Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 04-21-2003, 01:03 AM

Just to set the record straight.

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
[B]Sigh, Girl,
You ask,

Of course scientists have always attempted to suppress those in their minority. Tectonic plate theory wasn�t accepted until the 1960�s well after the scientific community ridiculed, lambasted and destroyed the career of the genius who had the insight and audacity to propose the theory.

Wegener's career was not destroyed, and the fact that the mechanism he proposed for the motion of continents ("Polflucht") was utterly insufficient may have had something to do with his reception.

Quote:

It�s no secret that Einstein could not even get the scientific community he inhabited to publish his theory of relativity.

Come on - are you serious ? Did he publish "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K�rper" (the paper which introduced Special Relativity" in the National Enquirer ?

Only a small minority opposed Einstein's theories - and for racist, not for scientific reasons.

Regards,
HRG.

Secular Pinoy · 04-21-2003, 02:48 AM

What is written about flat earthism under point 1) is essentially bull.

I agree.

Craig · 04-21-2003, 10:08 AM

This is a terrific post. I've used this argument before against YEC types, but this puts it all together very neatly.

Albert Cipriani · 04-21-2003, 10:12 AM

Dear Scigirl,
Today, in rereading yesterday�s post, I�m prompted to apologize for the testy tone I took towards you.

You ask:

Quote:

When the priests of the past disregarded scientific knowledge in favor of literally interpreting the Scripture, were they wrong?

Yes, the priests were wrong.

Quote:

Isn't it conceivable you are wrong now?

Yes, it�s far more than conceivable and more than possible. My belief in a non-naturalistic cause of certain human behaviors may most definitely be wrong and my faith vain.

Quote:

Do you see any parallels [between today�s creationists and yesteryear�s priests]

Yes.

Quote:

These priests predicted that the acceptance of the round earth/old earth/orbiting earth would signify the downfall of Christianity. Were their predictions correct?

Yes. Christianity is in its death throes.

Quote:

What implications does this have for the veracity of Christianity in general?

That Christianity will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Quote:

If rejecting basic tenets of science - ie that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around - is crucial for the survival of Christianity, than how good is Christian theory to start with?

Rejection of basic tenets of science should not be crucial for the survival of Christianity because, to quote you, �The bible is a crappy science book.� But because of metaphorical thinking, a species of non-thinking, the tenets of science seem to be at odds with Christian sentiments. So even tho the war between scientific tenets and religious faith is an unnecessary one, it is one that is being engaged and being lost by Christianity.

Quote:

Shouldn't the religion - which is supposed to govern humanity throughout the ages - withstand the test of time, including the ever-changing human intellect and discovery?

Yes.

Quote:

If it can't, what good is it?

It does not appear that it can. But that is no reflection upon its good. It�s a reflection on our being bad.

The Christians whose faith cannot survive the scientific discoveries of today are reenacting the story of the Jews who forsook their unseen God shrouded in the clouds of Mount Sinai for the golden calf they could touch. It�s the sequel to Eve�s violation of an abstract seemingly unreasonable but just commandment not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree that she could plainly see really and truly �was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold.� � Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

ps418 · 04-21-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG
Just to set the record straight.

Wegener's career was not destroyed, and the fact that the mechanism he proposed for the motion of continents ("Polflucht") was utterly insufficient may have had something to do with his reception.

That's right. It was known long before Wegener that the continents had moved relative to each other. This was recognized by Abraham Ortelius as early as 1596. Wegener supplemented the geological evidence for former connection between Africa-South America and so on, and proposed that it was an ongoing process. But as you point out, his mechanism was rejected for very good reasons -- it couldnt possibly work, because continents can not plow through stationary ocean crust. Wegener did recieve a frosty reception at some US geologic meetings, but he was hardly ridiculed or destroyed.

Patrick

emotional · 04-21-2003, 11:27 AM

Quote:

from http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm:

From the foregoing, it's not surprising that flat-earthism has been associated with Christianity since the beginning. Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular. As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book Christian Topography. But Cosmas was fighting a losing battle, and the Ptolemaic system, based on a spherical earth, rapidly took over. By the 12th century (despite Edward Blick's implication to the contrary), the flat-earth concept was essentially a dead letter in the West.

