Blogs 4 Brownback

May 18, 2007

Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Filed under: Faith,Science — Sisyphus @ 10:04 am

HeliocentrismWhat’s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless doctrine of evolution, is the non-debate over an issue that rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Now, it has to be granted that there may be some mathematical evidence going either way; mathematically speaking, Copernicus may be on ground nearly as firm as that of Tycho Brahe. Right-thinking people know the correct doctrine, however:

Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,[1] and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations

It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of Copernicus and Kepler were mathematically sound. 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. That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don’t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There’s also the Word of the Lord:

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)

Moreover, as Answers in Genesis points out,

…[S]omething well known to high-school physics students, but apparently not to bibliosceptics—that it’s valid to describe motion from any reference frame, although an inertial one usually makes the mathematics simpler.3 But there are many times when the Earth is a convenient reference frame; i.e. at some point we all use the geocentric model in one sense. For instance, a planetarium is a geocentric model. Calculation of rising, transiting, and setting of various celestial objects is calculated geocentrically. There are numerous other examples. Since modern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference frame, it’s unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the same.

The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism is http://www.fixedearth.com/. The website contains numerous links to essays and analyses proving that the embrace of Copernicus is almost as foolish as the embrace of Darwinism. To quote from just one of these astounding essays:

Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid “scientific” concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe–and do believe–that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning, now long since freed from religious superstitions based on the Bible.

Indeed, it was this Copernican heliocentricity concept that gradually broke the back of Bible credibility as the source of Absolute Truth in Christendom. Once the Copernican Revolution had conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.

This embrace of Darwinism then quite predictably emboldened increasingly secular-minded mankind to further reject Biblical Absolutism and replace its teachings with yet more new “truths” in areas of learning having to do with economics and government. Thus was unsuccessful and floundering Marxism given new life. Marx openly tried to dedicate his own books to Darwin, exulting: “You have given me the basis for my system”. Thus, the “Social Science” disciplines were born and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility…

Darwin, of course, only popularized evolutionism with his book in 1859, giving it a supposed mechanism thru natural selection and mutations, both since demonstrated to be utter nonsense. The actual roots of the evolutionary concept can be traced back to antiquity…as indeed can the roots of Copernican heliocentricism. Certainly the neo-heliocentrists, i.e., the early Copernicans such as Kepler were evolutionists. Galileo, like Kepler his friend, a neo-heliocentrist, was probably an evolutionist. Newton gave Copernicanism its biggest boost with his book in 1687, but I’ve seen no overt evidence that he was an evolutionist. (If you know of such evidence, I’d like to see it….)

Thanks, however, to Newton’s invented math and the excesses of his gravitational hypotheses (HERE), Copernicanism dug in its heels in the universities in the 1700’s, and by the last quarter of that century had produced a large crop of hard core heliocentrists, not a few of whom were advocating ape-man theories (amongst them, Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, Voltaire’s disciples in France, etc.). This was the age of “The Enlightenment” which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as “that filthy little atheist”. Thomas Jefferson’s and Ben Franklin’s Deism was commonplace in Europe as well as amongst the rebellious American colonies. During the French Revolution of the 1790’s the Bible was actually outlawed.

These developments were sixty to a hundred years and more before Darwin, but the damage to Bible credibility done by the Copernican Revolution by that time was making an ever-widening open door for Evolutionism to take root. By 1830–even before Darwin (with his Degree in Theology, not Biology) went to the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his mythology, Charles Lyell (with his degree in Law, not Geology) had advanced his idea of a “geologic column” with great ages attached to alleged descending layers of the earth. Though such a column has never, ever been confirmed, and though there are mountainous examples of the theoretically old layers being on top of the supposedly more recent ones, and though the Cambrian layer shows a sudden profusion of highly developed life forms with no antecedents, Darwin picked up on Lyell’s fantasy and it is still taught as a proof of an ancient earth and macro-evolutionism.

If that, alone, isn’t enough to convince you of the folly of embracing a soulless, atheistic pseudoscience like Heliocentrism, perhaps this will soften your stony head:

God, thru His Word, teaches a non-moving and immovable earth just as surely as he teaches a six-day Creation 6000 years ago and a universal Flood some 1600 years later. All attempts to twist and even boldly reverse geocentric Scriptures by claiming that God just used a “language of appearance” are extremely reckless for the Christian devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, the same argument has been employed with near devastating effect upon the Creationist Movement by Theistic Evolutionists, has it not?

Attacking vulnerable Copernicanism is a strategy that outflanks the entire secular science establishment (overrunning the Theistic Evolutionist’s position in the process!)

In addition to all that, being men and women of sound mind (II Tim. 1:7), Creationists should be eager to learn that:

1) No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.

2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.

3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880’s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his “relativity” hypothesis.

4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.

5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.

6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments–especially the light fringe results–prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God’s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.

7) The Bible not only flatly states scores of times (HERE) and in several ways (HERE) that the earth does not move, it actually has a built-in geocentric assumption–sun rise, sun set–from beginning to end. (One scholar, a geocentrist and mathematician, is cataloguing some 2000 (!) of these.)

In the beginning, the Bible makes clear, the earth was the center of our “solar” system, with no sun for it to go around until the 4th day of creation (Gen.1:14-19; HERE). At the End we read of a New Earth (HERE) replacing in the same location this old one (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,2). This New Earth which occupies the same location in the cosmos as the old one which has “fled away” is the place where God the Father and Jesus will dwell with the redeemed forever (Rev. 21:3).

Given that unpreached but clear teaching, do you think that God the Father and Jesus the Son will eternally be somewhere out on the edge of Their NEW Universe in the boonies…or at the center?

If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propogation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.

I can’t wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.

UPDATE: Sheer idiocy.

UPDATE II: Look, people, even your Heliocentric hero Galileo recanted his idiotic notions about the Earth revolving around the Sun. If he’s your so-called reliable source on this, I think it does wonders to shatter the idea’s credibility that one of its main proponents backed away from it so abruptly.

UPDATE III: Further Scriptural evidence refuting Heliocentrism. To me, this settles the debate. The Earth does not move. To assert that the Earth does move is to renounce Christianity. It really is as simple as that.

UPDATE IV (by Psycheout): Be sure to visit the B4B Store and get your own “Heliocentrism” gear, before the craven helioleftists shut us down.

Heliocentrism Bumper Sticker

1,769 Comments »

  1. Trying to give Jon Swift a run for his money?

    Comment by les — May 18, 2007 @ 12:55 pm | Reply

  2. Intentionally or not, this blog is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time.

    Thank you, Sisyphus!

    Comment by Jamey Ballot — May 18, 2007 @ 1:07 pm | Reply

  3. Wow. I’m….stunned. Are you seriously that fucking stupid? I though we resolved this issue, oh I dunno, a few hundred years ago.

    Comment by Dave — May 18, 2007 @ 1:16 pm | Reply

  4. “Trying to give Jon Swift a run for his money?”

    Who is Jon Swift?

    “Thank you, Sisyphus!”

    You’re welcome. Keep coming back, and be sure to vote Brownback!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 2:01 pm | Reply

  5. “Wow. I’m….stunned. Are you seriously that fucking stupid? I though we resolved this issue, oh I dunno, a few hundred years ago.”

    Obviously you didn’t read the post, then. What’s the matter? Are the big words giving you trouble?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 2:02 pm | Reply

  6. Simply Unbelievable.

    I thought this had to be parody, I mean no-one could possibly still believe that the earth is the center of the universe.

    If I am reading this correctly, then at the very least, I have narrowed brownback out. I cannot possibly vote for someone of that limited thought capacity.

    I am simply astounded at how anyone could believe that the earth stands still while everything revolves around us.

    Thank you for helping me to decide to NEVER vote for brownback.

    Comment by brad — May 18, 2007 @ 2:16 pm | Reply

  7. Brownback will do great in Colorado. We’ll make sure of it.

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 2:18 pm | Reply

  8. I think NASA has proven that the earth moves through space. Intrasolar probes have to retarget to the new location of Terra when they’re sending information back.

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

    Comment by Ron — May 18, 2007 @ 2:22 pm | Reply

  9. Well, Ron. According to the website cited by the Brownback campaign, NASA is part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the Jews and is falsifying their data.

    Comment by Wonk — May 18, 2007 @ 2:25 pm | Reply

  10. “I thought this had to be parody, I mean no-one could possibly still believe that the earth is the center of the universe.”

    Spoken like a true atheist.

    “Thank you for helping me to decide to NEVER vote for brownback.”

    If you’re too stupid to see through the lies of the evolutionist community, Brownback doesn’t need your vote anyway. We’ll win without you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 2:33 pm | Reply

  11. “Brownback will do great in Colorado. We’ll make sure of it.”

    Good to hear it, Pale Horse.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 2:34 pm | Reply

  12. “I think NASA has proven that the earth moves through space. Intrasolar probes have to retarget to the new location of Terra when they’re sending information back.”

    That’s a situation in which it’s mathematically convenient to consider the Earth as moving. But objects only move relative to other objects. You can easily allow that one object (the Earth) holds still, in accordance with Scripture and the empirical evidence of those of us on Earth. That NASA has decided to view the Earth as moving was their moral and mathematical decision, not an Absolute Fact.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 2:36 pm | Reply

    • The bible contains much that is true and wise, but the bible is not always right. For example:
      Leviticus condemns homosexuality, but forbids eating sheep’s fat (7:23), letting a woman into the church’s sanctuary who has recently given birth (12:2-5), and seeing your uncle naked. The latter, like homosexuality, is deemed an abomination (18:14, 26). Even worse, Leviticus condemns to death those who curse their parents (20:9) and those who commit adultery 20:10). It also says that we may purchase slaves from nearby nations (25:44). In Exodus, it even says that it’s okay to beat your slaves, so long as they don’t die 921:20-21).

      The point isn’t to ridicule the bible, to merely point out that the bible if filled with ridiculous tenants that we do not and should not follow. So, maybe you should say something like, “in accordance with the scripture that I personally deem appropriate for my beliefs…..”

      p.s. The bible is not the “word of god,” but the word of man.

      Cheers

      Comment by birdog — January 30, 2010 @ 1:25 pm | Reply

      • Actually the bible is the word of man when man was ignorant to much of what was happening in the world. The bible is the largest book of fiction and make believe ever written. It makes my head spin to see so many people look at it as absolute truth. I would have to shut down all thought processes in my brain to accept any of it. I like a good book of fiction as much as the next guy, but I don’t accept it as real.

        Comment by Gary Troughton — July 25, 2013 @ 12:04 pm

  13. “Well, Ron. According to the website cited by the Brownback campaign, NASA is part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the Jews and is falsifying their data.”

    I can’t vouch for everything that website claims, but when it comes to the Fixed Earth issue they are the pre-eminent authority. The whole website is devoted to this issue, and to the subsidiary fallacy of Darwinism. We agree on those two issues, not so much on the nature of NASA.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

  14. I hope you realize we were being sarcastic. This is what we said in our post about you and your boss.

    If Sam Brownback is elected president we can look forward to fundamentalist Islamic style purges of science, facts, and education. Sam Brownback and his crew of Inquisitioners will take America back to the Stone Age. He and his lunatic supporters should be feared. Well, at least laughed at if nothing else.

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 2:54 pm | Reply

  15. “I hope you realize we were being sarcastic. This is what we said in our post about you and your boss.”
    Well, that wasn’t very nice.
    Anyway, I only have one boss, and it isn’t Brownback. He’s a man from Nazareth, but I don’t know if you’d know Him or not.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 2:56 pm | Reply

  16. An excerpt from the website the Brownback campaign is citing:

    “A few scholarly writings in the last three decades or so of the 20th century dared to challenge another profitable and heretofore untouchable sacred cow, namely, the sacrosanct Holocaust saga. ”

    We find it extremely disturbing that the Brownback campaign would allow such vile Holocaust-denying propaganda and conspiracy theories against the Jewish people to be used in campaign literature.

    We eagerly await an apology from both this website and from Sen. Brownback.

    Thank you.

    Comment by ADL — May 18, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  17. We know Jesus of Nazareth, who was the Son of God. We probably don’t know the science murderer you are referring that lived in Nazareth at some point in history.

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  18. Personally, if Brownback actually won, then America would get the president it deserves (after Bush).

    It would be High Comedy if that were the case. I think I’d like to see that. Nobody told me when I was a boy that I would be alive for the Fall of the Republic, it might be worth watching.

    You keep rolling that boulder Sisyphus because you, like the mythical Sisyphus, will never get it over the crest of the hill without it falling back over and squashing you.

    Man I love the Internet. Where else can you just show up and verbally abuse a total stranger?

    Comment by Mark Plattner — May 18, 2007 @ 3:05 pm | Reply

  19. “We eagerly await an apology from both this website and from Sen. Brownback.”

    This website isn’t affiliated with Sam Brownback, it’s merely a website of his supporters. I don’t think he can apologize for his supporters.

    But if you want an apology from us, fine: we apologize that sometimes people who are correct about one thing are incorrect about another. The Holocaust denials on the Fixed Earth website are insane; nevertheless, the fact remains that the Earth does not move.

    “We know Jesus of Nazareth, who was the Son of God. We probably don’t know the science murderer you are referring that lived in Nazareth at some point in history.”

    Yet your so-called “science” is embraced by atheists and secularists who refute every shred of what He did and what He stood for. I’m extremely unimpressed.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  20. You’re so called science-denials are embraced by fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists.

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  21. “Personally, if Brownback actually won, then America would get the president it deserves (after Bush).”

    Amen. Fine Presidents, both.

    “It would be High Comedy if that were the case. I think I’d like to see that. Nobody told me when I was a boy that I would be alive for the Fall of the Republic, it might be worth watching.”

    I wouldn’t know. I don’t watch cable TV very often. Is that a new HBO special?

    “You keep rolling that boulder Sisyphus because you, like the mythical Sisyphus, will never get it over the crest of the hill without it falling back over and squashing you.”

    No, I roll that boulder on the liberals and squash them. Lather, rinse, and repeat. Sisyphus never got crushed by his own boulder, never even once.

    “Man I love the Internet. Where else can you just show up and verbally abuse a total stranger?”

    It’s okay. I have thick skin.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  22. “You’re so called science-denials are embraced by fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists.”

    And your Godless Darwinism is embraced by their liberal domestic allies, as well as by the lax European Socialist states that allow sleeper cell activity to flourish in their midst.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 3:13 pm | Reply

  23. News flash! Darwin believed in God. Darwin’s Origin of Species didn’t once claim men grew from apes. He only stated that species adapt.

    Why would God create creatures and beings that couldn’t adapt to their ever-changing environment?

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Reply

  24. “News flash! Darwin believed in God. Darwin’s Origin of Species didn’t once claim men grew from apes. He only stated that species adapt. ”

    Yeah, the Tree God. How can you compare some kind of Unitarian/Wiccan neo-Paganism to the One True Faith?

    “Why would God create creatures and beings that couldn’t adapt to their ever-changing environment?”

    Everything that happens happens for a reason. I’m not responsible for the reason. If you don’t like it, read the Book of Job.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 3:26 pm | Reply

  25. “Everything that happens happens for a reason. I’m not responsible for the reason.”

    So you admit it. You are questioning God’s work. Why would you such a thing?

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  26. “So you admit it. You are questioning God’s work. Why would you such a thing?”

    Are you literate? There was no question there. All I said was that there’s a reason, and it’s not my job to know it. Sounds like the opposite of questioning, if you ask me.

    Why are you so dishonest?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

  27. Maybe it’s not your job to know why species adapt. Maybe it’s not your job to question why the Earth revolves around the Sun. Maybe it’s not your job to call everyone who disagrees with you an atheist.

    Why are you so judgmental?

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 3:34 pm | Reply

  28. “Maybe it’s not your job to know why species adapt. Maybe it’s not your job to question why the Earth revolves around the Sun. Maybe it’s not your job to call everyone who disagrees with you an atheist.”

    If you’d read the Bible, you’d know the answers to these questions.

    “Why are you so judgmental?”

    Why do you want to fill the heads of our children with this Heliocentric nonsense? Do you want them to grow up like Europe’s children, tolerant of budding Islamist threats within their midst? Do you hate America?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  29. Ha ha ha ha. Ahh ha ha ha ha. How does believing that the Earth revolves Sun make us hate America?

    Were you one of the few at Jonestown that made it through the Kool-Aid ordeal? You know, it didn’t kill you. Just fried your logic skills.

    If so, we’ll back off immediately.

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

  30. I just read at another website about Sen. Brownback’s holocast denials. As a Jew, I don’t believe in Hell, but if it exists you and Brownback will be down there with the rest of the third reich.

    Comment by Schlom — May 18, 2007 @ 3:57 pm | Reply

  31. This is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I’ve read since the last Michael Egnor post on the DI site. You know, I had the first Republican debate going in the background and only looked at it when someone said something so idiotic I just had to know the source. Now I’m starting to understand why Brownback was the huge winner in that category.

    The really hysterical thing here is you can’t even keep your lunacy straight. First you use relativity to support your view:

    “Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame.”

    and then you approvingly quote this:

    “Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.”

    That’s a reversal that would make Bill O proud. I love this little bit of denial too:

    “…your so-called “science” is embraced by atheists and secularists…”

    …and catholics and baptists and jews and hindus and wiccans and agnostics and capitalists and just about any group you care to name aside from Fundamentalist Christians and their radical Islamic epistemological cousins, which is all you have on your side. Wonder why that is?

    And of course there’s this gem:

    “If you’d read the Bible, you’d know the answers to these questions.”

    If you take the Bible’s word for it, bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud (sorry, no, refection is not the same thing), and sheep can be made to have spotted offspring by having them look at spots when they mate (ask Jacob), among countless other absurdities. If you think the Bible inerrant, it just proves you have no critical reading skills, have never read it, or are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

    And hammered is what Mr. 1-2%-in-the-polls Brownback is getting. Now it is clear why. With friends like this…rant on!!!

    Comment by Science Avenger — May 18, 2007 @ 4:06 pm | Reply

  32. “How does believing that the Earth revolves Sun make us hate America?”

    If you support moral relativism over Christianity, you hate the Christian nation of America. If you hate the minds of the children of America, you hate America. If you would rather have Osama take over than allow for the teaching of the truth in schools, you hate America.

    Sorry if it bothers you to hear it, but it’s really cut and dried.

    “Were you one of the few at Jonestown that made it through the Kool-Aid ordeal? You know, it didn’t kill you. Just fried your logic skills.”

    Jonestown was a bunch of Socialist loons. They didn’t believe in geocentrism, either, and they definitely hated America.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 4:17 pm | Reply

  33. Schlom- take your meds.

    Science Avenger- your rebuttal will take longer.

    As far as relativism in mathematics goes, mathematics is an abstract calculation method; some techniques sometimes work better than others. Sometimes it may even be convenient to pretend the Earth moves, for mathematical purposes. However, we must always bear in mind that the Earth doesn’t really move.

    “If you take the Bible’s word for it, bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud (sorry, no, refection is not the same thing), and sheep can be made to have spotted offspring by having them look at spots when they mate (ask Jacob), among countless other absurdities. If you think the Bible inerrant, it just proves you have no critical reading skills, have never read it, or are as dumb as a bag of hammers.”

    Bats are birds, they fly. They may be mammals in one sense, but in the sense that they have wings, and all winged non-arthropods are birds, they are birds. Your other absurdities don’t sound vry absurd at all, they sound fairly reasonable (depending upon which translation of the Bible you use). If you think your transation is the only one out there, you;re dumber than a pile of rocks.

    “And hammered is what Mr. 1-2%-in-the-polls Brownback is getting. Now it is clear why. With friends like this…rant on!!!”

    These polls are taklen by moonbats, for moonbats. The only polls that matter will be the statewide primaries next year. Brownback is going to wallop all comers in those polls.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 4:29 pm | Reply

  34. “If you hate the minds of the children of America, you hate America.”

    America was founded on freedom. That means the freedom to teach or believe whatever you want. In all reality you hate America, not us. We don’t want a purge of everything we disagree with unlike you.

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 4:48 pm | Reply

  35. Sisyphus, the Bible says that Eve was made from Adam’s rib. Do you believe (as some people have alleged) that women therefore have one more set of ribs than men?

    Comment by Enlightened Layperson — May 18, 2007 @ 4:51 pm | Reply

  36. “The only polls that matter will be the statewide primaries next year. Brownback is going to wallop all comers in those polls.”

    That’s just about as out of touch with reality as everything else you post.

    Just please, please keep posting this priceless stuff in the name of Christianity. It makes it so much easier on us atheists in the culture wars. We win the debate merely by letting you talk.

    Comment by Science Avenger — May 18, 2007 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  37. America was founded on freedom.”

    Yes, the religious freedom of embracing Christ in any denomination of one’s choice. If you’d ever opened a history book in your life, you’d know that I’m right.

    That means the freedom to teach or believe whatever you want. In all reality you hate America, not us. We don’t want a purge of everything we disagree with unlike you.”

    Under your morally relativistic standards, Osama Bin Laden Karl Marx, and John the Baptist are all morally equivalent. We’d have to accept Al Qaeda along with Christian missionaries, because every message is equal and you can’t purge any of them, at all, ever.

    The Constitution is not a suicide pact, however much liberals like you would like to interpret it so.

    “Do you believe (as some people have alleged) that women therefore have one more set of ribs than men?”

    I don’t know, I’m not a doctor. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, maybe they have them at birth and then lose them 6 minutes later. What’s your point? I’ll research the issue for you, but I’m not sure one way or the other.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 5:20 pm | Reply

  38. “Just please, please keep posting this priceless stuff in the name of Christianity. It makes it so much easier on us atheists in the culture wars. We win the debate merely by letting you talk.”

    It doesn’t profit you to gain the world and lose your soul.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 5:24 pm | Reply

  39. “Yes, the religious freedom of embracing Christ in any denomination of one’s choice. If you’d ever opened a history book in your life, you’d know that I’m right.”

    What book was that exactly? The Pilgrims came here to worship they way they wanted. Our nation was built on a philosophy of freedom of worship or not to worship.

    Do you want a theocracy here? We don’t. The government can’t even get schools right. What would they do to religion.

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

  40. What book was that exactly? The Pilgrims came here to worship they way they wanted. Our nation was built on a philosophy of freedom of worship or not to worship.”

    Each colony had its own form of acceptable Christianity. The First Amendment was designed to make the practice of one’s own form of Christanity free in each and every colony.

    “Do you want a theocracy here? We don’t. The government can’t even get schools right. What would they do to religion.”

    “In God We Trust.”

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

  41. What about Jewish people? Would they be allowed into your ideal theocratic country?

    Comment by Political Pale Horse — May 18, 2007 @ 5:36 pm | Reply

  42. “What about Jewish people? Would they be allowed into your ideal theocratic country?”

    Presumably, since some of the lived here in 1776 and this is a JUDEO-Christian country, Jewish people have every bit as much of a right to live here as Christians do- and substantially more of a right than tree-hugging Wiccans like you do. After all, your religion was only invented about 4 years ago. How was there an Original Intent by the Founders to allow you to worship Marilyn Manson?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

  43. This site is doing alot more harm to Brownback than it is doing good. If you want to help out you will take down this silly post.

    Comment by John Galt — May 18, 2007 @ 5:48 pm | Reply

  44. “This site is doing alot more harm to Brownback than it is doing good. If you want to help out you will take down this silly post.”

    Your concern is duly noted, moonbat.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 5:51 pm | Reply

  45. Moonbat huh? Well there is a first time for everything. Keep up the good work for Sam, I’m sure he appreciates the votes you are losing him right now.

    Comment by John Galt — May 18, 2007 @ 5:54 pm | Reply

  46. “Moonbat huh? Well there is a first time for everything. Keep up the good work for Sam, I’m sure he appreciates the votes you are losing him right now.”

    Sorry, I thought I knew your handle from another blog. If you’re not a leftist troll, my apologies.

    Brownback will win the nomination, and he’ll do it by sticking to the values that Americans have cherished since our nation’s founding. Heliocentrism is not one of those values. When you see the RINO candidates flocking toward a position, standing your ground and avoiding it is the way to get ahead. That’s why Reagan was a great President, and why Bush has been an even better one; Brownback will excel beyond them both.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 6:00 pm | Reply

  47. Bravo. You’ve single handedly pissed off all of Colorado’s conservative blogs with your wiccan / moonbat comments.

    These blogs only support the most conservative candidates. Caucus time for your buddy Brownback won’t be pretty now.

    Comment by Bravo — May 18, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Reply

  48. I didn’t realize all Colorado conservatives were Wiccan moonbats, Bravo. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 6:11 pm | Reply

  49. You remind me of the insane mother from the movie “Carrie”.

    Comment by Wonk — May 18, 2007 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  50. I think it clear that this website answers the TOUGH questions that other candidates pages are afraid to tackle.

    I agree that we need to just read and believe and carry out EVERY SINGLE WORD written in the bible (KJV1611 only) and America will once again be blessed with white babies and servants who know their place.

    Comment by Joe Blow — May 18, 2007 @ 6:15 pm | Reply

  51. Kind of reminds me of the movie Psycho.

    Comment by Psycho — May 18, 2007 @ 6:16 pm | Reply

  52. Brownback hates Brett Favre. Read below.

    “This is fundamental blocking and tackling,” he said. “This is your line in football. If you don’t have a line, how many passes can Peyton Manning complete? Greatest quarterback, maybe, in NFL history.” Realizing what he had said, the Kansas Republican slumped at the podium and put his head in his hands.

    “I’m not sure how I recover from this,” Brownback said. “My point is we’ve got to rebuild the family. I’ll get off this.”

    Comment by Sam hates Brett — May 18, 2007 @ 6:22 pm | Reply

  53. I never saw “Carrie,” Wonk. What’s that about?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 6:32 pm | Reply

  54. “I agree that we need to just read and believe and carry out EVERY SINGLE WORD written in the bible (KJV1611 only) and America will once again be blessed with white babies and servants who know their place.”

    No need for racism. The Word is there for all of us willing to embrace it.

    “Kind of reminds me of the movie Psycho.”

    Is that why you’re named Psycho?

    “Brownback hates Brett Favre. Read below.”

    That was an honest mistake. Why don’t you go criticize Obama’s misstatements? He’s an incredibly tongue-tied individual.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 6:38 pm | Reply

  55. This is truly an insane post. Does the author not realize that we have been to space in REAL rocket ships, and have seen the earth actually MOVING? Not only that, the other planets move, too, relative to earth, and we’ve seen that too – from space. It’s not an illusion.

    If Brownback actually believes this, he’s finished. Be assured that 99.9% of Republicans and 99.9% of Christians do NOT believe this extreme Luddite nonsense.

    Comment by Marty — May 18, 2007 @ 7:37 pm | Reply

  56. Sisyphus,
    Are you Stephen Cobert? Seriously

    Comment by Enarete — May 19, 2007 @ 12:06 am | Reply

  57. Are you guys gonna enter our header contest?

    Comment by Pinko Punko — May 19, 2007 @ 12:41 am | Reply

  58. I dont’ know what a “header contest” is, Pinko. But I do know that Orrin Hatch is a great American.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 4:42 am | Reply

  59. “This is truly an insane post. Does the author not realize that we have been to space in REAL rocket ships, and have seen the earth actually MOVING? Not only that, the other planets move, too, relative to earth, and we’ve seen that too – from space. It’s not an illusion.”

    How can one object “move,” except in relation to another? If those astronauts had simply realized that their ship was moving relative to the Earth, instead of the other way around, we could finally put this silly Heliocentrism nonsense behind us. Honestly, a few centuries from now people will think it’s as ridiculous as the idea that the planet rests on a giant turtle’s back.

    “If Brownback actually believes this, he’s finished. Be assured that 99.9% of Republicans and 99.9% of Christians do NOT believe this extreme Luddite nonsense.”

    Again with the poll numbers. What is it with you liberals and your poll numbers? You lost 3 elections in a row come election day, but the poll numbers always showed you were ahead. You’ll forgive me if I don’t put much stock in this other great pseudoscience of polling.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 4:56 am | Reply

  60. “Are you Stephen Cobert? Seriously”

    No, I hate that man. He’s a charlatan, he’s rude to our President, and he emboldens our enemies.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 4:57 am | Reply

  61. “5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.”

    >>Could you please elaborate?

    I’m very interested in the explanation for these phenomena you’re going to come up with that doesn’t involve rotation. Don’t forget the Coriolis effect is not only observed directly linked to earth, but to a great number of experiments regarding any rotating object …

    Comment by Ben — May 19, 2007 @ 5:08 am | Reply

  62. “I’m very interested in the explanation for these phenomena you’re going to come up with that doesn’t involve rotation. Don’t forget the Coriolis effect is not only observed directly linked to earth, but to a great number of experiments regarding any rotating object …”

    The Moon rotates, doesn’t it? How are we supposed to have a controlled experiment when we have a giant rock rotating around us all the time? Moreover, the Sun, which is larger than the Earth, rotates, and easily distorts the results of all such terrestrial tinkerings and plottings and schemings to undermine the Bible. The Sun, like the Almighty, shines on such plans, and confounds them with its, and His, presence.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 5:25 am | Reply

  63. Koh,10.14

    Comment by Ben — May 19, 2007 @ 5:44 am | Reply

  64. This is a very well-written post. I’ve never believed that the Earth moved. If it did move, I’d know something about it. I’ve lived on it my entire life, and never even been on an airplane. To me, it seems like the Earth doesn’t move. I’m glad that there are some scientists out there with websites that agree with me. I’m also very grateful to you Brownback supporters for pointing them out to me. Thank you!

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 19, 2007 @ 7:40 am | Reply

  65. What does “Koh,10.14″ mean?

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 19, 2007 @ 7:54 am | Reply

  66. This post makes me weep for humanity.

    Comment by Curious — May 19, 2007 @ 8:18 am | Reply

  67. “This is a very well-written post. I’ve never believed that the Earth moved. If it did move, I’d know something about it. I’ve lived on it my entire life, and never even been on an airplane. To me, it seems like the Earth doesn’t move. I’m glad that there are some scientists out there with websites that agree with me. I’m also very grateful to you Brownback supporters for pointing them out to me. Thank you!”

    No, thank YOU, Marcia!

    “What does “Koh,10.14″ mean?”

    I don’t know either. What does that mean?

    “This post makes me weep for humanity.”

    I think you’re lodging your faith in the wrong places, Curious. Open your mind to new ideas, and fill the God-shaped hole in your heart.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 8:26 am | Reply

  68. These Colorado Republicans seem like awfully rude people. My husband and I were going to take a trip to Denver on our 25th wedding anniversary, but after reading the nasty posts the people from that area have written I think we should reconsider.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 19, 2007 @ 10:17 am | Reply

  69. “Don’t forget the Coriolis effect is not only observed directly linked to earth, but to a great number of experiments regarding any rotating object ”

    Yeah, and don’t forget the bulge along the equator of the earth caused by its rotation. But then what sort of response would you expect from someone who thinks bats are birds and sees nothing wrong with a claim that you can make goats have spotted offspring by having them look at spots when they mate. Sisyphus clearly has no friggin idea what he is talking about, and simply makes stuff up as he goes. Thus every poll that disagrees with him is done by moonbats (evidence – zero), everyone who disagrees with this putrid post is a Pinko (evidence – zero), etc.

    But like I said, I love that this stuff is out there. When I tell people on planet earth (you know, the one that’s moving) how stark raving bonkers some Republicans are, they don’t believe me. That’s where sites like this are so very valuable. So thanks again!

    Comment by Science Avenger — May 19, 2007 @ 11:11 am | Reply

  70. Kohelet(Ecclesiastes) 10:14

    Comment by Ben — May 19, 2007 @ 11:11 am | Reply

  71. Obviously a very twisted joke. You’re obvously spoofing the evolution/inteligent design debate.
    Satire isn’t an arguement. Funny though.

    Comment by Ray — May 19, 2007 @ 11:12 am | Reply

  72. Marcia asked: “What does “Koh,10.14″ mean?”

    Sisyphus responded: “I don’t know either. What does that mean?”

    Well, while I hesitate to speak for Ben, given the nature of his question and your, ahem, “answer”, I suspect it represents his parting thought along the lines of: Oh, my bad, I didn’t realize I was talking to a completely ignorant fruit loop who isn’t capable of rational discourse.

