| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2005 11:01:54 AM |
| Object: |
Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
From the article:
-------------------------------
Bonnie Alba
The 1925 ?Scopes ?Monkey? Trial,? instigated by the American Civil Liberties
Union, resulted in Darwin?s theory of Origins prominently enshrined as
Science?s solo life origins theory. The ACLU racked up a place in the
litigation system and thereafter, amongst other issues, took on any customers
who wanted God and religion banned from public schools.
Today the censorship in schools is obvious, questioning the theory has become a
boondoggle for the ACLU, keeping them in the news. After all they?re defending
Science and the so-called facts of evolution, banning the superstitious
fundamentalists? ideas of creation from the hallow, state-run halls of
education.
Yet, time and again, studies and reports, such as from the National Academy of
Sciences, show that more than half of adult Americans believe in God and think
that Creationism should be taught in public schools. So what is the
controversy? Is it really Science versus Religion? Is it really about the
strict separation of church and state? Is it about censorship and a state-run
policy of indoctrination in the public schools? If the last were true, it
hasn?t worked when polls and studies are taken into account. Is it about a
failed origins theory which has embedded itself as a dogmatic tradition?
------------------------------
Read it at http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050414.html
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Now Heres Clayton With The Weather" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
14 Apr 2005 11:19:23 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:CZ6dnX2A960B0MPfRVn-rQ@rogers.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------
Bonnie Alba
The 1925 ?Scopes ?Monkey? Trial,? instigated by the American Civil
Liberties
Union, resulted in Darwin?s theory of Origins prominently enshrined as
Science?s solo life origins theory. The ACLU racked up a place in the
litigation system and thereafter, amongst other issues, took on any
customers
who wanted God and religion banned from public schools.
Today the censorship in schools is obvious, questioning the theory has
become a
boondoggle for the ACLU, keeping them in the news. After all they?re
defending
Science and the so-called facts of evolution, banning the superstitious
fundamentalists? ideas of creation from the hallow, state-run halls of
education.
Yet, time and again, studies and reports, such as from the National
Academy of
Sciences, show that more than half of adult Americans believe in God and
think
that Creationism should be taught in public schools.
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the world
must have been flat at the time, because that's what the majority believed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
17 Apr 2005 04:40:48 PM |
|
|
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
....4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 12:53:43 PM |
|
|
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science
was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
What is even sadder is that even though the educated upper class knew
that the earth was roughly spherical in shape by 1492 there was a
resurgence of creationist flat earthers after Darwin published the
Origin of Species in the 19th century. It was some type of back to the
Bible movement.
It would be interesting to find out if any of the Flat earth churches
still exist in the United States. The last time that I saw one
mentioned was when the press quoted the president of the church about
how the Voyager aircraft flew around the earth like on a phonograph
record. No one quoted these guys about the more recent balloon flights
and things, so they either have been forgotten or they are keeping a
lower profile. They also had these guys quoted in the papers the first
time the shuttle flew, so I don't know what happened to them.
When I was a graduate student in Utah in the 1980's there was a
Governor (Meachem?) that was under a cloud and possible impeachment.
He had an education secretary that was a creationist that got ridiculed
in the press for actually trying the gambit that it was OK to remove
globes from the classrooms because certain religious sects in Arizona
didn't believe in them. At that time teaching evolution was going
through the courts again and was an education issue.
It was one of those examples where it is impossible to parody
creationists.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 02:33:19 PM |
|
|
"On 18 Apr 2005 05:53:43 -0700, in article
<1113828823.799335.148660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ron O stated..."
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science
was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
What is even sadder is that even though the educated upper class knew
that the earth was roughly spherical in shape by 1492 there was a
resurgence of creationist flat earthers after Darwin published the
Origin of Species in the 19th century. It was some type of back to the
Bible movement.
I once checked the Oxford English Dictionary for the expression
"flat earth", and, as I recall, it is first recorded in English from
the 19th century. It would seem that even as a joke, it was
unknown before that.
