
(2) that our telescopes can reliably decipher their shape at a humongous distance, where no one's been to the moons of Jupiter, for example
(3) that no phenomenon exists that can account for their being flat but looking round.

Unless all these assumptions are justified, your puny science is no match for the cold, hard light of reality. Earthballism is as stupid as goo-to-you evolution. (See, I can make stupid yet catchy slogans too )

But supposing the planets in our solar system and beyond are spherical, what does that tell us of the earth itself? Godless communist evolutionist round-earthers would have you think our planet is no more special than a mere asteroid or gas giant! No wonder our kids are shooting up schools after being fed this nonsense all their lives.

*stiffling giggles and striving mightily to paste a serious expression on my face*

(ahem) Well, I am impressed. Your highly mathmatical and specific references to distance such as "humongous" certainly take the wind out of my sails.

Also, I had forgotten that we haven't actually been to Jupiter's neighborhood. :argh:

I see that Earthballism probably is something I have been duped into believing, lo, these many years. How can I ever express my gratitude to you for freeing my mind?

:duh:

[WinAce]

Today @ 03:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59325#post59325)
bobazilla:

Why are the seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres opposite from each other. Can only happen on a globe. If the earth were flat the seasons would match.

That relies on several hidden assumptions as well:

(1) different sections of the flat earth have the same atmosphere
(2) the flat earth doesn't tilt from side to side with the seasons, producing more distance to the sun in one side than another and then the reverse
(3) the sunlight reaching parts of the earth isn't affected by the magnetic field

Should any of these fail, "seasonal" difference can be attributed to totally different phenomena than the earth being round.

[Butters]

"Your hatchet job indicates to me that you don't know beans about the astronomical knowledge of the ancients.

It is the same kind of downgrading of past human intelligence that comes from an egotistical view of past civilizations."


This is the best argument anyone could come up with?

Although I told myself I was going to ignore you bud, I tell you what, Here's your chance. Educate me on the astronomical knowledge of ancient civilizations.

You can begin by showing me that the civilizations I mentioned did NOT believe in a flat Earth.

Thanks.

[Butters]

BTW, This site has a good picture of what the Bible says the Earth looks like. It may seem strange at first that this is exactly how the surrounding cultures viewed it, until you realize that the O.T. was written after the exile, and the Jews borrowed extensively from there former captors and neighbors when writing it.

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/crescent/503/genesis.htm

[Woman]

Socratism:

Your hatchet job indicates to me that you don't know beans about the astronomical knowledge of the ancients.

*getting comfortable*

OK

'splain!

We're all ears! Just what DID the ancients know?

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59259#post59259)
wienerdog:

Very few people in Christian history, five at most according to Russell, argued for a flat earth.

Yes, but what about people in Ancient Hebrew History? As I read the O.T. it seems to me that at least at sometimes the culture saw the world as flat and covered by a solid dome.

[Butters]

Yet, it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the 'official Christian viewpoint' http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

This is another thing that always gets me. If the "church" does something wrong, then this is "just" the "church" and their leaders.

If Christians in general do something wrong, then it's "that's not a teaching of the "church"!


Now here is an article that is sure to piss off both atheist and Christian! Must read!

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch3.html

[Socrates]

Butterball:Yet, it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the 'official Christian viewpoint' http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
It was the 19th anti-Christian propagandists like Draper and White who concocted this "warfare between science and Christendom" rubbish who insinuated that these obscure writers represented the Church. However Augustine, the Venerable Bede and Thomas Aquinas, who affirmed a round earth, are far more highly regarded than Cosmas Indicopleustes or Lactantius. So yes, the flat-earth teachings of the latter WERE ignored by the Church, so it's absurd to claim they were TYPICAL.This is another thing that always gets me. If the "church" does something wrong, then this is "just" the "church" and their leaders.Of course, I am a Protestant, and judge the Church by the Bible. And as I've shown, the "church" did NOT get it wrong in this area.If Christians in general do something wrong, then it's "that's not a teaching of the "church"!And as shown, this is correct. Although I am a Protestant, I object to false accusations against the Catholic Church.

[tgamble]

It was the 19th anti-Christian propagandists like Draper and White who concocted this "warfare between science and Christendom" rubbish who insinuated that these obscure writers represented the Church.

That warfare is still going on in case you hadn't noticed.

[Butters]

"So yes, the flat-earth teachings of the latter WERE ignored by the Church, so it's absurd to claim they were TYPICAL."

Sock,

I never made this claim, in fact, it really doesn't interest me at all what the church believes. The O.T. shows the earth is flat, that should be good enough for you to believe it.

[Socrates]

Butterball wrote:I never made this claim, in fact, it really doesn't interest me at all what the church believes. The O.T. shows the earth is flat, that should be good enough for you to believe it.Another ipse dixit from the non-scholar. And your refutation of Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat? (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html) is, what?

[Solly]

Today @ 07:01 AM post located here
Solly: If the world is flat, then why is it that during an eclipse of the moon, the disk always presents its aspect to the sun, causing a round shadow? ”

Winace: Round disc = round shadow. Your point was?

--The disk's aspect is always towards the sun, so that the shadow on the moon is round. However, why is there a shadow on the moon, since the moon can't be seen "behind" the disk but above it, so there can't be a shadow. Has godless modern science concocted the idea of a shadow cone that intersects the moon causing an eclipse?