    Just a hunch.

    Comment by Science Avenger — May 19, 2007 @ 11:14 am | Reply

  73. Thanks, Ben. I see your quote, now.

    “and the fool multiplies words.
    No one knows what is coming—
    who can tell him what will happen after him?”

    Thanks for sharing about yourself.

    “These Colorado Republicans seem like awfully rude people. My husband and I were going to take a trip to Denver on our 25th wedding anniversary, but after reading the nasty posts the people from that area have written I think we should reconsider.”

    They certainly do. Luckily, they can throw their state to the America-haters, but we’ll still have enough states to win the election in 2008. So, who needs them?

    “Yeah, and don’t forget the bulge along the equator of the earth caused by its rotation.”

    This is the most ridiculous thing ever. Our planet is pudgy from running around the Sun so many times. Do you have any idea how silly you sound?

    “Sisyphus clearly has no friggin idea what he is talking about, and simply makes stuff up as he goes.”

    Yeah, sorry I wasn’t familiar with the “out of shape jogger” theory of celestial mechanics.

    “Well, while I hesitate to speak for Ben, given the nature of his question and your, ahem, “answer”, I suspect it represents his parting thought along the lines of: Oh, my bad, I didn’t realize I was talking to a completely ignorant fruit loop who isn’t capable of rational discourse.”

    No, he was quoting a line from the Bible, applying it autobiographically.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  74. “Obviously a very twisted joke. You’re obvously spoofing the evolution/inteligent design debate.
    Satire isn’t an arguement. Funny though.”

    Obviously, you’re another one of these atheistic leftist morons. I pity you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 11:45 am | Reply

  75. I’m pretty sure Brownback disagrees with you Sisyphus. He doesn’t seem crazy. Attacking heliocentrism? Just reading this, I feel like I must be taking crazy pills.

    By the way, if heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine, you’ve just called several popes atheists. Please tell me you’re really anti-Brownback and are just saying this stuff to discredit him. He deserves a much much better voice than this.

    Comment by Noonan — May 19, 2007 @ 11:58 am | Reply

  76. Those Popes were under political pressure, Noonan. Politics and expedient mathematics do not dictate the ultimate reality of our Universe. If they did, Newtonian physics and Einstein would have to have a final showdown of sorts, which only one could emerge from.

    You’re very, very judgmental about this issue. Why is it so touchy for you?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

  77. As you so well understood my words Sisyphus, I’ll share with you this bit of wisdom that I intend to follow.

    “If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.” – William O’Neil

    Maybe it will bring others to insights as fruitfull to them as they were to me.

    Comment by Ben — May 19, 2007 @ 12:32 pm | Reply

  78. [...] Science! Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine Filed under: Faith, Science — Sisyphus @ 10:04 [...]

    Pingback by Sadly, No! » Laff Riot — May 19, 2007 @ 12:33 pm | Reply

  79. “If they did, Newtonian physics and Einstein would have to have a final showdown of sorts, which only one could emerge from.”

    Uh, Einstein’s theory of relativity is compatible with Newtonian physics when dealing with low mass/low velocity objects and situations. The theory of relativity shows itself when dealing with extreme situations that causes inconsistencies in classical Newtonian mechanics.

    Basically, for the scale of things taking place on this planet, Newton’s physics are still used since the effects of relativity are too weak to effect the data in any meaningful way. When we start dealing with high velocities in orbit, we take relativity into account. You most likely were not aware, but satellites in orbit and probes in deep space are tuned according to the equations of the theory of relativity to negate the effects of time dilation that occurs (one clock seems to be moving at a different rate than the one on Earth). Not to mention that NASA recently did experiments using probes in orbit that proved Einstein’s equations by letting us actually observe relativity.

    This might be hard for you to wrap your head around since “you can’t feel the Earth moving.”

    Comment by An Actual Scientist — May 19, 2007 @ 12:40 pm | Reply

  80. “Those Popes were under political pressure, Noonan. Politics and expedient mathematics do not dictate the ultimate reality of our Universe. If they did, Newtonian physics and Einstein would have to have a final showdown of sorts, which only one could emerge from.”

    Sisyphus, please. With every post you demonstrate your ignorance of science. This “final showdown” occurred a hundred years ago, when Einstein produced a theory that conflicted with Newtonian mechanics. Einstein was demonstrated correct, and it was shown that Newton’s theory was merely a special case of Einstein’s.

    Annoying as this error is, it’s far eclipsed by your “Galileo recanted” claim. The man spent the last decade of his life under house arrest by the Church. Anything he said in such circumstances in suspect.

    I read this blog for the laughs, but posts like this just make me angry. And sad.

    Comment by Curious — May 19, 2007 @ 12:57 pm | Reply

  81. This is easily one of the dunbest things I’ve ever read. Really, you deserve some kind of an award.

    Comment by urizon — May 19, 2007 @ 12:58 pm | Reply

  82. The earth doesn’t move? Citing the bible as a source? I feel a mixture of sorrow and deep contempt for you. You are obviously completely ignorant, living in a medival fantasy world. You poor fool.

    Comment by Hasenkatz — May 19, 2007 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

  83. I wonder what you’re doing on the internet if you seriously don’t believe in the past several hundred years of science. Jesus certainly never mentioned the internet. We all know it was invented by a bunch of godless California atheists, and many aspects of it are eerily similar to things described in the book of Revelation as the work of the beast. I’m wondering why you think it’s OK to be using Dumb-o-Crap invented technology like the internet, computers, vaccines, airplanes, television, electricity, etc. Do you really not know that Satan is behind the internet and all those other technologies?

    While we’re talking about physics I for one would like some proof that the world is round. It makes no sense to me and it directly contradicts the book of Revelation which says that the world is square with an angel at each corner. Do you believe in the book of Revelation and the flat earth it describes or are you just a CINO (Christian In Name Only), one of those traitors who only believes in the words of the Lord when it’s convenient to?

    Comment by Eduardo — May 19, 2007 @ 1:17 pm | Reply

  84. “Maybe it will bring others to insights as fruitfull to them as they were to me.”

    Well, I’m glad that persisting in your folly worked out for you, Ben.

    “This “final showdown” occurred a hundred years ago, when Einstein produced a theory that conflicted with Newtonian mechanics. Einstein was demonstrated correct, and it was shown that Newton’s theory was merely a special case of Einstein’s.”

    Now you idiots admit you hate Newton, too. Who will you turn on next, Karl Marx? Talk about a cannibalistic cabal.

    “Annoying as this error is, it’s far eclipsed by your “Galileo recanted” claim. The man spent the last decade of his life under house arrest by the Church. Anything he said in such circumstances in suspect.”

    He probably needed protection. If there hadn’t been guards keeping his home safe, the locals probably would’ve killed him. He certainly needed protection from his own kooky ideas. The man publicly admitted he was a crackpot, so what are they supposed to do with him? If someone in your town gets off a murder charge by reason of insanity, should they just set him loose on the street again?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 1:42 pm | Reply

  85. [...] Unbelievable! Insane? These people actually believe that the earth occupies a fixed position at the centre of the universe: What’s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless [...]

    Pingback by Ridiculous! Unbelievable! Insane? « Neurophilosophy — May 19, 2007 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

  86. “This is easily one of the dunbest things I’ve ever read. Really, you deserve some kind of an award.”

    Yeah, yet you’re in company with people who claim the Earth gets fat around the middle from racing around the Sun so many times. And that makes perfect sense to you!

    “The earth doesn’t move? Citing the bible as a source? I feel a mixture of sorrow and deep contempt for you. You are obviously completely ignorant, living in a medival fantasy world. You poor fool.”

    The Founding Fathers shared my delusions, Hasenkatz. If you don’t like the country they’ve devised, perhaps you should seek a home elsewhere.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 1:53 pm | Reply

  87. “Basically, for the scale of things taking place on this planet, Newton’s physics are still used since the effects of relativity are too weak to effect the data in any meaningful way. When we start dealing with high velocities in orbit, we take relativity into account. You most likely were not aware, but satellites in orbit and probes in deep space are tuned according to the equations of the theory of relativity to negate the effects of time dilation that occurs (one clock seems to be moving at a different rate than the one on Earth). Not to mention that NASA recently did experiments using probes in orbit that proved Einstein’s equations by letting us actually observe relativity.”

    This is why I say that, while it may be mathematically convenient to assume the Earth moves from time to time, ultimately we have to accept the reality that it doesn’t move. Everything else moves in relation to it.

    “This might be hard for you to wrap your head around since “you can’t feel the Earth moving.”

    I don’t see how a stationary Earth and the trajectories NASA plots for its satellites are mutually exclusive.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 2:02 pm | Reply

  88. “I wonder what you’re doing on the internet if you seriously don’t believe in the past several hundred years of science. Jesus certainly never mentioned the internet. We all know it was invented by a bunch of godless California atheists, and many aspects of it are eerily similar to things described in the book of Revelation as the work of the beast.”

    The Lord moves in mysterious ways, Eduardo.

    “’m wondering why you think it’s OK to be using Dumb-o-Crap invented technology like the internet, computers, vaccines, airplanes, television, electricity, etc.”

    Republicans are the ones who’ve financed industry, business, and communications technology. The Democrats only came up with online pornography, Al Gore’s claims notwithstanding.

    “Do you really not know that Satan is behind the internet and all those other technologies?”

    A technology, in and of itself, is neutral. How it’s used is where the sin comes in.

    “While we’re talking about physics I for one would like some proof that the world is round. It makes no sense to me and it directly contradicts the book of Revelation which says that the world is square with an angel at each corner. Do you believe in the book of Revelation and the flat earth it describes or are you just a CINO (Christian In Name Only), one of those traitors who only believes in the words of the Lord when it’s convenient to?”

    That’s an interesting point. I hadn’t thought about it before. Do you have any links you could send me? I’m pretty skeptical, but if there’s anything out there on this subject, I’ll give it a look-see.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 2:09 pm | Reply

  89. “Yeah, yet you’re in company with people who claim the Earth gets fat around the middle from racing around the Sun so many times. And that makes perfect sense to you!”

    It has nothing to do with how many times the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather the enormous gravitational the Sun and Moon exert upon the Earth. The Earth also bulges as a result of centrifugal force; it’s spinning at approximately 1000mph.

    You can see the inverse of this effect whenever you sit down on your hemroid doughnut.

    Oh, and the Sun’s (and Moon’s) gravitational pull is one of the main reasons why the Earth is so active tectonically. Or are you suggesting that earthquakes are a liberal conspiracy?

    I’d stick to rolling stones uphill, if I were you.

    Comment by urizon — May 19, 2007 @ 2:23 pm | Reply

  90. “It has nothing to do with how many times the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather the enormous gravitational the Sun and Moon exert upon the Earth. The Earth also bulges as a result of centrifugal force; it’s spinning at approximately 1000mph.”

    So, Earth gets fat because other planets are chasing it while it tries to run away. Yet I’m the one who’s bought into junk science here!

    “You can see the inverse of this effect whenever you sit down on your hemroid doughnut.”

    I don’t even know what this means.

    “Oh, and the Sun’s (and Moon’s) gravitational pull is one of the main reasons why the Earth is so active tectonically. Or are you suggesting that earthquakes are a liberal conspiracy?”

    Earthquakes are caused by God, not by some silly theory about how Earth is having a heart attack from running around so much.

    “I’d stick to rolling stones uphill, if I were you.”

    The best part is rolling the stone downhill, and crushing moonbats with it when they come to get me.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 2:29 pm | Reply

  91. Just be sure to get out of the way of your own stupidity, Einstein.

    Comment by urizon — May 19, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  92. Doesn’t the bible imply that the world is flat too (i.e. 4 corners)? Is this also disputed by “believers”?

    Comment by Mambra — May 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm | Reply

  93. Folks, tread lightly when listening to this one. Though the words he speaketh of Galileo and the fixed earth He created are true, remember that even Satan himself can take on a pleasing appearance.

    This one calls himself “Sisyphus” showing that he embraces the pagan hedonistic Greeks of yore. We all know that those born prior to the the coming of our Lord and Savior are damned to eternal suffering, so it strikes me as odd that this so-called “Christian” would embrace these pagans!

    You sir, are a pagan hedonist and a false prophet.

    Comment by Joseph — May 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm | Reply

  94. “Just be sure to get out of the way of your own stupidity, Einstein.”
    I wish he were alive; he might listen to you and repent his wicked ways.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 3:43 pm | Reply

  95. “Doesn’t the bible imply that the world is flat too (i.e. 4 corners)? Is this also disputed by “believers”?”

    If I could see some links about this, I promise I’ll approach them with an open mind.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

  96. “Folks, tread lightly when listening to this one. Though the words he speaketh of Galileo and the fixed earth He created are true, remember that even Satan himself can take on a pleasing appearance.”

    This is true.

    “This one calls himself “Sisyphus” showing that he embraces the pagan hedonistic Greeks of yore. We all know that those born prior to the the coming of our Lord and Savior are damned to eternal suffering, so it strikes me as odd that this so-called “Christian” would embrace these pagans!”

    I have chosen this pseudonym becase, while it is true that the Greeks were unspeakably perverse Pagans, I also feel that we stand to learn more from studying them than from disregarding them. Frankly, if my pen name has inspired even one reader to pick up a copy of Plato and thence graduate to the Bible, it has well been worth it.

    “You sir, are a pagan hedonist and a false prophet.”

    Your fears are understandable, yet groundless.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 3:50 pm | Reply

  97. Sisyphus responded to the argument that the earths rotation causes centrifugal force which is resonsible for the buldge around the equator (which has been measured BTW) with:

    “This is the most ridiculous thing ever. Our planet is pudgy from running around the Sun so many times. Do you have any idea how silly you sound?”

    and again,

    “So, Earth gets fat because other planets are chasing it while it tries to run away. Yet I’m the one who’s bought into junk science here! ”

    Praise the many gods, this is hysterical. OK, I’ll speak really slow, and use little words so you will understand. The earth is SPINNING. Spinning like a top. That’s what “rotates” means. “Running around the sun” would be orbiting, not rotating. Here’s a quote from a British astronomical society article:

    “The Earth is not completely spherical. It is, instead, slightly oblate. That is, it is slightly flattened at the poles, and buldges slighly at the equator, as a result of its rotation. One effect of the rotation of the Earth, and also of the fact that its radius at the poles is slightly less than at the equator, is that one appears to weigh very slightly more at the poles than one does at the equator.”

    Like I said, Sisyphus hasn’t a clue of what he speaks. He just uses the MSU method (Making Sh*t Up). And again thank you for that, I’ve had many good belly laughs today here.

    Comment by Science Avenger — May 19, 2007 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  98. Repent now, and God may forgive you.

    Comment by Joseph — May 19, 2007 @ 5:16 pm | Reply

  99. “Praise the many gods, this is hysterical. OK, I’ll speak really slow, and use little words so you will understand. The earth is SPINNING. Spinning like a top. That’s what “rotates” means. “Running around the sun” would be orbiting, not rotating. Here’s a quote from a British astronomical society article:”

    Some Darwinist across the pond is not going to salvage your silly ideas about how our planet needs to go on a diet. Now you’re claiming that spinning is causing it to get fat? And I suppose earthquakes happen when the Earth’s tummy rumbles because it’s dizzy from all the spinning. Beyond absurd. I’m going to have to back up what Joseph said to you:

    “Repent now, and God may forgive you.”

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 5:50 pm | Reply

  100. [...] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine What’s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless doctrine of […] [...]

    Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — May 19, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  101. This is so awesome….I totally hope Brownback gets the Republican nomination. Sisyphus, do you think you could do a post refuting gravity next?

    Comment by brand-new Brownback supporter — May 19, 2007 @ 6:15 pm | Reply

  102. “This is so awesome….I totally hope Brownback gets the Republican nomination. Sisyphus, do you think you could do a post refuting gravity next?”

    Gravity, as a concept, clearly exists. Less clear is what, exactly, causes it. If you have any links regarding the subject, I’ll happily read through them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 6:19 pm | Reply

  103. Gravity, as a concept, clearly exists. Less clear is what, exactly, causes it.

    God causes gravity, atheist.

    Comment by The Grand Inquisitor — May 19, 2007 @ 6:24 pm | Reply

  104. God causes gravity, atheist.

    I’m also responsible for the Earth orbiting around the Sun. Really, Sisyphus, my child, get a clue. Believing in Me is not an excuse for being stupid.

    Comment by God — May 19, 2007 @ 6:25 pm | Reply

  105. “God causes gravity, atheist.”

    Obviously. But is the method direct, or indirect? This is unclear.

    I apologize for the earlier terminological confusion.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 6:30 pm | Reply

  106. “I’m also responsible for the Earth orbiting around the Sun. Really, Sisyphus, my child, get a clue. Believing in Me is not an excuse for being stupid.”

    I include this comment to show how low blasphemous atheists are willing to stoop. God does not have to write comments to my blog. God would never write a blog comment refuting His immortal text. The very idea is beyond absurd, frankly.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 6:31 pm | Reply

  107. Sisyphus,

    I know you say you have thick skin; but I am truly sorry for all the flak you are taking here. As for me, I just want to thank you for this post as it clears up one of my long standing concerns. Reading Luke 13:31-32 I was never sure of what sort of tail Herod had. Now I know it was a bushy one. Thanks again.

    Comment by David — May 19, 2007 @ 6:49 pm | Reply

  108. Next time you power up your computer, remember it is the THEORY of electricity that allows you to do that. And the next time you get a “kidney infection”, remember that it is the THEORY of evolution that has allowed doctors to develop the antibiotic that allows your wife to be cured.

    Comment by calipygian — May 19, 2007 @ 7:01 pm | Reply

  109. For too long our public discourse has lacked an articulate voice that could speak from a Geocentric perspective. My friends, that voice has arrived.

    Fight the power, Sis (if I may).

    Fight. The. Power.

    Comment by DPS — May 19, 2007 @ 7:11 pm | Reply

  110. This is the greatest practical joke ever played.

    Well done, Sisyphus.

    Comment by Jeff Ventura — May 19, 2007 @ 7:30 pm | Reply

  111. The computer you used to type this ignorant screed relies on quantum mechanics to operate. It could not function without it. The servers that host your filth do too as well as the fiber optic cables that carry your hateful ignorance around the world. Nor does your theory explain the parallax we observe when the Earth is at opposite points in its orbit. Parallax is like if you were to look at something and close one eye, then open it and close the other. The distant object will appear to move even though it has not. That is parallax. An experiment even you can conduct. Astronomers have observed a long time ago that the distant stars appear to move due to parallax caused by the Earth orbiting the Sun. This simple fact refutes your ignorant notions.

    I don’t even know why I try, your mind is dead, nothing anyone could ever say would bring you back to life. You’ve made your choice, I pity you.

    Comment by noen — May 19, 2007 @ 7:30 pm | Reply

  112. Sisyphus said:

    “Some Darwinist across the pond is not going to salvage your silly ideas about how our planet needs to go on a diet. Now you’re claiming that spinning is causing it to get fat?”

    Sweet sweatin Jesus, YES spinning causes it to elongate across the middle and buldge. That’s what PHYSICS, common sense, and simple observation says! Is there any well-established science you aren’t declaring invalid today? Go look at a picture of Jupiter or Saturn, and you’ll notice a severe bulge along their equators. Earth’s bulge is less noticeable than their’s because they are mostly gas. Check the figures here. Notice the part that says:

    Equatorial radius: 6,378.137 km
    Polar radius: 6,356.752 km

    You’ll notice the equatorial radius is larger, thus the “bulge”. Try learning something about a subject before popping off about it.

    Praise the many gods I’m glad Brownback chose to run for President, even if he is going to get crushed like a grape. This is going to be worth belly laughs for weeks.

    Comment by Science Avenger — May 19, 2007 @ 7:33 pm | Reply

  113. “I know you say you have thick skin; but I am truly sorry for all the flak you are taking here. As for me, I just want to thank you for this post as it clears up one of my long standing concerns. Reading Luke 13:31-32 I was never sure of what sort of tail Herod had. Now I know it was a bushy one. Thanks again.”

    You’re welcome.

    “Next time you power up your computer, remember it is the THEORY of electricity that allows you to do that. And the next time you get a “kidney infection”, remember that it is the THEORY of evolution that has allowed doctors to develop the antibiotic that allows your wife to be cured.”

    What does eectricity have to do with the theory of Heliocentrism? Why does my wife depend upon my doctors’ ability to evolve me some healthy kidneys?

    “Fight the power, Sis (if I may).

    Fight. The. Power.”

    I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you. The only True Power is on my side, though.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 7:40 pm | Reply

  114. “Equatorial radius: 6,378.137 km
    Polar radius: 6,356.752 km

    You’ll notice the equatorial radius is larger, thus the “bulge”. Try learning something about a subject before popping off about it.”

    I notice you use thhe metric system. That automatically makes your calculations suspect. The metric system is pure evil.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 7:46 pm | Reply

  115. [...] has to be the greatest practical joke ever played. Blogs 4 Brownback has a tremendously entertaining post about how heliocentrism (the theory that the earth revolves [...]

    Pingback by This has to be the greatest practical joke ever played. « GracefulFlavor — May 19, 2007 @ 7:46 pm | Reply

  116. Science Avenger,

    Don’t you think maybe you’re letting your own body-image insecurities get the better of you? Just because you could stand to lose a little weight around the middle, does that mean that the Earth has a bulge as well? Look into your heart and consider whether there isn’t perhaps some truth to this.

    Perhaps, instead of writing angry tirades about Senator Brownback and God, you should put your energy into Tae-bo, or perhaps acquire some Jazzercise tapes. I think you will feel much better about yourself and about others.

    Yours in Christ,

    DPS

    Comment by DPS — May 19, 2007 @ 7:47 pm | Reply

  117. “This is the greatest practical joke ever played.

    Well done, Sisyphus.”

    Huh?

    “The computer you used to type this ignorant screed relies on quantum mechanics to operate. It could not function without it. The servers that host your filth do too as well as the fiber optic cables that carry your hateful ignorance around the world.”

    Who knew that Albert Einstein invented electricity? Yet that’s what your claim amounts to.

    “Nor does your theory explain the parallax we observe when the Earth is at opposite points in its orbit. Parallax is like if you were to look at something and close one eye, then open it and close the other. The distant object will appear to move even though it has not. That is parallax. An experiment even you can conduct.”

    I think the police use that one when they’re field-testing sobriety.

    “Astronomers have observed a long time ago that the distant stars appear to move due to parallax caused by the Earth orbiting the Sun. This simple fact refutes your ignorant notions.”

    Yes, I suppose that if you get very drunk, the Earth will seem to move a bit. I wouldn’t know, but you seem to be quite the expert.

    “I don’t even know why I try, your mind is dead, nothing anyone could ever say would bring you back to life. You’ve made your choice, I pity you.”

    I just hope you can finally muster up the courage to admit you have a problem.

    Science Avenger,

    I was going to thrash you, as well, but DPS already did the job for me. Thank you, DPS!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 7:54 pm | Reply

  118. At first even I, who in My omnipotence sees the fall of a sparrow, wasn’t sure whether this site was a practical joke or not. But now it is clear to Me that it is. Well done, Sisyphus and brethren! You have pleased Me. Go forth and multiply many posts.

    Comment by God — May 19, 2007 @ 7:56 pm | Reply

  119. Yes, I think you are a spoof site. 3Bulls, brilliant job but it’s over now. Time to pack it up.

    Unless…. if you can get Brownback to publicly support your “Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine” that would be outstanding. He would never run for office again.

    Comment by noen — May 19, 2007 @ 8:17 pm | Reply

  120. Bravo!

    Its not the highly entertaining post and subsequent commentary by Sisyphus that bothers me, its posters like Marcia P. that scare the hell out of me.

    Comment by Simp — May 19, 2007 @ 8:27 pm | Reply

  121. “Yes, I think you are a spoof site. 3Bulls, brilliant job but it’s over now. Time to pack it up.”

    I’m not affiliated with 3Bulls. Psycheout put that link up, but he’s not affiliated with them either. I went over there today, because they had some question about Orrin Hatch. I really respect the man, but I didn’t really enjoy the website.

    “Unless…. if you can get Brownback to publicly support your “Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine” that would be outstanding. He would never run for office again.”

    My positions needn’t always reflect the publicly-stated positions of Senator Brownback. I understand that in politics, sometimes one must be less than candid. After all, Al Qaeda (and its American moonbat subsidiaries) is listening…

    “Its not the highly entertaining post and subsequent commentary by Sisyphus that bothers me, its posters like Marcia P. that scare the hell out of me.”

    I like Marcia. She seems like a very decent person, and a devout Christian, as well. Why does she bother you?

    Well, I’m going to pack it in for the night. I’ll talk to you guys again Monday morning! See you tomorrow!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 19, 2007 @ 8:32 pm | Reply

  122. You all scare the hell out of me. WWJD if he read this crap? Why is Pat Paulsen not campaigning this time? Ross Perot?

    Comment by David Levine — May 19, 2007 @ 8:46 pm | Reply

  123. “Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations”
    Misuse of science. Relativity puts geocentricism and heliocentricism as equals. Either viewpoint is fine. It does NOT prove anything about the Earth staying put, which also happens to go against relativity.
    “If it moved, we would feel it moving.”
    Therefore, if the Earth was round, we would feel it was round. If there were atoms, we would see atoms.
    “God, thru His Word…”
    Just wondering: why is “through” misspelled?
    “1) No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.”
    Just as no one can prove that the universe is all just the dream in the mind of a sleeping duck.
    “2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.”
    Of course, chemical reactions occur only “thru” abstract, abstruse, and esoteric equations and diagrams invented to make them interact.
    “3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880’s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his “relativity” hypothesis.”
    I believe that many scientists believed that the completion of science was near at the time.
    “4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.”
    Wrong. That is an opinion.
    “5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.”
    Nor do photographs show that the Earth is round.
    “Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments–especially the light fringe results–prove a stationary earth”
    The Michelson-Morley experiments showed that there was no ether/aether/aethra that the ancient philosophers believed in.
    “In the beginning, the Bible makes clear, the earth was the center of our “solar” system, with no sun for it to go around until the 4th day of creation (Gen.1:14-19; HERE). At the End we read of a New Earth (HERE) replacing in the same location this old one (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,2). This New Earth which occupies the same location in the cosmos as the old one which has “fled away” is the place where God the Father and Jesus will dwell with the redeemed forever (Rev. 21:3).”
    First PROVE (scientifically) that the Bible is true. You can’t. A hypothesis must have clear, reproducible, experimental evidence. This is pseudoscience. I’ll believe the Bible when I have proof.
    “UPDATE II: Look, people, even your Heliocentric hero Galileo recanted his idiotic notions about the Earth revolving around the Sun. If he’s your so-called reliable source on this, I think it does wonders to shatter the idea’s credibility that one of its main proponents backed away from it so abruptly.”
    He recanted under the CHURCH INQUISITION on the threat of DEATH. If the Ancient Egyptians/Chinese/Greeks recanted addition and other simple mathematics, would that make it any less true? Is not the beauty, structure, and elegance of mathematics true?
    See http://lietk12.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/the-atomic-theory-should-not-be-taught-in-schools/ for why the Atomic Theory should not be taught in schools.

    I presume that you believe only Caucasians are supreme, that African Americans should still be slaves, that all Muslims are terrorists, that the Holocaust did not happen, and that all science and technology is false.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 19, 2007 @ 8:49 pm | Reply

  124. Teh stupid, it burns!

    Comment by Bat Guano — May 19, 2007 @ 9:11 pm | Reply

  125. “The only True Power is on my side, though.”

    Here’s hoping it’s Thorazine….in very large doses.

    Comment by hugh jorgan — May 19, 2007 @ 9:30 pm | Reply

  126. [...] I really hope this is parody May 19, 2007 Posted by Evil Bender in wingnuts, Humor, Science. trackback …but if you know anything about the kind of people who support Sam Brownback, you understand why I ca…. [...]

    Pingback by I really hope this is parody « Notes from Evil Bender — May 19, 2007 @ 9:31 pm | Reply

  127. Regardless of whether Sisyphus is doing A Modest Proposal or (a Colbert for those who don’t get the allusion), and regardless of whether Brownback would agree with the Stuck Earthers…

    The fact is that the when asked about evolution, Brownback (and Tancredo, and Huckabee) said that they didn’t believe in it. Stuck Earth is not inconsistent with this level of scientific knowledge.

    Comment by Viadd — May 19, 2007 @ 10:00 pm | Reply

  128. Sisyphus, you are a false prophet!

    Comment by Shameful — May 19, 2007 @ 10:02 pm | Reply

  129. [...] Zombie Jesus, I don’t think this is a parody: What’s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless [...]

    Pingback by Blog of the Moderate Left » Sam Brownback Endorsed by Flat Earth Society — May 19, 2007 @ 10:03 pm | Reply

  130. I think it’s kind of interesting you do not believe the Earth moves simply because you can’t feel it move: “If it moved, we would feel it moving.”. What’s ironic to me is that you believe in God, however a belief in God does not rely on any of the 5 senses. How do you believe in God then if you can’t taste, smell, touch, see or hear Him?

    Comment by karenferguson — May 19, 2007 @ 10:08 pm | Reply

  131. Well done sir. Kudos. Next I recommend you do a spoof site supporting Giuliani. Something to do with plungers perhaps.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 19, 2007 @ 10:41 pm | Reply

  132. ROTFLMAO DPS, thanks for the belly laugh, and Sisyphus’last few comments which make it clear this is a satire site, a joke. Either that or the people running it are 12-year-olds. That might explain Sisyphus’ “I know you are but what am I?” style of “argument”.

    Well done. The Onion would be proud.

    Now nail the dismount by claiming you don’t know what the Onion is.

    Comment by Science Avenger — May 19, 2007 @ 10:48 pm | Reply

  133. Dude, are you serious? I don’t want my children to learn about America at school.

    Comment by Dmitri — May 20, 2007 @ 12:04 am | Reply

  134. “If you support moral relativism over Christianity, you hate the Christian nation of America. If you hate the minds of the children of America, you hate America. If you would rather have Osama take over than allow for the teaching of the truth in schools, you hate America.”

    wow…. I REALLY hope you are joking about this… CHRISTIAN nation of America? I’m sorry… Myself… I’m Agnostic, not Christian… I have served my country in two theaters of war. Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, I lost a leg in Iraq.

    If I’m fighting for the CHRISTIAN nation of America, then I have made a pretty embarrassing mistake. And a very costly one. Because I had assumed that I was serving the free United States. Religious freedom is what this nation was built on, yes? That means we are a nation built not upon Christianity, but an inherent belief that man can choose to worship how when and if he wishes. If you feel that I am mistaken in this, then you imply that my service, and my loss, was somehow invalid. Because I’m sure in your opinion I am a godless heathen, to be damned forever.

    Well. I suppose that my service is implying your right to say these things. That is one thing I hold dear as a member of the Armed Forces. YOUR right to free speech.

    Thank you for your time.

    Comment by P Heart — May 20, 2007 @ 5:12 am | Reply

  135. There are some very frightening people on the Internet. My husband warns me all the time about situations like this, but I always tell him to shush. Now I think he may be right. These “helioleftists” are some dangerous, dangerous people. I’d ban them if I were in charge of this site. Ban them, and call the police on them if they tried posting again. It’s the only way to deal with people like that.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 20, 2007 @ 5:57 am | Reply

  136. After reading this, I have come to conclude that the name of author of this post reflects his/her current stand: In an endless loop. I’m politically correct, but I shall use “his” for convenience for now.

    Regarding this post in summary, it is clear that Sisyphus has very rudimentary knowledge of physics and heliocentrism. I am shocked that there are people (hopefully none of them esteemed physicists) who actually believe this claptrap, right back at you. Let me elaborate a little, as much as my time allows.

    This article has been flawed from the beginning. Sisyphus’ definition of the heliocentric model appears to be something along the lines of “the Sun is in the center of the universe”. However, this is not true, the heliocentric model merely meant that the Earth revolves around the Sun while the Sun travels along the outer spiral arm of the Milky Way, and in turn the Milky Way moves accordingly within our local galactic cluster of galaxies. On the other hand, geocentricity meant that Earth would be at the absolute center of the universe with everything else revolving around it.