Perhaps flat-earth-ism is really a reaction to modern ideas,
such as Biblical scholarship, of the 19th century?
Alfred Russel Wallace had an unfortunate run-in with a flat
earther.
It would be interesting to find out if any of the Flat earth churches
still exist in the United States. The last time that I saw one
mentioned was when the press quoted the president of the church about
how the Voyager aircraft flew around the earth like on a phonograph
record. No one quoted these guys about the more recent balloon flights
and things, so they either have been forgotten or they are keeping a
lower profile. They also had these guys quoted in the papers the first
time the shuttle flew, so I don't know what happened to them.
When I was a graduate student in Utah in the 1980's there was a
Governor (Meachem?) that was under a cloud and possible impeachment.
He had an education secretary that was a creationist that got ridiculed
in the press for actually trying the gambit that it was OK to remove
globes from the classrooms because certain religious sects in Arizona
didn't believe in them. At that time teaching evolution was going
through the courts again and was an education issue.
It was one of those examples where it is impossible to parody
creationists.
Ron Okimoto
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 02:55:47 PM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
Alfred Russel Wallace had an unfortunate run-in with a flat
earther.
Biblical literalism leads to flat earth. How else do we account for the
"four corners of the earth"? Some of the less benighted of the biblical
inerrintists interpret "the fource corners of the earth" as the
principle directions, north, east, south, west. But the Hebrew is quite
literal "arbah confoht ha'awretz". The four corners of the land or the
four corners of the earth. There is no interpretation there.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 12:36:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:55:47 -0400,
Robert J. Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
TomS wrote:
Alfred Russel Wallace had an unfortunate run-in with a flat
earther.
Biblical literalism leads to flat earth. How else do we account for the
"four corners of the earth"? Some of the less benighted of the biblical
inerrintists interpret "the fource corners of the earth" as the
principle directions, north, east, south, west. But the Hebrew is quite
literal "arbah confoht ha'awretz". The four corners of the land or the
four corners of the earth. There is no interpretation there.
Pretty clearly a number of ancient peoples believed the Earth was flat. By
the time of the Greeks and the introduction of geography and advanced
mathematics, that belief waned.
My understanding is that the Ancient Hebrews basically lifted the idea of a
flat, disc-shaped Earth from the Sumero-Akkadian mythos.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 01:51:18 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
My understanding is that the Ancient Hebrews basically lifted the idea of a
flat, disc-shaped Earth from the Sumero-Akkadian mythos.
Very likely. This also is acompanied by the notion of a "firmament" or
barrier between the waters above the earth and the waters on the earth.
Why else is the sky blue?
This should be a cautionary lesson to biblical literalists. Much of the
bible is based on vary primitive cosmology. The Greeks got past this
stage of understanding how the world worked. The Greeks were the first
to replace the arbitrary whims of the gods with laws and principles. The
initial notions were not correct but it was a necessary step toward
naturalism in understanding how the world works.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed. Stoebenau" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
24 Apr 2005 10:50:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:55:47 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Biblical literalism leads to flat earth. How else do we account for the
"four corners of the earth"?
Oh sure, dismiss the tetrahedral earth theory out of hand.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 12:50:02 AM |
|
|
"Ron O" <pokemoto@aol.com> wrote in news:1113828823.799335.148660
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
It would be interesting to find out if any of the Flat earth churches
still exist in the United States. The last time that I saw one
mentioned was when the press quoted the president of the church about
how the Voyager aircraft flew around the earth like on a phonograph
record. No one quoted these guys about the more recent balloon
flights
and things, so they either have been forgotten or they are keeping a
lower profile. They also had these guys quoted in the papers the
first
time the shuttle flew, so I don't know what happened to them.