The Flat Earth Society still exists, though I don't know under what leadership (Charles K Johnson passed away a few years ago). They don't have a website (all Flat-Earth websites are parodies). Geocentrists, though, do have websites:

Dr Bouw's Geocentricity Website

Marshall Hall's Non-Moving Earth and Anti-Evolution Website

madmavman45 · 04-21-2003, 05:29 PM

hmm.. the original post has some interesting points - unfortunately, none of them undermine Christ as Lord

all they do is seek to exploit the presence of sin in those who were in authority of the Church. this is easy of course, since no one is without sin, and you can find something to gripe about if you press hard enough. thats the nature of the beast (however, im sure none of you would be terribly interested to do a simple investigation on your lives, to see if YOU are without blame either

) i'm sorry you think Christianity is going the way of the dinosaurs, Albert. i will attest to the fact that it is alive and well, and exciting things are happening where i am

(college student) additionally, i'm also sorry that some of you think that scientists are these high-minded individuals, thinking only about the "greater good" (or whatever that might be..), who would never do anything to undermine the competition. can we say global warming? can we say the rediculousness of raising men to be women, and vice-versa (after soooo many athorities have said boys and girls can be raised the same way, with the same results)? can we say the issue of self-esteem? these are just a few issues that the mainstreem liberal "scientists" (i detest even recognizing them as such) have attempted to squash anyone who has data to contradict them and their ideology. and yes, thats the proper usage of ideology (we had a discussion about the usage in my philosophy class.. the idea must be wrong, and the person must dogmatically believe it to be wrong, inspite of evidence to the contrary). i think it is creating a "hostile environment" to be teaching the unproven notion of evolution as fact (in the macro sense, not necessarily micro), as creationism is quite the "under-represented viewpoint" in the liberal pedagogy in the college scene. i definately feel there needs to be "intellectual diversity" in the media and education curriculum.

overall, the funny part is that anyone who understands what it means to be in Christ recongizes and confesses their own shortcomings. i will never proclaim to be without sin.

the same cannot be said about scientists, or anyone else living in rebellion against God, since they usually proclaim sinlessness, even when it is blatantly shoved in their face.

the Gospel will go forth to all the world. it cannot be contained, it cannot be stopped. just compare the influence Christianity has today, compared to when Christ walked the earth. it has only gotten bigger. that should be a chilling thought for some of you

but i make no appologies about it.

Duvenoy · 04-21-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madmavman45
hmm.. the original post has some interesting points - unfortunately, none of them undermine Christ as Lord all they do is seek to exploit the presence of sin in those who were in authority of the Church. this is easy of course, since no one is without sin, and you can find something to gripe about if you press hard enough. thats the nature of the beast (however, im sure none of you would be terribly interested to do a simple investigation on your lives, to see if YOU are without blame either ) i'm sorry you think Christianity is going the way of the dinosaurs, Albert. i will attest to the fact that it is alive and well, and exciting things are happening where i am (college student) additionally, i'm also sorry that some of you think that scientists are these high-minded individuals, thinking only about the "greater good" (or whatever that might be..), who would never do anything to undermine the competition. can we say global warming? can we say the rediculousness of raising men to be women, and vice-versa (after soooo many athorities have said boys and girls can be raised the same way, with the same results)? can we say the issue of self-esteem? these are just a few issues that the mainstreem liberal "scientists" (i detest even recognizing them as such) have attempted to squash anyone who has data to contradict them and their ideology. and yes, thats the proper usage of ideology (we had a discussion about the usage in my philosophy class.. the idea must be wrong, and the person must dogmatically believe it to be wrong, inspite of evidence to the contrary). i think it is creating a "hostile environment" to be teaching the unproven notion of evolution as fact (in the macro sense, not necessarily micro), as creationism is quite the "under-represented viewpoint" in the liberal pedagogy in the college scene. i definately feel there needs to be "intellectual diversity" in the media and education curriculum.

overall, the funny part is that anyone who understands what it means to be in Christ recongizes and confesses their own shortcomings. i will never proclaim to be without sin. the same cannot be said about scientists, or anyone else living in rebellion against God, since they usually proclaim sinlessness, even when it is blatantly shoved in their face.

the Gospel will go forth to all the world. it cannot be contained, it cannot be stopped. just compare the influence Christianity has today, compared to when Christ walked the earth. it has only gotten bigger. that should be a chilling thought for some of you but i make no appologies about it.

As rants go, I'll score it a seven. But for skillful writing, it's only worth about a 3. For preaching, oh, maybe a five. Beyond that, I'm not sure what what madmavman45's point is. No score there.

doov

Albert Cipriani · 04-21-2003, 06:20 PM

Dear Mad 45,
God bless you.