    “However, for both moral [...] reasons…”

    I don’t see how moral it is to blindly follow a 2000-year-old book. I beg your pardon, but the Bible is NOT a scientific book, and only scraps here and there are actually scientifically sound in its entirety, from Genesis through Malachi, and the New Testament. Let me iterate: THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC BOOK. Heliocentrism is not moral, and if you ask me, geocentrism is just Man’s way of inflating his ego by claiming he is in the center of the universe.

    [Wikipedia article on Heliocentrism:]
    Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine’s position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth’s rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.

    [Wikipedia article on Geocentrism:]A geocentric frame is useful for many everyday activities and most laboratory experiments, but is a less felicitous choice for solar-system mechanics and space travel. While a heliocentric frame is most useful in those cases, galactic and extra-galactic astronomy is easier if the sun is treated as neither stationary nor the center of the universe, but rotating around the center of our galaxy.

    As for heliocentrism and mathematics, it is clear that the Sun exerts a larger force of gravity than Earth given its mass. Can it not be clearer that Earth is subject to the Sun, not vice versa?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#Criticism

    And also regarding your link to conservapedia, it is clear that Conservapedia… “has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies[27] and factual relativism.[28] Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creation science perspective.[29]”

    I would love to refute your entire article given the chance, but unfortunately time is not on my side, and perhaps I will refer this article to a few friends of mine and see what they think of it.

    Have a nice day.

    Comment by Undisputed Seraphim — May 20, 2007 @ 6:46 am | Reply

  137. “And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.” [Revelation 7:1]

    I don want my chilren learnin abut no round earth in they school, becuse the Bible clearly say the earth has 4 corner!

    Comment by Elmer — May 20, 2007 @ 7:03 am | Reply

  138. I actually stopped reading after the first paragraph of your text. Also, seeing the “America’s Shame” image convinced me that you’re not only ignorant and foolish, you’re also not even worth my time. I can only be VERY happy that I’m not living in the US of A – the land of the stoopid, home of the aggressive (yes, I wrote stupid like that to prove my point) – and that you and your acolytes are still a sectarian minority, hold up in a land where media and politics want to keep you stupid and afraid. Oh, do stay there, by all means. It’s a big, scary world out there, filled with all these kinds of weird scientists, who want convert you and sent you to hell, and terrorists, who basicly want to do the latter faster. BOO! :roll:

    I also skipped the comments, but I couldn’t help noticing the comment (#135 atm) above. Marcia P., how much did you actually pay for the removal of your brain? Sheesh …

    Comment by Yours Truly — May 20, 2007 @ 7:10 am | Reply

  139. Surely only a parody site could come up with such an astounding compendium of rubbish, with Sisyphus so completely misunderstanding every point made by others and lurching from one inanity to another.

    Just in case it is genuine, I’d highly recommend Sisyphus to live for 6 months in another country (not in the military, which is really just a little bit of transplanted US). Apart from anything else, it might show him that the rest of the world tends to regards Americans as somewhat loony, rich and powerful but loony none-the-less. And sites like this powerfully reinforce the impression, despite the high number of clearly sensible commentators.

    Comment by Ex-pat — May 20, 2007 @ 7:23 am | Reply

  140. [...] to the original post: Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine Filed under: On…, Other blogs, Thought, Links [...]

    Pingback by On...oh lord, I don't even know « Mumble Mumble… — May 20, 2007 @ 7:48 am | Reply

  141. [...] May 20th, 2007 by oldcola What’s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulles… [...]

    Pingback by atheist doctrine: heliocentrism « intelligent or silly design ? — May 20, 2007 @ 8:09 am | Reply

  142. About time somebody finally told the TRUTH. Keep up the good work!

    Comment by Markk — May 20, 2007 @ 8:13 am | Reply

  143. Sisyphus, has you askd Sen Browback wher he stans on teachin this heathen “science” in our school? I know he dont believ in the false Darwin “science” but i wondr if he support teachin the REAL “sqaure earth is center of the unverse” science. cause i cant vote for no one who want to teah my chilren that the earth is roun ad the sun is the centr of th unverse!

    Comment by Elmer — May 20, 2007 @ 8:31 am | Reply

  144. [...] several other bloggers, I wonder if this post on Blogs 4 Brownback, Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine, is a joke. On one hand, it is quite well written in terms of language, and of course the premise [...]

    Pingback by Heliocentrism = Atheism / Anti-American? Gee... — May 20, 2007 @ 8:31 am | Reply

  145. Readers of this blog would also likely appreciate Shelly the Republican: The Freedom Blog for good ol’ flag-waving, God-loving discussion of and comentary on current events and the world today (or sheer comic/shock value, depending on your disposition)

    Comment by Coconuts — May 20, 2007 @ 9:11 am | Reply

  146. Wow. This must be part of a fiendish smear campaign by democrats to make Brownback look like an imbecile. Gosh, it worked!

    Comment by gaussling — May 20, 2007 @ 9:35 am | Reply

  147. Posts like these are why the rest of the world hates us.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 20, 2007 @ 10:02 am | Reply

  148. Hands down one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read in my life. I’m going to link to it simply because of how ridiculous it is. Thanks for the laugh.

    Comment by aboulet — May 20, 2007 @ 10:07 am | Reply

  149. I challenge ‘fixed Earth’ Bible thumpers (I never thought I would live to see the day…) to launch a probe to Mars.

    Comment by eltower — May 20, 2007 @ 10:24 am | Reply

  150. [...] title of this post is called “Heliocentrism is an Atheistic Doctrine.” For all of you who have successfully passed 4th grade, you are aware that Heliocentrism is the [...]

    Pingback by weekly "say what?!?" « finitum non capax infiniti — May 20, 2007 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  151. If the earth doesn’t move, how do you explain the following?

    1)The magnetic pull of polar north, and tides

    2)Day and night?

    3)Seasons?

    4)Time difference between different parts of the globe?

    Comment by Lindsay — May 20, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  152. [...] Copernicus vs Brownback [...]

    Pingback by Sam Harrelson » Blog Archive » Heliocentric Atheism — May 20, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  153. WHAT THE HELL IOS WRONG WITH YOUI LEFTAARD FREAKS DO YOU REALLY TRHINK THE WORLD SPINS JUST BECAUSE SOME COMMIE TOL DYOU SSO?

    PEOPLE LIKLE YOYU ATRE THJE PROPBLEM YOU ALL HATE AMERICA AD LOVE SADAMM HUSEIN YOU PEOPLE CAN BRUN IN HELLL!!!

    GO BROWNBACK! VOTE BROIWNBACK OR ELSE!!!!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 20, 2007 @ 10:46 am | Reply

  154. “Posts like these are why the rest of the world hates us.”

    Well, actually, posts like these are why the rest of the world laughs at us. Preposterously irrational opinions like sisyphus’ amply demonstrate we are a leading source of entertaining amusement for the world. The hating part comes in when such prodigious stupidity is allowed to run this country’s foreign policy. We may all hang our collective heads in shame for that.

    Comment by argard — May 20, 2007 @ 10:56 am | Reply

  155. Your comment that we would feel movement if we were moving boggles me. Ever been in an airplane? On a smooth flight, you have no sense of moving. Are you saying that, therefore, the earth must be moving past you on the ground while you stand still?

    But, I will stop there and not cast forth my pearls among swine….

    Comment by Gini — May 20, 2007 @ 11:03 am | Reply

  156. “Look, people, even your Heliocentric hero Galileo recanted his idiotic notions about the Earth revolving around the Sun.”

    When they (the Church!) tortured him.

    Comment by Lupie Stephenson — May 20, 2007 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  157. As a Kansas resident of some twenty-five years, let me assure you all that yes, Brownback is indeed this fucking stupid and then some.

    Comment by Milo Johnson — May 20, 2007 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  158. [...] to this post on the Blogs4Brownback site it would seem that Sam Brownback (a Senator from Kansas & GOP [...]

    Pingback by liberal angst » he doesn’t really believe that, does he!?!!!! — May 20, 2007 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  159. “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken”

    Try telling that to anyone who lives in California. Shakers everyday!

    Comment by Oy Vey — May 20, 2007 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  160. I agree with gaussling. It would make sense that this is a smear campaign/farce, but I think its just as likely that non-whacko republicans are responsible. Having someone even distantly associated with ideas and arguments like this one as your party’s presidential candidate is essentially political suicide.

    Comment by Coconuts — May 20, 2007 @ 11:24 am | Reply

  161. The mind of a fundie is like the pupil of the eye – the more light you shine on it, the narrower it becomes

    Comment by uhclem — May 20, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  162. [...] a leggere questo sito statunitense – basta un minimo, ma davvero un minimo di familiarità con l’inglese – che sostiene, perfino [...]

    Pingback by Repubblica.it - Blog - Scene Digitali » Blog Archive » Kepler e Copernico erano diavoli (di Galileo ci siamo già occupati) — May 20, 2007 @ 11:34 am | Reply

  163. Haha, this can’t be serious…

    What an ignorant, bible beating, backwards little man you are. I’m not sure who Brownback is, but if you represent anything he is for, I hope they start banishing you people to some far-off island. If you don’t represent his beliefs, then you can be sure blogs like this will keep him from ever winning election.

    Good job moron; why don’t you do us all a favor and go swallow a knife before you corrupt more people with your propaganda and religious-war-mongering.

    Comment by Gavin — May 20, 2007 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  164. Re: We don’t feel the earth move, therefore it’s not moving. That’s empiricism.

    Next time you are on an airplane, at cruising speed 40,000 feet up, do a little experiment. Take a raisin out of the box of goodies you’re given by the stewardess, and drop it a few inches from one hand to the palm of another. Notice that it will fall straight down, not shoot 600 mph into your chest. That is because the raisin is in your frame of reference, and everything inside the plane is moving with the plane. The notion that there is an absolute space is responsible for the illusion that the earth is not moving when in fact it is. If you have ever seen an insect such as a fly move inside your car when driving fifty five miles an hour down the highway, you’ll notice the same phenomenon. The fly isn’t struggling to keep up with the car even if it is flying in the air inside the car. That’s because the air inside your car is moving with the car, and so it is part of the referene space of the car. Same with the earth. It isn’t bad to assume the sun is moving around the earth – a lot of smart people thought precisely that for thousands of years. But a careful look at the evidence is enough to convince anyone willing to consider the evidence logically that the earth does, in fact, orbit around the sun under its gravitational influence, and not the other way around. If you can’t maintain your faith in God in light of developments in science, that is most unfortunate for you.

    Comment by Chuck — May 20, 2007 @ 11:39 am | Reply

  165. “we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move”

    Now that’s just good comedy.

    Comment by Robologicon — May 20, 2007 @ 11:47 am | Reply

  166. This must be part of a fiendish smear campaign by democrats to make Brownback look like an imbecile.

    Sen Browbakc dont need no help from th athest Demoncrats!

    Comment by Elmer — May 20, 2007 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

  167. This shows the error of ignoring GOd’s creation when iterpreting the Bible. BOth are true and from GOd. ROm 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    Ironically, this author ignores Romans 13:1-2 when it comes to the American Revolution. 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

    Bottom line – most young earth creationists hold their views for political not Biblical or scientific reasons – they put country before GOd and truth as far as I can see.

    Comment by Paul — May 20, 2007 @ 12:06 pm | Reply

  168. This has to be the funniest damn thing I have seen in a while. Sisyphus, this is just genius!

    Comment by TrueBlue — May 20, 2007 @ 12:10 pm | Reply

  169. How can America be a totally christian nation if it started with a revolution against a GOd ordained authority

    see ROmans 13

    Comment by Paul — May 20, 2007 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  170. Some Darwinist across the pond is not going to salvage your silly ideas about how our planet needs to go on a diet. Now you’re claiming that spinning is causing it to get fat?

    You tell ‘em, Sisyphus. Silly moonbats! Anyone knows that Spinning Classes help you lose weight, not get fat. If Mother Earth is taking Spinning Class every day, she’ll lose that tummy soon!

    Comment by g — May 20, 2007 @ 12:14 pm | Reply

  171. I think maybe you guys should check up in Wiki on the legend of Sisyphus – in brief he was condemned by the gods to accomplish an impossible task (pushing a rock up a hill).

    Trying to convince us that the earth is the centre of universe is an impossible task……I wonder what terrible crime this sisyphus has been condemned for ?

    There is a more likely interpretation…sisyphus believes him/herself to be the centre of universe…and thus by definition so must the earth.

    Comment by uknetzone — May 20, 2007 @ 12:15 pm | Reply

  172. There is something called hermeneutics in which verses around the verses that you quoted are studied to determine what the idea God has conveyed to the biblical audience. It is VERY easy for one to quote portions or sections of verses (or whole verses inside a main idea) to give one an “upper edge” when “quoting the Bible.”

    Take Chronicles for an example:
    I guess I could take 1 Chronicles 16:22 “Do not touch my anointed ones…”, add an ellipses, and tell everybody to not touch those anointed by Christ, right? The theory is the same.

    FYI: 1 Chronicles is written as a praise of thanks to God. Most biblical scholars date Chronicles to 520 – 486 B.C, or a time closest to those times. So even if your verse-parting was correct, the people during the time of the writing of verse 16 of 1 Chronicles would have been way, WAY before any idea of the Earth rotating around the Sun… or this is what I have gathered in the last hour or so of research (I haven’t done an in-depth study of Chronicles for myself. Don’t quote me, do the research for yourself).

    Instead of twisting God’s word around to promote your ideas, take a class on hermeneutics and stop making others around you look like fools.

    Comment by John — May 20, 2007 @ 12:17 pm | Reply

  173. “5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.”

    That’s right. Neither does Bible prove a fixed Earth.

    On the other hand, Foucault’s pendelum gives evidence of _accelerating_ Earth. And evidence that is far more plausible than any evidence of fixed Earth for that matter.

    Comment by outolumo — May 20, 2007 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

  174. I am thoroughly disgusted by this website. At first I thought it was hilarious, but then I began reading the comments and realized this was for real.

    You have twisted the principles behind science and even the bible to fit your own agendas, crying “But the Bible says so!” and “Well, look at our science, it’s just as good as yours, but God likes ours better.”

    Empirical evidence isn’t just not noticing the earth move, it noticing that and investigating it further. Sweet, dude! You just proved your ignorance of the scientific method.

    The geocentric frame of reference is nothing new, but it’s used in a completely different manner than how you wield your Bible verses. Have you ever considered how much harder it would be figuring out how to launch a rocket if the Sun’s gravity were an integral part of your calculations? As you cited in your article, it makes the math easier. Besides, the Bible verses you give were never meant to tell the early Christians that the earth is the center of the universe. That’s a very poor way of looking at the Bible, and you really need to work on that.

    You also site the fixedearth.com web page, which you say offers link to “essays” proving your point. I didn’t find one that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. None of these are even from creditable sources.

    I really wonder what is wrong with you that you can defy logic and claim you’re the more logical person for it. It’s really disgusting.

    I applaud your appalling idiocy in this matter.

    Comment by IMReader — May 20, 2007 @ 12:24 pm | Reply

  175. [...] [read the entire post: here.] [...]

    Pingback by Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « this is the new me, dig? — May 20, 2007 @ 12:26 pm | Reply

  176. Who the hell are you and how can we all stay as far away from you as possible. I have my hand on my wallet because the bullshit you are shoveling is all for one thing. Money. Just come out and say it. There is nothing new a con-man (otherwise known as a priest, preacher, or anyone who is not willing to work for a living), under the sun. It’s all been done before. Go back to Nigeria and think up a new scam. In the meantime, I’ll pat myself on the head, tell myself everything will be fine when I’m dead, and keep my money. I can’t even think of a name that is insulting enough to call you.

    Comment by veritas — May 20, 2007 @ 12:36 pm | Reply

  177. “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.”

    Wow, I am sorry for the astronauts, suffering the horrible feeling of movement around the Earth at, how many thousand mph’s?

    Comment by Rudolf Hess — May 20, 2007 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

  178. Quite remarkable. I had to read this twice to satisfy myself it wasn’t satire. Thanks for the laughs.

    Comment by bitbutter — May 20, 2007 @ 12:51 pm | Reply

  179. [...] today’s science wackery, I give you Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine. It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of [...]

    Pingback by E pur si muove! « Live Granades — May 20, 2007 @ 12:52 pm | Reply

  180. This is a Joke, right?

    Comment by GK — May 20, 2007 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  181. Ha.
    Haha.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
    You old prankster you!

    Comment by Mike — May 20, 2007 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  182. The Moon is the centre of the universe!

    Comment by Eight Tons of Geese — May 20, 2007 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

  183. This has to be a joke. It simply has to be.

    We’re sending probes to other planets based on the orbital mechanics of the solar system. I suppose we’ll be hearing that the Earth is the center of the galaxy next.

    And claiming that the Earth does not move with an argument from empiricism? I wish I had the time to sit here and pull that apart. It is the single most logically flawed point that I have ever read in a blog. And that really is saying something.

    Plus, you might want to revise your history of the “evolutionists” a bit.

    Just as well Brownback doesn’t have the slightest chance of ever getting anything close to any real power.

    Comment by simonkaye — May 20, 2007 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  184. So many crazy persons in USA :))))))))))))) very funny

    Comment by epimeteu — May 20, 2007 @ 1:23 pm | Reply

  185. Some goober 2+ thousand years ago says “god did it,” who are we to question that?

    Come on people, after all, it’s easier to believe the bible than to understand all that sciencey sounding complicated stuff that they teach in librul academia. So go with it.

    Not only do you not have to think about global warming and suchlike, but there will be a rapture ree-ward… and everything!

    Give it up for Heyzeus!

    Comment by George — May 20, 2007 @ 1:24 pm | Reply

  186. Please tell me this is a joke. I certainly hope it is. Otherwise I’m gonna have to write a blog totally making fun of this crap.

    Comment by Stancel Spencer — May 20, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  187. NASA should take you up in a shuttle, prove to you that the Earth revolves around the Sun, then push you out the airlock.

    So, your annoyed that your tax dollars fund non-christian education…

    Well imagine my predicament, my country taxes me to fund catatrosphic wars in an effort to keep your wacky country as an ally.

    Ugh…when will it all end!

    Comment by bob — May 20, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  188. Wow. Like others, when I first read this I thought it HAD to be parody. It’s scary that there are actual Americans in the 21st century that believe the Earth to be the center of the universe.

    For the record, it is YOUR RELIGION, not science, that has been intolerant over the centuries. Science is always pressing onward, looking for the correct answers to life, the universe, and everything.

    RELIGION believes it already has those answers, and is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.

    Comment by Michael — May 20, 2007 @ 1:45 pm | Reply

  189. [...] From what I’ve seen of these creationist types, it sounds like the most entertaining species exhibits will be walking the visitors section and dropping their welfare checks on creationist propaganda for kids. [...]

    Pingback by The Museum God Built « make/shift — May 20, 2007 @ 1:58 pm | Reply

  190. “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.”

    So NASA is really just another version of Space Mountain! Cool!

    Comment by g — May 20, 2007 @ 2:06 pm | Reply

  191. Sisyphus,

    While I’m quite sure that my remarks will have no effect whatsoever on your beliefs, I would like to intervene, on the off-chance that what I say will cause you to stop and consider what you’re doing.

    I believe you’ve missed the point of the Bible, especially the New Testament, which you are so fond of quoting. The Bible does not preoccupy itself with whether the Earth is round or flat, nor whether it revolves around the Sun or whether it is stationary, whether it spins on its axis or not.

    The Bible is a religious text. It does not explain everything about the universe. God does not reveal all His mysteries to us: how else can we learn and grow, but by discovering things for ourselves?

    God is a huge, omnipotent being. There is no way that our human brains can fully encompass all that He is. Just as we have a limited understanding of God, does it not follow that we have a limited understanding of His creation?

    The Bible is not meant to hold the answers. The opportunity to discover all of life’s mysteries is one of the joys of living.

    Rather, the Bible is there to provide us with a guideline for how to live our lives. It tells us to show love and compassion to everyone, regardless of who they are. It tells us to stay away from sin, to conduct ourselves with honesty and rectitude in our daily affairs, and to treat other people with respect, for the Lord dwells in all of us, from the highest monarch to the lowliest of criminals.

    Perhaps you would be better off reminding people of the Bible’s main message of love and hope? Encourage people to give back to their community, to give back to the world. Recycle, volunteer at a charitable organization, get involved with their local churches, learn about the atrocities going on in the world and voicing their opposition to them. What does heliocentrism really matter in the face of all the suffering going on as we type?

    You have done yourself a disservice, sir, by engaging in ad hominem attacks on the other people who have commented here. “They started it,” is not a valid defense, either. The Bible dictates to turn the other cheek, to take the higher ground. You are welcome to your opinion, but your arguments lose any merit when you start telling people to “take [their] meds,” or calling them “moonbats,” or “morons.”

    A last small note: you consistently misspelled “through” in your post. I realize that, in this day of internet-speak, many find it acceptable to spell it “thru,” but it smacks of intellectual laziness, and in a post in which you are trying to make an intelligent argument, taking the easy way out again weakens your argument.

    Thank you for your time.

    Comment by Daphne — May 20, 2007 @ 2:19 pm | Reply

  192. I’m sorry but this is just not true, it is well documented that the earth moves. It can be seen mvoing from space. And well if your telling me that every probe in the world and every experiment to prove that our sun is the center of the SOLAR SYSTEM (not the universe as you stated) is wrong/faked for some reason, your nuts.
    e have tons of evidence from countless sources and you have a book, a very old book which has no proof in it what-so-ever.
    Hell what next? You’ll tell me water can be turned into wine…

    Comment by roguethoughts — May 20, 2007 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  193. I’m honestly shocked. I live in Europe, specifically in a country where Americans are not really respected – and, frankly, why should anyone respect a nation that chooses Dubya as a President – and a two-termer, that is! No offense, mind you – our Prime Minister is not a genius, either…
    But this stuff really is dangerous – not funny, just plain dangerous! I’m just glad to see that Sisyphus is getting just what he deserves for posting nonsense like this, I’m just glad to see that USA is not inhabited by wacko fundamentalists – at least, not all of it.
    Americans, do a favor to yourselves and the world: Get rid of those nutjobs ASAP!

    P.S. In fact, it IS moving!

    Comment by stranger — May 20, 2007 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  194. As a God-fearing, virginal Christian woman, I am appalled at the lack of debate over the alien moon base located on the Dark Side of the moon. THIS is what we need to be teaching in public schools.

    Make no misteak the Alien Base EXISTS!!!! you can see the secret NASA footage posted all over the internets. Aliens are demonic, and their Rampant influence has dominated the U.S. of A. since the Apollo missions. Take a look at the name “APOLLO” = a false Roman God (read “DEMONIC-Entity”.)

    Does anyone know Brownback’s position on NASA and it’s evil mission to return us back to the moon (and re-establish contact with their demonic alien patrons)? I wish he would make it a plank in his campaign.

    Comment by alpha charlie epsilon — May 20, 2007 @ 2:44 pm | Reply

  195. If this is not some kind satire, then this essay is one of the most depressing things I have ever read.

    If it is satire, it is absolutely brilliant.

    It makes me sad that in this day and age I can’t tell the difference between satire and deranged religious lunacy.

    Comment by John — May 20, 2007 @ 2:44 pm | Reply

  196. This is indeed a rediculous post. I think if you’re going to quote Answers In Genesis regarding this issue, then you should at least be honest enough to include a link to what they actually think about geocentrism. I don’t know if this will get put up or not, but here goes.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#1

    Be honest…

    mark jr.

    Comment by iseeitdifferently — May 20, 2007 @ 2:46 pm | Reply

  197. Also, comment 191 was good. Thank you Daphne.

    Comment 194, you’re a quack. Or a practical joker. You’re probably one of those people from http://www.demonbuster.com

    mark jr.

    Comment by iseeitdifferently — May 20, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  198. Alpha Charlie, is it really true there are illegal aliens in a base on the moon? Are they flying the Mexican flag?

    Comment by g — May 20, 2007 @ 2:55 pm | Reply

  199. Re: comment #198;
    Pink Floyd hinted at it. It must be true. At least it always felt like it was when I use to fry.

    Comment by iseeitdifferently — May 20, 2007 @ 2:59 pm | Reply

  200. [...] YES! Geil, geil, geil! Ich hab gerade einen Blog gefunden, die Ueberschrift: Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine [...]

    Pingback by YES! « Bien Matou — May 20, 2007 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

  201. Lovely site – Good to see people with priniciples speaking up, and Brownnose seems to be as good a candidate as your present president. However I have a small question:

    If the earth is fixed and unmoving as it says in the Bible, how come things weigh a bit more at the poles than they do at the equator?

    Is this fact mentioned and explained somewhere in the bible?

    Comment by sailor — May 20, 2007 @ 3:04 pm | Reply

  202. You don’t feel the earth moving because your moving with it Knuckle head!

    You don’t feel the effect of moving in car moving at a steady 55mph
    when your in it either.

    It doesn’t make you smart to site General Relativity or Empiricsm if you don’t have a clue what they mean.

    I hope I’ve been had– this is a parody.
    No one could be this clueless.

    Comment by Cafe dog — May 20, 2007 @ 3:08 pm | Reply

  203. And hey whats wrong with Paganism. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone right. I mean the Greeks had it all right didn’t they with Zeus and everyone. They didn’t sacrfise humans. And who gives anyone the right to say what relgion is pagan and barbaric. Hey the Catholic church isn’t squeaky clean cough*crusades*cough*.
    The earth rotates hense the days, hense the earth having a north and south pole. There are so many arguments its just funny you try and fight it.
    Funny yet sad. Nothing wrong with church goers, just those that push it on people and argue against fact.as we know spiritualism isnt the language of the universe, prime numbers are.

    Comment by roguethoughts — May 20, 2007 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  204. Hahahaha! I can’t quite figure out whether you’re being ironic or not. I really hope you are.

    Comment by Vida Latina — May 20, 2007 @ 3:14 pm | Reply

  205. Is this a joke?

    Comment by Sam Hensel — May 20, 2007 @ 3:18 pm | Reply

  206. LOL!!!!!!! Next up: The Earth is flat and supported by a “foundation.” Read Job. And people wonder why the world looks at fundamentalist Christians like they’re jabbering idiots. This article is proof!

    Comment by Brian Hinson — May 20, 2007 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  207. “The only polls that matter will be the statewide primaries next year. Brownback is going to wallop all comers in those polls.”

    Do you have any money to wager on this? If so, please get in touch with me.

    Comment by creeper — May 20, 2007 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

  208. [...] couldn’t get stupider (that’s Bush-speak for “more stupid”), along comes a blog supporting Brownback for president that claims we’ve all been duped by science that says Earth [...]

    Pingback by Newflash: The Earth Doesn't Move « In Repair — May 20, 2007 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

  209. 196: I love where that AIG page says, “Secular scientists tell us that we live on a speck of dust, circling a humdrum star in a far corner of an obscure galaxy! While this is all true, …”

    As for FixedEarth.com : I can almost believe they’re sincere, at least about the evil Jewish sorcerous conspiracy. Wrong, over course (mostly). But sincere.

    I’m reasonably sure there are no plausibly sane flat-earthers left, since that guy died in 2001.

    Comment by Robert Carnegie — May 20, 2007 @ 3:32 pm | Reply

  210. Sisyphus I love your post and I wish people could contribute more intelligently to this comment board than they’ve done so far. People mostly seem to go into such spasms upon seeing something that goes against established convention that they are no longer able to converse intelligently.

    I have an issue though. Wasn’t Sisyphus a pagan? And also the professed hero of secularist Albert Camus? Because he chose his own meaning of life even against the will of the gods? And thus, if this is a word, theoclastic? That doesn’t sound very Christian. Just sayin’.

    Comment by john — May 20, 2007 @ 3:35 pm | Reply

  211. Some things to point out:

    Galileo’s recanting of his evidence and writings was NOT genuine, it was forced under the threat of Inquisitorial sanction and torture. Shortly after he wrote his Discourses which basically all but said that he fully supported what the evidence found and for his trouble was put under house arrest until 1992.

    If you have such a lack of faith in your almighty God that you feel that you have to refute science with evidence that is contradictory, taken out of context, or both, then you most likely need to reconsider long and hard your faith in your God. If you feel you must PROVE your faith by empiricism then by definition you are proving you have no faith in your God. True faith needs no proof, only those who have none need to validate it.

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 20, 2007 @ 3:41 pm | Reply

  212. Empiricism is flawed: you don’t see or feel germs in the air; does that mean they don’t exist? Science says yes, even though the Bible makes no mention of them. You don’t feel the Earth moving because the pull of gravity of its center keeps you firmly planted to its surface. Otherwise, the penguins in Antarctica (who would appear to be upside down) would fall off into space, and so would everyone else in the planet.

    Also, if I were you, I wouldn’t take science lessons from a 5000-year-old book.

    Comment by Brightshadows — May 20, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

  213. Took the time to read the satire (well done, Sisyphus!) and the hysterically funny (and scientifically encouraging) responses (Marcia P. excepted, but I am pretty sure she is simply Sisyphus under a different name).

    I’m sure this site will accomplish its purpose, which plainly is to discredit Sam Brownback. It seems like a lot of work to eliminate a candidate who could not possibly win his party’s nomination or a nationwide general election, but it was pretty funny anyway.

    Just wanted to point out that the reason Pat Paulsen isn’t running is that he died ten years ago. Paulsen, unlike the earth, is currently not moving (let alone running).

    Comment by cureholder — May 20, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  214. for God’s sake!! don’t you all EVER get tired of repeating yourselves!!! and i thought Syrians were retards and ignorants!!! but Hell NO, you proved i was wrong, it seems that Americans are the least intellectual and educated nation on planet “Earth”, if you’ve heard of it…

    Sisyphus, “I’m Blind and happy about it”… Darwin was really wrong, Humans did NOT evolve, they’re only deforming into a killer-ape… and hopefully so soon, thanx to the wise leadership of President G.W. Bush, we’re all facing extinction in no time… you should visit here to see what you and your alikes have done to the “Land of God”…

    i only know one thing, that God is watching over us… and he’s tired of watching the same stupidity getting repeated again and again… and hopefully.. our end is near… this Planet deserved to die due to the fact that “Homo sapiens” have pulled themselves out of the food chain and started messing with the original design…

    God… is a fool… as he let himself create a creature as useless as you are…

    do not answer me… as i’m only feeling sorry for the moment i followed this link… just get your head out of the window, and take a look out side… and pray The Lord to save you kind…

    Hitler should’ve won in 1945… at least… there would’ve been less humans on this sorry planet… and more elephants, dolphins and tigers…

    R.I.Pieces…

    Comment by headquarter84 — May 20, 2007 @ 4:12 pm | Reply

  215. This may be something new for you but there is such a thing as figurative language. Those were people writing in their language and in their perspective. I would hope that your faith would be stronger than needing to try to debunk every scientific theory. Perhaps, this discovery was intended by God to show us our disproportion in the universe.

    Comment by Key — May 20, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

  216. Great parody site! Thanks for making Brownback look like an even more droolingly insane boob than he already is! I didn’t think that was possible!

    Comment by No More Mr. Nice Guy! — May 20, 2007 @ 4:22 pm | Reply

  217. If you get voted in for President, I’m renouncing my citizenship and leaving the nation.

    Comment by xombie — May 20, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  218. This site is Intelligent Design!

    Comment by ministerie van agitatie — May 20, 2007 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

  219. …. is this for real, or satire to make Brownback look like a fool? Either way it’s quite effective in reinforcing my belief in equality, freedom, justice, and the scientific method,and rather undermining what little faith I had in your magical fairy tale God.

    Comment by HunterBlackLuna — May 20, 2007 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  220. My irony meter is all over the floor in tiny pieces. Sisy, if a bat can be a bird because it flies, even thought it doesn’t have feathers, then a loving couple who want to live together for the rest of their lives can be a family, even if they can’t reproduce. Or were you planning to have fertility and virility tests for everyone who wants to get married, including old gals and geezers in nursing homes?

    Comment by Monado — May 20, 2007 @ 4:51 pm | Reply

  221. this blog is hilarious. thanks!