[snip]
I am pretty much sure that there are currently no flat earth
churches left in the United States. The Flat Earth Society
has ceased to exist except in memory. I believe that they
pretty much all died out. And given that one needs to be
older than 50 to remember the times before the space age
(i.e. people have gotten used to the idea) and with around
the world communication (TV, telephone, internet) not
to mention travel that the Earth is not flat is something
people don't need to take on trust. That light/darkness cycle
differs as one goes west or east is easily noticable in a
day's trip on the interstate.
Now there are still geocentrists YECs.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
....4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 01:42:20 AM |
|
|
Harlequin wrote:
"Ron O" <pokemoto@aol.com> wrote in news:1113828823.799335.148660
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
It would be interesting to find out if any of the Flat earth
churches
still exist in the United States. The last time that I saw one
mentioned was when the press quoted the president of the church
about
how the Voyager aircraft flew around the earth like on a phonograph
record. No one quoted these guys about the more recent balloon
flights
and things, so they either have been forgotten or they are keeping
a
lower profile. They also had these guys quoted in the papers the
first
time the shuttle flew, so I don't know what happened to them.
[snip]
I am pretty much sure that there are currently no flat earth
churches left in the United States. The Flat Earth Society
has ceased to exist except in memory. I believe that they
pretty much all died out. And given that one needs to be
older than 50 to remember the times before the space age
(i.e. people have gotten used to the idea) and with around
the world communication (TV, telephone, internet) not
to mention travel that the Earth is not flat is something
people don't need to take on trust. That light/darkness cycle
differs as one goes west or east is easily noticable in a
day's trip on the interstate.
Now there are still geocentrists YECs.
One of the times that I saw a newspaper article quoting flat earthers
they had a picture of a middle aged guy whose title was president of
his church. Not pastor, but president. It was some church in Arizona.
The old flat earth society wasn't based in Arizona as far as I recall,
and the president of that society was some really old guy. The Salt
Lake newspapers used to pick up a lot of odd Arizona news stories
because of the large Morman contingent in Arizona. The polygamists
down there used to make the papers quite often. Not many Christian
sects call their church leaders presidents, but I don't know if they
had any connection with Mormans.
Ron Okimoto
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
...4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 01:57:14 PM |
|
|
Ron O wrote:
<...>
What is even sadder is that even though the educated upper class knew
that the earth was roughly spherical in shape by 1492 there was a
resurgence of creationist flat earthers after Darwin published the
Origin of Species in the 19th century. It was some type of back to
the
Bible movement.
I seem to remember too that initially there was a substantial outcry
against flying machines - the old "If man were meant to fly, God
would've given us wings" complaints.
<...>
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 02:25:34 PM |
|
|
"On 18 Apr 2005 06:57:14 -0700, in article
<1113832634.952220.320200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, VoiceOfReason
stated..."
Ron O wrote:
<...>
What is even sadder is that even though the educated upper class knew
that the earth was roughly spherical in shape by 1492 there was a
resurgence of creationist flat earthers after Darwin published the
Origin of Species in the 19th century. It was some type of back to
the
Bible movement.
I seem to remember too that initially there was a substantial outcry
against flying machines - the old "If man were meant to fly, God
would've given us wings" complaints.
<...>
After all, flight is only a theory. Haven't you heard of
"The Theory of Flight"?
You might say that flight has been observed, but that is
only *micro*flight. It is just a speculation that long-distance,
high-speed flight takes place.
And flight contradicts Newton's Second Law of Gravity: What
goes up, must come down. It is only by intelligent design that
flight is possible.
etc.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 02:55:26 PM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
"On 18 Apr 2005 06:57:14 -0700, in article
<1113832634.952220.320200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason
stated..."
Ron O wrote:
<...>
What is even sadder is that even though the educated upper class
knew
that the earth was roughly spherical in shape by 1492 there was a
resurgence of creationist flat earthers after Darwin published the
Origin of Species in the 19th century. It was some type of back
to
the
Bible movement.
I seem to remember too that initially there was a substantial outcry
against flying machines - the old "If man were meant to fly, God
would've given us wings" complaints.
