›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Heliocentrism is an Atheistic Doctrine

HungryJoeHungryJoe
edited May 2007 in Politics
Here is the article.

Discuss please. Is it serious or satire? What do you see in the article to support your conclusion?

Bonus: Fifteen Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    It's not satire. If you look around the site, it is a site which clearly belongs to yet another insane person.
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    edited May 2007
    I thought it was, at first glance, a very, very convincing satire because I didn't think anyone could possibly be that stupid. But I can't find anywhere on that blog, or any of the blogs it links to, any indication that they're joking.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited May 2007
    For even more hilarity, try reading the comments. Some of the things this guy comes out are the non-euclidean geometry of Stupid.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Hitman HartHitman Hart
    edited May 2007
    what is wrong with these people? Seriously! How can these people be so freaking deluded? Gawd! I hope this man dies in a fire!
    Post edited by Hitman Hart on
  • NeitoNeito
    what is wrong with these people? Seriously! How can these people be so freaking deluded? Gawd! I hope this man dies in a fire!
    They believe they're right. Faith is very important to these people, which is why they tend to ignore those little things.
    You know, like facts.
    Seriously, read Pharyngula, a blog by an atheist biology professor. I didn't quite realize how big creationism still was till i started reading that. It's SCARY.
  • ZakoSoldierZakoSoldier
    It seems all too valid and authentic crazy Republican but this confuses me. It makes we want to say this is a joke but then it might make him more of an idiot for thinking that it is a real crazy republican.
  • CramitCramit
    According to his logic each and every one of us can very well be the center of the universe. I declare that I do not move! Any perceived motion of me is actually the world moving! YAY!
  • ChurbaChurba
    The first part I laughed out loud about was -
    If it moved, we would feel it moving.
    Err...right.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited May 2007
    According to his logic each and every one of us can very well be the center of the universe. I declare that I do not move! Any perceived motion of me is actually the world moving! YAY!
    If we were standing on my lawn separated by 20 m and if I tossed a baseball to you at 10 m/sec, how long would the ball take to reach you? For the purposes of your calculation, does it matter if you consider your frame of reference to be fixed and the ball is propagating towards you or the ball's frame of reference to be fixed and you're propagating towards the ball?

    What do you think about his argument that "calculations" using heliocentric and geocentric models give substantially similar results? What do you think he means by that?

    If he was right about the "calculations", then would it really make any difference whether we liked a heliocentric or a geocentric system better?

    Finally, what are you doing on my lawn? Get off my lawn.

    It's not satire. If you look around the site, it is a site which clearly belongs to yet another insane person.

    The thing I worry about is the writer is politically active. Three of the Republican presidential candidates said they don't believe in evolution, for frak's sake! These people are gonna send us down a slippery slope, I just know it. Pain will be our only friend as the rest of the world laughs . . .

    Read this astronomy blog for very good arguments against all sorts of pseudoscientific crap.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    I got about half way through the first paragraph and the line:
    "No amount of validation changes a theory into a law"
    Goes against most scientific discoveries which are made by working out an theory then working out a series of experiments that definitively prove or disprove the theory. Such experiments have discovered most atomic and subatomic particles and generally show that until you disprove a system it is essentially valid and that even when no longer valid, such as Newtonian physics can still prove useful as a way of working things out.
    It doesn't have to be 100% true, so long as it works.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    It doesn't have to be 100% true, so long as it works.
    If the writer is correct about a geocentric model giving good predictions and "working" as you say, does it matter whether we consider ourselves to live in a geo- or helio- centric system?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Sam Brownback on evolution: " . . . life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him . . . "
  • navelfluffnavelfluff
    edited June 2007
    Sam Brownback in the last article hungryjoe linked to:
    While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
    I don't quite understand where this guy is going with this (apart from collecting votes, of course). He starts out early by saying he accepts that microevolution over time leads to bigger change, which means he actually understands and accepts the basic concept of evolution. I don't have a (big) problem with religious people who take the stand that evolution is part of God's method of creation. It's the logical way to combine science and faith in a creator. That seemed to be Brownback's position in the first part of the article, but then he ends up with this statement that simply says science is anti-science if it comes to conclusions that are in oppositions to his faith. WTF? That is shockingly anti-science compared to the evolution friendly opening.

    On the other hand, this kind of silliness from an important man might make some of the blindly religious people consider that at least some part of the theory of evolution might be true. It might open some minds. I don't know, I'm just trying to be optimistic. Sigh.
    Post edited by navelfluff on
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    Well, if we rule out the Earth revolving around the Sun, then how do we explain gravity and such?

    Oh, right. Intelligent Falling.
  • BromleyBromley
    "However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving."

    You're eff'n kidding me, right? Seriously...how did you read past that sentence. Okay, I'll admit, I did too.
    The next sentence says:

    "Don’t take my word for it...There’s also the Word of the Lord:"

    I'm a little to jaded to really take this or really any absurdities at that offensively, so really I'm just laughing here.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    edited June 2007
    Are you sure that this isn't parody? I'm about a quarter through the comments, and Sisyphus is starting to believe that the Earth is flat. FLAT. I honestly can't tell anymore between the sarcastic posts and the comments of his supporters.
    As for those offering evidence the Earth is flat, I have to say that you may be on to something. Not having been in space myself before, I cannot state conclusively either way; it’s hard for me to believe that NASA is people by liars and charlatans, but after the deluge of lies I’ve been exposed to on this thread, it’s become somewhat easier for me to accept that. --Sisyphus
    UPDATE: This guy can't be real. No person intelligent enough to create a wobsite would post this, would they?
    “You accept that he Moon revolves around the Earth - which implies that it moves.”

    Again, though, if those landings were fakes and the world is flat, we have to look to some other explanation. For all I know, the moon is also flat, and is pushed across the sky by angels.
    Post edited by YoshoKatana on
  • MrRobotoMrRoboto
    Well, his right, the sun is not the center of the universe, its the center of the solar system, so no, its not all nonsense ;)
  • SoylentGreenIsPurpleSoylentGreenIsPurple
    I got about half way through the first paragraph and the line:
    "No amount of validation changes a theory into a law"
    Goes against most scientific discoveries which are made by working out an theory then working out a series of experiments that definitively prove or disprove the theory. Such experiments have discovered most atomic and subatomic particles and generally show that until you disprove a system it is essentially valid and that even when no longer valid, such as Newtonian physics can still prove useful as a way of working things out.
    It doesn't have to be 100% true, so long as it works.
    Actually, the line "no amount of validation changes a theory into a law" is technically accurate, since the two things are completely different. Scientific laws are observations of what happens in nature, theories are explanations. It's why we've had a Law of Gravity for around four centuries, but we still don't have a theory to explain what it actually is. Hypotheses are the "educated guesses"; theory is the highest you can go in the scientific method.

    I know I'm responding to an old post, but this is one of my pet peeves, and overall confusion of the scientific and colloquial definitions of "theory" and misunderstanding of the relationship between theories and laws is one of the big problems with people blowing off science anyways.
Sign In or Register to comment.