I, too, am sorry that it seems Christianity is going extinct. Matthew 24 speaks of what I speak, implying that at the end times faith will not endure:

Quote:

For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

Then there is this haunting question of Luke 18 regarding what may be our times:

Quote:

the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

Now I'll climb out of the shark tank. Good luck defending yourself against the circling dorsel fins. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

madmavman45 · 04-21-2003, 06:28 PM

lol.. i didn't realize i was being scored

the point? simple. the original post is a bunch of hot air, a red herring to distract from what should be the bigger question at hand. it's a cheap-shot, basically. it's sad to see that, but it doesn't suprise me, i guess. just trying to bring some balance to a slightly tilted thread

i have quite a bit of respect for st. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, and it's sad to see people take pot-shots at them. were they perfect? of course not. and i admit i disgree with the conclussion quoted from Augustine, since none of the stuff he talks about in any way results in a flat-earth theology. that would fall under one of those "it doesn't matter" categories, in regards to core doctrine. now, evolution v. creation is one i see as a core doctrine, which is why i will argue it incessantly

the earth as the center of the universe, the shape of the earth, those are not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2003, 02:48 AM	#22
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	What is written about flat earthism under point 1) is essentially bull. I agree.

04-21-2003, 10:08 AM	#23
Craig Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,058	This is a terrific post. I've used this argument before against YEC types, but this puts it all together very neatly.

04-21-2003, 05:29 PM	#27
madmavman45 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Easton, PA Posts: 5	hmm.. the original post has some interesting points - unfortunately, none of them undermine Christ as Lord all they do is seek to exploit the presence of sin in those who were in authority of the Church. this is easy of course, since no one is without sin, and you can find something to gripe about if you press hard enough. thats the nature of the beast (however, im sure none of you would be terribly interested to do a simple investigation on your lives, to see if YOU are without blame either ) i'm sorry you think Christianity is going the way of the dinosaurs, Albert. i will attest to the fact that it is alive and well, and exciting things are happening where i am (college student) additionally, i'm also sorry that some of you think that scientists are these high-minded individuals, thinking only about the "greater good" (or whatever that might be..), who would never do anything to undermine the competition. can we say global warming? can we say the rediculousness of raising men to be women, and vice-versa (after soooo many athorities have said boys and girls can be raised the same way, with the same results)? can we say the issue of self-esteem? these are just a few issues that the mainstreem liberal "scientists" (i detest even recognizing them as such) have attempted to squash anyone who has data to contradict them and their ideology. and yes, thats the proper usage of ideology (we had a discussion about the usage in my philosophy class.. the idea must be wrong, and the person must dogmatically believe it to be wrong, inspite of evidence to the contrary). i think it is creating a "hostile environment" to be teaching the unproven notion of evolution as fact (in the macro sense, not necessarily micro), as creationism is quite the "under-represented viewpoint" in the liberal pedagogy in the college scene. i definately feel there needs to be "intellectual diversity" in the media and education curriculum. overall, the funny part is that anyone who understands what it means to be in Christ recongizes and confesses their own shortcomings. i will never proclaim to be without sin. the same cannot be said about scientists, or anyone else living in rebellion against God, since they usually proclaim sinlessness, even when it is blatantly shoved in their face. the Gospel will go forth to all the world. it cannot be contained, it cannot be stopped. just compare the influence Christianity has today, compared to when Christ walked the earth. it has only gotten bigger. that should be a chilling thought for some of you but i make no appologies about it.

04-21-2003, 06:28 PM	#30
madmavman45 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Easton, PA Posts: 5	lol.. i didn't realize i was being scored the point? simple. the original post is a bunch of hot air, a red herring to distract from what should be the bigger question at hand. it's a cheap-shot, basically. it's sad to see that, but it doesn't suprise me, i guess. just trying to bring some balance to a slightly tilted thread i have quite a bit of respect for st. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, and it's sad to see people take pot-shots at them. were they perfect? of course not. and i admit i disgree with the conclussion quoted from Augustine, since none of the stuff he talks about in any way results in a flat-earth theology. that would fall under one of those "it doesn't matter" categories, in regards to core doctrine. now, evolution v. creation is one i see as a core doctrine, which is why i will argue it incessantly the earth as the center of the universe, the shape of the earth, those are not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.