<...>
After all, flight is only a theory. Haven't you heard of
"The Theory of Flight"?
You might say that flight has been observed, but that is
only *micro*flight. It is just a speculation that long-distance,
high-speed flight takes place.
And flight contradicts Newton's Second Law of Gravity: What
goes up, must come down. It is only by intelligent design that
flight is possible.
etc.
Just prove it. The voyager space craft may have left our solar system,
but how do you know it isn't coming back? Look at Star Trek. Well,
Vyger didn't land, but it could have. It's all micro-flight. Only the
one true designer can accomplish macro-flight.
Ron Okimoto
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should
by the Power
of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of
an Egg; as
that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a
Chaos."
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 03:53:45 PM |
|
|
Ron O wrote:
Just prove it. The voyager space craft may have left our solar system,
but how do you know it isn't coming back? Look at Star Trek. Well,
Vyger didn't land, but it could have. It's all micro-flight. Only the
one true designer can accomplish macro-flight.
The velocity of Voyager wrt the center of mass of the solar system
exceeds the escape velocity from the solar system. The escape speed is
about 60,000 mph and voyager was goning much faster than that after its
slingshot orbital boost around Jupiter. We have seen the last of Voyager
unless of course aliens capture it and return it to us.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 05:02:37 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Ron O wrote:
Just prove it. The voyager space craft may have left our solar
system,
but how do you know it isn't coming back? Look at Star Trek.
Well,
Vyger didn't land, but it could have. It's all micro-flight. Only
the
one true designer can accomplish macro-flight.
The velocity of Voyager wrt the center of mass of the solar system
exceeds the escape velocity from the solar system. The escape speed
is
about 60,000 mph and voyager was goning much faster than that after
its
slingshot orbital boost around Jupiter. We have seen the last of
Voyager
unless of course aliens capture it and return it to us.
Bob Kolker
See, just more theory. You can't prove that voyager is never coming
back, you even admit that space aliens, might exist. Just more flight
theory back peddling and waffling. This is just more evidence that the
one true flight engineer really exists.;-)
Just doing this parody makes me wonder if guys like Pitman or IDiots
like Dembski and Meyers are aware of what they are doing? When do
their arguments become too ridiculous even for them?
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 02:21:00 AM |
|
|
Ron O wrote:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Ron O wrote:
Just prove it. The voyager space craft may have left our solar
system,
but how do you know it isn't coming back? Look at Star Trek.
Well,
Vyger didn't land, but it could have. It's all micro-flight.
Only
the
one true designer can accomplish macro-flight.
The velocity of Voyager wrt the center of mass of the solar system
exceeds the escape velocity from the solar system. The escape speed
is
about 60,000 mph and voyager was goning much faster than that after
its
slingshot orbital boost around Jupiter. We have seen the last of
Voyager
unless of course aliens capture it and return it to us.
Bob Kolker
See, just more theory. You can't prove that voyager is never coming
back, you even admit that space aliens, might exist. Just more
flight
theory back peddling and waffling. This is just more evidence that
the
one true flight engineer really exists.;-)
Just doing this parody makes me wonder if guys like Pitman or IDiots
like Dembski and Meyers are aware of what they are doing? When do
their arguments become too ridiculous even for them?
I think they sit around getting drunk, and laugh their asses off at the
next thing they can get some schmuck to buy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 02:23:28 AM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
"On 18 Apr 2005 06:57:14 -0700, in article
<1113832634.952220.320200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason
stated..."
Ron O wrote:
<...>
What is even sadder is that even though the educated upper class
knew
that the earth was roughly spherical in shape by 1492 there was a
resurgence of creationist flat earthers after Darwin published the
Origin of Species in the 19th century. It was some type of back
to
the
Bible movement.
I seem to remember too that initially there was a substantial outcry
against flying machines - the old "If man were meant to fly, God
would've given us wings" complaints.
<...>
After all, flight is only a theory. Haven't you heard of
"The Theory of Flight"?