    Comment by licensetobreed — May 20, 2007 @ 4:51 pm | Reply

  222. you’re stupid. just because we can’t FEEL the earth moving doesn’t mean its not you inbred dumbass. when you fly in a plane you don’t feel like you’re moving at 400 mph, you feel like you’re standing still. according to your ingenius observations, that means that the sky is actually flying past the stationary airplane. you are so stupid. and since we’re taking everything in the bible literally here, did you know that eating at Red Lobster is evil? and slavery is ok. you are a perfect example of why siblings shouldn’t have sex.

    Comment by packerwatch — May 20, 2007 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  223. Thank God I’m an atheist!

    Comment by Old Nick — May 20, 2007 @ 4:56 pm | Reply

  224. Wow! I never would have believed that someone in this century would refuse to know that the earth revolves around the sun. Sorry, but I find it amusing. But, hey, believe what you want to believe. No one’s stopping you. This world is full of different faiths… some people have war over it, but it won’t ever solve thing.

    Comment by Nerina — May 20, 2007 @ 5:02 pm | Reply

  225. [...] Sisyphus at blogs for Brownback has given us an unfortunate glimpse into the lines of thought Brownback supporters are doing: 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. That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don’t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There’s also the Word of the Lord: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30) [...]

    Pingback by The Earth is an Immoral Heathen Slut! « Fitness for the Occasion — May 20, 2007 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  226. google brownback opus dei. So they’re still pissed about Galileo?

    Comment by Pete — May 20, 2007 @ 5:21 pm | Reply

  227. Anything that prevents european zombie atheism I will endorse.

    Comment by ralphrubenemmers — May 20, 2007 @ 5:23 pm | Reply

  228. Are… you… freakin’…kidding.

    I was sure that this was a parody. I still fervently wish that it is a parody. But it’s not.

    Look, the complete garbage about reference frames is an utterly irrelevant diversion from the real issue, that is, the overall structure of the solar system. The solar system is shaped like a series of concentric circles, with the sun occupying the central point. This is how it is shaped regardless of your placement. The sun also exerts the vast majority of the gravitational force holding the planets in this position.

    I cannot believe I’m explaining this.

    BTW, I’m not attacking the Bible. I’m a Christian myself, although one who believes that the Bible does _not_ have to be taken literally, especially those portions like Genesis.

    Comment by Linus — May 20, 2007 @ 5:28 pm | Reply

  229. Quote:

    UPDATE II: Look, people, even your Heliocentric hero Galileo recanted his idiotic notions about the Earth revolving around the Sun. If he’s your so-called reliable source on this, I think it does wonders to shatter the idea’s credibility that one of its main proponents backed away from it so abruptly.

    Lovely! So you advocate the Catholic Church’s method of curing heresy: throwing people into dungeons?

    That’ll clean up the public schools!

    At least y’all will be dead and gone when the public school system has to apologize in a few hundred years, like Pope John Paul II did.

    Best of luck!

    Comment by Stygius — May 20, 2007 @ 5:30 pm | Reply

  230. Sisyphus — about the earth being flat. you do not need to read any book other than the bible to know this is true. Matt. 4:8 says that the devil took Jesus to an exceedingly high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. You couldn’t do that if the earth was round. And of course there is Rev. 7:1. This site on the Inter-Net mathematicly and scripturally proves that the earth must be square:

    http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/square_earth.html

    Oh, and maybe your right about technology not being as bad as some other Dim-o-Crat technologies like vaccinations and seat belts. Just be careful that the heathen ways of the “Web” do not change you. I have seen many of my brothers drown in this sea of filth.

    Comment by Eduardo — May 20, 2007 @ 5:36 pm | Reply

  231. [...] Sisyphus at Blogs4Brownback makes some thought-provoking observations about heliocentrism and its relationship to atheism: [...]

    Pingback by Atheist mindsoap. « Adventures of Kugar Dill — May 20, 2007 @ 5:47 pm | Reply

  232. That website is funnier than AiG, partially because it doesn’t cause me physical pain. I wish I had the initiative to write parodies.

    The really, really sad thing is, it initially looked almost like the kind of rubbish AiG would proffer.

    Comment by Linus — May 20, 2007 @ 5:56 pm | Reply

  233. How dare you try to speak on behalf of God. If you have read more of the Bible you would know a few things. For example..stop calling people idiots, it isn’t your right to judge.
    “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because
    you who pass judgment do the same things.” -Romans 2:1

    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
    – Bible, II Timothy (ch. III, v. 16-17)

    Comment by religiousthinker — May 20, 2007 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  234. you are a truly disturbed individual. i pity you and your kind.

    Comment by stevesachs — May 20, 2007 @ 6:06 pm | Reply

  235. If you lived on the Pacific rim in California or New Zealand you would know by experience that the earth is not ‘fixed.’

    Comment by neiladams — May 20, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Reply

  236. Your web site is the most inspiring I’ve seen since Objective Ministries!
    Keep doing the Lord’s work, Sisyphus!

    Comment by jre — May 20, 2007 @ 6:29 pm | Reply

  237. *proud theistic evolutionist heliocentrist*

    Comment by abyssalleviathin — May 20, 2007 @ 6:30 pm | Reply

  238. beautiful. nowhere in the paragraph can one find A SINGLE EVIDENCE refuting the validity of heliocentrism. it just keeps denying it without any backup. I normally don’t mind challenging scientific dogmas, but geez, do it intelligently or you’ll just end up discrediting yourself even further!

    Comment by betina — May 20, 2007 @ 6:43 pm | Reply

  239. …..who the hell is Brownback?

    Comment by Sandra — May 20, 2007 @ 6:50 pm | Reply

  240. You cannot argue with moronic crap like this. This is the American taliban. These idiots are the kinds of morons that burned witches and beheaded disrespectful children. Isn’t it wonderful that America is such a free society that idiots like this can hold on to their opinions? I feel sorry for his homeschooled moronic children.

    Comment by scott fanetti — May 20, 2007 @ 7:13 pm | Reply

  241. From one God-fearing brother to another–

    Perhaps this isn’t the best way to share Jesus with others. Do you think God is worried about what people think about the earth and the sun when there’s an entire world dying in their sins? And while I do believe there is a healthy way for Christians to engage in politics, I fear that trying so desperately to get “Christian” politicians elected is in itself a false idol driven out of the fear of not having control.

    I won’t say your arguments are right or wrong, because that is irrelevant when we must give account to God for sharing his Gospel with others. I’m only making the suggestion that perhaps there are more important things to worry about–this is not a matter of heresy, denying God’s saving grace, or some horridly destructive false doctrine. You are entitled to believe what you’d like, but I fear there may be idols of fear and control in your heart that need to be dealt with.

    Comment by rbenhase — May 20, 2007 @ 7:20 pm | Reply

  242. I am reading these posts and I seriously cannot believe these people. Are there really people that believe the proof that the earth is fixed is that they can’t feel it moving? This cannot be for real – where the hell do you people live? Salem?

    Please email me if you really and truly believe that the earth is the center of the universe. I would really love to understand that particular brand of madness.

    Comment by scott fanetti — May 20, 2007 @ 7:27 pm | Reply

  243. This article is proof that some people do indeed side-step evolution.

    Comment by johnderrick — May 20, 2007 @ 7:30 pm | Reply

  244. It’s articles like this that further the regretable sentiment that religion is irrelevant in the modern world… :(

    Comment by JR — May 20, 2007 @ 7:36 pm | Reply

  245. Thank you Eduardo for comment 230. It is good to know there are God-fearing people on the internet not just atheist mockers. I could not read all the comments the evil (profanity and abuse) was too much and I had to pray and lie down for half an hour.

    Thank you Sisyphus for your courage to stand up for the Word of God despite the cruel mockery. Galileo sinned greatly. So did Isaac Newton and all the atheist “scientists” who followed him. He should just be grateful they did not burn him. What these atheists call science is just Satan-worship, false teaching to confuse children and undermine the Bible. I pray President Brownback will stop our schools from teaching it. Thank you again for writing the truth.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 20, 2007 @ 7:49 pm | Reply

  246. you’re kidding, right?
    still not believing in modern discoveries and relying on a BOOK?!
    no offense

    Comment by spammingz — May 20, 2007 @ 7:50 pm | Reply

  247. Ya see kids, we now know that the reason you’re sick is that a little troll is very angry and is living inside your tummy. See how far we’ve come? We used to believe that the stars caught in the firmament made you ill. Look at the wonderful advances in medice we’ve made! More to follow!! Vote Brownback for improving our scientific knowledge that god does everything!

    Please ignore the section of the bible where god loses a battle to wildmen in iron chariots, an obvious typo!

    Comment by Firemanccarl — May 20, 2007 @ 7:54 pm | Reply

  248. But why stop there? These evil scientismists would have us believe that the stars are millions of light years away! Whereas Bishop Ussher’s calculations of Biblical lifespans made it perfectly clear that the universe cannot be more than 8000 years old. How could starlight travel all that distance in 8000 years? Well? WELL? Ergo, these “stars” MUST be tiny little points of light about the same distance as Uranus!
    Foolish scientismists! You know NOTHING!

    Comment by BabyCheeses — May 20, 2007 @ 8:07 pm | Reply

  249. GOD BLESS YOU! It’s about time that somebody stepped up to the plate to knock all of these lie-beral satanic “facts” like “evolution” and “global warming” and “lung cancer”. Americans just swallow these lies down quicker than an Indian with a bottle of firewater! WAKE UP!! Sen. Brownback is about the only thing that stands between us and the complete and total distruction of the United States of America. Do you really want the blood of savagely murdered stem cells on your hands?? Can you really go to sleep at night with their gut-wrench shrieks of pain in your ears??

    The Bible is the unerrant word of God! WHAT PART OF THAT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND????

    Comment by Billy Bob — May 20, 2007 @ 8:20 pm | Reply

  250. Is this a joke?

    F = GmM/r^2 = mv^2/r applies in a stable orbit, now using mv^2/r it follows that the centrifugal force “we feel” because of Earth’s orbit is about 1658 times smaller than the force we feel from the Earth’s gravitational force.
    So, no, we don’t really feel the Earth moving.

    Relativity shows you can’t say the Earth is the fixed center of the universe: fixed relative to what? (Not the planets, the Sun, or the galaxy.)

    Here’s one: have a really fat guy (fatter than you) hold one end of a rope, you hold the other end, you get the idea… now who’s orbiting who? The fat guy (Sun), or you (Earth)?

    Comment by Skeptic — May 20, 2007 @ 8:29 pm | Reply

  251. You are a boon to FSTDT.

    Comment by JacIII — May 20, 2007 @ 8:33 pm | Reply

  252. Who is Jon Swift?

    Fucking genius! Great entry, Sisyphus!

    Comment by brandonpatrick — May 20, 2007 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  253. [...] An argument for the Earth being the center of the universe. May 21, 2007 Posted by frater in All. trackback http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/ [...]

    Pingback by An argument for the Earth being the center of the universe. « Silicon Dreams — May 20, 2007 @ 8:58 pm | Reply

  254. Sorry, but the real answer is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does it all by devine Fiat. :-)

    May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage!

    Comment by blueollie — May 20, 2007 @ 9:02 pm | Reply

  255. Funny as fuck. Pleased to see that Sis is getting a bashing. I hope it is a parody. I really hope it is..

    Comment by sungypsy — May 20, 2007 @ 9:03 pm | Reply

  256. [...] parody, or Brownback lunacy? Okay, I think this site is a parody, a hoax, on U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback’s presidential [...]

    Pingback by Brownback parody, or Brownback lunacy? « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub — May 20, 2007 @ 9:17 pm | Reply

  257. [...] the first one [Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine] has something to do about Christianity, I’m sorry Sven, I know you’re trying hard to [...]

    Pingback by Musings - Top Posts on WP « D.a.double-r.e.n — May 20, 2007 @ 9:24 pm | Reply

  258. I reiterate: this post — nay, entire blog — is the greatest practical joke ever played, and I stand by that.

    Come on, people. Do some thinking.

    In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a king punished in the underworld by being set to roll a huge boulder up a hill throughout eternity. He’s a symbol of utter futility.

    Heliocentrism is false. The Bible is inerrant. Brownback for president.

    Futility, people! Get it? FUTILITY!

    Again, great ruse, Sisyphus. I don’t see how you’re gonna top this post as you move forward.

    Comment by Jeff Ventura — May 20, 2007 @ 9:36 pm | Reply

  259. ME BIZARRO LIKE GUD IDEAS ON THIS SITE! SCIENCE BAD! SMART PEOPLE BAD! DINOSAURS BAD!

    Comment by Bizarro — May 20, 2007 @ 10:10 pm | Reply

  260. Sisyphus,

    just alone your name shows, how few you know. If you would know what you were talking abot your name would be SisyphOS, since he was a “Greecian”, as President Bush calls them.

    And I just wanted to say, that God will forgive you for your blasphemy, your distrust in him. Evertything you say leads to you worshiping the devil, the evil. You walk hand-in-hand with Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaedam, the worst enemies of the United States under God, and you don’t even try to deny it. You hate America, the United States, and in doing so you hate God himself, or as I prefer to say “Him, who’s name shall not be said” or JHWH.

    But he will forgive you. He will give you a hug on the day of the youngest court, and you will understand and break out in tears knowledge will be within you and you will be within knowledge.

    JHWH shall bless you, and forgive that you worship the wrong gods, and all of us.

    Comment by 95 theses — May 20, 2007 @ 10:41 pm | Reply

  261. I give it 24 hours or less until Brownback’s campaign team gets this removed…unless of course he actually agrees with it, I wouldn’t be surprised heh heh.

    Comment by Stancel Spencer — May 20, 2007 @ 10:59 pm | Reply

  262. Furthermore, is this just some PUBLICITY STUNT to get people talking about Brownback? Yeah, post this ridiculous blog topic, because in their logic it could be “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” and “we might even get some more support from the nutjob fundamentalist crowd”.

    Comment by Stancel Spencer — May 20, 2007 @ 11:00 pm | Reply

  263. Sisyphus,

    I love this blog and try to read it at least once a week. I’m not certain if I agree with your analysis on heliocentrism, but you certainly raise a valid point of view and as such should be treated with some respect.

    I’m troubled by most of the comments in this thread. They’re disrespectful and downright attagonistic. If people aren’t treated your opinions with respect, why do you let them post on this wonderful blog?

    If you go to any of the werdo blogs, if we were to try to post our opinions about the importance of religion in this American Life, we would most certainly be banned. I understand that Christ’s word is strengthened by disagreement, but do you need to put up with abuse?

    Just wondering. Keep posting, I love your writing!

    Comment by Harry — May 20, 2007 @ 11:01 pm | Reply

  264. Thank you SO much for posting this, you don’t know how much I appreciate this! I belong to one of the most popular atheist sites and a link of this was posted on there by a christian who debates us on the site frequently. Your post has actually made he reconsider his faith, as you pointed out so well how the bible’s own words clearly are untrue since so much of it has been shown false by science. It really is a wakeup call to so many christians to see so many obvious errors in the book. Since the bible is a believe it all or none type of thing, more and more christians are seeing the errors of their ways and joining us enlightened folks.

    Keep up the good work!!!

    Comment by Arletta — May 20, 2007 @ 11:33 pm | Reply

  265. We are still in Dark Age. The sons of Satan still claim that Earth is flat and that Earth does not move at all. They also claim there are no pedofiles inside their “churches”. They also claim that WE, free people of the World, are in fact influenced by Satan.

    Be brave, my brothers and sisters. This war was long and will be longer, but in the end we will win.

    FREEDOM!!!

    Comment by topmodels — May 21, 2007 @ 3:08 am | Reply

  266. hilarious post sisyphus. You know though, if science is so awful and rotting the country as a belief system, uh, why are you using the internet?

    you know it’s the same kind of beliefs that created the internet that proved that the earth moves. Science has sent probes to other planets, and created this here internet for our communicatering. Your KJV hasn’t done shit

    Comment by cokane — May 21, 2007 @ 3:22 am | Reply

  267. Harry,

    If it was a respectable opinion people here might treat it with respect, even if they were critical. However, to suggest that the Sun and all the planets revolve around the Earth is just silly. It flies in the face of mountains of scientific fact and evidence.

    There’s something that scientists like to call gravity. The Earth and all the planets revolve around the Sun because the Sun has an immense amount of gravity – because it is so big it can compel all these planets to orbit around it. The Sun can not orbit around the Earth because the Earth is way too small and doesn’t have enough gravity to compel the Sun to move around it. The bigger the object in space, the more gravity. Which is why we can bounce around like we do on the Moon, the Moon is too small for us to walk normally on it.

    For example, when the Space Shuttle lifts off into space and moves beyond the atmosphere into orbit, it orbits because it is pulled alongside the pull of the gravity of the Earth. To suggest the the Sun and all the bigger planets could be able to revolve around the Earth is comparable to suggesting that the Earth can revolve around the Space Shuttle.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 3:26 am | Reply

  268. The blog also mentions the idea that when the Earth moves, you don’t feel it moving. We are far too small in comparison to the Earth’s size to notice that. Also, when the Earth moves or rotates, we do with it, because of a force called gravity.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 3:30 am | Reply

  269. I must say that I find this particular blog entry to be the most amusing thing that I’ve read in a long time. I really thought you were being serious for a while but the views expressed are so outlandish that they must be a parody. Obviously to maintain the parody you have to continue to support the rather bizarre viewpoint that you seem to be stating so I’ll understand if you continue after my comment.

    As an aside I was wondering if you knew why the fundamentalist Christians insist on throwing the word Atheist about like it’s an insult? I’m proud of my belief system. It’s based on evidence (empirical evidence no less) after all rather than mysticism. I suppose you’re using the word in it’s original meaning rather than the one that has evolved (oops, there’s that word again) over the last 500 years or so.

    Once again thanks for this.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 21, 2007 @ 3:39 am | Reply

  270. Wow. Too many comments to reply to individually. Evidently, the secular-humanist atheist community feels threatened whenever someone calls their ideas into question. In your hearts, you know I speak the Truth; so you swarm together like smoke-blinded hornets to defend Godless notions that defy reason, common sense, empiricism, Scripture, and the historically accurate fact that removing prayer from public schools and teaching our children nonsense like Heliocentrism is what started all the problems in America.

    Why someone would choose to disregard something they know deep inside themselves is true, just to chastise the messenger who made them see this inside themselves, is beyond me; I’m neither a priest nor a therapist, but it’s clear to me that some of you are desperately mentally and spiritually ill. You have my sympathy.

    Some of you, of course, have opened your eyes and recognized reality; we are brothers and sisters in Him, and I love you. Our common duty is to the blind; let us open their eyes to the facts. Everything they believe in is a worthless pile of stinking excrement brought forth by Godless, wicked, ambitious men like Copernicus, Kepler, Darwin, Marx, Einstein, and that Frenchman Voltaire. They’ve abandoned the faith of the Heavens, and chosen to worship excrement. This is a mortal spiritual illness that we must cleanse them of.

    Don’t be fooled when some of them say they are Christian. No one can serve two masters; one cannot serve God and Copernicus.

    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. You’ll have to give me some time to meditate on this one. For now, I think the sensible among us can all agree that the Earth, be it flat or round, does not move. If you keep reminding me, and keep sending me evidence from Scripture and scientific websites, I may come to see things your way. Time will tell.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 4:35 am | Reply

  271. That’s what I’m talking about. Just grouping “reason, common sense, empiricism, Scripture, and .. removing prayer from public schools” together is enough of a stretch. Going on to state that some of the greatest thinkers in history were wicked is just too much. Then you go and top it by saying the Earth may actually be flat. If I had any doubts that this was a parody and not serious then you just quashed them there. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 21, 2007 @ 4:54 am | Reply

  272. “Heliocentrism is what started all the problems in America.”

    Does that mean the rest of the world revolves around the Sun, then? That would explain a few things… :roll:

    If you get your way, and ban all science, you will send this world back to the Dark Ages. No internet for you to abuse, no computers, telephones, electricity, or industry. BUT even if you succeed, and even if 99.999% of the people on this planet die as a result: the sky will still be there, to observe and speculate on. “Daddy, why does Mercury go backwards?” “Hmmm…” 8)

    Comment by brian t — May 21, 2007 @ 5:02 am | Reply

  273. “Too many comments to reply to individually. Evidently, the secular-humanist atheist community feels threatened whenever someone calls their ideas into question.”

    I think we’re all having too much fun to feel threatened by… actually, what is the threat here? I don’t see one. It’s not Brownback, whoever he or she is. Astroturf doesn’t grow well in manure…

    Comment by brian t — May 21, 2007 @ 5:12 am | Reply

  274. Oh, for the sake of rational discussion:
    – *No one* believes in heliocentrism today. The universe has no center in any meaningful sense. You’re flogging a dead horse.
    – As you quite rightly said, both the sun and the earth can be *chosen* as the center of a coordinate system for purposes of calculation, as can Mars, Sirius or one of Jupiter’s moons. Equally valid frames of reference and all that…
    – FOR THE VERY SAME REASON there can be no such thing as the absolute rest you’re trying to ascribe to the earth.
    – We don’t feel the earth moving because the atmosphere moves with it at a constant speed. You don’t feel a plane moving forward when it’s in the air either. Some of your objections (like this one) are quite weird…

    …unless this is satire, in which case I’m your fan.

    Comment by V — May 21, 2007 @ 5:28 am | Reply

  275. [...] this post argues against…that’s right…the earth going around the sun. Again, it reads like a spoof, but if you look at the rest of the [...]

    Pingback by overslept « blueollie — May 21, 2007 @ 5:34 am | Reply

  276. [...] of strange and unusual I stumbled onto this from the WordPress main page and left a few comments.  This is one of the most interesting [...]

    Pingback by God made phones « The Magnificent Frog — May 21, 2007 @ 6:33 am | Reply

  277. “If those astronauts had simply realized that their ship was moving relative to the Earth, instead of the other way around, we could finally put this silly Heliocentrism nonsense behind us.”

    OK, that one convinces me. It *is* satire, and I *am* your fan.

    Comment by V — May 21, 2007 @ 6:45 am | Reply

  278. [...] Over here on a site supporting Senator Sam Brownback Sisyphus has finally put the myth of Heliocentricsim (the crazy idea that the earth orbits the sun) to rest. Now he’s considering the merits of the flat earth theory. 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. You’ll have to give me some time to meditate on this one. For now, I think the sensible among us can all agree that the Earth, be it flat or round, does not move. If you keep reminding me, and keep sending me evidence from Scripture and scientific websites, I may come to see things your way. Time will tell. [...]

    Pingback by Bitbutter » Geocentrism? yes!, Flat Earth? maybe — May 21, 2007 @ 6:47 am | Reply

  279. [...] Mon 21 May 2007 Who Knew? Heliocentrism Worse Than Evolution Posted by Madhava Gosh under Science  From: Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine [...]

    Pingback by Who Knew? Heliocentrism Worse Than Evolution « View From a New Vrindaban Ridge — May 21, 2007 @ 6:55 am | Reply

  280. So… have you passed through your grand theory that the Earth is not moving (so… not rotating) with meteorologists? If you have, and I really hope you have because you are making some incredibly bold assertions here, then can you explain why hurricanes rotate in opposite direction, or why things in flight defect to the right or left depending on the hemisphere they’re in?

    I think someone already pointed out the Coriolis effect.

    Comment by Raymond — May 21, 2007 @ 7:00 am | Reply

  281. Hi. Neo-Pagan secular humanist moonbat here. All I can say is that you make me thank all the gods that I’m not an American – as if I needed another reason. We don’t have too many nutbars like you in Canada. Well, maybe Stockwell Day, but after it ruined his political career he’s kept it on the downlo.
    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go smoke some government approved pot with my legally recognized same-sex spouse.
    Peace.

    Comment by Moonbat — May 21, 2007 @ 7:14 am | Reply

  282. got issues?

    Comment by Smokey — May 21, 2007 @ 7:25 am | Reply

  283. People, people, relax: this is a parody, I mean it’s gotta be, people can’t be this stupid, can they? Oh f*ck! They can be (YECs)…

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 8:07 am | Reply

  284. Special and General Relativity, as you note, postulate that there are no ‘privileged’ inertial reference frames: that is, we cannot identify any particular frame as being characteristically unique among all possible frames. With some fudging, you can consider the earth to occupy a fixed position in an inertial reference frame, for purposes of convenience. (Obviously, the experimental observation that the earth rotates causes Newton’s first law to fail, so you can’t consider consider it a true IRF for relativistic purposes). Anyway, just because you *can* designate the earth as the center of a coordinate system doesn’t make that system any more valid than another. For example, sitting in a moving car often feels like an inertial reference frame, modulo gravity, so it would, from a physical perspective, be equally valid to say that the “center” of the universe is your car.

    Please, don’t mangle physical theories to support your conclusions. :-(

    Comment by Aphyr — May 21, 2007 @ 8:41 am | Reply

  285. [...] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine Filed under: Uncategorized — cleek @ 10:03 am [...]

    Pingback by cleek » Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Blogs 4 Brownback — May 21, 2007 @ 8:42 am | Reply

  286. [...] Biggest Idiot or Funniest Comedian? Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Blogs 4 Brownback [...]

    Pingback by Biggest Idiot or Funniest Comedian? « Sathfilms — May 21, 2007 @ 8:54 am | Reply

  287. By the way, one point I would like to make to the scientifically challenged amongst you: earthquakes do NOT prove that the planet moves. They simply prove that parts of the planet move, at certain times, for reasons no one really knows. We can only speculate. When scientists speculate, it’s called a “theory.” When you speculate that, say, Kennedy was assassinated by Castro, you’re called a nutjob. The moral of this story is that people don’t respect the speculation, but they do respect the college degree from the left-wing secular humanist institution. That’s a product of media bias as much as anything else.

    If you ask me, we know the answers to these questions. They’re in the Bible. We’ve known them for thousands of years. People who want to speculate new answers are nutjobs, whether you find them in the funny farm or you find them collecting honoraria- paid for by your tax dollars- as they fill your childrens’ heads with distortions and lies.

    The more you ridicule me, the more you prove me right. No one in this thread has yet offered a compelling retort to the Bible. Just a lot of fancy footwork that’s already been answered by this site, and by others. Frankly, if this is the best the secular humanists can offer to support their worldview, I’m inclined to think that when people who fall for it, they’re more interested in what they perceive as a chance to sin with impunity than they are by appeals to their so-called “reason.”

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 10:10 am | Reply

  288. Re: Comment #263

    “I’m not certain if I agree with your analysis on heliocentrism, but you certainly raise a valid point of view and as such should be treated with some respect.”

    No, no, and no. The “analysis” Sisyphus provides on heliocentrism is simply wrong, and as such, deserves no respect (just as you would not “respect” your child’s “analysis” that 2+2=5. You would correct your child).

    In addition, Sisyphus is not a child, but rather an adult who elevates a book written by ignorant men thousands of years ago over anything related to the scientific method. Therefore, just as the view itself deserves no respect, Sisyphus also deserves no respect because of his method of reaching his “conclusions.”

    Comment by cureholder — May 21, 2007 @ 10:12 am | Reply

  289. Good question at Comment 263.

    I don’t delete the posts, Harry, because I think they serve a useful purpose. They show thoughtful people how dishonest and hysterical these “scientists” are once you challenge any aspect of their agenda. “Rational” people are unhinged to an alarming degree just because someone takes issue with something they’ve apparently embraced as a cornerstone of their sickening, perverse, Godless worldview. I think neutral people are repelled by that, and I think the more they see of it, the likelier they are to embrace the ways of Truth. So it’s very helpful, if you ask me.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 10:13 am | Reply

  290. Repent! It is too late for me now, but you still have a chance! Repent! My acceptance of falseness has made hades my new home, don’t make the mistake I did. Repent!

    Comment by Jerry Falwell — May 21, 2007 @ 10:32 am | Reply

  291. “No, no, and no. The “analysis” Sisyphus provides on heliocentrism is simply wrong, and as such, deserves no respect (just as you would not “respect” your child’s “analysis” that 2+2=5. You would correct your child).”

    This, from a person who believes Copernicus, Darwin, and Marx, is beyond absurd. It’s almost like liberals come from another planet or something. Then again, since their ideas come from the Abyss, it makes sense that they should talk so much nonsense.

    “In addition, Sisyphus is not a child, but rather an adult who elevates a book written by ignorant men thousands of years ago over anything related to the scientific method. Therefore, just as the view itself deserves no respect, Sisyphus also deserves no respect because of his method of reaching his “conclusions.”

    No. It’s far more rational to follow the edicts of a man who recanted his own views, a man who had carnal relations with Galapagos turtles, and the man who inspired Stalin and Pol Pot. Quite a triumvirate of reason you’ve got there, curseholder. Forgive me if I don’t immediately bow down and follow your false secularist idolatry just yet, but I’ve got an immortal soul to think about, not some garbage written a few hundred years ago by men who respected only money, power, and their own pleasures and appetites!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 10:37 am | Reply

  292. Andy, did you hear about this one?

    Comment by m — May 21, 2007 @ 10:39 am | Reply

  293. Way to kick Jerry Falwell while he’s down. You leftists really are a class act, you know.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 10:43 am | Reply

  294. Your piece is an example of excellent satire and indicative of a high level of comedic wit and intelligence. Well done!

    Even if your essay is meant to be taken seriously it would necessarily require an uncommonly high level of intelligence, ingenuity even, to so effectively and for so long out-maneuver enlightenment by the facts of these matters.

    Comment by darkfabric — May 21, 2007 @ 10:53 am | Reply

  295. Sisyphus, if I vote for Brownback, will he get rid of the illegal immigrants, or outlaw abortions? I mean, abortion is murder, but illegal immigrants getting abortions, isn’t that two birds with one stone?

    “If this is not some kind satire, then this essay is one of the most depressing things I have ever read.

    If it is satire, it is absolutely brilliant.

    It makes me sad that in this day and age I can’t tell the difference between satire and deranged religious lunacy.”

    YOUR MOM! Go vote for Clinton you fucking commie!

    Comment by tacosfortyros — May 21, 2007 @ 11:17 am | Reply

  296. “Sisyphus, if I vote for Brownback, will he get rid of the illegal immigrants, or outlaw abortions? I mean, abortion is murder, but illegal immigrants getting abortions, isn’t that two birds with one stone?”

    Brownback promises an end to the murderous, barbarous practice of infanticide in this country. When it comes to illegal immigration, he promises a more nuanced, compassionate approach. Once patriotic Americans understand that illegal aliens are a problem that must be dealt with diplomatically, they’ll hopefully give his proposals time to work on the problem. It may take a few years, but I think we’re already seeing the beginning of the end of the immigration crisis in this country.

    As for infanticide, even when it comes to illegal aliens, one shouldn’t support that measure. Human life is precious, no matter who the parents are. The proper solution is border security, deportation, and visa programs; if we have to deport pregnant women to keep their children from becoming US citizens, I’d support that, and I think Brownback probably would, too. All in all, though, it’s a difficult question that requires compassion, pocketbook analysis, and a stirring sense of unity amongst us all. I hope that answers your question.

    “Go vote for Clinton you fucking commie!”

    I think she has that .0001% of the voting public pretty well tied up.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 11:30 am | Reply

  297. Sisyphus is an excellent name for you. Getting a nutjob like Brownback elected is a Sisyphean task indeed.

    Comment by Gus — May 21, 2007 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  298. Sysphias,

    Keep pushing that rock up the hill, just maybe it’ll stay this time!

    Great snark!

    Comment by rjones2818 — May 21, 2007 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  299. “Keep pushing that rock up the hill, just maybe it’ll stay this time!”

    I don’t want it to; I want it to roll down hill and knock some sense into you leftist morons.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 11:52 am | Reply

  300. It is a miracle that God and Jesus are allowing me to communicate their word through this website. Repent! Jesus is sending you a warning, I should have listened and did not. Repent while there is still time! I followed Satan and preached Jesus but Jesus was not fooled. Repent!

    Comment by Jerry Falwell — May 21, 2007 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

  301. Knock it off, “Jerry Falwell.” Can’t you at least respect that the man just died?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 12:26 pm | Reply

  302. Great satire, dude, I’ve seldom read such a pointed and humorous attack on the nutjob, Bible-thumping Right as this! You must really HATE Brownback (a sentiment any rational person can of course easily understand).

    Well-done, I laughed out loud!