Winace: Do you actually think your god would be so incompetent as to make a flat disc with edges you could fall off of? Give the omnipotent guy some credit!

Oh, you mean like safety rails? :lol: Btw, what does the world rest upon, or is it free floating in space?

Solly: Why can't we see the horizon from Mt Everest?

Winace: The earth weighs a lot. Einstein's relativity predicted that gravity bends light. This was confirmed numerous times, such as when a solar eclipse bent light from surrounding stars a couple of decades ago. All light from the horizon will thus appear to be going downwards.

Do you have the math for that? Surely if light can be bent that much in the local area, then we must be living on a neutron star, and therefore in a 2d world. And why are you relying on that godless communist Einstein?

Sorry, but you haven't convinced me to give up what common sense tells me in favour of your ultra-literalistic pov which leaves little room for metaphor and poetry.

[Butters]

(post#35 )

Butterball wrote:
I never made this claim, in fact, it really doesn't interest me at all what the church believes. The O.T. shows the earth is flat, that should be good enough for you to believe it.
Another ipse dixit from the non-scholar. And your refutation of Does the Bible teach that the Earth is flat? is, what?


Oh, you mean that peice by the non-scholar, Holding? There's not much there to refute, As usual, Holding basicly decides what he wants words to mean, and translates them his way.

I would rather someone give me proof that the Hebrews believed in a round Earth, and show me how their cosmology differed from their neighbors

[WinAce]

Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60108#post60108)
Solly:

--The disk's aspect is always towards the sun, so that the shadow on the moon is round. However, why is there a shadow on the moon, since the moon can't be seen "behind" the disk but above it, so there can't be a shadow. Has godless modern science concocted the idea of a shadow cone that intersects the moon causing an eclipse?

You're referring to not the shape of the earth, but the fact that the shadow consistently appears round wherever the lunar eclipe occurs, which could conceivably be impossible on a flat one. However, you neglect to mention the fact that "shadow" is a nebulous concept and scientists only infer it from the darkness on the moon.

Basically, you take the materialistic assumption that the earth is round, use that to interpret the varying darkness on the moon (as opposed to admitting you don't really know what it is), then use that to prop up earthballism.

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/o_logic.jpg

Now, has anyone ever done a legitimate experiment, like making an earth-sized disc and conducting experiments to see if its shadow matches that during a lunar eclipse? Or is it simply an invalid extrapolation from microshadoing to macroshadoing?


Oh, you mean like safety rails? :lol: Btw, what does the world rest upon, or is it free floating in space?

Scientists generally believe it floats in space in orbit around the sun. And no, safety rails aren't quite up to the job - you can still fall over them. Wormholes are obviously the way to go.


Do you have the math for that? Surely if light can be bent that much in the local area, then we must be living on a neutron star, and therefore in a 2d world. And why are you relying on that godless communist Einstein?

2D = flat, so yes, we live on that type of world. And Einstein had some good ideas, his denial of God notwithstanding.


Sorry, but you haven't convinced me to give up what common sense tells me in favour of your ultra-literalistic pov which leaves little room for metaphor and poetry.

Hint: I'm not aiming to. Just wanting to make sure everyone on this forum understands the "methodology" AiG and others use (wanton invocation of ludicrous and unevidenced ad hoc hypotheses, distortion of data that laymen aren't very familiar with, etc.) can be used to support any pseudoscientific viewpoint, not just their own.

[Butters]

"Hint: I'm not aiming to. Just wanting to make sure everyone on this forum understands the "methodology" AiG and others use (wanton invocation of ludicrous and unevidenced ad hoc hypotheses, distortion of data that laymen aren't very familiar with, etc.) can be used to support any pseudoscientific viewpoint, not just their own."

Creationists don't even need these arguments. The bible clearly states that the earth is flat. To deny this is to deny God. You must read genisis literaly, If you don't you are just a wishy washy liberal Christian that is likly to become unequally yoked with a non-believer!

[WinAce]

It does boggle the mind that Genesis put in perspective with contemporary Babylonian cosmology still has defenders that assert it doesn't evoke the image of a sky dome with openings for rain to fall thru. But then again, the fossil record alone mangles a literal reading beyond recognition...

[WinAce]

Should I take the lack of responses as an admission that the "Statement of Faith" method of science can defend any viewpoint, no matter how absurd?

[Woman]

No, no!

Wait!

*warming to the topic*

OK

Round, as in an apple, an orange, a head, an atom, a puff of smoke and an egg are nature's shapes. Disks exist in the imagination, which is why alien space ships are thus configured. Where are the disk shaped fruits? Where are the flat creatures and creations of this world?

:bunny:

[Warcraft3]

WinAce:

"Should I take the lack of responses as an admission that the "Statement of Faith" method of science can defend any viewpoint, no matter how absurd?"

Yes you should. I did not even attempt to respond to your flat-earth theory, because I knew what you were trying to do. I have seen people make this point before using various arguments. In fact Ive seen the flat earth example done before (I think this is only the second time Ive seen it though) to prove this very point.

I believe you have sufficiently proven your point to those who disagree with you and I see no reason for anyone to continue the useless attempt to convince you the earth is a sphere (ok technically its not a perfect sphere).