You might say that flight has been observed, but that is
only *micro*flight. It is just a speculation that long-distance,
high-speed flight takes place.
And flight contradicts Newton's Second Law of Gravity: What
goes up, must come down. It is only by intelligent design that
flight is possible.
Bah! I heard it from a reliable source that Orville and Wilbur
recanted on their death beds.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 02:53:05 PM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
And flight contradicts Newton's Second Law of Gravity: What
goes up, must come down. It is only by intelligent design that
flight is possible.
You mean the second law of motion. Newton's inverse square law of
gravity is a separate item from his general mechanical laws. To
continue, there is no contradiction. Newton understood what a free fall
was. One of his illustrations in -Principia Mathematica- was a cannon
ball fired tangentially from a mountain top so fast that it went into
orbit. So Newton anticipated artificial sattelites in his physics. The
mechanical laws are completely consistent with free fall orbits and
heavier than air bodies in short flight. As long as the lifting force
balances the gravitational force a material body will not fall to the
ground. Isaac Newton could see clouds as well as anyone else. He knew
clouds were masses of water vapor and had mass, yet they stayed aloft.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
17 Apr 2005 06:10:07 PM |
|
|
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science
was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
technically the "uneducated, overworked underclass" was the majority.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
...4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
17 Apr 2005 09:44:11 PM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in news:1113761407.332340.76770
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science
was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
technically the "uneducated, overworked underclass" was the majority.
True, but they also believed what the Church told them for the most
part. And they did not try to get flat-earth stuff put into anything.
I rather doubt that if elementary education existed for the serfs
that the round vs flat earth would have ever have become an issue.
And by the time of Columbus, the serf system was on the way out
with the beginnings of what we today might call a middle class.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
....4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
17 Apr 2005 11:29:40 PM |
|
|
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
I believe that Columbus did argue over one aspect of the shape of the
earth, specifically the diameter. He supporteded the incorrect, 18,000
mile diameter, which is what he set out to prove, expecting to reach
India in about 4000 miles. He had some incredible good luck to discover
two unknown, to Europeans, continents, but from its original purpose his
mission was a failure - to find a short route to India. When he first
sighted the Caribbean Islands he thought he had succeeded, which is why
they are called the Indies.
--
shane
The truth will set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 03:12:45 AM |
|
|
shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
news:yjC8e.3$eX2.171@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
I believe that Columbus did argue over one aspect of the shape of the
earth, specifically the diameter. He supporteded the incorrect, 18,000
mile diameter, which is what he set out to prove, expecting to reach
India in about 4000 miles. He had some incredible good luck to
discover two unknown, to Europeans, continents, but from its original
purpose his mission was a failure - to find a short route to India.
When he first sighted the Caribbean Islands he thought he had
succeeded, which is why they are called the Indies.
I always thought the term "shape" was independent of "size." Maybe
definitions differ.
Though yes, Columbus was dead wrong about the size of the Earth and
the scholars were right. Columbus was also wrong about how large
Asia was.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
....4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 03:52:32 AM |
|
|
Harlequin wrote:
shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
news:yjC8e.3$eX2.171@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
I believe that Columbus did argue over one aspect of the shape of the
earth, specifically the diameter. He supporteded the incorrect, 18,000
mile diameter, which is what he set out to prove, expecting to reach
India in about 4000 miles. He had some incredible good luck to
discover two unknown, to Europeans, continents, but from its original
purpose his mission was a failure - to find a short route to India.
When he first sighted the Caribbean Islands he thought he had
succeeded, which is why they are called the Indies.
I always thought the term "shape" was independent of "size." Maybe
definitions differ.
Though yes, Columbus was dead wrong about the size of the Earth and
the scholars were right. Columbus was also wrong about how large
Asia was.
You are correct with the size/shape bit, I had intended to word it
better after finishing off the rest of the post, but a lapse of memory
ocurred and i hit send too soon.