    Comment by Harlan Huckleby — May 21, 2007 @ 12:27 pm | Reply

  303. Repent! Hear the word of the Lord as it is passed through his servants to you. I ignored the truth and now am paying the price for eternity. There is still time! Repent! Satan is the source of all lies, and I served Satan instead of the true lord Jesus. Do not continue to serve Satan, Repent!

    Comment by Jerry Falwell — May 21, 2007 @ 12:31 pm | Reply

  304. :D

    Comment by AshPlant — May 21, 2007 @ 12:32 pm | Reply

  305. Sisyphus,

    Please respond to comment no. 164. I actually challenged a specific point from your blog post, rather than merely engaging in personal attacks on you. I’m willing to do this because if you are committed to the truth, you will engage in a serious discussion. If you are merely a prankster, not actually intellectually committed to the cosmology of Ptolemy, your refusal to debate the evidence is an admission of that. All the best to you.

    Comment by Chuck — May 21, 2007 @ 12:37 pm | Reply

  306. “Please respond to comment no. 164.”

    Oh, alright:

    “Next time you are on an airplane, at cruising speed 40,000 feet up, do a little experiment. Take a raisin out of the box of goodies you’re given by the stewardess, and drop it a few inches from one hand to the palm of another. Notice that it will fall straight down, not shoot 600 mph into your chest. That is because the raisin is in your frame of reference, and everything inside the plane is moving with the plane.”

    Maybe. Maybe it’s just that the front of the plane keeps the 600 mph wind from getting in. That’s why they haven’t had convertible airplanes since the Sopwith Camel, if you ask me.

    “The notion that there is an absolute space is responsible for the illusion that the earth is not moving when in fact it is.”

    God has set it up so that the Earth is stationary; the rest of the Universe expands, but we remain quite fixed in relation to it. Mathematically, it may be temporarily convenient to think of it in other ways; morally, theologically, and empirically, it never is.

    “If you have ever seen an insect such as a fly move inside your car when driving fifty five miles an hour down the highway, you’ll notice the same phenomenon. The fly isn’t struggling to keep up with the car even if it is flying in the air inside the car.”

    See above.

    “That’s because the air inside your car is moving with the car, and so it is part of the referene space of the car.”

    Okay. Not sure I see where you’re going with this, but I’ll grant you that for the sake of argument.

    “Same with the earth. It isn’t bad to assume the sun is moving around the earth – a lot of smart people thought precisely that for thousands of years. But a careful look at the evidence is enough to convince anyone willing to consider the evidence logically that the earth does, in fact, orbit around the sun under its gravitational influence, and not the other way around.”

    Why? Why does one HAVE to accept that? Why does one have to assume that the Earth orbits the Sun? Is it all based on mass? I’m to disregard the Bible because some robot shot up into space tells us a ball of gas is larger and more important than the Earth? Sorry, but I don’t buy this.

    “If you can’t maintain your faith in God in light of developments in science, that is most unfortunate for you.”

    It’s not that at all. It’s that these scientific observations are fallacious. You make assumptions I’m not willing to grant you, such as that the Earth is a closed system moving, like an airplane or a car. What if the Earth is like an oak tree, and we’re like the squirrels nesting inside its bark as the wind rages around us? We wouldn’t feel anything then, either, even if the wind were 100 mph. Unless the oak tree fell, of course… Say, if it were undermined by termites who gnawed away at its foundations by saying that the oak tree was designed to move, and was actually moving, and wasn’t that important anyway, because it’s not as if God placed that oak tree there for a reason anyway.

    You see where I’m going with this?…

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  307. Welcome to the 21st century!

    We have all kinds of blasphemy for sale including but not limited to:

    electricity

    computers

    motor vehicles

    processed cheese

    AND television to name a few. Oh yeah and there is that pesky idea that the earth isnt the center of the universe. I forgot to mention another improvement of the 21st century, the scientific. Using the scientific method and testing ideas against empirical data, we can actually discover the most accurate picture of reality currently possible. Which SOME of us are actually interested in. For those others, feel free to substitute the most comforting reality you can dream up and justify it with primitive religious text.

    Comment by hallow33 — May 21, 2007 @ 12:47 pm | Reply

  308. Why do you even bother answering these dishonest people, Sisyphus?

    Honestly, I think some of them might even be criminally deranged. These helioleftists seem like pretty unsavory people. If I ran this blog, I think I would’ve called the police by now. I don’t think you should keep humoring them by answering them like this.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 21, 2007 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

  309. Alright lets have some fun with these statements, I’ll start with the flaws in the logic of your arguments, specifically with the fallacies in your statements:

    “By the way, one point I would like to make to the scientifically challenged amongst you: earthquakes do NOT prove that the planet moves. They simply prove that parts of the planet move, at certain times, for reasons no one really knows.”

    Appeal to False Authority, namely since when are you a qualified geologist, or did you somehow forget to mention that somehow. You can’t claim to have absolute knowledge of something disproving something else unless you are actually qualified to do so last time I checked. That and you are crossing wires between astronomy and geology there considering that both are different fields of science altogether.

    “We can only speculate.”

    Ah but when we speculate and say something that doesn’t fit in your worldview you shout them down as godless and evil. Sure sounds like reasoned discussion of ideas to me.

    “When scientists speculate, it’s called a “theory.””

    Wrong definition, technically for a scientific idea to be considered a theory it must first be proven plausible by extensive, repeatable, and independently reproduceable experiments. What you are defining is called a hypothesis, very different from a theory.

    “When you speculate that, say, Kennedy was assassinated by Castro, you’re called a nutjob.”

    False analogy, what does the Kennedy assassination have anything to do with hard science? In the case of hard science we have mountains of evidence collected by numerous people from different times, places, and with different cultural and religious perspectives and coming to the same conclusion. In the case of the assassination there’s question as to whether or not all the evidence is even known or has been honestly presented to the public for perusal and examination.

    “The moral of this story is that people don’t respect the speculation, but they do respect the college degree from the left-wing secular humanist institution. That’s a product of media bias as much as anything else.”

    Ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad populum all of which are serious logical fallacies, ad hominem abusive being direct attacks on a person that are irrelevant to the facts at hand, ad hominem circumstantial being irrelevant attacks on the arguer based on circumstances that are not relevant to the facts at hand, and ad populum by trying to use an attack that is supposed to be an appeal to mob mentality and anti-intellectualism.

    “The more you ridicule me, the more you prove me right.”

    So anything that doesn’t fit with your view of the facts is ridicule?

    “No one in this thread has yet offered a compelling retort to the Bible.”

    Let’s see, we’re talking about a book that contradicts itself, has been translated at least seven times (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Vulgar Latin, German, then English) by the time you hit an English translation, nevermind how many times you have concepts that don’t translate from language to language like for example how there is no English word for schadenfreude and how mensch only loosely translates to man and means more than just that, was edited more than once by different groups of people with different agendas, none of the books having been written during the events they describe, and yet we’re somehow supposed to take it on faith alone considering all those things wrong with it that it is the literal and complete truth of all things under the sun, moon, and stars?

    Nevermind that according to the Bible itself you are not supposed to take it literally as is said in II Timothy (ch. III, v. 16-17):

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    That the man of God may be perect, throughly furnished unto all good works

    So if the entire Bible is inspired by God, is inerrant and correct, then what do you make of a biblical verse that says it is open for reproof and correction? Also remember that the Bible tries to explain an idea of divinity that is simply beyond human understanding. If you try to pour all the water you have in a pitcher into a drinking glass, you will overflow the glass and most of the water will run down the sides and onto the table and floor. The same thing of if you have an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing deity trying to explain things to a limited, mortal mind.

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 21, 2007 @ 1:39 pm | Reply

  310. The front of the plane keeps the 600 mph wind from getting in. However, if the raisin you drop is released from your hand, why should it fall straight down, and not at an angle? Since the plane is moving 600 mph, the rest of the plane should “leave behind” the raisin suspended in the air. Likewise with the fly in your car. The fly is not touching the inside surface of the car. So why does the fly hover effortlessly in the air inside the car?

    For another example, picture an insect sitting on a rock. Go to the top of a building and drop the rock and a marble from a high floor. The rock and the marble will fall towards the earth under its gravitational influence, accelerating at the same rate (think of Galileo’s leaning tower of Pisa experiment). From the standpoint of the insect, the rock will seem like it is moving only in that air is rushing past it. If it were in a vacuum, the rock would seem perfectly still. The marble would appear to be hovering nearby, but also would not appear to be moving (except, of course, in relation to the ground).

    In other words, you state that it seems obvious that the earth is not moving because we don’t feel it moving. What do you mean by that? What does it mean to “feel” movement? Do you think that we actually landed on the Moon, or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that says we didn’t?

    If you accept that Armstrong walked on the Moon, then why did he not feel the Moon moving? You accept that he Moon revolves around the Earth – which implies that it moves. Why did Armstrong seem to just stand on the Moon as we stand on the earth? If the Moon is moving (which I accept!), why did he not feel its motion? The answer is that motion is relative.

    Comment by Chuck — May 21, 2007 @ 2:03 pm | Reply

  311. Also, Sisyphus, I should point out that the atmosphere gets thinner the higher you get off the ground. You accept this? The atmosphere sinks under the influence of the earth’s gravity, which is why the air pressure is greater the closer you get to the surface. In space there are only minute quantities of gases, mostly hydrogen and ions from the sun (solar wind). The pressure exerted by these trace gases is so minute that astronauts don’t feel them. So the earth is moving through a largely empty space. The atmosphere, being under Earth’s gravitational influence, moves with the earth. That’s why, standing on the surface, you don’t feel the earth’s motion through space.

    Also, we have precise measurements of the earth’s mass, the sun’s mass, and the distance between the earth and the sun. We know beyond all doubt that the earth is moving through space under the sun’s gravitational influence. In the scientific method, models are used to calculate what is going on. Newton’s theory of gravity is such a model, and its predictive power is enormous – nearly perfect (it ignores phenomenon moving near the speed of light). Models in the scientific method take as their assumptions measurable empirical facts.

    In other words, the premises in scientific models are the data. That’s why the models exist – to account for the data. Data is merely experimental fact. You can pretend it doesn’t exist, but at what cost to intellectual honesty? Where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is the center of creation? Why do you have to “abandon the Bible because a robot says that the mass of the sun is greater than the earth”?

    If you place the Bible above truth, you are guilty of idolotry. God’s universe is without flaw – the Bible does not supercede nature. The Bible has been transmitted by man. The book of Nature is perfect.

    Comment by Chuck — May 21, 2007 @ 2:22 pm | Reply

  312. OK Sisyphus, back to your rock. You’ve had enough playing around here.

    Comment by thedevil — May 21, 2007 @ 2:32 pm | Reply

  313. 1) No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.
    What about Léon Foucault?

    2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.
    I’m sorry to burst your bubble but Mathematicians explore such concepts as quantity, structure, space, and change, and also the academic discipline that studies them, aiming to formulate new conjectures and establish their truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. It does not invent.

    3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880’s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his “relativity” hypothesis.
    Which ones?

    4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.
    Obviously you don’t understand it. It’s not surprising as it is very complex.

    5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.
    Sorry but they do.

    6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments–especially the light fringe results–prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God’s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.
    The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to prove the existence of an ether or medium through which light passed through. It failed to prove the existence of this medium. Quite the opposite in fact as it completely disproved it’s existence. It does not prove that the earth is not moving. You’re mixing up the results of experiments to try to prove your point.

    7) The Bible not only flatly states scores of times (HERE) and in several ways (HERE) that the earth does not move, it actually has a built-in geocentric assumption–sun rise, sun set–from beginning to end. (One scholar, a geocentrist and mathematician, is cataloguing some 2000 (!) of these.)
    Surely this is evidence that the Bible is incorrect rather than that the scientific evidence is incorrect.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 21, 2007 @ 2:41 pm | Reply

  314. I am sorry, Sisyphus, but you are wrong. The Earth revolves around the Sun. Our Sun revolves around the center of our solar system. Our solar system is moving through space.

    Please visit our Vatican Website for clarification on valid science here:

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm

    Peace be with you, my son.
    – The Pope

    Comment by The Pope — May 21, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Reply

  315. “Appeal to False Authority, namely since when are you a qualified geologist, or did you somehow forget to mention that somehow.”

    Geologists are Darwinists and liars. You expect me to trust those people? Might as well hire a Zeus-worshipper to read sheep entrails.

    “Wrong definition, technically for a scientific idea to be considered a theory it must first be proven plausible by extensive, repeatable, and independently reproduceable experiments. What you are defining is called a hypothesis, very different from a theory.”

    These experiments are prone to immense amounts of falsification, as when that Korean doctor claimed he’d cloned people. Frequently lies, and certainly less verifiable than the text within Scripture, which exists as set down long ago. If you ask me, “theories” exist to justify the prejudice of those who propogate them.

    “In the case of the assassination there’s question as to whether or not all the evidence is even known or has been honestly presented to the public for perusal and examination.”

    Same as with your “science.”

    “Let’s see, we’re talking about a book that contradicts itself,”

    You reveal your bias right here. I see no need to further respond to you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 2:45 pm | Reply

  316. “The front of the plane keeps the 600 mph wind from getting in. However, if the raisin you drop is released from your hand, why should it fall straight down, and not at an angle?”

    Because it’s in the plane.

    “Since the plane is moving 600 mph, the rest of the plane should “leave behind” the raisin suspended in the air.”

    Nope.

    “For another example, picture an insect sitting on a rock. Go to the top of a building and drop the rock and a marble from a high floor. The rock and the marble will fall towards the earth under its gravitational influence, accelerating at the same rate (think of Galileo’s leaning tower of Pisa experiment).”

    Drop a cannonball and a feather. They’re not going to fall at the same rate. Galileo was a hack and a liar.

    “From the standpoint of the insect, the rock will seem like it is moving only in that air is rushing past it. If it were in a vacuum, the rock would seem perfectly still.”

    I understand what you’re trying to say, but I disagree with your premises. You don’t need to concoct 1,001 analogies if I disagree with the premise behind every single one of them.

    “In other words, you state that it seems obvious that the earth is not moving because we don’t feel it moving. What do you mean by that? What does it mean to “feel” movement?”

    We’re not flies on marbles. We’re either hurtling through ether at high speed, or we’re stationary. If we were spinning around the Sun, we’d all have fallen off long ago.

    “Do you think that we actually landed on the Moon, or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that says we didn’t?”

    I have no idea. People here are showing me evidence that the world is flat. If that viewpoint is correct, then it follows that the Moon landing was fraudulent. But I haven’t had a chance to review their evidence yet, because I’m so busy arguing with other people.

    “If you accept that Armstrong walked on the Moon, then why did he not feel the Moon moving?”

    Assuming he did land there, who says he didn’t feel it moving?

    “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.

    “Also, Sisyphus, I should point out that the atmosphere gets thinner the higher you get off the ground. You accept this?”

    Beats me. I’m told it does, by the same people who tell me the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun.

    “The atmosphere sinks under the influence of the earth’s gravity, which is why the air pressure is greater the closer you get to the surface.”

    Gravity only works because God wants it to work. If God chose to have gravity fail, it would fail. God does not allow the ether to fall to Earth, so clearly God has chosen either to make ether lighter than air, or God has chosen to deny the laws of gravity to the ether.

    “In space there are only minute quantities of gases, mostly hydrogen and ions from the sun (solar wind).”

    No, there is ether.

    “The pressure exerted by these trace gases is so minute that astronauts don’t feel them.”

    So I’m told, but this is why I doubt them. I believe in the ether.

    “So the earth is moving through a largely empty space.”

    The Earth is boxed in by ether.

    “The atmosphere, being under Earth’s gravitational influence, moves with the earth.”

    The air is moved by things on the Earth. A butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane later through ripple effects. But that has nothing to do with what lies above the Earth’s atmospehre.

    “Also, we have precise measurements of the earth’s mass, the sun’s mass, and the distance between the earth and the sun.”

    I refuse to believe the techniques used to acquire this information. All too often, science resorts to dubious “methods” to measure things- radiocarbon dating being a prime example. (This is also why I think global warming is a massive hoax.)

    “We know beyond all doubt that the earth is moving through space under the sun’s gravitational influence.”

    You still haven’t convinced me.

    “In the scientific method, models are used to calculate what is going on. Newton’s theory of gravity is such a model, and its predictive power is enormous – nearly perfect (it ignores phenomenon moving near the speed of light).”

    So? Could be lucky guess. Could be right for the wrong reasons. I’m not a theologist- how should I know?

    “Models in the scientific method take as their assumptions measurable empirical facts.”

    If I were moving, I could feel it and measure it. But I’m not.

    “In other words, the premises in scientific models are the data. That’s why the models exist – to account for the data. Data is merely experimental fact. You can pretend it doesn’t exist, but at what cost to intellectual honesty?”

    I doubt your techniques for measuring data. How is that dishonest?

    “Where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is the center of creation?”

    See post, above.

    “Why do you have to “abandon the Bible because a robot says that the mass of the sun is greater than the earth”?”

    You can’t take some of the text and reject other parts. We’re not lunchline Christians, here.

    “If you place the Bible above truth, you are guilty of idolotry. God’s universe is without flaw – the Bible does not supercede nature.”

    This is just silly. The Bible is God’s way of explaining to us how the world works.

    “The Bible has been transmitted by man. The book of Nature is perfect.”

    The Bible is perfect. Nature is marred by Satan and his tricks. “Scientific measurement” being one of them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:05 pm | Reply

  317. ““Let’s see, we’re talking about a book that contradicts itself,”

    You reveal your bias right here. I see no need to further respond to you.”

    Oh so what about the parts where God says He doesn’t lie then in later books of the Bible declares He does to test faith?

    So you ignore the relevant passage of scripture that says that the Bible is open to correction and revision that I posted earlier? I guess you DO NOT believe the Bible is, in fact, completely inspired by God and inerrant if you are ignoring a verse that says so. I shall post that verse again since you seem to be reading the Bible selectively and only in places that support your prejudices:

    II Timothy (ch. III, v. 16-17):

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

    So tell me, how does that square with what you’ve been saying so far? I’m guessing you’ve never even read all of, most of, or any of the Bible except the parts your pastor tells you to. So how does it feel to be putting the safety of your immortal soul in the hands of a man who might be under the influence of the Evil One?

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 21, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Reply

  318. Great, now we have someone blasphemously posing as “the Pope.”

    If Psyche Out reads this thread, he’ll be very angry.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Reply

  319. “Oh so what about the parts where God says He doesn’t lie then in later books of the Bible declares He does to test faith?”

    A test is not a lie. It’s a test.

    “I guess you DO NOT believe the Bible is, in fact, completely inspired by God and inerrant if you are ignoring a verse that says so.”

    I think that passage doesn’t mean what you say it does, and I think it’s incredibly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Beyond that, I won’t dignify you with a response.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  320. 1. Why would we fall off the Earth if it is moving around the sun? 2. Drop a cannonball and a feather in an extremely-low pressure environment, and they will fall at the same rate. A cannonball and a feather fall at different rates through air because the feather has a high enough surface area-to-mass ratio and a good shape to efficiently master air resistance. Birds can fly precisely beacuse of the design of their feathers. 3. What is ether? I’ve never heard of this substance.

    Why is radiocarbon dating dubious? What are your reasons for making this statement? What other scientific measuring methods are unreliable? Do you think that thermometers are unreliable?

    Comment by Chuck — May 21, 2007 @ 3:33 pm | Reply

  321. “I think that passage doesn’t mean what you say it does, and I think it’s incredibly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Beyond that, I won’t dignify you with a response.”

    So you concede you cannot respond as you have no means of responding to what I said? What about that whole thing of combating us poor, benighted heathens and all that? How about I’m reading exactly what it says and you are ignoring the Word of God as communicated in the New Testament. How does that make you faithful to the full text of your Holy Writ?

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 21, 2007 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  322. I, like everyone else, am deeply disturbed by your diatribes Sisyphus. Your responses have been hateful and insulting to anyone that questions your assertions. You claim to be a Christian but you are very unhappy and not spreading the gospel with love and kindness.

    Scientists throughout history have done so much for us that they deserve your eternal gratitude and respect. You spit into the faces of those great minds who dedicated (and many times sacrificed) their lives so that yours could be better. Are they always right? No, of course not but they are doing the best they can and I am sure that the “truth” will be discovered to correct the errors.

    You think about science and you see “evil” and dare judge scientists without any knowledge of them personally. Thousands of great minds have developed these theories and thousands more will add to them until the end of time. You think some nefarious conspiracy happens within the scientific community to discredit God? Or do you think it more reasonable that scientists make observations and conduct experiements to the best of their ability with no evil master plan?

    You are scared and lonely, that much is obvious. I hope this was a joke as others have suggested because if you actually think God is working through you and causing you to insult his children while stroking your ego and declaring your superiority you will be reminded of this day when you meet your maker I assure you. You owe everyone an apology, not because they disagree but because you have conducted yourself so shamefully you have disgraced your entire religion today.

    Comment by Ashamed — May 21, 2007 @ 3:41 pm | Reply

  323. “1. Why would we fall off the Earth if it is moving around the sun?”

    We would shoot off into the ether like water flying from a wet towel spun in the air. Those of us not shot off the planet would be crushed by the pressure.

    “2. Drop a cannonball and a feather in an extremely-low pressure environment, and they will fall at the same rate.”

    How will you get such an environment? Nature abhors a vacuum.

    “A cannonball and a feather fall at different rates through air because the feather has a high enough surface area-to-mass ratio and a good shape to efficiently master air resistance.”

    Shape a ball of feathers into a cannonball, and it will still fall slower. A basketball would also fall slower than a cannonball.

    “Birds can fly precisely beacuse of the design of their feathers.”

    That’s part of it, I suppose.

    “3. What is ether? I’ve never heard of this substance.”

    Light cannot travel through a vauum, as a vacuum cannot truly exist. Nature abhors it. Therefore, space is filed with an extremely attenuated medium, filling the whole of space outside of ponderable matter, and allowing the light particles to swim through.

    “Why is radiocarbon dating dubious? What are your reasons for making this statement?”

    Beyond a few thousand years, it becomes highly inaccurate. Something which is 5,000 years old becomes 50,000 years old, or 500,000 years old, or 5,000,000 years old.

    “What other scientific measuring methods are unreliable? Do you think that thermometers are unreliable?”

    Probably under certain conditions, yes. Below or above certain temperatures/pressures, I’m sure of it.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:44 pm | Reply

  324. “If I were moving, I could feel it and measure it. But I’m not.”

    Some people really need to take some physics classes…

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 3:45 pm | Reply

  325. “So you concede you cannot respond as you have no means of responding to what I said? What about that whole thing of combating us poor, benighted heathens and all that?”

    One cannot respond to someone so wilfully dishonest with the text at hand. I am sorry for you.

    “How about I’m reading exactly what it says and you are ignoring the Word of God as communicated in the New Testament.”

    Again, you have my pity.

    “How does that make you faithful to the full text of your Holy Writ?”

    I am sorry for you. I will pray for your soul.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

  326. “Some people really need to take some physics classes…”

    Run by liberal charlatans, no doubt

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  327. YOU DO NOT FEEL MOTION UNLESS YOU ARE ACCELERATING!

    When you’re driving with a steady speed on the highway, do you feel you’re moving?

    Do you feel you’re moving when you sit in a train?

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  328. Ashamed- Get back in therapy. I mean that in the nicest possible way. I think it could help you if you wrestle with the tortures your Heliocentrism and your other ideas have indirectly inflicted on your soul.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 4:02 pm | Reply

  329. Now, I know where to go when I want to see monkeys making complete idiots of themselves. When I first came to this country, I thought the best place was the zoo, then as I got older, I thought it was the American School system, After military service, I thought the best place to see it was in congress. But now after reading this, I beleave Darwin was wrong. You are proving that with question, man has not evalvaled at all.

    Comment by Gordon Soderberg — May 21, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  330. “YOU DO NOT FEEL MOTION UNLESS YOU ARE ACCELERATING!”

    Yet if we’re on an elliptical solar orbit, we SHOULD accelerate as we near the Sun and its gravitational pull becomes stronger.

    “When you’re driving with a steady speed on the highway, do you feel you’re moving?”

    That’s because I’m sealed in a car.

    “Do you feel you’re moving when you sit in a train?”

    Only because I’m sealed in a train.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  331. Pray all you want, but it seems you are the one lacking in faith.

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 21, 2007 @ 4:09 pm | Reply

  332. This cannot be real. Nobody would go through this much effort, carefully parsing together fragments of scientific thought, weaving such a rich tapestry of incoherent circular reasoning, to arrive at a conclusion so far removed from science.

    The more I read this, the more Sisyphus seems like a perfectly reasonable secular atheist/agnostic, who has adopted the persona of a rigid, fundamentalist, Brownbackian, in order to cast scorn and ridicule upon Brownback’s constituency.

    If not…keep on keepin’ on with that boulder, Sisyphus… you’re alost to the top!

    Comment by Ben Childs — May 21, 2007 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

  333. If the New Testiment is the perfect word of god, why did he have christians write two them? You can find any thing you want in the new bible to justify any number of horable actions and call it right by GODS LAW. Maybe that was the point of the rewrite? First testiment was too Jewish and didn’t have enough loop wholes.

    Comment by Gordon Soderberg — May 21, 2007 @ 4:23 pm | Reply

  334. You state earlier “evidence” from the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the existence of an ether. Please make up your mind.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 21, 2007 @ 4:24 pm | Reply

  335. “the New Testiment is the perfect word of god, why did he have christians write two them? You can find any thing you want in the new bible to justify any number of horable actions and call it right by GODS LAW. Maybe that was the point of the rewrite? First testiment was too Jewish and didn’t have enough loop wholes.”

    There are Four Gospels. They complement one another perfectly, in accordance with God’s will. The New Testament fulfills the Old. What is your problem with this?

    “You state earlier “evidence” from the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the existence of an ether. Please make up your mind.”

    I’m trying to keep an open mind about this. More than I can say for you moonbats, that’s for sure.

    BTW, I have no time to refute the people who accuse me of spoofing. That accusation isn’t worth dignifying with a response, anyway. Why would someone spend months working on a blog they didn’t believe in? Ask yourselves that question.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  336. Very very glad I found this website. Sometimes it seems like there aren’t many people left in this country who are willng to question the rigid orthodoxy of the secularists. They talk and talk about how “opne-minded” and “accepting” they are but if you question one of their sacred cows, look out!

    Don’t let the atheists silence you, Sisyphus. America needs brave men like you more than ever these days.

    Comment by Abe Liever — May 21, 2007 @ 4:49 pm | Reply

  337. Americans….the most ignorant folks on the “fixed planet”…
    Please, wake up and come down from the “idiot planet” to the real world
    thanks

    Comment by an italian boy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:51 pm | Reply

  338. “BTW, I have no time to refute the people who accuse me of spoofing. That accusation isn’t worth dignifying with a response, anyway. Why would someone spend months working on a blog they didn’t believe in? Ask yourselves that question.”

    I’ll go with the notion that you are insane. Any other explanation makes me fear for the future of, not just this country, but mankind.

    Comment by Dave — May 21, 2007 @ 4:54 pm | Reply

  339. “No. It’s far more rational to follow the edicts of a man who recanted his own views, a man who had carnal relations with Galapagos turtles, and the man who inspired Stalin and Pol Pot. Quite a triumvirate of reason you’ve got there, curseholder. Forgive me if I don’t immediately bow down and follow your false secularist idolatry just yet, but I’ve got an immortal soul to think about, not some garbage written a few hundred years ago by men who respected only money, power, and their own pleasures and appetites!”

    Oh, right. So the Bible, your bastion of truth, was written by whom?
    Which version of the bible is it you follow?
    What extra books does yours have?
    And in what year was it last ‘translated’? And by whom?

    One question. A request actually.
    As all of your proof seems to come from one piece of source material, namely a book that has been re-written hundreds of times, how can you solidly claim that it is proof of a stationary earth? Or of a flat earth, or of gravity being devinely-created, or of geology being false?
    Really, please back up your arguments with evidence, and not supposition based on a book that contradicts it self so many times it makes heads spin.
    Wait, spinning would make your nose sink into your face by your thoughts, wouldn’t it?

    By the way, just one more clarification please.
    At one point you said if we were movin

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 21, 2007 @ 4:54 pm | Reply

  340. Sisyphus, I see no evidence of you attempting to keep an open mind. You mention an experiment that was attempting to prove the existence of an ether that light was supposed to travel through in order to prove your point about an ether existing. Yet this experiment is well known to have indicated the opposing hypothesis. You persist on trying to use this evidence to support your statements, ignoring fact, ignoring evidence and ignoring just about anything that does not say what you want it to say.

    When someone makes a valid point you insult them, call them “moonbats” and refuse to engage them in debate.

    At the beginning of this entry you stated that the Earth is the centre of the universe and mentioned dozens of different theories to support your hypothesis. Over the last several hundred comments a wide range of people have repeatedly provided evidence to the contrary and yet you refuse to listen to reason, to counter each point or to provide supporting evidence for your theories.

    This is why: you have a single source for your evidence and that is the bible.

    Why is it that you cannot see that anyone else’s viewpoint may be valid and that only your right wing political agenda is realistic?

    I believe you when you say that this is not a spoof. No-one would take a spoof this far. To spoof something effectively you have to know when to stop at the bounds of believability. This has simply gone too far.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 21, 2007 @ 4:55 pm | Reply

  341. Sisyphus,

    Do you also take literally the passage in Genesis saying that man was created from the “dust of the earth”? Is this your response to evolution? Do you honestly believe that humanity was created by God from dust? If you believe it, whatever I don’t mind really, but to claim things like that are anything SCIENTIFIC is not only silly, but insane.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

  342. “Yet if we’re on an elliptical solar orbit, we SHOULD accelerate as we near the Sun and its gravitational pull becomes stronger.”

    You’re right, but this is effect is too small to be noticed by humans.

    What do you mean by sealed in a, no, wait, this just isn’t worth an answer

    Tip: search for “inertia”

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 5:16 pm | Reply

  343. “Why would someone spend months working on a blog they didn’t believe in? Ask yourselves that question.”

    I find with people who have a pretty rigid framework of comprehension, you sometimes have to help them carry their arguments to their ludicrous ends. As William Blake put it, the fool who persists in his folly will become wise.

    The dead giveaway is that politically, this blog doesn’t make any sense. Whether or not you actually believe this stuff, you have to realize that this argument, and your smug snot-nosed retorts is political anathema to Brownback.

    You serve Brownback just about as well as Stephen Colbert serves the Republican party. You can take that for whatever you think that’s worth, but the bottom line is either you’re in on the joke that is this blog, or you’re not.

    Either way, it’s funny as hell.

    Comment by Ben Childs — May 21, 2007 @ 5:22 pm | Reply

  344. I must forgive everyone who dismisses science as a conspiracy. I know God does. America allows those released from mental hospitals to walk the same streets that we do. America should also have sympathy for those caught up in the cult of the Christian Identity Movement. You have every right to believe what you can understand. But! You have no right to impose your twisted beliefs onto other people!!!

    Comment by bosskitty — May 21, 2007 @ 5:23 pm | Reply

  345. Oh, yes, it definitely is!

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 5:25 pm | Reply

  346. Got to agree with you Ben. I can’t imagine anyone who seriously wants to help Brownback would write a blog like this. But I can imagine some martyr for the cause (either the Democrats or a competitor) toiling for months to undermine Brownback with a series of blogs. If you’re getting paid, or just are nuts enough to believe you’re making a positive difference, then yes, I can see someone spending months writing the kind of garbage that appears in this blog.

    Comment by Karl Hallowell — May 21, 2007 @ 5:36 pm | Reply

  347. Abe Liever- Thank you!

    italian boy- If you hate America so much, go speak German. That’s the language you’d be speaking if it weren’t for us. Either German, or Russian.

    “Why is it that you cannot see that anyone else’s viewpoint may be valid and that only your right wing political agenda is realistic?”

    On Judgment Day, you’ll know the answer to that question.

    “I believe you when you say that this is not a spoof. No-one would take a spoof this far. To spoof something effectively you have to know when to stop at the bounds of believability. This has simply gone too far.”

    Whatever that means.

    “Do you also take literally the passage in Genesis saying that man was created from the “dust of the earth”?”

    Yes.