Although if anyone really believed the earth was flat Id just hit them on the head like this.... :bonk:



Russ


:em7:

[Socrates]

Butterball:The bible clearly states that the earth is flat.Butterball as usual clearly can't read. Perhaps he would like to try to refute What Shape is the Earth In?. And while he's at it, he could try to explain why the Church never taught falt-earthism. Or true to form, will he dredge up Washington Irving's fable about Christopher Columbus and pretend it's real history?

WinAce:It does boggle the mindThat would presuppose that WinAce has a mind in the first place. ... that Genesis put in perspective with contemporary Babylonian cosmology still has defenders that assert it doesn't evoke the image of a sky dome with openings for rain to fall thru. Only with his warped imagination. When he makes a pathetic attempt to refute Is the raqiya‘ (firmament) a solid dome? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp), I hope he lets us know.

[Warcraft3]

WinAce:

Okay I think the following posts show that you should get the nomination for "funniest posts."

In this thread posts #13 and #38 and in the "Anthropic principle" thread post #37.

These three posts had me laughing out of control between the pictures and the comments. .:rofl:

Im sure even those who disagree with the content at least cracked a smile when viewing the posts.

Cmon people, all debate aside those posts were FUNNY.

Even if those posts had been directed at me they would still be RIDICULOUSLY FUNNY. Keep those funny posts coming people. We all need a laugh every now and then.:thumb:

:rofl:


Russ

[WinAce]

Oddly enough, I didn't see an explanation of why all contemporary sources mention the earth as a disc with a sky dome on it. Well, unless you count "the Bible is right, so Adam must have written Genesis" as a refutation...

[Butters]

Socrates,
not wanting to waste much time on a full critique, here are just a few comments on Mr. Holding's piece

"We begin with a bit of groundwork. It should be understood that the Hebrews, like all ANE cultures, obviously lacked the scientific terminology we use to describe things today. We should not expect descriptions of "tectonic plates" or of "molten lava". On a lesser scale, we will find that the Hebrews lacked key words which would have been most useful in describing cosmological phenomena." J.P.

While this is true, I wonder why Mr. Holding can totally ignore the obvious. Of course the Hebrews lacked keywords that would have been most useful in describing cosmological phenomenon. The reason behind that is because they believed the earth was a flat disk covered by a solid dome. If they had held the concepts of cosmology that we now know to be true, they would have needed to create the words to describe it.


"Furthermore, we will not address certain words and verses that use "phenomenological" language - i.e., sunset, sunrise, or references to sun and stars moving. As we still use such terms today, in spite of hundreds of years of "knowing better", it should not reflect badly upon the use of such language in the Bible." J.P.

of course had it is very convenient to ignore these verses and terms. It is also very convenient to ignore the origins of these terms. Terms like the ends of the earth are figures of speech today, but they originate with the belief of a flat earth. Unless he can show that these were already figures of speech, not intended to be taken literally at the time of the biblical writing, then he is just ignoring the case. When an Egyptian or Summarian said "ends of the Earth", they meant it literaly, so he would have to do better than ignore the problem, to prove it wrong.


"The word here which we render "firmament" is:
7549.raqiya', raw-kee'-ah; frm H7554; prop. an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.
Indications are, however, that this raqyia is not the solid structure that "firmament" implies; see the linked article above"-J.P.

The article linked to was written by (suprise!), J.P. himself, and is another example of his twisting and shoehorning words to fit his desired meaning.
The word "firmament" appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raquiya comes from riqqua, meaning "beaten out."
What are we to make of this passage in Job?
"Can you beat out "raqa" the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal?"
This clearly shows that the Hebrews at this time believed the sky to be covered by a solid dome.
The Hebrew word "raquia" appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the "living creatures" and glitters "like a sheet of ice." Above the vault is a throne of sapphire. Seated on the throne is "a form in human likeness," which is radiant and "like the appearance of the glory of the Lord."


"Do these imply a physical dome of some sort? Actually, it is not possible to determine one way or another, for the Hebrews (like many cultures of this time) lacked a word-concept of infinite physical space. With that in mind, we may ask how they would describe the sky as it exists, and metaphor is the most probable choice. We surmise that the sky as a "stretched" space or object comes as close to capturing "infinity" as one can without the word-concept."J.P.

Here Mr. Holding first asserts that it is not possible to determine one way or the other what the Hebrews meant in their description of the sky. He then strays into the realm of speculation. He claims the Hebrews lacked a word concept of infinite physical space. I must agree with him here. Reasons for this lack, was that they lacked the concept and therefore needed no such word. The Hebrews had words such as " infinite " and " space" and its seems that if they were trying to convey this concept they would have invented words for it just as everyone else has. The fact that they used only the existing terminology that describes the sky as a solid dome in accordance with the existing concept of cosmology of the day, shows that they were not asserting a new, completely radical, and for the day, completely fantastic concept.


"2329. chuwg, khoog; from H2328; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.
And here is where we alert the reader to another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle. It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity (for obviously, they could conceive of it plainly when, for example, they ate pomegranates for breakfast!), but that they simply did not create a second word for it. " J.P.

Mr. Holding makes the same mistake here. The fact that the Hebrews had no word exactly translating to our word for sphere somehow prohibits them from describing the earth as a sphere. I would contend that the lack of a word for sphere is a good indication that they had no concept of the earth as a sphere, and therefore needed no such word.
Mr. Holding goes on to indicate that they did have a word for a three dimensional circle but uses some of the most contorted argument in the shortest span of time that I've ever seen to deny that use of this word would have been valid.