--
shane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
18 Apr 2005 10:30:14 AM |
|
|
shane wrote:
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
I believe that Columbus did argue over one aspect of the shape of the
earth, specifically the diameter. He supporteded the incorrect, 18,000
mile diameter, which is what he set out to prove, expecting to reach
India in about 4000 miles. He had some incredible good luck to discover
two unknown, to Europeans, continents, but from its original purpose his
mission was a failure - to find a short route to India. When he first
sighted the Caribbean Islands he thought he had succeeded, which is why
they are called the Indies.
I had read that this was the true reason for much of the opposition -
people who accepted the correct size thought that the journey to India
was far too far and they could not keep the ship supplied
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 12:51:55 AM |
|
|
Ash <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
news:d4027g$gp5$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
shane wrote:
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science
was legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when
the world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
I believe that Columbus did argue over one aspect of the shape of the
earth, specifically the diameter. He supporteded the incorrect,
18,000 mile diameter, which is what he set out to prove, expecting to
reach India in about 4000 miles. He had some incredible good luck to
discover two unknown, to Europeans, continents, but from its original
purpose his mission was a failure - to find a short route to India.
When he first sighted the Caribbean Islands he thought he had
succeeded, which is why they are called the Indies.
I had read that this was the true reason for much of the opposition -
people who accepted the correct size thought that the journey to India
was far too far and they could not keep the ship supplied
You read correctly. And yes, that distance would have been too far
for a ship to travel over the open seas without a port of call.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
....4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Gosnell, FCD" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 02:57:35 AM |
|
|
Harlequin <usenet@sdc.cox.net> wrote in
news:Xns963CCA3E5C255usenet123mmcablecom@68.12.19.6:
You read correctly. And yes, that distance would have been too far
for a ship to travel over the open seas without a port of call.
And there is speculation that Columbus knew very well the diameter of the
earth, but wasn't trying to reach India at all, because he knew of the
existence of the 'new world', from the Viking voyages and other sources.
There seems to be some evidence that European fishermen had already been
to the eastern shores of the present-day US/Canada on fishing trips.
Whether all that is true or not, it makes for lively discussions.
--
Regards,
Stan
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harlequin" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 08:02:26 PM |
|
|
"Stan Gosnell, FCD" <me@work.com> wrote in
news:Xns963CDF631DC60mework@204.52.135.8:
Harlequin <usenet@sdc.cox.net> wrote in
news:Xns963CCA3E5C255usenet123mmcablecom@68.12.19.6:
You read correctly. And yes, that distance would have been too far
for a ship to travel over the open seas without a port of call.
And there is speculation that Columbus knew very well the diameter of
the earth, but wasn't trying to reach India at all, because he knew of
the existence of the 'new world', from the Viking voyages and other
sources. There seems to be some evidence that European fishermen had
already been to the eastern shores of the present-day US/Canada on
fishing trips.
Whether all that is true or not, it makes for lively discussions.
I think it is fairly clear that is false. Columbus was in it
for the potential riches and that meant the orient. I don't see
how the legends of the Viking voyages would have told him
that it was a new world instead of the orient given just how little
Columbus really knew about it. Besides, why keep up the pretenses
even after four voyages and after many others were saying that
it was a new world. Surely he had no wish to look foolish.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"I don't advertise. The site is known by word of mouth"
- Jason Gastrich
"JCSM costs money to run. Here is a rundown of our primary expenses
....4) Advertising: Varies"
- Jason and Sarine Gastrich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 09:48:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:02:26 GMT, Harlequin <usenet@sdc.cox.net>
wrote:
"Stan Gosnell, FCD" <me@work.com> wrote in
news:Xns963CDF631DC60mework@204.52.135.8:
Harlequin <usenet@sdc.cox.net> wrote in
news:Xns963CCA3E5C255usenet123mmcablecom@68.12.19.6:
You read correctly. And yes, that distance would have been too far
for a ship to travel over the open seas without a port of call.