    “Is this your response to evolution?”

    Yes.

    “Do you honestly believe that humanity was created by God from dust?”

    Yes.

    “If you believe it, whatever I don’t mind really, but to claim things like that are anything SCIENTIFIC is not only silly, but insane.”

    So you honestly believe your grandpa was a chimpanzee, your great-grandpa was a squirrel whose brother got eaten by dinosaurs, and your great-great grandpa was a fish? NOW who sounds ridiculous?

    “You’re right, but this is effect is too small to be noticed by humans.”

    Sure it is. I’ve just disproven the elliptical orbit notion, and you duck and dodge and weave in an effort to escape. Why can’t you just admit that I’m right?

    “I find with people who have a pretty rigid framework of comprehension, you sometimes have to help them carry their arguments to their ludicrous ends. As William Blake put it, the fool who persists in his folly will become wise.”

    That’s the Democrat theory of success, yes.

    “The dead giveaway is that politically, this blog doesn’t make any sense. Whether or not you actually believe this stuff, you have to realize that this argument, and your smug snot-nosed retorts is political anathema to Brownback.”

    He’s losing votes amongst atheists who weren’t going to vote for him in the first place. The principle of standing by God is what will see him through this election and the next one. The next time you Democrats get a chance at the White House’ll be 2016. And then you probably still won’t win, unless we nominate Giuliani or Romney.

    “You serve Brownback just about as well as Stephen Colbert serves the Republican party. You can take that for whatever you think that’s worth, but the bottom line is either you’re in on the joke that is this blog, or you’re not.”

    Whatever. Pointless ad hominems. In my household, comparisons to Stephen Colbert are an insult.

    “I must forgive everyone who dismisses science as a conspiracy. I know God does. America allows those released from mental hospitals to walk the same streets that we do. America should also have sympathy for those caught up in the cult of the Christian Identity Movement. You have every right to believe what you can understand. But! You have no right to impose your twisted beliefs onto other people!!!”

    Go hug a tree.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 5:44 pm | Reply

  348. “italian boy- If you hate America so much, go speak German. That’s the language you’d be speaking if it weren’t for us. Either German, or Russian.”

    oh, the old history of the good american father….!!! Thank you very much!!! Thank you for the damocracy!!!
    I don’t hate America, I hate the stupid american like you; I hate the people who believe to be the owner of the world and consider the other people like slaves in the name of the oil wars masked in democracy

    Comment by an italian boy — May 21, 2007 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  349. Karl- You’re delusional. No one’s that stupid.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Reply

  350. “I don’t hate America, I hate the stupid american like you; I hate the people who believe to be the owner of the world and consider the other people like slaves in the name of the oil wars masked in democracy”

    We’re the only real Americans; those other people are not. You can have them. America would be better off without them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  351. mmmhhh….if I remember rightly 60 years ago Mussolini sayd something like that…or was he Adolf??? Maybe Stalin….the same thought: “we are the best!”
    Learn from history…
    ah, I’m forgetting that you know just the history your army made…sorry

    “real Americans” wich Americans??? The red skins? The pilgrim fathers (from England)? The Irish? The blacks? The italians (wow!)? The chinese? Wich one?

    Comment by an italian boy — May 21, 2007 @ 6:30 pm | Reply

  352. “So you honestly believe your grandpa was a chimpanzee, your great-grandpa was a squirrel whose brother got eaten by dinosaurs, and your great-great grandpa was a fish? NOW who sounds ridiculous?”

    Actually, all these people in my family tree were human. If you didn’t notice, evolution was a millions-year long process. Thus to suggest that those who recognize the existence of evolution believe that their grandpa was a chimpanzee, is just silly.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  353. “real Americans” wich Americans??? The red skins? The pilgrim fathers (from England)? The Irish? The blacks? The italians (wow!)? The chinese? Wich one?”

    Patriots. Most of them are Christian, but not all. The best sign of patriotism is if someone’s a Republican. Of course, there are some RINOs, and one or two Democrats who still love this country; but generally speaking, Republicans are patriots who understand what this country is about, while Democrats want Europe, the UN, and their hidden masters, the Islamists and Marxists, to win.

    That’s the difference in the world- those who serve freedom, and those who serve sin, evil, and Islamofascism.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 6:38 pm | Reply

  354. “Actually, all these people in my family tree were human. If you didn’t notice, evolution was a millions-year long process. Thus to suggest that those who recognize the existence of evolution believe that their grandpa was a chimpanzee, is just silly.”

    You think your grandpa’s grandpa was a chimpanzee, though.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 6:40 pm | Reply

  355. sorry, I forgot:
    “If you hate America so much, go speak German. That’s the language you’d be speaking if it weren’t for us. Either German, or Russian”, (thinking like you), americans have to say: thank you italians! thank you Cristoforo Colombo: you dicovered our continent!!!

    Comment by an italian boy — May 21, 2007 @ 6:44 pm | Reply

  356. “You think your grandpa’s grandpa was a chimpanzee, though.”

    Nope. My grandpa’s grandpa was a human. Try again.

    Maybe my grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa was a member of the common ancestor species of chimpanzee.

    THAT’S more of an appromixation of how long evolution takes. Buzz off with the nonsense, please.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 6:57 pm | Reply

  357. Sisyphus,

    I would like to encourage you to enroll in college and study biology, physics, geology etc. I know you are too afraid to do that because it is much easier to write a blog where all you have to do to explain your theory is call people names.

    Of all the blogs I have seen yours is by far the most hate-filled. Why won’t God work through you as you try to show us the light if you are right? I didn’t know God chose evil little mean spirited capitalists to spread his word.

    By the way, Jesus was a Democrat. Only selfish satanists are Republicans.

    Comment by Ashamed — May 21, 2007 @ 7:07 pm | Reply

  358. Americans just swallow these lies down quicker than an Indian with a bottle of firewater!
    Completely racist.

    (This is also why I think global warming is a massive hoax.)
    You’re the reason why our great-grandchildren, grandchildren, and maybe even our children won’t survive.

    So you honestly believe your grandpa was a chimpanzee, your great-grandpa was a squirrel whose brother got eaten by dinosaurs, and your great-great grandpa was a fish? NOW who sounds ridiculous?
    You obviously don’t keep an open mind. If you did, you would have read about evolution and learned that different species came from a different ancestor, not a close species. Therefore, our (extremely distant) ancestors would have also been the ancestors of other primates. By your “reasoning”, the “great-great grandpa” of a fish could have been a human. A 13-year-old knows more about evolution than you. You should be ashamed.

    2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.
    Scientists discover things. They don’t invent.

    This was the age of “The Enlightenment” which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as “that filthy little atheist”.
    The fallacy of appeal to authority.

    I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school.
    If so, send him/her to a private/parochial school. Amendment 1 says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Your opinions cannot be fulfilled in public schools, as it blatantly speaks of favoritism towards Christianity. It also goes against the separation of church and state.

    If you hate America so much, go speak German. That’s the language you’d be speaking if it weren’t for us.
    Your retort is a sure sign of intolerance of others.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 21, 2007 @ 7:15 pm | Reply

  359. “Kick Jerry Falwell while he’s down”? What, you figure he’s getting up again? (Oh, the Rapture, I suppose. I’m not sure he’ll be called.)

    Comment by Robert Carnegie — May 21, 2007 @ 7:24 pm | Reply

  360. Are you seriously trying to support this using statements from a religious text?
    That has nothing to do with science.
    May you lose terribly in the election, you fool.

    Oh the stupidity! I’m so glad I’m not American.

    Comment by Angela — May 21, 2007 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  361. People. People. Calm down. Let’s try to be fair.

    Some of you seem to believe in Copercinus. You think that the universe probably revolves around the Sun.

    Some of you seem to believe in God. You think that the universe probably revolves around the Earth.

    So here’s what I propose. Since there is so much controversy about what revolves around what and about whether Copercinus is more authoritative than God, maybe we should start teaching both sides of the issue in our schools? Present heliocentrism as the theory it is, and then present alternative theories—like for example geocentrism—as well. That way students can make up their own minds as to whether the entire universe moves around the sun or around the Earth, and about whether they trust God or Copercinus.

    Doesn’t that seem fairer?

    Comment by DPS — May 21, 2007 @ 8:35 pm | Reply

  362. DPS writes:

    “So here’s what I propose. Since there is so much controversy about what revolves around what and about whether Copercinus is more authoritative than God, maybe we should start teaching both sides of the issue in our schools? Present heliocentrism as the theory it is, and then present alternative theories—like for example geocentrism—as well. That way students can make up their own minds as to whether the entire universe moves around the sun or around the Earth, and about whether they trust God or Copercinus.”

    No. We already teach them ABOUT geocentrism, and that it IS wrong. It should stay that way.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 9:00 pm | Reply

  363. stancelspencer writes:

    No. We already teach them ABOUT geocentrism, and that it IS wrong. It should stay that way.

    Oh, stancelspencer. Don’t cling to the past. Embrace the future. The children can decide. I believe the children are our future.

    Comment by DPS — May 21, 2007 @ 9:52 pm | Reply

  364. God loves you all, atheist mockers, and one day you will know the truth. Sisyphus, I know it’s hard, but you must love them too. Do not let their mockery get to you.

    But though I must love the mocker I will not love the mockery. And I do not agree with “teaching the controversy.” Why should we compromise with Satan? As Sisyphus bravely shows (and none of the mockers dares refute him!) these “scientists” are pagan satan-worshipers who have sex with animals. Why should we teach their lies to our vulnerable children?

    Comment by Praying hands — May 21, 2007 @ 10:00 pm | Reply

  365. If the earth didn’t move, and the sun moved around the earth, why is it that stars are in different parts of the sky as time progresses? Oh wait, God plays marbles in the sky with the stars and they just move around every night, right?

    Comment by NIck — May 21, 2007 @ 10:02 pm | Reply

  366. PRaying hands is right. even tho it feels good i dont think we shold have sex with animals just because it feels good.

    Comment by Gene72 — May 21, 2007 @ 10:13 pm | Reply

  367. Oh wow. I’ve finally stopped laughing enough to type. This is sublime.

    At first glance, I assumed this was fake. Upon reading a bit into the comments, as well as the rest of the blog, a creeping suspicion grew in me that it was real. I mean, surely there are people out there who would believe and type this, aren’t there? And apparently they’d be supporting Brownback. But as I’ve read more comments, the impressive style of the writing, despite some intentional informalities and affected bits of childishness, has convinced me finally that you are engaged in some sort of amazing combination of performance art and character assassination.

    It’s all the nice little touches: “the planet is chubby around the middle”; “The metric system is evil”; “… that Frenchman Voltaire.” Oh, and not blogging on Sundays, though you will still screen and post comments, just not reply. Beautiful, wickedly beautiful.

    It’s the scope that’s most amazing, really. You have to maintain this site and say nice things about various wingnuts, for the long term. Is the payoff the political impact, or the excuse to write lines like “… one cannot serve God and Copernicus.”? I know you can’t break character to answer, but still, your work deserves recognition and praise. I almost hope you take the time to call me a heathen moonbat who just doesn’t get it, but I think that would be a little too cute.

    Sisyphus, sir, madam, or otherwise, I salute you. I also feel for you a little. You’re even more bitter about dogmatic thinkers and American politics than I am, and that’s saying something.

    Comment by Ailurophobic Tomcat — May 21, 2007 @ 10:21 pm | Reply

  368. I totally agree with your theory!! But you have forgot another important point of interest: stop with this “natural sun movement”, the real truth was already known by our ancients many and many centuries ago: is the god Apollo that every morning carry the Sun up to the sky!!! STOP WITH THIS “NATURAL” SUN MOVEMENT!!!
    I have seen him, Apollo!! WAKE UP SCIENCE!!! The real truth is this one!!!!

    Compliments for your very interesting blog!! thank u for your courage!!!
    WE’LL WIN!!!

    Comment by your fan!! (but European) — May 22, 2007 @ 12:39 am | Reply

  369. [...] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Blogs 4 Brownback Who believes the sun is the center of the Universe anymore? I thought we stopped worrying about the center of the universe and started worrying about more important things, like Cheez Whiz. (tags: Atheism evolution religion science theism antiscience idiocy) [...]

    Pingback by links for 2007-05-22 « Love Uncle Sean — May 22, 2007 @ 3:41 am | Reply

  370. You should not teach geocentrism to children except as part of a lesson in history. It was a theory that has been proven wrong. Heliocentrism is a more reasonable theory but is still innaccurate in that it is too simplistic to properly describe the motion of solar bodies in space.

    We should teach children to think and to question so that they can discover for themselves what this world, this universe is like. This is clearly something that was omitted from your education, Praying hands. I mean, the very idea of scientists being pagan satan-worshipers who have sex with animals is ridiculous. It’s clearly something only a delusional mind could conjure up.

    Rather than throw insults about though I’d like to see specific responses to the comments that I and others have left discrediting the bibliocentric theories put forward in the original entry. I mean saying that I’ll have my answer on Judgement Day is not an effective counter argument. I want an answer now, not after some mythical post Ragnarök time, or are you just goign to call me names again?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 22, 2007 @ 4:28 am | Reply

  371. [...] Wacky conversation [...]

    Pingback by Time out from art - ya gotta see this « Gloria Hopkins’ Art Journal — May 22, 2007 @ 4:28 am | Reply

  372. “americans have to say: thank you italians! thank you Cristoforo Colombo: you dicovered our continent!!!”

    Actually, the Vikings were here first.

    “THAT’S more of an appromixation of how long evolution takes. Buzz off with the nonsense, please.”

    I shortened it for brevity. Still, the point remains that at some point in the past you believe your ancestors had carnal relations with monkeys, rodents, and fish. If that’s not disturbing, I don’t know what is.

    “By the way, Jesus was a Democrat. Only selfish satanists are Republicans.”

    Political parties didn’t exist back then, and if they had, Jesus wouldn’t have had a right to vote, since he wasn’t a Roman citizen.

    Jesus was a Likudnik, though, and that’s like being a Republican in America.

    “Oh the stupidity! I’m so glad I’m not American.”

    That makes two of us.

    DPS- Your proposal sounds like a reasonable compromise. We could vote this out at the school district level, and in some school districts that compromise might be the way to go. But in MY school district, I don’t even want my kids HEARING about Heliocentrism. And that’s final. I’m glad to see Praying Hands agrees with me on this one.

    Nick- stars move. The Earth doesn’t. Note the difference.

    “It’s the scope that’s most amazing, really. You have to maintain this site and say nice things about various wingnuts, for the long term. Is the payoff the political impact, or the excuse to write lines like “… one cannot serve God and Copernicus.”? I know you can’t break character to answer, but still, your work deserves recognition and praise. I almost hope you take the time to call me a heathen moonbat who just doesn’t get it, but I think that would be a little too cute.”

    Okay. I won’t say that about you. I’ll just call you illiterate. I addressed the spoofing accusation in an earlier comment. Please go back and read it. Thanks.

    “I totally agree with your theory!! But you have forgot another important point of interest: stop with this “natural sun movement”, the real truth was already known by our ancients many and many centuries ago: is the god Apollo that every morning carry the Sun up to the sky!!! STOP WITH THIS “NATURAL” SUN MOVEMENT!!!
    I have seen him, Apollo!! WAKE UP SCIENCE!!! The real truth is this one!!!!”

    If people are right about this “flat Earth” doctrine (still haven’t had a chance to read up on it- sorry!), then anything is possible, because that would mean NASA has been lying to us all along, probably so as to boondoggle away more of our tax dollars.

    You know, the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to believe NASA. I even disagree with President Bush on this one, I guess, except that I think he’s probably squirreling the money away for some important anti-terror program he doesn’t want to let those Defeatocrat Congress critters find out about.

    “We should teach children to think and to question so that they can discover for themselves what this world, this universe is like. This is clearly something that was omitted from your education, Praying hands. I mean, the very idea of scientists being pagan satan-worshipers who have sex with animals is ridiculous. It’s clearly something only a delusional mind could conjure up.”

    The text of the Bible is good enough for them, as it was good enough for their parents and grandparents and so on. If they learn to think too independently, they won’t read the text properly, and you’ll have a million Martin Luthers sowing anarchy and discord wherever they go.

    “Rather than throw insults about though I’d like to see specific responses to the comments that I and others have left discrediting the bibliocentric theories put forward in the original entry. I mean saying that I’ll have my answer on Judgement Day is not an effective counter argument. I want an answer now, not after some mythical post Ragnarök time, or are you just goign to call me names again?”

    Ragnarok is a Pagan holiday. Judgment Day is coming for all of us. On Judgment Day, you will understand why I kept my soul as pure as possible, and didn’t poison it by filling my head with Heliocentric lies.

    I hope that answers your question a little better.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 5:02 am | Reply

  373. “The text of the Bible is good enough for them, as it was good enough for their parents and grandparents and so on. If they learn to think too independently, they won’t read the text properly, and you’ll have a million Martin Luthers sowing anarchy and discord wherever they go.”

    Martin Luther was a German monk and theologian who translated the bible into his native tongue to make it more accessible to people. Do you want the bible to be written in Latin now?

    Martin Luther King Jr (who I assume you meant) was a Baptist minister who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work promoting peace and racial equality, he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. A million Martin Luthers would make this world a much better place than it is today. If teaching people how to think for themselves creates even one more great man (or woman) like Martin Luthor King then why would we not do this?

    Also Ragnarök isn’t a pagan holiday. Look it up, it’s a battle at the end of time, much like the Christian apocalypse myth.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 22, 2007 @ 5:45 am | Reply

  374. [...] Phayngula blog reports that there’s a lot of buzz regarding Brownback supporters’ blogs denouncing Heliocentrism, the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun. From http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com: I [...]

    Pingback by Brownback Supporters Denounce Heliocentrism « The Great Realization — May 22, 2007 @ 6:28 am | Reply

  375. Karl- You’re delusional. No one’s that stupid.

    Nah, note the number of people in this article alone who are saying they won’t vote for Brownback now. Hope you’re getting paid for it.

    Of course, the alternative is that you’re picking and choosing phrases out of context from the Bible to support an inane theory. Ie, using a couple of phrases from the Bible to deny what is actually going on. If I were Christian, I’d then say that you’re doing the work of Satan not of God. Ie, you’re telling us how God did this or that in contradiction to easily established fact.

    My question is why would God tell you something that you can find out on your own with moderate effort? Maybe I got this wrong, but I don’t see God telling you what the weather’s like or putting your clothes on you. You can look outside (or something equivalent if you’re blind) and you can dress yourself. In a similar fashion, you can repeat the experiments that they did and see the same things they saw. And see that the Earth indeed moves around the Sun. No need for God to hold your hand and tell you this stuff. Now, on the otherhand, denying reality using words from the Bible? That’s Satan’s style, right?

    Finally, who are you to tell us how God does things? As I understand it, the Bible is considered the source of truth. One browses it in a more or less unique manner depending on the individual. I gather God then inspires the reader to peruse certain chapters and receive enlightenment.

    What I don’t get here is why only the Bible is suitable for this purpose? Why not the Principia Mathematica or The Origin of Species. Sure, these are works of men. But given that the authors were Christian, these works would seem to me divinely inspired, or at least good intentioned. Surely an all-power, all-knowing deity can inspire through these as well.

    Comment by Karl Hallowell — May 22, 2007 @ 6:36 am | Reply

  376. “My question is why would God tell you something that you can find out on your own with moderate effort? Maybe I got this wrong, but I don’t see God telling you what the weather’s like or putting your clothes on you. You can look outside (or something equivalent if you’re blind) and you can dress yourself. In a similar fashion, you can repeat the experiments that they did and see the same things they saw. And see that the Earth indeed moves around the Sun. No need for God to hold your hand and tell you this stuff. Now, on the otherhand, denying reality using words from the Bible? That’s Satan’s style, right?”

    Those experiments are based on lies. God told our fathers that the Earth is stationary; our fathers didn’t feel it move, and neither do I. Foucault’s pendulum and other French/Copernican/Marxist experiments are simply not as persuasive as the evidence of my own eyes.

    “Finally, who are you to tell us how God does things? As I understand it, the Bible is considered the source of truth. One browses it in a more or less unique manner depending on the individual. I gather God then inspires the reader to peruse certain chapters and receive enlightenment.”

    The text binds us immutably. Individualistic perusals result in individual answers suitable to the specific craven appetites of the individual. That should tell you what’s wrong with this method, right there.

    “What I don’t get here is why only the Bible is suitable for this purpose? Why not the Principia Mathematica or The Origin of Species. Sure, these are works of men. But given that the authors were Christian, these works would seem to me divinely inspired, or at least good intentioned. Surely an all-power, all-knowing deity can inspire through these as well.”

    They weren’t true Christians; they wrote books contradicting the Bible. Satan can inspire lies, too, you know.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 7:35 am | Reply

  377. 1) No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.

    2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.

    3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880’s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his “relativity” hypothesis.

    4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.

    5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.

    6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments–especially the light fringe results–prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God’s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.

    You know how saying stuff doesn’t magically make it true?

    This is a case in point.

    Comment by Dr A — May 22, 2007 @ 8:36 am | Reply

  378. “You know how saying stuff doesn’t magically make it true?

    This is a case in point.”

    Indeed it is. Blindly following the tenets of Copernicus doesn’t make them so.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 8:40 am | Reply

  379. I’m still not certain whether this post is meant to be a parody….? Seriously…?
    Still, the earth revolves around the sun… fine. It doesn’t…. fine. But it’s an accepted theory, and accepting others “based on science” is also a fine thing, only then how would you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t deserve to be presented in schools too? It deserves some space too!

    Just remember when writing, the Earth may be revolving around the sun, but no one said that Sun was the center of space, if such a thing can even be contemplated.

    Comment by Marmot — May 22, 2007 @ 8:41 am | Reply

  380. “I’m still not certain whether this post is meant to be a parody….? Seriously…?
    Still, the earth revolves around the sun… fine. It doesn’t…. fine. But it’s an accepted theory, and accepting others “based on science” is also a fine thing, only then how would you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t deserve to be presented in schools too? It deserves some space too!”

    NO. This is a Christian country. The Christian religion is the majority religion, and it needs to be respected. Sarcastic joke-religions invented by atheists should not be respected in public schools.

    I hope you can understand the difference between a True faith, based on the Judeo-Christian traditions that have made our civilization great, and a farcical lie devised by sinners to spite Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 8:48 am | Reply

  381. Those experiments are based on lies. God told our fathers that the Earth is stationary; our fathers didn’t feel it move, and neither do I. Foucault’s pendulum and other French/Copernican/Marxist experiments are simply not as persuasive as the evidence of my own eyes.

    You haven’t looked otherwise you wouldn’t say this. One doesn’t taste a song nor hear the tang of a lemon. And our senses are limited. Yes, you won’t feel the Earth move. But that’s not the sense to use. The pendulum sees things you can’t see.

    Also, experiments cannot be based on lies. Certain actions are performed, certain outcomes occur. Our perception of this can be tainted by lies, but not the actual experiment.

    The text binds us immutably. Individualistic perusals result in individual answers suitable to the specific craven appetites of the individual. That should tell you what’s wrong with this method, right there.

    So what “craven appetite” lead you to conclude from some vague passages that generations of scientists are wrong about a basic, easily observed fact of nature? I think hubris, playing God.

    They weren’t true Christians; they wrote books contradicting the Bible. Satan can inspire lies, too, you know.

    They were true Christians and these works do not contradict the Bible. Remember the people who wrote the Bible had crude comprehension of what was around them. There is no possible way that God could explain existence to them, nor is that the focus of the Bible. That’s why I claim the Bible does not say how the universe was created nor does it state how life came to be. You cannot have truth without understanding. It would make no sense for God to attempt to explain these things to them.

    Finally, here’s the reason that I’m upset at your writing. You don’t get to be God. You don’t get to decide how God makes the universe, Earth, life, or humanity. You don’t get to decide which books are “immutable” and which ones aren’t. Neither do you get to decide who is or isn’t Christian. Yet here you are telling me that the Earth is “immovable” based on your feeble interpretation of some biblical passages and terrible thinking (eg, you can’t “feel” the Earth move therefore it doesn’t move). Then you shrug off generations of human experience as “lies”. Then you slander some devout Christians merely because they say things that you happen to disagree with.

    God is not in your words.

    Comment by Karl Hallowell — May 22, 2007 @ 9:14 am | Reply

  382. “You haven’t looked otherwise you wouldn’t say this. One doesn’t taste a song nor hear the tang of a lemon.”

    Are you on drugs?

    “And our senses are limited. Yes, you won’t feel the Earth move. But that’s not the sense to use. The pendulum sees things you can’t see.”

    You’re on drugs, aren’t you?

    “Also, experiments cannot be based on lies. Certain actions are performed, certain outcomes occur. Our perception of this can be tainted by lies, but not the actual experiment.”

    The experiment can be flawed, or misreported, or the measurements can be erroneous. An experiment can be wrong a million ways; it can only be right one. I don’t believe the experiments of these pseudo-scientists, these Darwinists, these geologists, these astronomers. Their data is flawed, either from incompetence or distortion.

    “So what “craven appetite” lead you to conclude from some vague passages that generations of scientists are wrong about a basic, easily observed fact of nature? I think hubris, playing God.”

    I am faithful to the text. If I stray from the path the text sets out for me, my sins will set snares for me in the wilderness.

    “They were true Christians and these works do not contradict the Bible.”

    See the links provided in the post.

    “Remember the people who wrote the Bible had crude comprehension of what was around them. There is no possible way that God could explain existence to them, nor is that the focus of the Bible. That’s why I claim the Bible does not say how the universe was created nor does it state how life came to be. You cannot have truth without understanding.”

    So you’re calling Moses an idiot, is that right? The whole planet was peopled with morons until Copernicus came along. Wonderful. Still, this silly theory makes sense, when one realizes that the people who hold it also think that back in the old days their grandparents were monkeys, squirrels, and fish.

    “It would make no sense for God to attempt to explain these things to them.”

    If it were the Truth, it would’ve been explained. “Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.”

    “Finally, here’s the reason that I’m upset at your writing. You don’t get to be God.”

    Certainly not.

    “You don’t get to decide how God makes the universe, Earth, life, or humanity.”

    Neither do you. That’s why I rely on God’s text.

    “You don’t get to decide which books are “immutable” and which ones aren’t.”

    No, but God does.

    “Neither do you get to decide who is or isn’t Christian.”

    Those who refute Christianity are anti-Christian by default. Do you dispute this?

    “Yet here you are telling me that the Earth is “immovable” based on your feeble interpretation of some biblical passages and terrible thinking (eg, you can’t “feel” the Earth move therefore it doesn’t move). Then you shrug off generations of human experience as “lies”. Then you slander some devout Christians merely because they say things that you happen to disagree with.”

    Heliocentrism is as Godless as Darwinism, Marxism, Nazism, human cloning, sodomy, gambling, and a host of other ideas that moonbats like you have been asking me to embrace all weekend. Sorry, but I’m just not buying it.

    “God is not in your words.”

    God’s words are in the Bible.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 9:27 am | Reply

  383. Gosh I never even heard that! I can’t believe theyve been teaching my little Jake things that are against the Bible down to the school. they never even asked me if that was ok and im his mom for crying out loud. Thanks Senator Brownback I hope you do sometihng about this when you are president. Right now though Im going to call that principal and let her know what I think. things like this is why America is going all to heck in my opinion.

    Comment by topekajen — May 22, 2007 @ 9:50 am | Reply

  384. Oh, these helioleftists are the rudest people I have ever seen in my life! Sisyphus, why do you let them do this? I think they should shoo! Shoo! All of you! Leave decent people alone! Can’t you leave Sisyphus some peace? Look what you’ve put him through!

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 22, 2007 @ 9:59 am | Reply

  385. Well, you’ve got the Phelps family vote sewed up. Good work!

    Comment by Hexar — May 22, 2007 @ 10:09 am | Reply

  386. The Earth orbits the sun? Poppycock. The sun and stars orbit the Earth? Balderdash.

    All right-thinking Americans (and a few stinky Euros, like that Blair fellow) know that the Earth, sun, stars, moon, and all other celestial bodies revolve around our Leader, George Walker Bush. To believe otherwise is treason of the worst sort. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    Comment by Babs — May 22, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  387. Beautiful. Thank you. Thank you so much for helping to remove the scales from our eyes. You will be rewarded in heaven, for sure.

    Comment by tamram — May 22, 2007 @ 10:46 am | Reply

  388. Nice to finally get some support. Thank you, everyone! Next time these moonbat liars surge against us, we should stand together and take them on!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  389. ““You don’t get to decide how God makes the universe, Earth, life, or humanity.”

    Neither do you. That’s why I rely on God’s text. ”

    …Which was written by man, edited by man, changed by man, changed again by man, reinterpereted… well, you get the idea.
    If God’s word(that you follow) is devine and infallable, why did it need re-interperetation or editing? Why is there a ‘version’ after the name ‘Bible’ on the book? And unless you are reading it in the original Hebrew in which it was written/spoken, how can you say for sure that your text is the truth?

    “Those who refute Christianity are anti-Christian by default. Do you dispute this?”

    Yes. Those that refute Christianity are NON-christian by default. not Anti-christian. You are not a dog, does that by default make you anti-dog?

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 22, 2007 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  390. “If God’s word(that you follow) is devine and infallable, why did it need re-interperetation or editing?”

    I don’t think it did.

    “Why is there a ‘version’ after the name ‘Bible’ on the book?”

    Well, the English language is only about 900 years old in its current form.

    “And unless you are reading it in the original Hebrew in which it was written/spoken, how can you say for sure that your text is the truth?”

    If it weren’t, God wouldn’t have allowed my translation to become commonplace.

    “Yes. Those that refute Christianity are NON-christian by default. not Anti-christian. You are not a dog, does that by default make you anti-dog?”

    I don’t spew anti-dog diatribes. That’s the difference.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 11:25 am | Reply

  391. LOL!!! Oh, I can’t believe how many people are falling for this, and actually think you’re stupid enough to be serious! Well done! I haven’t laughed this hard in years!

    Comment by Maria — May 22, 2007 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  392. Sisyphus,

    You wrote “I am faithful to the text.”

    I assume you meant the Bible. I pointed out in comment #107 that a ‘literal’ reading of Luke 13:31-32 can not avoid the conclusion that Herod had a tail. Do you not see the problem of concluding that Herod had a bushy tail because Jesus called him a fox? Furthermore, do you not see the problem with the earth standing still being taken as ‘the earth stood still?’ Doesn’t a ‘literal’ reading of the text have to allow for intelligent inclusion of figurative speech? Surely, Jesus did not want us to think that Herod had a tail, did He?

    So, if you are going to be ‘faithful’ to the text you are going to have to either a) see Herod with a bushy tail or b) use some intelligence in interpreting the message of the passage. Which will you choose?

    Comment by David — May 22, 2007 @ 11:59 am | Reply

  393. “I assume you meant the Bible. I pointed out in comment #107 that a ‘literal’ reading of Luke 13:31-32 can not avoid the conclusion that Herod had a tail. Do you not see the problem of concluding that Herod had a bushy tail because Jesus called him a fox?”

    Perhaps he did. I wasn’t there; I never saw him. If he were secretly in league with Satan, it would make perfect sense.

    “Furthermore, do you not see the problem with the earth standing still being taken as ‘the earth stood still?’ Doesn’t a ‘literal’ reading of the text have to allow for intelligent inclusion of figurative speech? Surely, Jesus did not want us to think that Herod had a tail, did He?”

    It seems plausible to me, actually. Why are you so sure that’s not what He meant?

    “So, if you are going to be ‘faithful’ to the text you are going to have to either a) see Herod with a bushy tail or b) use some intelligence in interpreting the message of the passage. Which will you choose?”

    I choose a.)

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 1:50 pm | Reply

  394. Wow, now that this man has shown us the “truth” I guess NASA scientists can get on the ball and get us to the moon and start launching some of those deep space probes. Oh wait…they already did that because they are aware of the fact that THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN YOU MORONIC IDIOT. It is people like you who give Christianity a bad name by blinding following the written words that were poorly translated and interpreted to suit King James. I am a Christian, but I also know that God wanted me to think and learn and grow as an individual and to look at the clues that he placed in nature and the universe for us to understand. You do realize that the placement of sattelites and space probes can visually prove that the earth revolves around the sun don’t you? Do you also realize that if the Newtonian laws, which you discount in your essay, are false then most machines that we use every day would not function. By the way, Newton was a man of great Christian faith and probably knew far more about the scriptures than you do as he spent decades studying them. You are an antiquated tool and while God loves you, he should be ashamed of your pathetic usage of the intellect which he endowed you with.