"Some may cite in reply here the KJV version of Is. 22:18, "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house." The Hebrew word here, however, is:
1754. duwr, dure; from H1752; a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.
This word no more inidicates sphericity than our other word, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thusly:
Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this and other usages, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a given shape."

I believe when Mr. holding is been purposely deceitful here. It is clear that this word has two meanings. One a noun, referring to a round ball. The other aver been meaning to turn or move round about. Mr. holding would like to give the impression that somehow only the verb form of this word could have been intended here. However it is quite clear that if the Hebrews intended to describe the earth as a sphere, all said they would have needed to do was used this word.

The rest of this article is more of the same, Mr. holding commits the same error he accuses others of doing, namely decontextualizing the text. Hebrew, as in all other languages have words that may have various meanings. As we see in the examples above Mr. holding basically tries to obscure the issue by pointing out various meanings of various words, completely ignoring the context. I find it amusing that through all these machinations, twisting of interpretation, and a flat denial this is the best that he could come up with the for his conclusion.

"Conclusion
It must be admitted outright that SOME of the items listed here COULD be interpreted as giving a false cosmology - but it is also possible to interpret them other ways. The Bible lacks specifics in this regard (i.e., precise distances and descriptions - as were often offered up by the pagans), and so leaves the answer, "Does the Bible teach bad cosmology?", quite ambiguous in a few places. But for the majority of the cites we have seen, there is no such ambiguity, merely misinterpretation by skeptics and/or poetry. We are justified in our assertion that there is no proof that the Bible teaches a false cosmology." J.P.
so, some items could be interpreted as giving a false cosmology but it is also impossible to interpret them other ways. My first question would be why? The most obvious interpretation that most closely follows the the text, is clearly in line with the accepted cosmology of the day. If we read the biblical account and compare it to other accounts written by other civilizations at the same time they all concur. There is no justification for asserting that the Bible does not teach a false cosmology, merely wishful thinking.


As for your other comments. I have never said that the Christian church taught a flat earth concept. But is is interesting, that the people that have asserted this, have all used scripture as support of their position. The Greeks thaught the world that the Earth was round, the early Christians were smart enough to not deny hard facts in favor of scripture, something that was lost after they gained power, remembering it would have saved them the embarresment of the Galileo incident!

[Socratism]

It seems to me that in all this discussion you are completely missing the entire thrust of the argument regarding the truth of scripture, namely:

It doesn't matter what the society as a whole thought; what matters is whether the authors of scripture were inspired to write an accurate account of what happened or not.

BTW, the Church frequently decides to go with current opinions of science: they did this at the time of Galileo when they sided with Aristotlean science and they are repeating the same error today by siding with Darwin and the contemporary cosmologists with their Big Bang idea.

[Woman]

Socratism:

BTW, the Church frequently decides to go with current opinions of science: they did this at the time of Galileo when they sided with Aristotlean science and they are repeating the same error today by siding with Darwin and the contemporary cosmologists with their Big Bang idea.

You say the Church as though there is only one when clearly there is little agreement between or even among most Christian denominations. What's up with that anyway?

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64464#post64464)
Socratism:

It seems to me that in all this discussion you are completely missing the entire thrust of the argument regarding the truth of scripture, namely:

It doesn't matter what the society as a whole thought; what matters is whether the authors of scripture were inspired to write an accurate account of what happened or not.

And obviously they were not.


BTW, the Church frequently decides to go with current opinions of science: they did this at the time of Galileo when they sided with Aristotlean science and they are repeating the same error today by siding with Darwin and the contemporary cosmologists with their Big Bang idea.

Except that evolution and the Big Bang idea are correct.

[Socratism]

Today @ 06:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64468#post64468)
Woman:

Socratism:


You say the Church as though there is only one when clearly there is little agreement between or even among most Christian denominations. What's up with that anyway?

Unless you are living in a cave you should know that it is not only the Catholic Church which is teaching long ages in their schools but also most of the mainline Protestant denominations.

In my own mainline Protestant denomination it is like farting at a tea party to mention at an area church meeting of representatives that one believes that the Earth and the Universe are only about 6000 years old or that evolution is not true

I know because some years ago I tried it. The silence that greeted my pronouncement was "deafening", but after a short pause things continued as though nothing had ever been said on the subject.

In my opinion the Church leadership has been so traumatized by the Galileo incident that they wish to avoid a similar embarassment. Ironically in so doing they are only repeating it.

[Woman]

Socratism:

Unless you are living in a cave you should know that it is not only the Catholic Church which is teaching long ages in their schools but also most of the mainline Protestant denominations.

No, of course I don't live in a cave. That would be prehistoric. And yes I realize that most people believe in an old earth and in evolution. My point was that this is more of a matter of overwhelming evidence than of a specific church doctrine. (because there is little agreement in theological matters among different denominations and these beliefs are not considered to be issues of salvation)

Socrates:

In my own mainline Protestant denomination it is like farting at a tea party to mention at an area church meeting of representatives that one believes that the Earth and the Universe are only about 6000 years old or that evolution is not true.
Well, I don't about tea parties and flatulence but I can't say that surprises me.

