Originally posted by twhiteheadMore than you apparently give it.
More than you apparently give it.
[b]There is an obvious battle of thought evident in the world today
What is this 'obvious battle'?[/b]
Ha-ha!
I get it!
You are so clever!
Look at you!
Hey, everyone!
Look at twhitehead!
What is this 'obvious battle'?
HINT: The answer to your question is in the statement you emboldened and quoted, literally directly right before your question.
SUPER-DUPER HINT: It's a battle of thought.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know. It all depends on if YOU are asking THIS question because you're trying to trick me, or sincerely wonder what the answer is! 😕
Are you asking because you really think it's not possible that any scientist on earth might hold to a flat earth theory, or because you want to see if you recognize their names?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI'm challenging the idea or suggestion that there might not be scientists who hold to a flat earth theory, who have rejected the earth as a globe.
I don't know. It all depends on if YOU are asking THIS question because you're trying to trick me, or sincerely wonder what the answer is! 😕
With the wide spectrum of human thought, I reject the notion of anything resembling complete unification on any scientific theory, or that there aren't outliers in every field.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNah.
No, I don't think you do. Think harder.
[b]HINT: The answer to your question is in the statement you emboldened and quoted, literally directly right before your question.
SUPER-DUPER HINT: It's a battle of thought.
I still don't get it. Why don't you spell it out?[/b]
Figure it out on the basis of what's been provided or move on.
Suit yourself either way.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe qualifying word - respectable scientist - was fairly important here.
I'm challenging the idea or suggestion that there might not be scientists who hold to a flat earth theory, who have rejected the earth as a globe.
With the wide spectrum of human thought, I reject the notion of anything resembling complete unification on any scientific theory, or that there aren't outliers in every field.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, it's essentially ludicrous, basic naval navigation relies on the way the earth is a sphere. Things go wrong in obvious practical ways if overwhelmingly proven concepts are discarded. I think your example is too wild to demonstrate anything.
I'm challenging the idea or suggestion that there might not be scientists who hold to a flat earth theory, who have rejected the earth as a globe.
With the wide spectrum of human thought, I reject the notion of anything resembling complete unification on any scientific theory, or that there aren't outliers in every field.
Thoughts matter because they affect our perceptions of what is real or not real, fact or not fact.
Example: put a fossil in a YEC's hand and he sees something which is at most 6,000 years old. In one sense he sees the same thing I would see if had that fossil in my hand, but in another sense we are not seeing the same thing at all. The difference is in the thought, not the fossil.
Originally posted by moonbusThat is more about beliefs than thoughts (unless you consider beliefs to be thoughts). Both I and a YEC should see a lump of rock shaped like a bone or shellfish or whatever it is a fossil of. The difference come in what our educations are and what we understand about the history of the object we are looking at. We see the same object but have different beliefs about its history.
Example: put a fossil in a YEC's hand and he sees something which is at most 6,000 years old. In one sense he sees the same thing I would see if had that fossil in my hand, but in another sense we are not seeing the same thing at all. The difference is in the thought, not the fossil.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBeliefs are clearly influenced by thoughts (and by education too, of course).
That is more about beliefs than thoughts (unless you consider beliefs to be thoughts). Both I and a YEC should see a lump of rock shaped like a bone or shellfish or whatever it is a fossil of. The difference come in what our educations are and what we understand about the history of the object we are looking at. We see the same object but have different beliefs about its history.
Further example: when Galileo looked through his telescope at the moons of Saturn, he saw circular orbits; when the churchmen looked through their telescopes at the moons of Saturn, they saw spirals within spirals. That's nothing to do with beliefs about history and everything to do with thoughts (or thought-systems, e.g. Ptolemaic or Copernican).
Galileo was forbidden not only to say the earth moved or that the sun was at the center of the solar system, he was forbidden even to think such things, on pain of death by slow torture. That was the significance of forcing people to renounce heresy "without reservation". Having a " reservation" meant something like 'I'm saying X but I'm not really believing it, I'm crossing my fingers behind my back.' It was crucial to the Church to control people's thoughts. Why? Because thoughts matter.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI like how you were able to put a sneer in that sentence without having to use any facial muscles.
The qualifying word - respectable scientist - was fairly important here.
So when you use the word respectable, are you meaning it in the same way the media use it when describing scientists who reject the status quo on global warming?
In other words, wouldn't any scientist who doesn't hold to the current company line, i.e, popular opinion, necessarily be removed from the respectable members of their fields?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI've not heard that before.
No, it's essentially ludicrous, basic naval navigation relies on the way the earth is a sphere. Things go wrong in obvious practical ways if overwhelmingly proven concepts are discarded. I think your example is too wild to demonstrate anything.
In what way do you mean that basic naval navigation relies on a spherical earth?