    Comment by Kent — May 22, 2007 @ 2:02 pm | Reply

  395. Wow, now that this man has shown us the “truth” I guess NASA scientists can get on the ball and get us to the moon and start launching some of those deep space probes. Oh wait…they already did that because they are aware of the fact that THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN YOU MORONIC IDIOT.”

    Another brain-dead, deluded Helioleftist moonbat. I pity you, Kent. You’re intelligent enough to type, yet you fail to notice the web of lies entangling you.

    “Do you also realize that if the Newtonian laws, which you discount in your essay, are false then most machines that we use every day would not function. By the way, Newton was a man of great Christian faith and probably knew far more about the scriptures than you do as he spent decades studying them. You are an antiquated tool and while God loves you, he should be ashamed of your pathetic usage of the intellect which he endowed you with.”

    Newton was anti-Christian. He wrote treatises denouncing the shape of the Heavens. As for misuse of intellect, stop rehashing Copernican talking points and learn to think things through.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 2:19 pm | Reply

  396. Maria, you don’t seem to get it. An amazing amount of work has gone into this. Sisyphus paid his dues. He deserves to be taken seriously even if he’s not.

    And Sisyphus, I direct your attention to several of the Ten Commandments.

    * You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

    You use the Bible (as the immutable literal word of God). You use it to speak for God. In other words, you idolize the Bible. An idol is not just some trinket towards which worship is directed, but it also is inappropriate use of legitimate religious materials. This is the first part of my complaint with the idea of biblical literalism. According to this commandment, the Bible can’t be used as an idol.

    * You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

    You have been telling us what God did or didn’t do, using your faith in the Bible (not in God) as cause. I don’t know why you insist on the Earth being immovable. In addition to the copious evidence that Earth moves around the Sun, there’s also such things as tides and earthquakes. The ground heaves up and down by a small amount (yes, that you can’t feel) as Earth rotates with the greatest uplift occuring when the Moon or Sun is overhead or on the other side of the world. And of course, the ocean tides more clearly show this effect.

    Earthquakes almost always involve shifting of ground. The strong quakes can shift vast land areas by a few meters. For example, the various earthquakes on the San Andreas fault in California result in measurable shift, often by several yards for the largest quakes. Again something you can see, if you look for it.

    God has clearly decided to move the Earth. So be it.

    *Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.

    I consider the various lazy, fatuous arguments you’ve used in this thread to be dishonest. They aren’t lies in that you believe them to be true. But neither are they sincere. Many generations of scientists have documented observations that demonstrate that Earth indeed moves. This work is open and it can be duplicated. It isn’t “lies”. To even label them as such without consideration is a violation of the above commandment.

    No one has claimed that you can “feel” the Earth move, yet that is one of your more commonly repeated arguments. Another example of insincerity.

    Ultimately, a pendulum isn’t an agent of Satan or based on lies of Satan, but rather just an object in the universe, a weight hanging off some string. A relatively simple observation over a period of weeks of a swinging pendulum will show that it rotates as I and several others have indicated in this thread. That is consistent with the assertion that the Earth moves.

    And if you’re trolling, well I guess that’s bearing false witness as well. Tsk tsk.

    Comment by Karl Hallowell — May 22, 2007 @ 3:01 pm | Reply

  397. The text of the Bible is good enough for them, as it was good enough for their parents and grandparents and so on. If they learn to think too independently, they won’t read the text properly, and you’ll have a million Martin Luthers sowing anarchy and discord wherever they go.

    Science is good enough for us, as it was good enough for our parents and grandparents and so on. If people don’t learn to think too independently, they will still be under the control of whatever (usually corrupt) group that has the power (think Middle Ages corruption among many of the clergy (many positions were sold to the highest bidder), the Nazis, the Communists, etc.).

    Indeed it is. Blindly following the tenets of Copernicus doesn’t make them so.

    Neither does blindly following the tenets of the Bible

    NO. This is a Christian country. The Christian religion is the majority religion, and it needs to be respected. Sarcastic joke-religions invented by atheists should not be respected in public schools.
    I hope you can understand the difference between a True faith, based on the Judeo-Christian traditions that have made our civilization great, and a farcical lie devised by sinners to spite Our Lord Jesus Christ

    Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, the Baha’i Faith, Hinduism, and other TRUE religions also deserve to be respected (hint: see the Bill of Rights) (TRUE meaning that people actually believe in them, find direction from them, and devote their lives to them).

    The experiment can be flawed, or misreported, or the measurements can be erroneous.

    So can observations made by humans.

    Heliocentrism is as Godless as Darwinism, Marxism, Nazism, human cloning, sodomy, gambling, and a host of other ideas that moonbats like you have been asking me to embrace all weekend. Sorry, but I’m just not buying it.

    I take it you don’t believe in arithmetic since it is godless.

    If it weren’t, God wouldn’t have allowed my translation to become commonplace.

    And He wouldn’t have allowed the Torah, the Quran, the Vedas, etc. to spread so well. And He would have prevented the invention of the printing press to stop the texts from spreading and to prevent Luther’s 95 Theses from spreading.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 22, 2007 @ 3:01 pm | Reply

  398. Sisyphus,

    “Perhaps he (Herod) did (have a a bushy tail). I wasn’t there; I never saw him. If he were secretly in league with Satan, it would make perfect sense.”

    You are telling us that you never saw Herod and so you are not sure whether he might not have had a bushy tail? How many humans have you ever seen that did have a bushy tail? Then you intimate that being in league (secretly?) with Satan makes that even more reasonable. Where in Scripture does it give us any reason to conclude that those in league with him have tails, bushy or otherwise?

    “It (Jesus wanted us to think that Herod had a tail) seems plausible to me, actually. Why are you so sure that’s not what He meant?”

    Humans don’t have bushy tails. Nowhere in Scripture (or any secular writings) do we get any hint that Herod had a bushy tail. Isn’t that a good enough reason?

    And finally, you don’t choose to use intelligence in interpreting Scripture! Have you never used figures of speech in your communications? I would really like to know why you would choose to think that Herod had a tail rather than to use your God given intelligence to figure out what this passage is actually saying.

    Comment by David — May 22, 2007 @ 3:15 pm | Reply

  399. Atheists got doctrines? Who knew? I for one am hoping that someone asks Sam Brownback whether he believes that Mary remained a virgin while conceiving and her other several non – Messiah children, and if so what he believes that poor Joseph (consigned to a life of celibacy that was not only no choice of his own but also served no spiritual reason for himself or anyone else whatsoever) thought of or gained from the whole deal. Of course, having to raise, clothe, and feed the Redeemer of mankind is a great honor. But A) having to do the same for A BUNCH OF OTHER KIDS THAT ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY YOURS and B) NEVER GETTING TO HAVE RELATIONS WITH YOUR OWN WIFE? And to think that it is Mary alone that is accounted worthy of veneration while Joseph is merely the world’s most famous celibate cuckhold footnote. (That is if you believe Catholic tradition which claims that Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage, as opposed to the Bible which says that they did in Matthew 1:25 and similar.) If Santorum is able to explain this thing, then MAYBE I will consider voting for someone who left sola scriptura Protestantism for Roman Catholic tradition. Otherwise, I will have to pass. http://healtheland.wordpress.com

    Comment by healtheland — May 22, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  400. “Another brain-dead, deluded Helioleftist moonbat. I pity you, Kent. You’re intelligent enough to type, yet you fail to notice the web of lies entangling you.”

    You have typed this in response to my points made to you. Yet you still have not responded to the facts that I presented that the rotation of the earth around the sun can be visibly proven with modern technology, or do you believe that this technology is the work of Satan?

    Newton was anti-Christian. He wrote treatises denouncing the shape of the Heavens. As for misuse of intellect, stop rehashing Copernican talking points and learn to think things through”

    Ok, now when you say that Newton was anti-Christian that is as much of a laugh as almost anything else you have said. Of course your argument for this is that he wrote papers that disagree with the lone point you are trying to make. As I said before…perhaps you should read some of Newtons work, though I doubt you could understand it. Of course, my guess is that your next treatise will speak of what a great Christian Thomas de’ Torquemada was, or perhaps Adolf Hitler.

    Dpn’t worry though. Just take comfort in this statement. God knows that you are a blind idiot, but he will forgive you and still love you.

    Comment by Kent — May 22, 2007 @ 4:18 pm | Reply

  401. Sisyphus:

    I pinged this post because I thought it was really crazy. But I just have to respond after reading more.

    I don’t think that you *are* a very religious person, regardless of how much of the Bible you have memorized. At least you’re not acting like a religious person. What Christians go around calling complete strangers idiots, moonbats (what the heck is that anyway), delusional, brain-dead, etc., etc.?

    That’s not very nice. If you post this kind of thing you’ve got to know that its going to attract a lot of negative attention. You seem to welcome it, relish it and even encourage it. Maybe you’re calling out for attention? I dunno – you’re just not reflecting the God I believe in. Not at all.

    Comment by Gloria Hopkins — May 22, 2007 @ 4:29 pm | Reply

  402. “Maria, you don’t seem to get it. An amazing amount of work has gone into this. Sisyphus paid his dues. He deserves to be taken seriously even if he’s not.”

    Thank you. But I am.

    “You use the Bible (as the immutable literal word of God). You use it to speak for God. In other words, you idolize the Bible. An idol is not just some trinket towards which worship is directed, but it also is inappropriate use of legitimate religious materials.”

    This is a false analogy. You purport to tell other people how to interpret the text away from its original meaning. That is the height of sinful arrogance.

    “This is the first part of my complaint with the idea of biblical literalism. According to this commandment, the Bible can’t be used as an idol.”

    It’s the Word of God. It’s not an idol. There’s a very big difference.

    “You have been telling us what God did or didn’t do, using your faith in the Bible (not in God) as cause.”

    The Bible tells us about God. You can only arrive at the Father through the Holy Spirit.

    “I don’t know why you insist on the Earth being immovable. In addition to the copious evidence that Earth moves around the Sun, there’s also such things as tides and earthquakes.”

    Caused by the moon, probably.

    “Earthquakes almost always involve shifting of ground. The strong quakes can shift vast land areas by a few meters.”

    Earthquakes are not caused by the Earth’s rotation even in the Copernican system.

    “God has clearly decided to move the Earth. So be it.”

    Small pieces of it, not the whole thing. Big, big difference.

    “I consider the various lazy, fatuous arguments you’ve used in this thread to be dishonest.”

    Good thing for me you’re not God.

    “They aren’t lies in that you believe them to be true. But neither are they sincere. Many generations of scientists have documented observations that demonstrate that Earth indeed moves. This work is open and it can be duplicated. It isn’t “lies”. To even label them as such without consideration is a violation of the above commandment.”

    That work is blasphemy. As such, it is dishonest.

    “No one has claimed that you can “feel” the Earth move, yet that is one of your more commonly repeated arguments. Another example of insincerity.”

    This makes no sense. I think you need to think this through again.

    “Ultimately, a pendulum isn’t an agent of Satan or based on lies of Satan, but rather just an object in the universe, a weight hanging off some string.”

    It’s used in a Satanic fashion.

    “A relatively simple observation over a period of weeks of a swinging pendulum will show that it rotates as I and several others have indicated in this thread. That is consistent with the assertion that the Earth moves.”

    It’s also consistent with the fact that Satan can mangle experiments if he chooses to. He’s the Prince of Lies, and there’s nothing he loves more than modern science.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 4:35 pm | Reply

  403. “You are telling us that you never saw Herod and so you are not sure whether he might not have had a bushy tail? How many humans have you ever seen that did have a bushy tail?”

    Who knows if he was even human?

    “Then you intimate that being in league (secretly?) with Satan makes that even more reasonable. Where in Scripture does it give us any reason to conclude that those in league with him have tails, bushy or otherwise?”

    Well, the passage you cited, for example.

    “Humans don’t have bushy tails. Nowhere in Scripture (or any secular writings) do we get any hint that Herod had a bushy tail. Isn’t that a good enough reason?”

    What about the passage you cited?

    “And finally, you don’t choose to use intelligence in interpreting Scripture! Have you never used figures of speech in your communications? I would really like to know why you would choose to think that Herod had a tail rather than to use your God given intelligence to figure out what this passage is actually saying.”

    Because the Bible says the Truth. Interpretation is not for us. To assign onesself that duty is the height of presumption.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 4:40 pm | Reply

  404. wow, this is pretty stupid. The earth rotates on it’s axis something like 600-800 miles an hour, but do we feel it? No. Just because you can’t feel it doesn’t mean that it isn’t real. And saying that the sun revolves around earth is the most retarded thing i have ever heard, considering that our spaceships have sat in space and ACTUALLY WATCHED THE EARTH ROTATE ON ITS OWN AXIS. I really thought that this was a satire or a parody at first, but then i realized that this tard was serious. Did you know that star constellations millions of lightyears away can only been seen during some months of the year? Do you honestly believe that the earth stands still and that stars millions of lightyears away make full revolutions around the earth
    (n lightyears X pi) in the course of one earth year? that is complete ludicrous. the most ludicrous thing is how this retard ever came to be a united states senator, with his narrow minded, biblical literalist views.

    Oh, and another thing; did you know that of all three biological therories (cell theory, DNA theory and evolutionary theory), evolutionary theory is the most documented and the most proven theory of them all. So saying that scientists were wrong about evolution worse than saying “cells do not make up our bodies” or “DNA does not control our cells.” And most critics of evolution have never taken a course on evolution. That is why most evo-critics don’t realize that we didn’t evolve FROM chimps, but WITH chimps from a common ancestor.

    Comment by Kevin — May 22, 2007 @ 4:41 pm | Reply

  405. My girl friend reckons the earth moves !

    Usually about once aweek.

    Comment by uknetzone — May 22, 2007 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  406. Sisyphus,

    The answer to my question “How many humans have you ever seen that did have a bushy tail?” ought to be in the form of a number. Your response was “Who knows if he (Herod) was even human?” Not a number!!

    Scripture treats him as human in numerous passages. He is a king, he has a brother, he has a wife, he has hands, he talks and gives orders, people do what he says, etc. EXCEPT this one statement about his being a fox. Of course, this statement is making use of a figure of speech. But, you choose to ignore all the other statements in God’s Word that clearly show that those who interacted with him had no question but that he was a human?

    “Well, the passage you cited, for example.”

    The passage I cited says nothing about Herod being in league with the devil. So would you please answer the question I asked. “Where in Scripture does it give us any reason to conclude that those in league with him (satan) have tails, bushy or otherwise?”

    “What about the passage you cited?”

    What about it??? The passage I cited does not say anything about tails. Jesus calls Herod a fox. Foxes have tails; humans don’t. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that Herod is a human. Doesn’t that have any weight in your grasp of the passage in Luke 13? I know that you never saw him personally and so you have a hard time figuring out if he was or was not human. But, the people who interacted with him make it clear that he was a member of a family of humans and treated him just like he actually was a human. Nobody treats him like he was a fox (the kind that have a bushy tail).

    “Because the Bible says the Truth.”

    We agree on that.

    “Interpretation is not for us.”

    Where does God say this? Interpretation is the assignment of meaning or significance to something. A set of words to which I have not assigned a meaning has no relevance to my thinking. So, even if they are true, they mean nothing to me without me interpreting them. It is not presumption to interpret; it is to be alive.

    Comment by David — May 22, 2007 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

  407. “wow, this is pretty stupid. The earth rotates on it’s axis something like 600-800 miles an hour, but do we feel it? No. Just because you can’t feel it doesn’t mean that it isn’t real.”

    Yet atheism is just fine by you.

    “And saying that the sun revolves around earth is the most retarded thing i have ever heard, considering that our spaceships have sat in space and ACTUALLY WATCHED THE EARTH ROTATE ON ITS OWN AXIS.”

    Those spaceships are fraudulent. Mankind has probably never entered outer space. I grow increasingly convinced of that.

    “Oh, and another thing; did you know that of all three biological therories (cell theory, DNA theory and evolutionary theory), evolutionary theory is the most documented and the most proven theory of them all.”

    Why should I believe anything said by a charmer like you?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  408. “My girl friend reckons the earth moves !

    Usually about once aweek.”

    Thanks for sharing. I assume you’re referring to sodomy. I will pray for you.

    “The answer to my question “How many humans have you ever seen that did have a bushy tail?” ought to be in the form of a number. Your response was “Who knows if he (Herod) was even human?” Not a number!!”

    That’s because I was pointing out that your fundamental initial assumption (that Herod was human) is flawed.

    “Scripture treats him as human in numerous passages. He is a king, he has a brother, he has a wife, he has hands, he talks and gives orders, people do what he says, etc. EXCEPT this one statement about his being a fox.”

    Maybe Jesus was the only one who knew he wasn’t human.

    “Of course, this statement is making use of a figure of speech. But, you choose to ignore all the other statements in God’s Word that clearly show that those who interacted with him had no question but that he was a human?”

    Herod was a fox. He was good at disguising himself, being cunning as a fox; but Jesus knew otherwise.

    “What about it??? The passage I cited does not say anything about tails. Jesus calls Herod a fox. Foxes have tails; humans don’t. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that Herod is a human. Doesn’t that have any weight in your grasp of the passage in Luke 13? I know that you never saw him personally and so you have a hard time figuring out if he was or was not human. But, the people who interacted with him make it clear that he was a member of a family of humans and treated him just like he actually was a human. Nobody treats him like he was a fox (the kind that have a bushy tail).”

    Maybe he cut his tail off to hide the fact that he was really a fox. How should I know?

    “Where does God say this? Interpretation is the assignment of meaning or significance to something. A set of words to which I have not assigned a meaning has no relevance to my thinking. So, even if they are true, they mean nothing to me without me interpreting them. It is not presumption to interpret; it is to be alive.”

    Then write your own Bible, interpret it however you want, and do whatever you want. Luckily, not all of us ascribe to your formula for perfect anarchy.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 6:06 pm | Reply

  409. I know that you will probably have some snide comment in response to this sisyphus but I’m not going to stay on this page long enough to read it.

    You are wrong. Thats all I’m going to say.

    Comment by Geoff — May 22, 2007 @ 7:21 pm | Reply

  410. We should teach the children Biblical truth, hoverfrog. Do they deserve anything less than truth? If we let them “discover for themselves” they will most likely discover SIN. The devil is everywhere.

    You call me “delusional” and then you start the very next paragraph “Rather than throw insults about.” Do not be a hypocrite, hoverfrog.

    God loves you, hoverfrog. Come into the light. Put aside your mean caviling, put aside your petty mockery! Do not be afraid of the truth.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 22, 2007 @ 8:11 pm | Reply

  411. [...] – This aritcle is reposted from Blogs For Brownback.  We’re trying to get hold of the original author, sisyphus, and get proper permission, but [...]

    Pingback by STR : THE FREEDOM BLOG » Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine — May 22, 2007 @ 10:01 pm | Reply

  412. Thank you for responding to my comment Praying Hands. I had hoped that Sisyphus would respond but he seems to be ignoring my comments.

    I wholeheartedly agree that we should teach our children the truth. Of course we have diagrammatically opposing views as to what the truth is. My views are based on science and logic while yours seem to be based on a literal reading of an edited and badly translated collection of documents. The search for truth is not something that can be found in any book, no matter how old, you need to actually get out into the world and discover it for yourself. Of course you seem perfectly content to wrap yourself up in a safe little bubble and block out the rest of the world so that you can justify your delusional ramblings with biblical quotes.

    I’d also try to find a different verb, “caviling” means to quibble over insignificant details. This is not what I’m doing. I am out and out disagreeing with you on every single one of your points and on Sisyphus’ points.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 3:50 am | Reply

  413. Bye, Geoff.

    I’m not intentionally ignoring anyone’s posts, hoverfrog. But when you get 20 or 30 posts demanding replies every time you get back to the computer, it’s hard to get to them all. I apologize. I’ll reply to the more recent one, though.

    “I wholeheartedly agree that we should teach our children the truth. Of course we have diagrammatically opposing views as to what the truth is.”

    I agree.

    “My views are based on science and logic while yours seem to be based on a literal reading of an edited and badly translated collection of documents.”

    I feel that our text is more reliable than your experiments.

    “The search for truth is not something that can be found in any book, no matter how old, you need to actually get out into the world and discover it for yourself. Of course you seem perfectly content to wrap yourself up in a safe little bubble and block out the rest of the world so that you can justify your delusional ramblings with biblical quotes.”

    The Bible is what got us where we are today. Following the Bible shows obedience to the will of God, and that is why God has blessed us with prosperity and security and leadership which understands the value of these things.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 4:53 am | Reply

  414. “He’s losing votes amongst atheists who weren’t going to vote for him in the first place.”

    Wow. Pure genius.

    Comment by Elmer's Evil Twin — May 23, 2007 @ 4:55 am | Reply

  415. Freedom Blog: You have my permission to repost this article in full. Everyone does. A man doesn’t light a candle and put it in a jar or hide it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 5:02 am | Reply

  416. “I feel that our text is more reliable than your experiments.”

    Yet you fail to conduct your own experiments and fail to question and explore the text. Ignorance doesn’t make you right, it just makes you ignorant.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 5:56 am | Reply

  417. In reply to:

    “It’s okay. I have thick skin.”
    ~~ Sisyphus, May 18, 2007 @ 3:10 pm ~~

    The evidence suggests thick head, Sysiphus. Are you trying to embarass Sam Brownback? That is what you are doing, by associating your stuff and nonsense with his name and campaign.

    With supporters like you, he doesn’t need a scandal. He might make a good president, he might not, but his merits and weaknesses are not related to your lack of grasp on reality and simply observed astronomical facts.

    Put another way, you represent Christians badly, by fitting the stereotype that some stheists have of Christians as idiots.

    You might want to stop playing for the opposing side if you wish to achieve something with this site.

    Either that, or accept that you are in the 90% regime of Sturgeon’s Law.

    DR

    Comment by DR — May 23, 2007 @ 6:41 am | Reply

  418. Sorry, that was supposed to be “atheists” rather than “stheists.” Sloppy me. :(

    Comment by DR — May 23, 2007 @ 6:42 am | Reply

  419. Sisyphus,

    I must admit I have never come in contact with somebody who thinks like you apparently do. You are clearly intelligent, clever, and knowledgeable. And, yet you said: “Herod was a fox. He was good at disguising himself, being cunning as a fox; but Jesus knew otherwise.”

    For this to be true:
    – he would have had to have fox DNA and not human DNA,
    – he would somehow have to learn to talk (and much, much more) without any of the physical capabilities to do so,
    – he would have to disguise his body to look like a human (cutting off his tail (????) would only be the beginning of what he would have to be able to accomplish),
    – he would have to be able to fool his ‘parents’ into believing he was their son,
    – he would have to fool his wife into believing that he was human,
    – his wife would have to believe that she gave birth to children by him when in fact that would have been impossible,
    – etc. etc. etc. . . .

    He may have been ‘clever’ as you say; but, do you really believe that a fox (even a 10-sigma clever fox) could disguise himself to this degree? Would you please help me to understand how you put this all together?

    “Then write your own Bible, interpret it however you want, and do whatever you want. Luckily, not all of us ascribe to your formula for perfect anarchy.”

    Non Sequitur!!! Ad hominem!!! Can’t you do better than that?

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 7:43 am | Reply

  420. obviously the earth is the center of the universe, but what i want to know is…when is the rapture coming?

    Comment by shakes — May 23, 2007 @ 8:38 am | Reply

  421. “The evidence suggests thick head, Sysiphus.”

    More reasoned analysis from the “reality-based” community.

    “Are you trying to embarass Sam Brownback? That is what you are doing, by associating your stuff and nonsense with his name and campaign.”

    This blog is helping Brownback get elected. If nothing else, it helps him by drawing in the views of deranged leftists like yourself, so that reasonable voters can read them and see how unhinged you are.

    “With supporters like you, he doesn’t need a scandal. He might make a good president, he might not, but his merits and weaknesses are not related to your lack of grasp on reality and simply observed astronomical facts.”

    He’ll make an excellent President. Education reform will include a return to fact-based science education in our schools. Darwinism, Copernicanism, and Marxism will go out the window. Probably your meal ticket along with them, judging by your vehemence over all this.

    “Put another way, you represent Christians badly, by fitting the stereotype that some stheists have of Christians as idiots.”

    There’s nothing idiotic in what I’ve said so far. I stand by every post and comment I’ve made. It’s not my problem if some people are too stupid to comprehend the flaws in their education and background training. I pity them.

    “You might want to stop playing for the opposing side if you wish to achieve something with this site.”

    This site is achieving its goals, rallying support for Brownback. Tell Marcia P., Jack Fremont, DPS, Harry, and Praying Hands, among many others, what you’ve just told me. Brownbackers are rallying to this site, and we’re going to keep rallying until we overwhelm your corrupt, dishonest pseudoscientific Marxism-based political cabal.

    “Either that, or accept that you are in the 90% regime of Sturgeon’s Law.”

    I don’t know that one, sorry.

    “Sorry, that was supposed to be “atheists” rather than “stheists.” Sloppy me.”

    It’s okay, we knew what you meant.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 8:40 am | Reply

  422. “I must admit I have never come in contact with somebody who thinks like you apparently do. You are clearly intelligent, clever, and knowledgeable.”

    Aw, shucks. Thanks!

    “For this to be true:
    – he would have had to have fox DNA and not human DNA,”

    Satan could easily pull off such a minor trick. I’m sure of it. More certain than I am of DNA’s relevance, or even existence.

    “- he would somehow have to learn to talk (and much, much more) without any of the physical capabilities to do so,”

    Well, again, Satan could help him out.

    “- he would have to disguise his body to look like a human (cutting off his tail (????) would only be the beginning of what he would have to be able to accomplish),”

    Masks, wigs, and gloves could easily accomplish the rest.

    “- he would have to be able to fool his ‘parents’ into believing he was their son,
    – he would have to fool his wife into believing that he was human,
    – his wife would have to believe that she gave birth to children by him when in fact that would have been impossible,”

    All of this could be accomplished by the use of narcotics and changelings. Satan could easily engineer such a dastardly trick.

    “Non Sequitur!!! Ad hominem!!! Can’t you do better than that?”

    I feel very strongly that allowing people to interpret God’s Word willy-nilly is the perfect recipe for anarchy. I apologize if I poorly conveyed this concept to you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  423. “obviously the earth is the center of the universe, but what i want to know is…when is the rapture coming?”

    That’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? None of us know for certain. We can only pray that it comes as soon as possible. But in the fullness of time, it will certainly come to pass.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 8:47 am | Reply

  424. Sisyphus:

    You might want to check into this:

    http://tinyurl.com/89dbh

    “KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

    Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

    “Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

    Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

    Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

    According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God’s Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

    The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue “so they can make an informed decision.”

    “We just want the best possible education for Kansas’ kids,” Burdett said.

    Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein’s ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

    “Let’s take a look at the evidence,” said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden.”In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, ‘And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.’ He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, ‘But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.’ If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling.”

    Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton’s mathematics and Holy Scripture.

    “Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein’s general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world,” said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. “They’ve been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don’t know how.”

    “Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work,” Carson said. “What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that ‘gravity waves’ and ‘gravitons’ are just secular words for ‘God can do whatever He wants.'”

    Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

    “Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the ‘electromagnetic force,’ the ‘weak nuclear force,’ the ‘strong nuclear force,’ and so-called ‘force of gravity,'” Burdett said. “And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus.””

    Comment by Greg — May 23, 2007 @ 9:18 am | Reply

  425. Nice try, Greg. That’s from the Onion. I believe in gravity; I’m not an idiot, no matter how many times you atheistic sheep call me one.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 9:21 am | Reply

  426. Sisyphus,

    “Satan could easily pull off such a minor trick (changing a literal fox into the appearance of a man). I’m sure of it.”

    Please reference the Scripture that says ‘literally’ that satan has this power.

    “More certain than I am of DNA’s relevance, or even existence.”

    You honestly DON’T believe that you have things generally called ‘cells’ and that within those cells there are molecules that are generally referred to as ‘DNA’ and that this DNA is a major component in defining your physical characteristics? I assume you don’t have a fox like tail. Why is that? Why is it that foxes do have bushy tails? (And, please don’t respond that God did it; that is not the question.)

    “All of this could be accomplished by the use of narcotics and changelings. Satan could easily engineer such a dastardly trick.”

    Again, please reference the Scripture that says ‘literally’ that such narcotics were known to the generation being discussed and that satan has this power. Changelings!! How do you know there are such things from Scripture?

    “I apologize if I poorly conveyed this concept to you.”

    Apology accepted.

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 9:26 am | Reply

  427. “You honestly DON’T believe that you have things generally called ‘cells’ and that within those cells there are molecules that are generally referred to as ‘DNA’ and that this DNA is a major component in defining your physical characteristics? I assume you don’t have a fox like tail. Why is that? Why is it that foxes do have bushy tails? (And, please don’t respond that God did it; that is not the question.)”

    I honestly don’t know. It seems easy enough to prove, assuming that one has faith in microscopes.

    As for foxes, I assume because their fathers had bushy tails. The sperm is planted the field of the mother’s womb; the crops are tilled thence some time later. (I don’t want to get more graphic than that; this is a family-oriented website.)

    “Again, please reference the Scripture that says ‘literally’ that such narcotics were known to the generation being discussed and that satan has this power. Changelings!! How do you know there are such things from Scripture?”

    Narcotics and changelings have always been with us. The Scriptures frequently reference wine, which is itself a powerful enough drug to effectuate such a farce. “Changeling” is as easy as switching infants in a womb. One might argue that Jacob and Esau almost did such a thing, in the sense that Jacob stole his brother’s birthright.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 9:34 am | Reply

  428. I love how you equate King Herod to Basil Brush. I suppose a children’s TV show puppet is the work of Satan as well?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Reply

  429. hoverfrog writes:

    “I love how you equate King Herod to Basil Brush. I suppose a children’s TV show puppet is the work of Satan as well?”

    Teletubbies.

    I rest my case.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 10:28 am | Reply

  430. If you really believe this then you need medication.

    Comment by Educated man — May 23, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Reply

  431. Sisyphus,

    “I honestly don’t know (if DNA exists or is useful for anything). It seems easy enough to prove, assuming that one has faith in microscopes.”

    Do you have faith in microscopes? Because if you do, then others have already proved DNA’s existence using ‘microscopes’ and that frees you to answer my question directly (or literally if you prefer).

    “As for foxes, I assume because their fathers had bushy tails. The sperm is planted the field of . . . .”

    I only cut off the rest of your comment out of respect for this being “a family-oriented website.” My question is – how is it that you ‘believe’ in sperm and not DNA? The Scriptures never use the word sperm.

    “The Scriptures frequently reference wine, which is itself a powerful enough drug to effectuate such a farce (fooling his family and wife, during his entire life, into thinking he was a man when in reality he was a fox).”

    They (everybody who came into contact with him) would have had to have been drunk all their lives. They would all have had one heck of a hangover, don’t you think? You really believe that Herod pulled this masquerade off with wine?

    “Changeling is as easy as switching infants in a womb.”

    Easy???? Wow, I had never heard a definition like this! But, again, where in Scripture does it say that satan could do this easy switch in the womb?

    Literal interpretation seems to be one of your primary tenets. I have asked you in the previous posts for specific passages that support your assertions. I am sure you must know where Scripture says these things or you would not have said them in the first place. I continue to await your Scriptural references. I hope you don’t want to leave the impression through your witness here with the youngsters that are visiting this family oriented site that it is OK to state firm conclusions without any Scriptural support?

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  432. David:

    “Sperma” is just Greek for “seed”. And don’t even tell me that the books of the Law don’t talk about seed. If you look, you’ll find seed everywhere in your Bible.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  433. God SPEAKS to us through the Bible, hoverfrog. We hear the voice of God and we know it.