Socrates:

I know because some years ago I tried it. The silence that greeted my pronouncement was "deafening", but after a short pause things continued as though nothing had ever been said on the subject.

Only once? What are you afraid of? If these beliefs are central to your belief, perhaps your choice of "mainline" denomination is the problem.

Socrates:

In my opinion the Church leadership has been so traumatized by the Galileo incident that they wish to avoid a similar embarassment. Ironically in so doing they are only repeating it.

:rofl: Yeah, the Church (which really no longer exists it's so fragmented) was so severely traumatized by those bad rumors that they "strongly disagreed" with Galileo, they they no longer wish to appear foolish. But apparantly Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, and a raft of perverted priests are simply matters to take in stride?? OK, low blow - but I don't believe for a second that most Christians believe in an old earth because they are afraid. (for example, it's MUCH more difficult to defend demonology, but those who believe it seem to have no such qualms)

Just my opinion

[Butters]

"BTW, the Church frequently decides to go with current opinions of science: they did this at the time of Galileo when they sided with Aristotlean science and they are repeating the same error today by siding with Darwin and the contemporary cosmologists with their Big Bang idea."

Not at all, people realized that THE CHURCH persecute Galileo in the name of God, suppressed free thought, in the name of God, and imprisoned an innocent man, in the name of God. Wether they did that believing that their interpretation of scripture was the only possible truth, or wether they just used this as an excuse to back up scientists that supported their view is immaterial. THE CHURCH today doesn't want to lose anymore credibility than they have. The reason your creationist nonsense was met with silence by your fellow Christians is because they are embarrassed by you and your idiotic statements that contradict facts.

P.S.- The bible teaches a flat earth!

[Socrates]

Socratism:


BTW, the Church frequently decides to go with current opinions of science: they did this at the time of Galileo when they sided with Aristotlean science and they are repeating the same error today by siding with Darwin and the contemporary cosmologists with their Big Bang idea.

In my opinion the Church leadership has been so traumatized by the Galileo incident that they wish to avoid a similar embarassment. Ironically in so doing they are only repeating it.

This is exactly right. Except that they haven't really been traumatized by the true Galileo incident, but by 19th century humanistic revisionism of the incident.

It's amazing that anti-Christian bigots like gamble and Butterball chide the church of Galileo's day for actually accepting the current SCIENCE, yet demand that it does so today. Of course, it suits them to cultivate useful idiots in the church who tell the congregation not to trust their own Book, but instead to trust "science", or rather materialistic belief systems masquerading as science.

[Butters]

"It's amazing that anti-Christian bigots like gamble and Butterball chide the church of Galileo's day for actually accepting the current SCIENCE, yet demand that it does so today. Of course, it suits them to cultivate useful idiots in the church who tell the congregation not to trust their own Book, but instead to trust "science", or rather materialistic belief systems masquerading as science."

Thats not it at all. I only want to point out that RELIGION has no place in science, unless they actually DO science, and unless they are kept from imposing their view on science and suppressing all others.

It does not matter wether Galileo was 100% right or not.

It does not matter wether he was going against other scientists.

What matters is the church used their authority to imprison him and suppress his ideas. period. end of story.

[Socratism]

It is an exaggeration to state that that the Church "imprisoned" Galileo.

Historians have put it differently, stating that he was under house arrest but was treated with the respect that his scientific accomplishments and fame had earned him throughout the world.

[Butters]

What is the difference between imprisioned and under house arrest? Why do you feel the need to split hairs? The church removed his freedom, and suppressed his work. Sorry this bothers you, but get over it!

But of course you haven't learned the lesson, just as the Galileo "incident" showed that religious doctrine is not always right, and undermined the authority and credibility of the church, you my freind, have probably done more to discredit Christianity than I ever could!

[wienerdog]

Socratism: In my own mainline Protestant denomination it is like farting at a tea party to mention at an area church meeting of representatives that one believes that the Earth and the Universe are only about 6000 years old or that evolution is not true

I know because some years ago I tried it. The silence that greeted my pronouncement was "deafening", but after a short pause things continued as though nothing had ever been said on the subject.
As an old earther, I apologize for this. We should encourage discussion on this issue, recognizing that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I will try not to make young earthers feel uncomfortable.

[Warcraft3]

Socratism:

I could not have said it better than weinerdog,

"As an old earther, I apologize for this. We should encourage discussion on this issue, recognizing that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. I will try not to make young earthers feel uncomfortable."


Russ

:read:

[djnoz]

Well for a start I think that the entire space exploration thing was faked.
I mean come on, it was all about Russia and America competing with each other during the Cold War and trying to look good. So the propoganda divisions of each government came up with a load of far fetched rubbish, which most people were gullible enough to believe. :cool:

[Butters]

Of course you're right djnoz, and thats because the earth is flat, and the sun, moon, and stars are set in a solid dome over it.

Space flight! LOL! gimme a break!

[Socratism]

04-13-2003 @ 01:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65255#post65255)
Butters:

What is the difference between imprisioned and under house arrest? Why do you feel the need to split hairs? The church removed his freedom, and suppressed his work. Sorry this bothers you, but get over it!

But of course you haven't learned the lesson, just as the Galileo "incident" showed that religious doctrine is not always right, and undermined the authority and credibility of the church, you my freind, have probably done more to discredit Christianity than I ever could!