And there is speculation that Columbus knew very well the diameter of
the earth, but wasn't trying to reach India at all, because he knew of
the existence of the 'new world', from the Viking voyages and other
sources. There seems to be some evidence that European fishermen had
already been to the eastern shores of the present-day US/Canada on
fishing trips.
Whether all that is true or not, it makes for lively discussions.
I think it is fairly clear that is false. Columbus was in it
for the potential riches and that meant the orient. I don't see
how the legends of the Viking voyages would have told him
that it was a new world instead of the orient given just how little
Columbus really knew about it. Besides, why keep up the pretenses
even after four voyages and after many others were saying that
it was a new world. Surely he had no wish to look foolish.
You have to keep on mind just why Columbus and the Spanish royals
might want to sail around the world east to west. At that time
the spice trade was the road to riches and the only way to get
them was around Africa's southern cape and easterly to the East
Indies, a long route. Columbus was arguing that the direct
westerly route was the better, but he did underestimate the
diameter of the earth. He had little reason to name the islands
he found the "Indies" and the natives "Indians" if he found a new
world he was looking for. I don't believe he ever admitted he had
found a "new" world.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan Gosnell, FCD" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
20 Apr 2005 02:26:44 AM |
|
|
Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in
news:prua61d446t8moh6oef21cqos8lntelnf9@4ax.com:
You have to keep on mind just why Columbus and the Spanish royals
might want to sail around the world east to west. At that time
the spice trade was the road to riches and the only way to get
them was around Africa's southern cape and easterly to the East
Indies, a long route. Columbus was arguing that the direct
westerly route was the better, but he did underestimate the
diameter of the earth. He had little reason to name the islands
he found the "Indies" and the natives "Indians" if he found a new
world he was looking for. I don't believe he ever admitted he had
found a "new" world.
It isn't unusual for someone to refuse to admit the obvious. As is
pointed out here frequently, "Denial is not a river in Egypt". Admitting
that he hadn't found India, whether he knew it or not, may not have been
politically expedient.
That said, I'm not prepared to argue any of this one way or the other. I
don't have enough data.
--
Regards,
Stan
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: ACLU and Science - Brotherhood of Darwinism |
19 Apr 2005 08:55:22 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
shane wrote:
Harlequin wrote:
"Now Here's Clayton With The Weather"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com>
wrote in news:425ef9cb$0$5393$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
I didn't know that opinion polls decided reality and what science
was
legitimate! Then how did Columbus manage to find America when the
world must have been flat at the time, because that's what the
majority believed?
This is mythology created in the 19th century: Columbus argued with
no one over the shape of the Earth. All educated people, people
involved in sailing, the Church, the establishment, etc. all knew
the Earth was a sphere. The only people at that time who thought
the Earth was flat would have been the uneducated, overworked
underclass. There was no flat Earth movement at the time
whatsoever.
I believe that Columbus did argue over one aspect of the shape of
the
earth, specifically the diameter. He supporteded the incorrect,
18,000
mile diameter, which is what he set out to prove, expecting to
reach
India in about 4000 miles. He had some incredible good luck to
discover
two unknown, to Europeans, continents, but from its original
purpose his
mission was a failure - to find a short route to India. When he
first
sighted the Caribbean Islands he thought he had succeeded, which is
why
they are called the Indies.
I had read that this was the true reason for much of the opposition -
people who accepted the correct size thought that the journey to
India
was far too far and they could not keep the ship supplied
Yes. The church did not object at all to a round Earth. What they
objected to was Galileo's later suggestion that the Earth was not the
center of the universe, and by implication, was therefore not the
*purpose of the Creation and God's Plan(tm). To a large degree, this is
exactly the same motive of the YECs. If we are just another critter, a
by-product of natural law, it's harder for some of them to think of
themselves as special. Oh, well.
I think that some theistic evolutionists might tell them that they
think entirely too much of themselves, anyway.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
