False Science Exposed

Also they may find the Earth being flat indeed, and what we perceive as roundish shape from satellite pictures just to be an optical illusion, caused by brainwashing thanks to evil progressive scientists.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I never said they did, so don't try to put false statements in my mouth to construct a strawman argument.

I apologise, you are correct and I should have checked.

It was however lemon lime who put those words in your mouth.

And I wasn't constructing a strawman argument, and the way you can tell
that is that my post contained no arguments of any kind.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, from a child we have always been taught in school that geocentrism is wrong and it makes it hard to consider the possibility that we were taught wrong. It has been proven that the earth is not flat, but geocentrism has not been disproven and the Holy Bible seems to support it to me.

So are Christians just to ignore that part or can we explain it aw ...[text shortened]... ith the six days of creation so they can believe in evolution and billions or millions of years?

Wikipedia says:
"In 1616, the Roman Inquisition's consultants gave their assessment of the proposition that the sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, judging both to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy" and that the first was "formally heretical" while the second was "at least erroneous in faith". (The original assessment document from the Inquisition was made widely available in 2014.)

This assessment led to Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium to be placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum - the Index of Forbidden Books.

Galileo Galilei revised those same theories and was also admonished for his views on heliocentrism. In 1633, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo and found him "vehemently suspected of heresy" and banned Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Galileo died under house arrest, and Tommaso Campanella was imprisoned for twenty-seven years."

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

Ron, are you applying for the job of "Inquisitor"? Good luck there. You'd have to go back to the 1600's but you'd fit right in, no doubt.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I'm struggling to believe that there is ONE person in
the world stupid enough to think this... let alone two.

You don't need to struggle. Hinds has already listed four people stupid enough to think about this... Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Edwin Hubble, and Fred Hoyle.[/b]

Thinking about it is one thing. (All thinking people think about all manner of things, even things they have been taught are false. One reason could be to try and disprove what they've been taught, or as mental exercise. But some things are still false regardless how much thought goes into them, because they are false, like geocentrism.)

Believing it is quite another, and there is no record of these people ever actually believing in geocentrism.

Originally posted by googlefudge
OK.

The two arguments given in the portion of the video I was prepared to sit through were these...



1. If the Earth orbits the sun with it's axis inclined at ~23.4 degrees with the orbital diameter
being 300 million km [haven't checked that number, but it's in the right ballpark] then the point the
Earth's axis points at [he imagines a lase ...[text shortened]... s were, and how trivial they are to disprove, I would suggest
reconsidering agreeing with him.

It's not stupid to question anything simply because it is stated as fact. It might stupid to believe something (an idea or theory) that has been formed through one sided arguments that consistently poo poo or laugh off counter arguments... but we aren't talking about evolution here.

I didn't look at the youtube video because I didn't need to see it to understand the underlying principle. I wonder how many people poo pooed or argued against (or laughed off) the idea of light being able to travel through a vacuum without the need of a theoretical aether, before Einstein came along to prove otherwise...

Originally posted by googlefudge
I apologise, you are correct and I should have checked.

It was however lemon lime who put those words in your mouth.

And I wasn't constructing a strawman argument, and the way you can tell
that is that my post contained no arguments of any kind.

It was however lemon lime who put those words in your mouth.

Oopsie, I thought I was putting those words into your mouth. Okay then, open wide, here comes the airplane... it's circling around, and now it's attempting to land...

Arrgh...no no, you need to keep your mouth open, otherwise the plane can't land and taxi into the hangar.

Are we having fun yet?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, that's not even close.
My point was that if your first post had any kind of truth to it, then science would never have developed computers.

[b]A computer expert once told me a computer can only do what you program it to do.
He was wrong.[/b]

My point was that if your first post had any kind of truth to it, then science would never have developed computers.

I don't know what "kind of truth" you were searching for, but you did a fine job of missing my point... my point was in reference to the OP, and the point I believe Hinds was making. I could be wrong about what Hinds was trying to communicate, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Wikipedia says:
"In 1616, the Roman Inquisition's consultants gave their assessment of the proposition that the sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, judging both to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy" and that the first was "formally heretical" while the second was "at least erroneous in faith". (The origi ...[text shortened]... sitor"? Good luck there. You'd have to go back to the 1600's but you'd fit right in, no doubt.

No. I believe they can believe what they want too. But also allow me to believe as I see fit. If I wish to believe the Holy Bible, then I should be allowed to do so without ridicule.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Thinking about it is one thing. (All thinking people think about all manner of things, even things they have been taught are false. One reason could be to try and disprove what they've been taught, or as mental exercise. But some things are still false regardless how much thought goes into them, because they are false, like geocentrism.)

Believ ...[text shortened]... is quite another, and there is no record of these people ever actually believing in geocentrism.

I hope you're not suggesting that some things should never be challenged, because acceptance of that idea can lead to all sorts of abuses... such as determining who should be in charge of what is true or not.

I'm thinking something like instituting a Ministry of Correctness belongs in a Monte Python sketch... and should stay there.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Thinking about it is one thing. (All thinking people think about all manner of things, even things they have been taught are false. One reason could be to try and disprove what they've been taught, or as mental exercise. But some things are still false regardless how much thought goes into them, because they are false, like geocentrism.)

Believ ...[text shortened]... is quite another, and there is no record of these people ever actually believing in geocentrism.

If you can prove geocentrism is false, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. I believe they can believe what they want too. But also allow me to believe as I see fit. If I wish to believe the Holy Bible, then I should be allowed to do so without ridicule.

But that's my point here, Ron.

It's NOT the Bible you are "believing". What you are believing is your own, weird interpretation of the Bible. The Bible never says the earth is the physical center of the universe, just like it never says the earth is only 6,000 years old. You are "believing" your own bizarre interpretation of what the Bible does say.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But that's my point here, Ron.

It's NOT the Bible you are "believing". What you are believing is your own, weird interpretation of the Bible. The Bible never says the earth is the physical center of the universe, just like it never says the earth is only 6,000 years old. You are "believing" your own bizarre interpretation of what the Bible does say.

And who's to say that his weird interpretation is any better or worse than your weird interpretation?

While we're believing based on faith with no recourse to science, logic, and evidence...


Go on, give me a faith based reason why you know better than he does...

Or will you admit that you need logic and evidence and reason to have any objective determination
of anything?

Originally posted by Suzianne
But that's my point here, Ron.

It's NOT the Bible you are "believing". What you are believing is your own, weird interpretation of the Bible. The Bible never says the earth is the physical center of the universe, just like it never says the earth is only 6,000 years old. You are "believing" your own bizarre interpretation of what the Bible does say.

In your view, is RJHinds one of the "pinheads" [on his "side of the divide"] that you mentioned on the other thread?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you can prove geocentrism is false, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Heliocentrism is the only explanation of why some planets appear to have retrograde motion. If geocentrism was true, no planet would ever exhibit retrograde motion. If Mercury and Venus (the only two planets closer to the sun) were orbiting earth, their orbits would take them completely around the earth, something that is not observed.

Is that good enough for you?

Geeeeez, if only everything was that easy.