You are correct that religious doctrine is not always right, but the fact is that the Galileo affair started as a dispute over Aristotlean science, which was the mainline science of the time. It was only years later that some elements in the Church, primarily the Jesuits who ran the university and who sacked Galileo, were able to politicize the dispute and turn it into a religious issue.

The scriptural argument was essentially non-existent as Galileo tried in vain to convince his old friend, now the Pope. The political solution was to get Galileo to tone it down, which he did for a time, but when he published his satirical treatise on the subject, in direct defiance of the previous edict, school was out and the Pope had to act in order to retain some semblance of his authority in the face of other major acts of defiance happening at that same time in the rising trend that only a few years later led to the Reformation.

Today, a similar thing is happening within almost all Christian denominations where they are embracing evolution and simultaneously adding to or subtracting from scripture in order to satisfy the masses that have been brainwashed by publicly funded institutions into treating the pseudosciences of Origins as Revealed Truth ( a la Hugh Ross and the Big Bang and long ages).

Is Genesis merely myth? I don't think so because it boggles the mind that primitive myths would be so hard to falsify. Until a very few years ago global events such as the Flood would have been unthinkable but today there is speculation by scientists that the features on Mars were caused by huge floods even though there is no obvious source for such large amounts of water there.

I guess it is ok to invoke global catastrophies just as long as they happened "long ago and far away".

[geochron]

[i]Today @ 09:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80207#post80207)
[...] today there is speculation by scientists that the features on Mars were caused by huge floods even though there is no obvious source for such large amounts of water there.


There's fairly good evidence for lots of ice in the regolith of Mars, quite close to the surface. And I certainly don't recognise the biblical flood in the description of martian floods.

[Butters]

"The scriptural argument was essentially non-existent as Galileo tried in vain to convince his old friend, now the Pope. The political solution was to get Galileo to tone it down, which he did for a time, but when he published his satirical treatise on the subject, in direct defiance of the previous edict, school was out and the Pope had to act in order to retain some semblance of his authority in the face of other major acts of defiance happening at that same time in the rising trend that only a few years later led to the Reformation."

"Today, a similar thing is happening within almost all Christian denominations where they are embracing evolution and simultaneously adding to or subtracting from scripture in order to satisfy the masses that have been brainwashed by publicly funded institutions into treating the pseudosciences of Origins as Revealed Truth ( a la Hugh Ross and the Big Bang and long ages)."

I'm sure the irony of you posting these two quotes has escaped you completely.

"Is Genesis merely myth? I don't think so because it boggles the mind that primitive myths would be so hard to falsify. Until a very few years ago global events such as the Flood would have been unthinkable but today there is speculation by scientists that the features on Mars were caused by huge floods even though there is no obvious source for such large amounts of water there."

Hard to Falsify? Only to people like you. 99.99% of the people living on this planet realize that a global flood never happened, it's easy to falsify, several people here have shown you this, but your position is the same as the Catholic churchs was, not in the scripture (at least not in YOUR interpretation of it) can't be true.

As for martian canals, no one has proved that a global flood caused the features of Mars, and this is just a hypothesis, not even a theory, so don't try to change the subject.

[Woman]

Socratism:

The scriptural argument was essentially non-existent as Galileo tried in vain to convince his old friend, now the Pope. The political solution (why was a solution needed if there was no issue?) was to get Galileo to tone it down, which he did for a time, but when he published his satirical treatise on the subject, in direct defiance of the previous edict, (from the church) school was out and the Pope had to act in order to retain some semblance of his authority (had to suppress science because it threatened church doctrine) in the face of other major acts of defiance (yeah, people were tired of lies and corruption) happening at that same time in the rising trend that only a few years later led to the Reformation.

Today, a similar thing is happening within almost all Christian denominations where they are embracing evolution...

Uhhhhhh, yeah

:hrm:

[Socrates]

Geochron:There's fairly good evidence for lots of ice in the regolith of Mars, quite close to the surface. And I certainly don't recognise the biblical flood in the description of martian floods.No, they just called it the Noahic Epoch! But the point remains that they are happy to posit huge floods on Mars where there is now no liquid water. But they reject this for Earth which is 70% covered by water. In fact, Earth would be covered to a depth of 3 km if the topography was totally smoothed out. But we can't have that, because it might be evidence that God has judged the world with water in the past so will judge the world with fire in the future.

[tgamble]

Today @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80343#post80343)
Socrates:
But they reject this for Earth which is 70% covered by water. In fact, Earth would be covered to a depth of 3 km if the topography was totally smoothed out. But we can't have that, because

Because there's not the slightest shred of evidence for a global flood. Because there's a large amount that one would be impossible. Because there is evidence against one having ever occured even if it were possible. Because the earth was not smoothed out 4000 years ago. Those are the real reasons. Not a lot of drivel about judgement.

[Socrates]

Woman inserts little replies into Socratism's correct paragraph:
The scriptural argument was essentially non-existent as Galileo tried in vain to convince his old friend, now the Pope. The political solution (why was a solution needed if there was no issue?) There was an issue, but just not the one the the slippery Butterball parrots from 19th century anti-christian propaganda. The main point, which can't be overemphasised, is that it was NOT science v religion but science v science! ... was to get Galileo to tone it down, which he did for a time, but when he published his satirical treatise on the subject, in direct defiance of the previous edict, (from the church) Galileo was a member of the Catholic Church, and never stopped being one. His abrasive personality and ad hominem attacks against the Pope who had previously befriended him went too far in such a culture. Once again though, Galileo's heresy was not theological but inquisitorial. It's perfectly reasonable to object to a religious body having so much power, but NOT to make it the poster boy for the triumph of science over religion. school was out and the Pope had to act in order to retain some semblance of his authority (had to suppress science because it threatened church doctrine) Misses the point, as usual. Rather, the Church had capitulated to the current science, much as large parts of it have capitulated to evolution/long ages today. Galileo had challenged the scientific establishment. in the face of other major acts of defiance (yeah, people were tired of lies and corruption) Indeed they were, but this has nothing to do with the current issue. happening at that same time in the rising trend that only a few years later led to the Reformation. Perhaps Woman would like to study the history of the controversy, since she sometimes reads articles I recommend -- The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ14_1-Galileo.pdf).

[Woman]

Soc,

:smile:

I'll try to squeeze it in, but right now I'm reading John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study and C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.

:read:

[Socrates]

Woman: :thumb: Those are both EXCELLENT books, so please continue, and don't hurry with mine. :bunny:

[Butters]

"The main point, which can't be overemphasised, is that it was NOT science v religion but science v science!"

What a load!
Let me ask you,
Did scientists imprision Galileo?
Did scientists force him to deny his theory?
Did scientists ban his work?

No,no,no, The church did, with authoity they claimed came from God, If the church had not covered it up, scientists would have to accept it or regect it on the facts alone. I don't see secular scientists locking you up, or banning creationist books, even though they, and you are spreading falsehoods, they know the facts will win out every time. Ya got no facts, Ya got an old book of myths, sorry, but thats the way it is.

[Bede]

Butters, you still haven't learnt have you?

If anyone thinks that the church was anti-science in the Galileo case please could they tell me what proof Galileo presented that the theory he was shouting from the roof tops was correct. Cardinal Bellarmine himself said that if proof existed he would just have to change the way he interpreted scripture.

According to the best science of his day, Galileo was wrong. He was politely asked to shut up and stop insulting everyone else, and would not do so. He was then told to recant and kept under comfortable house arrest where he continued to write and receive distinguished visitors. And as this is the only case of the Catholic Church taking action on a scientific matter, it hardly makes for an eternal conflict between science and religion.

To historians of science, Galileo is not a martyr and the Church is not anti-science.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Bede]

Did scientists imprision Galileo?

He was placed in comfortable house arrest. Not prison.

Did scientists force him to deny his theory?

Yes. The expert evidence against Galileo was supplied by leading scientists of the time.

Did scientists ban his work?

Yes. They recommended which works be banned and helped censor others. Scientists continue to try banning what they disagree with today - witness the witch hunts against creationists.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Socrates]

:thumb: Good one Bede -- glad to have your contribution here! :cheers:

[Butters]

"Did scientists imprision Galileo?

He was placed in comfortable house arrest. Not prison."

You've come late Bede, Socrates and I have already discussed the splitting of hairs here. How nicw of the Church to imprision him in a nice house, it's still imprisionment, and they still had no right to do it.

"Did scientists force him to deny his theory?

Yes. The expert evidence against Galileo was supplied by leading scientists of the time."

Yes they gave evidence, but who forced the denial? One more time WHO?


"Did scientists ban his work?

Yes. They recommended which works be banned and helped censor others. Scientists continue to try banning what they disagree with today - witness the witch hunts against creationists."

More and more BS. Sure, the (Christian) scientists that opposed Galileo did work against him, in the framwork of the church, this is EXACTY the point, they should have been required to rely on the evidence, and allowed all scientific inquiry tp procede.
Witch hunts against creationists! LOL! Buddy, you have made such a mockery of history that you don't even know what a witch hunt is. I don't see any creationists being place under house arrest, forced to deny any theory or face house arrest, nor do I see any creationist books banned. I really don't see any creationists being burned at the stake.

"Butters, you still haven't learnt have you?

If anyone thinks that the church was anti-science in the Galileo case please could they tell me what proof Galileo presented that the theory he was shouting from the roof tops was correct. Cardinal Bellarmine himself said that if proof existed he would just have to change the way he interpreted scripture."

No Bede, you're the one that hasn't "learnt".

Wether he was right or wrong has no bearing on the issue, the fact that his theory was not allowed to prove itself right or wrong is the issue. Creationists have all the rights they need to promote their case, the evidence will win out. (well, at least for the people that actually consider the evidence. What an irony that the church DID have to change it's interpretation of scripture, they only bought some time.

"According to the best science of his day, Galileo was wrong. He was politely asked to shut up and stop insulting everyone else, and would not do so. He was then told to recant and kept under comfortable house arrest where he continued to write and receive distinguished visitors. And as this is the only case of the Catholic Church taking action on a scientific matter, it hardly makes for an eternal conflict between science and religion."

If he was wrong, then he should of been shown HOW he was wrong, and been allowed to try to prove himself right.


"And as this is the only case of the Catholic Church taking action on a scientific matter, it hardly makes for an eternal conflict between science and religion."

Really Bede, as a Christian, you should try to remain in the realm of spin, and avoid outright lies.

[Bede]

"If he was wrong, then he should of been shown HOW he was wrong, and been allowed to try to prove himself right."

He was given plenty of chances to prove it. He failed and convincing counter arguments against him were presented. Creationists are only not imprisoned because Dawkins and Co have no power to do it. If they did, they would. In Consilience, Ed Wilson says religious people should be kept in zoos.

I certainly agree when you say that people should be allowed to have free opinions whether they are right or wrong. But clearly that has nothing to do with science and religion as there has been oppresion of thought in even the most secular regimes - note political correctness in liberal universities. It is an argument for liberty, not against religion.

Yours

Bede

[Socratism]

Hard to Falsify? Only to people like you. 99.99% of the people living on this planet realize that a global flood never happened,

This type of gross exaggeration is the trademark of much of evolutionary theory. It is the usual attempt to win a scientific argument by intimidation. This is one of the reasons that I feel that belief in evolution has a large "religious" component and attracts "true believers" who want to feel they are part of an "us against them" movement.


it's easy to falsify, several people here have shown you this,

First you say its not scientific, but then you say it's easy to falsify. Perhaps you should make up your mind. (It used to be easy to falsify global catastrophes before we went into space and found that the previously believed uniformitarian cosmological "scenarios" were falsified once hard data became available).


but your position is the same as the Catholic churchs was, not in the scripture (at least not in YOUR interpretation of it) can't be true.

Actually I used to believe as you do until I began to question some of the scientific speculations that had been shown to be false by thr space program. Sometime later I began to revisit my negative attitude toward the Flood and was shocked to discover that it was not as easy to falsify as I had previously believed.

Some time earlier I had begun to question "evolution from slime" after reading up on the new discoveries about DNA and realizing that the entire evolutionary edifice was constructed on the dubious proposition that mutation plus natural selection could generate the amazing sophistication being uncovered.

I asked myself, "could it be possible that the ancient writings in Genesis were actually essentially true history".

It seems that once one begins to question things the world begins to look different.

[tgamble]

This type of gross exaggeration is the trademark of much of evolutionary theory. It is the usual attempt to win a scientific argument by intimidation. This is one of the reasons that I feel that belief in evolution has a large "religious" component and attracts "true believers" who want to feel they are part of an "us against them" movement.

Your absurd insults aside, evolution has nothing to do with arguments against a global flood. A global flood isn't false because so many people know it to be false. It's false because the evidence simply doesn't support it.


First you say its not scientific, but then you say it's easy to falsify.

What's not scientific is continueing to cling to a false theory and invoking all kinds of absurd scenarios and unlikely miracles to explain away all the problems.


Some time earlier I had begun to question "evolution from slime"

Have you considered studying what evolution actually is or are you content with dishonest strawman arguments?


Sometime later I began to revisit my negative attitude toward the Flood and was shocked to discover that it was not as easy to falsify as I had previously believed.

Maybe one of these days you're offer actual evidence instead of unsupported claims.

[Butters]

"I certainly agree when you say that people should be allowed to have free opinions whether they are right or wrong. But clearly that has nothing to do with science and religion as there has been oppresion of thought in even the most secular regimes - note political correctness in liberal universities. It is an argument for liberty, not against religion."

Wow Bede, you DO get it. It IS an argument for liberty, not against religion. The Galileo affair should be a reminder of what happens when religion is allowed to rule. I mean, the same argument can be made against comunisim, but I'm not worried about comunist's taking over America. And don't mistake me, although I believe religion is bunk, I fully support antone right to believe it. When the government starts rounding up creationist's, I'll be right there on the front lines defending them. The thing most people in this country have forgotten is that to ensure your rights, you must defend everyone elses right to disagree with you. THAT is freedom!

[Socrates]

Bede:


I certainly agree when you say that people should be allowed to have free opinions whether they are right or wrong. But clearly that has nothing to do with science and religion as there has been oppresion of thought in even the most secular regimes - note political correctness in liberal universities. It is an argument for liberty, not against religion.

Butterball continues his greasy slithering:Wow Bede, you DO get it. It IS an argument for liberty, not against religion. The Galileo affair should be a reminder of what happens when religion is allowed to rule. This is probably the closest that Butterball will come to admitting that he was wrong to paint the Galileo affair as a typical science v religion thing, and that his 19th century atheistic sources have been demolished.

But it has nothing to do with religion ruling. Rather, if anything, it shows the danger of religion aiding establishment scientists to suppress dissent. On a wider scale, it shows the problems with absolute power. Bede has given the example of universities, "islands of repression in a sea of tolerance", which show that there is none so illiberal than a "liberal" in power.

[Butters]

"But it has nothing to do with religion ruling. Rather, if anything, it shows the danger of religion aiding establishment scientists to suppress dissent. On a wider scale, it shows the problems with absolute power. Bede has given the example of universities, "islands of repression in a sea of tolerance", which show that there is none so illiberal than a "liberal" in power."

Socrates, you really make me question my belief in freedom of speech, and religion. The case CLEARLY shows the abuse of power that will ALWAYS occur when religion rules, whether the Taliban, Catholics, or any other, this is not an indirect observation, but a direct observation. The irony is, that true religious freedom has only flurished under secular rule. But I take comfort in knowing that if Catholics had the power they once had, they'd lock you up also, and burn your creationist books, along with all the other heretics