    “Experiments” are nothing but occult seances that invite the Devil to do his trickery. Newton and Galileo were known satanist alchemists and it has been downhill since then. What you call “the world” contains things made by the Lord, but it also contains things made by the Devil to trick us and lead us astray. Hoverfrog, do your scientists have instruments that can distinguish between the works of the Lord and the works of the Devil?

    It is a terrible sin that children are made to do “experiments” in classrooms, to “measure” things and write them down in satanic numbers in lab books, to memorize and chant devilish formulas. These “lab” courses are nothing but forced satan-worship and we should get them out of our schools now.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 23, 2007 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  434. Hi DPS,

    As you say, sperma is the Greek word which is usually, but not always, tranlated into English as ‘seed.’ Sperm is the English word for . . . well sperm. Our sperm is not literally a ‘seed.’ We have to stay literal here, Sisyphus makes the rules, you know.

    Also, as you said, in the “books of the Law” the English word seed appears many times. However, as you probably also know this is a translation of the Hebrew word zera. Certainly, Sisyphus did not learn about sperm from zera.

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  435. This is funny.
    You have totally demolished creationism by taking all of their arguments to their “logical” conclusions,
    but you forgot to deny that insects have six legs (’cause it says four in the bible),
    and you should claim that Biblical Scientists have indeed found the pillars on which the Earth rests, though they are invisible, and undetectable, unless you have faith.

    Let us all praise an ancient book written by people who would have been baffled by the concept of zero and for whom the wheelbarrow was an emerging technology!

    Comment by Jason Failes — May 23, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  436. I’m LOLing!

    I have to point this out, though, although someone probably has already: Galileo recanted under duress. He truly believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but the Catholic church considered this a heresy, which was a capital offense. In order to avoid execution, Galileo recanted.

    Under the threat of death, I think many people would recant beliefs that aren’t essential to their moral centers. That Galileo recanted shows how barbaric the Church was, not that Galileo was inconsistent.

    Comment by The Skepticist — May 23, 2007 @ 1:00 pm | Reply

  437. People like you Sisyphus should not be allowed to vote. I’m sorry, but voting irresponsibly breeds war-mongering presidents, inflated federal power, inflated deficits, ever-widening rifts in economic status, and what’s probably the worst thing possible for America – a melding of church and state. If you want to live in a sectarian land move to Iraq.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

  438. If you really believe this then you need medication.”

    Another tool of the scientists to keep us in their thrall.

    “God SPEAKS to us through the Bible, hoverfrog. We hear the voice of God and we know it.”

    Exactly.

    “I have to point this out, though, although someone probably has already: Galileo recanted under duress. He truly believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but the Catholic church considered this a heresy, which was a capital offense. In order to avoid execution, Galileo recanted.”

    He deserved all the duress he got. The man was a professional liar!

    “People like you Sisyphus should not be allowed to vote.”

    You’re a Marxist and an Islamofascist, Mr Burns.

    “If you want to live in a sectarian land move to Iraq.”

    Why? They’re your buddies, not mine.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 1:23 pm | Reply

  439. No Sisyphus, I’m a patriotic American who believes in what the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights grants us. Attempt to pigeonhole me with inaccurate tags if you want to, but you truly are the one in the dark.

    People of the middle east my buddies? No, but I am sympathetic to people and cultures all over the world, and it’s made possible by not having prejudices based on religious choice, and the dogma that religion provides. Your own savior spoke about tolerance and acceptance, or does your Christian sect choose to ignore those parts? Do you also choose to ignore the parts of the Bible that see slavery as acceptable? If the bible is God’s infallible word, then every word in it has to be accurate in your mind. So, we can conclude that you believe that slavery is acceptable.

    The theory of evolution is as solid fact as the theory of gravity – perhaps your god doesn’t allow you to believe in gravity either.

    Post biblical science is a beautiful thing. we actually learned things since then.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 1:46 pm | Reply

  440. I also have to thank you all for creating this blog site which is surely going to help damage his campaign. We already have a mindless idiot in the White House. Why would anyone want to replace that with his child?

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 1:54 pm | Reply

  441. Oh, wait, you’re…serious?

    Weird.

    Comment by Jason Failes — May 23, 2007 @ 2:07 pm | Reply

  442. Praying hands, I note with interest that you are quite happy to use the products of science. Computers and the Internet weren’t around 6000 or even 2000 years ago. They have been invented by men of science and are the product of decades of rational thought and experimentation. Clearly everything invented since electricity was first harnessed is the work of Satan and you should definitely shun it for fear of it corrupting your immortal soul.

    Or is some science alright? Do you get to pick and choose which tools of Satan are OK to use?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  443. David: surely you’re not suggesting that Gen 38:9 is about sunflower seeds, or pumpkin seeds, or something like that? That doesn’t even make any sense. I’m starting to wonder if you’re maybe not just a parody. This is serious business, and your clowning around doesn’t help.

    Brian Burns: if you think that Senator Brownback is the child of President Bush, then maybe you’re the one who shouldn’t be allowed to vote. They don’t even have the same last name, and they’re only about 10 years apart in age. Get your facts straight before you go off on your angry, nonsensical rants.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 2:31 pm | Reply

  444. DPS

    Only your child-like mind would take “child” of Bush literally. The term was used to compare the two and nothing more. You might want to use a bit of common sense before you speak next time – or did the Great Creator God in the sky take that part of your mind away from you?

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 2:39 pm | Reply

  445. He’ll make an excellent President. Education reform will include a return to fact-based science education in our schools. Darwinism, Copernicanism, and Marxism will go out the window.
    Your stuff is pseudoscience, not science. It makes NO reproducible, testable hypotheses.

    The man was a professional liar!
    One only lies if he says one thing but knows the opposite to be true. Galileo actually believed his theory.

    You’re a Marxist and an Islamofascist, Mr Burns.
    Fascists tend to classify people and use propoganda to further their own interests.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 23, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  446. Bryan Burns:

    Shh. Shh. Calm your anger. There’s no need for heated words.

    As for “child,” how are we supposed to know when you mean something literally and when you mean it metaphorically? This is a problem that I see with liberals all the time, this slick rhetoric, this bobbing and weaving, this “I didn’t say what I said” attitude. This is how we get things like “it depends what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” If you could just say what you mean and stick to it, rather than weaving webs of deceptive rhetoric, it would be a lot easier to have a proper conversation.

    I’m glad, at least, to see that you acknowledge that there is a Great Creator God in the sky. Maybe we’re getting somewhere after all!

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  447. Lietk12

    I’m sorry to inform you that a Fascist believes in a centralized government headed up by a dictator. That would be anybody but me considering I believe in less government.

    Marxism? Nope.

    Try again?

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 3:53 pm | Reply

  448. Yes DPS

    I believe in the great creator god in the sky. Pardon me if I fail to capitalize – Other interests include – parasailing with women born of rib dust, surfing inside mouths of whales with my buddy Jonah, and keeping slaves since the great creator god in the sky tells me it’s ok to do so. I was thinking of doing the Leviticus thing and selling my daughter as a slave to my neighbor, but I am thinking now that this creator god in the sky stuff may not be entirely true afterall.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  449. URGENT message for Brian Burns:

    Please don’t do anything rash. If you look carefully, you’ll see that selling your daughter into slavery is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL. Please think long and hard before you take this very serious step. You should also consider carefully which of your neighbors you sell her to, if that’s what you decide to do in the end. I think you will feel better if you sell her to a kind master.

    As for the other business about whale surfing, I assume that this is another one of your metaphors, but I’m not sure. If it is, I’m not sure I want to know what it’s a metaphor for.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 4:17 pm | Reply

  450. Actually I have a stubborn and rebellious son, we’ve tried punishing him but he just won’t tidy his room. Should I follow Law as laid down in Deuteronomy 21 and have all the men of my town stone him to death at the town gate? I mean it is the law according to the bible, even though I’d be breaking the law of the land by committing murder. I’m sure the bible says something about obeying the law of man (I beleive slavery is considered illegal as well) but that can’t be right. The bible can’t contradict itself can it? Surely that would make it a flawed document and not suitable to base an entire life on. That just can’t be right?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  451. “No Sisyphus, I’m a patriotic American who believes in what the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights grants us.”

    That document was of Christians, by Christians, for Christians. The First Amendment guaranteed religious freedom amongst Christians throughout the 13 colonies. It’s true. Look it up. That was the Original Intent of the Founders.

    “People of the middle east my buddies? No, but I am sympathetic to people and cultures all over the world, and it’s made possible by not having prejudices based on religious choice, and the dogma that religion provides.”

    I think freedom and Christianity go hand in hand. Theoretically, people could exist otherwise; on the other hand, how many Muslim democracies has the world witnessed? (Turkey was autocratic under Ataturk, and Lebanon is sectarian; those two don’t count.)

    “Do you also choose to ignore the parts of the Bible that see slavery as acceptable?”

    Cite them.

    “The theory of evolution is as solid fact as the theory of gravity – perhaps your god doesn’t allow you to believe in gravity either.”

    Gravity exists. Sweeping declarations in favor of evolution don’t make it so, though.

    “Post biblical science is a beautiful thing. we actually learned things since then.”

    Apart from cars, the Internet, and military toys like stealth bombers, I have little use for most of it.

    “I also have to thank you all for creating this blog site which is surely going to help damage his campaign. We already have a mindless idiot in the White House. Why would anyone want to replace that with his child?”

    I assume you’re referring to Rudy McRomney’s campaign. That Cerberus is going to get all three of its jaws kicked in by Brownback come Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 4:58 pm | Reply

  452. “Actually I have a stubborn and rebellious son, we’ve tried punishing him but he just won’t tidy his room. Should I follow Law as laid down in Deuteronomy 21 and have all the men of my town stone him to death at the town gate?”

    If it’s gotten that out of hand, then yes. Rebellious children are a serious problem indeed. Maybe if we stoned a few of them, the rest would fall into line.

    “I mean it is the law according to the bible, even though I’d be breaking the law of the land by committing murder.”

    It’s okay in these circumstances.

    “I’m sure the bible says something about obeying the law of man (I beleive slavery is considered illegal as well) but that can’t be right. The bible can’t contradict itself can it? Surely that would make it a flawed document and not suitable to base an entire life on. That just can’t be right?”

    Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s; render unto God that which is God’s.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 5:04 pm | Reply

  453. DPS

    “surely you’re not suggesting that Gen 38:9 is about sunflower seeds, or pumpkin seeds, or something like that?”

    Of course not.

    “I’m starting to wonder if you’re maybe not just a parody. This is serious business, and your clowning around doesn’t help.”

    I assure you that I am not trying to be a clown and I really would like to help. You could help me by describing the problem that you think needs fixing here.

    Let me try to clarify the point I was making. The Bible does not literally use the English word sperm. It uses either zera (Hebrew) or Sperma (Greek). Now, Sisyphus, who is nothing if not literal, used the English word sperm in his comment. The Bible does not contain any word that is translated as the English word ‘sperm.’ So, he had no basis for using the word sperm as if it means the same thing as seed without some Biblical basis for doing so. Please note that sperm are not seeds. Of course you and I both know that the Bible uses the word seed in a figurative manner and clearly it is referring to sperm. But, ‘figurative’ is off base here. It was that which I was attempting to point out to Sisyphus. Remember, he thinks Herod was a literal fox who was continually drugging everybody in Israel with wine so that they would not see through his ‘man’ disguise. Of course, he had the help of satan!!

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 5:12 pm | Reply

  454. Sisyphus

    “That document was of Christians, by Christians, for Christians. The First Amendment guaranteed religious freedom amongst Christians throughout the 13 colonies. It’s true. Look it up. That was the Original Intent of the Founders.”

    The authors of our Constitution purposefully included “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”. This covers ALL religions including NO religion whatsoever. The second part of that line “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” allows me to worship the great creator god in the sky, or those atop Mt. Olympus, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster if I so choose. Thankfully, I can also be a free-thinking Atheist and maintain all of my inalienable rights. If Benjamin Franklin was such a Christian he never would’ve founded the first secular educational institution, since he would’ve been happy with the already existing Christian universities. George Washington used to visit religious shrines and churches spanning different beliefs, including Jewish synagogues to show support for the various belief systems as it was ALL American. Let’s not forget Thomas Jefferson’s countless essays and letters promoting the necessity of the seperation of church and state to keep America free from religious persecution. This, afterall, was one of the main reasons Americans built this country. It was about freedom to choose what’s best for oneself to when they specifically allow every American the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our Declaration of Independence. It’s about America the melting pot – not a portion of Americans that are Christian. You think by the time our “founding fathers” wrote these documents, there were still only Christians living in the colonies? You’d be wrong to say yes.

    So, I challenge you to “look it up”. Look up actual letters written by our founding fathers and communication they had with their friends, and you’ll see where nobody really knew what religion George Washington was, because even though he mentioned a Christian god in his early writings, later in his life he never spoke of any religion that he truly believed in. Read letters from Ben Franklin and you’ll see his staunch support of secularism over sectarianism, and his lack of Christianity, if it isn’t straight up Atheism.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

  455. David:

    I will defer to your knowledge of Hebrew if you can tell me that Hebrew has one word for ‘sperm’ and another for ‘seed’. I would be surprised if this were so, however, since Greek and Latin use the same word for both (‘sperma’ in Greek, ‘semen’ in Latin). Which is just to say that I think Sisyphus has an eminently sound Biblical basis for talking about sperm. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t talk about it.

    As regards the matter of Herod’s covert vulpine identity, given the unimpeachable testimony and literal truth of Holy Scripture, it seems altogether plausible that Herod should have been a disguised fox. That’s not to say that I would believe *you* if you told me, in the absence of Biblical testimony, that Herod was a fox. But I am quite content to put my trust in the word of God. Matthew 19:26.

    Now, I’m afraid I need to take little a break from fighting off these pagans, atheists, and heretics. It gets so exhausting. Their ignorance is matched only by their energy and persistence. Keep up the good fight, Sisyphus. I’ll try to check back in later.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 5:45 pm | Reply

  456. “This covers ALL religions including NO religion whatsoever”

    Yes, but if you look at the history it clearly referred to Christian religions. Poor drafting has caused this nation immense problems.

    “You think by the time our “founding fathers” wrote these documents, there were still only Christians living in the colonies? You’d be wrong to say yes.”

    Ben Franklin mostly lived in France with the other perverts. I suppose the Indians weren’t Christian, but they certainly didn’t count for much.

    “So, I challenge you to “look it up”. Look up actual letters written by our founding fathers and communication they had with their friends, and you’ll see where nobody really knew what religion George Washington was, because even though he mentioned a Christian god in his early writings, later in his life he never spoke of any religion that he truly believed in.”

    Later in life, he probably didn’t need to mention it. His faith was common knowledge, and he’d made his peace with God. It was tacit, and understood.

    Franklin, as I said, was mostly French, especially toward the end. When he was young, he was Philadelphian. I know all about Philly, and believe me, it’s like the San Francisco of the Eastern Seaboard. That place is so liberal the Scandinavians call them Communists. Scary town.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 5:56 pm | Reply

  457. DPS: Thank you for fending off David so well. Saves me the trouble.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  458. DPS,

    “I will defer to your knowledge of Hebrew if you can tell me that Hebrew has one word for ’sperm’ and another for ’seed’.”

    Please, don’t give me that much credit; but, as far as I know there was no separate word for sperm in Hebrew 2000-3000 years ago. God did not need for them to be 21st century biologists to accurately relay His message. Seed was a metaphor for sperm that works quite well. (As I have already said, literally, sperm are not seeds.) So, if one allows for some figurative use of the language in the Bible and does not hold to a wooden literalism, there is no problem with the use of seed.

    “I would be surprised if this were so, however, since Greek and Latin use the same word for both (’sperma’ in Greek, ’semen’ in Latin). Which is just to say that I think Sisyphus has an eminently sound Biblical basis for talking about sperm. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t talk about it.”

    Greek and Hebrew (and some Aramaic) were the original languages of the Bible. Latin is just a man’s translation. All translations are the work of men. So, referring to a translation does not give one license to justify anything. Finally, and I don’t mean to be offensive here, but whether you believe Sisyphus is correct or not has no bearing on this matter. The question is whether he is being consistently literal or only when it suits his purposes.

    “But I am quite content to put my trust in the word of God. Matthew 19:26.”

    As am I. However, certainly not because of Matthew 19:26. This verse just says that God can do anything He wants to do. It says nothing about the truth of Scripture. You would have to go to another verse for that bit of truth.

    By the way, I guess you too (like Sisyphus) are ready to accept that Herod was a fox because Jesus says so. Are you also ready to accept that Jesus was a grape vine? You must know that He said he was. Did He mean that literally? Did He have to hide all of those green leaves as He walked around so people would not question His being a man (I know He was also fully God; but, that is another discussion). Why do you not see that the Bible also contains figurative speech and that this does not detract from the truth?

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 6:16 pm | Reply

  459. Sisyphus,

    You don’t owe me a response, of course. And you are also free to believe that Herod was literally a fox. But, DPS has not ‘fended me off and saved you the trouble.’ If you can’t give me any Biblical support for your statements, just say so.

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 6:20 pm | Reply

  460. Dear David:

    >>Sigh.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 6:52 pm | Reply

  461. I see my earlier message didn’t make it through. Here it is in full:

    Dear David:

    >>Sigh.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 6:59 pm | Reply

  462. Oh well.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 7:00 pm | Reply

  463. If this doesn’t work, I’m a givin’ up:

    Dear David:

    I was vague about my point. My point about Latin and Greek is not that either is a Biblical language (though one is) or that either is related to Hebrew (which they are not). My point is that, in pre-modern languages including English the tendency seems to me to be for the same word to be used for “sp3rm” and “seed,” and that it is only because of a modern enlistment of Greek and Latin vocabulary into the (godless) sciences that English now calls “sp3rm” or “s3men” one of the things that it used to call “seed”.

    Re Matthew 19:26, my point is that, even if I find it out of the ordinary for a Jewish king to be a (possibly disguised, perhaps tailless) fox, it would be quite possible for him to be such a fox if God so wished. Do you deny that God could incoronate a fox-king if He so chose?

    Re Jesus as a vine in John 15: well, why not? Surely someone who is man as well as God can be vine as well? And many people failed to perceive that he was God; why shouldn’t they have failed to perceive that he was a vine? I am amazed by the limits you seek to impose on God’s power. Are you quite sure that you’re not a parody?

    Fending-off complete.

    Now, really, I need to rest. I’m not getting any younger.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 7:37 pm | Reply

  464. wow .. ummm yes … i guess this fits in well with that flat earth theory too …

    Comment by Mark Wynter — May 23, 2007 @ 8:39 pm | Reply

  465. All of you pagans, heathens and atheists should be ashamed of yourselves! CLEARLY the Bible is chocked FULL of scientific wisdom and knowledge. I mean, Jacob was, in fact, the world’s first geneticist! Having 2 goats copulate while looking at streaked rods, he wound up with…streaked goats! (gen. 30:37-39)
    EVERYBODY knows that rabbits chew the cud! (Lev. 11:5-6)
    SURELY you believe that a bat is a bird and not a rodent! (Lev. 11:13, 19)
    Surely you know that Pi is 3 and not 3.14159……. (1Kings 7:23)
    Please……

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  466. What I don’t understand is why your religion describes the anti-God with so many power. He has the power… per say… to fool the sons of God into believing that an animal (also a creation from God)is capable of ruling, mating and so. You say that Satan is everywhere, but isn’t God too? I know that as I’m typing this you will probably condemn to eternal suffer, thing which only your God can decide. I think that if God is really on your side, the devil/Satan/temptation may never touch you.
    -Alex/Mikaudes

    Did you know that almost all the history of christianity is written in blood, from the burn of witches, to the hunt of the Indians here in America, to the conquer of the “Holy” Roman Empire? Did you know that Mayans invented the zero at the same or maybe before as the Arabic system? Did you know that they had a measure of the year even more exact than the Egyptian? They could even predict solar eclipses with precision that goes until today. They KNEW that the Earth was orbiting the sun, as they were very advanced astronomers
    They didn’t worship Satan, they worshipped the rain, which grew their crops, the worshipped the Sun which gave them light, heat, everything.
    All their knowledge, all their culture, all their technology was lost because there weren’t crucifixes in their temples, you may think that they deserved this because they didn’t know God, but so did the rest of the world except for a small peninsula in Africa, until it began to grow and to stain the world in red blood; you know that most torturing devices where invented by monks right? Is that how they give the message of your God, what a shame I say. I used to be a Catholic until the former pope died, I lost all hope in the church when a former Nazi took control of it. And that’s how it all goes the church used to control all knowledge for their own purposes until a group of people risked their lives to give sense of true knowledge to the world, they weren’t content with books thousands of years old, they wanted to experience the real thing for themselves, and that’s how it all started to change. You may not believe this, you may close your eyes and nod violently while you try to calm yourself that this is not true, you may insult me pointlessly at finding no response to what I am writing, if you call me Darwinist, I will be very proud of being related to such great mind, if you call me tree hugger, yes I love God’s creation, scientists do too, so it is why they want to understand it, oh! so the devil you fear so much changes the result in the search of truth, are you implying again the he can manipulate God’s perfect creation.
    I trust God, what I don’t trust are people who call themselves Godsends.
    Sorry if I overreacted it’s just that I had been reading all the comments and I finally could express that, just speaking my mind here.

    Sisyphus, you are a person who is firmly stepped on his/her beliefs, and i respect you for that, but you should respect other’s people beliefs too, if we are going to hell or not (or if it even exists) is up to higher being that no one can really understand with a simple novel.
    I’m expecting your answer as you are truly a great mind by your own.

    Comment by mikaudes — May 23, 2007 @ 9:14 pm | Reply

  467. While I haven’t taken the time to read all the comment, I can only assume that they are mocking you for your lack of science knowledge. As a Bible believing Christian I want to be as gracious as I can (and I understand that were you stand on this issue has no bearing on your, or my, salvation), as someone who has graduated college with a degree in physics and astronomy I want to laugh uncontrollably at your assertions, but I suppose that wouldn’t be very gracious.

    I have a feeling you are one to believe that if you dropped a hammer and a feather in a vacuum, you would think the hammer will hit the ground first.

    I really do feel pity for you that you think the Bible is on such weak grounds that you have to attempt to defend it in this way. The Bible and science are not at odds, you don’t have to do what you are doing, it is ok to believe in science (and by science I mean REAL science, not the pseudo-science you are discussing here).

    The Earth is not the center of the universe, the Sun isn’t even the center of the universe. Heck, even our galaxy isn’t the center of the universe! NOT being the center of the universe does not mean we are any less redeemed or loved by God.

    Comment by mattithyahu — May 23, 2007 @ 11:40 pm | Reply

  468. Your mind was made by God, hoverfrog. If you are using your mind shouldn’t you honor its maker?

    The internet is Satan’s playground and I am not “happy” to use it, hoverfrog. It is full of filth and mockery, satanism and sodomy, science and liberalism. It gives me a lot of pain. But if we might save one innocent soul from corruption by testifying to the truth, even in the darkest, foulest places, should we not try, hoverfrog? And when I find someone like Sisyphus doing the Lord’s work and supporting a brave Godly handsome man like Senator Brownback, it fills me with joy. Does all your doubting and sneering give you joy, hoverfrog?

    Comment by Praying hands — May 23, 2007 @ 11:40 pm | Reply

  469. [...] to that assumption, either to reject the Bible as inaccurate and out-of-hand, or to come up with some wild and whacked-out scientific “proof” that the earth really is at the center of t….  You just accept that what the Biblical writer said was true given what he knew of the world at [...]

    Pingback by Fight Club 8: May God Have Mercy on My Soul... « Everyone’s Entitled to Joe’s Opinion — May 24, 2007 @ 12:00 am | Reply

  470. How about this?

    We are ignorant of the universe, and cannot define the true center? Maybe the earth is at the center of all the universe, known and unknown, that is “relatively” stable in it’s position as it relates to all other matter, thus defining the earth as the in fact center of the universe affected, and gauged, only by the materials that operate around it?

    It’s not impossible, astronomers were “astonished” after the images revealed by the 1 million second exposure into dark space that showed galaxy’s billions of light years away. The “center” is as yet, and likely never will be understood, and since there is no clearly defined alien life based on broad spec and broad area research says that it’s not impossible.

    I don’t believe it, but really, the arbitrary disdain of the faithful who see no evidence of exterior progression doesn’t remove the idea of the earth being at the center of the universe. There are also excercises in deconstructive sophystry that can demonstrate that in the absolute absence of greater information, then perhaps the precice definition of the earth being at the center of the universe can be redefined or examined, allowing for LIFE to be the foundation of center, rather than galactic geography, or energetic, or matter.

    I’m an atheist, but I do know this. Theres something more, It isn’t god (in my opinion) but there is a whole shitload more than what the secular arrogant scientists force on us.

    Comment by Wickedpinto — May 24, 2007 @ 12:21 am | Reply

  471. You guys noticed that Praying Hands is blatant parody, right?

    Scientists have sex with animals?

    I call Poe’s Law on this guy. Apologies if someone already beat me to it.

    Comment by abyssalleviathin — May 24, 2007 @ 12:48 am | Reply

  472. Sisyphus,

    You seem discard the science and mathematics that addresses absolute motion and insist that motion can only be determined relatively–that is, by examining the relative motion of bodies with respect to one another. Unfortunately, relative motion cannot resolve if an object has an absolute motion of zero. To claim otherwise is both bad science and bad logic.

    The rest of your stance seems to be based wholly on religious scripture.

    So only people who already believe in the same scripture to be the foremost and final word (the alpha and the omega, if you will) on everything will take your message with any validity. Those people likely already believe what you’re trying to say, and there’s no point in preaching to the choir. Everyone else–as evidenced among the comments–will just dismiss your words as lunacy, and you and they will just go around and around in circular logic with neither convincing the other of anything. There’s no point in that, either.

    In other words, there’s no point to this blog entry.

    -Aeolus

    Comment by Aeolus — May 24, 2007 @ 1:09 am | Reply

  473. “What about Léon Foucault?”

    Yeah, name checking some flamingly gay French philosopher and some “experiment” with his “pendulum” (is that what they’re calling these days?) really makes me want to believe you. Nice try Dim-o-Crap, but no matter how much sodomy you engage in, no matter how many experiments in butt science you do, it won’t make the words of JESUS any less true.

    Comment by Eduardo — May 24, 2007 @ 2:05 am | Reply

  474. The Truth is so much greater than your secular mentality can comprehend, well-named abyssal. You can not deny it. You can not face it. And so you call it parody.

    Sisyphus in 291 referred to Darwin’s well-known bestiality. The practices of other scientists are too vile to describe. But if you put “scientist” and “bestiality” into the Satan-search-engine Google you will find a lot to think about.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 24, 2007 @ 2:23 am | Reply

  475. Now I know that this is a parody.
    Eduardo: a pendulum is a real thing. You can make your own fairly easily using a piece of string and a weight. Of course you probably think that they are used in witchcraft, divination and such practices so won’t want to go near them. I’m not sure if it’s the string or the weight that you consider evil or the combination of the two.

    Praying Hands:
    “Your mind was made by God, hoverfrog. If you are using your mind shouldn’t you honor its maker?

    The internet is Satan’s playground and I am not “happy” to use it, hoverfrog. It is full of filth and mockery, satanism and sodomy, science and liberalism. It gives me a lot of pain. But if we might save one innocent soul from corruption by testifying to the truth, even in the darkest, foulest places, should we not try, hoverfrog? And when I find someone like Sisyphus doing the Lord’s work and supporting a brave Godly handsome man like Senator Brownback, it fills me with joy. Does all your doubting and sneering give you joy, hoverfrog?”

    Absolutely it gives me great joy to be able to think for myself.

    I should also let you know that I’ve decided not to have the men of my town stone my son to death. I mean he’s 9 and you have to expect a bit of rebelliousness don’t you. I expect he’ll grow out of it. If not then he might grow up to be a scientist or something dark and sinister like that. Better than being a complete fruitloop though.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 24, 2007 @ 3:45 am | Reply

  476. [...] I rejected one of the more fatuous claims of modern science (the Helioleftist assertion that the Earth is not [...]

    Pingback by Science: The New Inquisition « Blogs 4 Brownback — May 24, 2007 @ 4:26 am | Reply

  477. [...] in the first place? Jump to Comments If you missed the discussion addressing the opinion that heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine, take a moment and peruse the post. Having not looked at a model of the universe since [...]

    Pingback by What is so Atheistic about Heliocentrism? And what in the world is Heliocentrism in the first place? « The Journeymen — May 24, 2007 @ 4:43 am | Reply

  478. “All of you pagans, heathens and atheists should be ashamed of yourselves! CLEARLY the Bible is chocked FULL of scientific wisdom and knowledge.”

    Glad to see DPS has helped you come around, David.

    “What I don’t understand is why your religion describes the anti-God with so many power. He has the power… per say… to fool the sons of God into believing that an animal (also a creation from God)is capable of ruling, mating and so.”

    People are sinful and stupid. It’s our fault, not God’s.

    “They didn’t worship Satan, they worshipped the rain, which grew their crops, the worshipped the Sun which gave them light, heat, everything.”

    They also ate the hearts of teams that won their basketball All-Star tournaments. Wonderful culture, really. Not Satanist at all.

    “Sorry if I overreacted it’s just that I had been reading all the comments and I finally could express that, just speaking my mind here.”

    That’s fine, but I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree if you don’t like the Pope. He didn’t choose to be a Nazi, he was conscripted. Sorry I can’t get to the rest of your post right now, but there are about 30 others here that need responses too:

    “I have a feeling you are one to believe that if you dropped a hammer and a feather in a vacuum, you would think the hammer will hit the ground first.”

    Of course it would!

    “I really do feel pity for you that you think the Bible is on such weak grounds that you have to attempt to defend it in this way.”

    Someone has to defend it when it’s under attack.

    “The Bible and science are not at odds, you don’t have to do what you are doing, it is ok to believe in science (and by science I mean REAL science, not the pseudo-science you are discussing here).”

    Modern astronomy, like Darwinism and “social sciences” like Marxism and anthropology, is a pseudo-science. Some sciences, like those dealing with electricity and nuclear power, are not. You shall know them by their fruits.

    “The Earth is not the center of the universe, the Sun isn’t even the center of the universe. Heck, even our galaxy isn’t the center of the universe! NOT being the center of the universe does not mean we are any less redeemed or loved by God.”

    Earth is at the center of creation. It really is as simple as that. Mathematically, it may be convenient to pretend otherwise from time to time; but to dwell in these pretenses is the onset of madness.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:01 am | Reply

  479. “You seem discard the science and mathematics that addresses absolute motion and insist that motion can only be determined relatively–that is, by examining the relative motion of bodies with respect to one another. Unfortunately, relative motion cannot resolve if an object has an absolute motion of zero. To claim otherwise is both bad science and bad logic.”

    I don’t even know what this means. Is this really English?

    “The rest of your stance seems to be based wholly on religious scripture.”

    Scripture is Truth, not Esperanto or whatever language it is you’re using.

    “So only people who already believe in the same scripture to be the foremost and final word (the alpha and the omega, if you will) on everything will take your message with any validity.”

    They are willing to listen.

    “Those people likely already believe what you’re trying to say, and there’s no point in preaching to the choir. Everyone else–as evidenced among the comments–will just dismiss your words as lunacy, and you and they will just go around and around in circular logic with neither convincing the other of anything. There’s no point in that, either.”

    The atheist Mafia showed up and put the screws to me, but I fended them off.

    “In other words, there’s no point to this blog entry.”

    Many people read without commenting. I’m very sure some of them came away with a newfound respect for the Word of God.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:08 am | Reply

  480. “I should also let you know that I’ve decided not to have the men of my town stone my son to death. I mean he’s 9 and you have to expect a bit of rebelliousness don’t you. I expect he’ll grow out of it. If not then he might grow up to be a scientist or something dark and sinister like that. Better than being a complete fruitloop though.”

    Make sure to take him to Church every day. Also, don’t let him drink the tapwater or eat any soy products.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:12 am | Reply

  481. Sisyphus

    OK, thanks for proving what I believed all along. You’re either a parody, educatedly impared (like that? made it up just for you), or you’re 6.

    I asked you to read up on the founding fathers and, like the perfect Chrisitian, you fail to bother while spouting faux history, and opinion to protect what you’ve always been taught – a load of B.S.

    You describe Philly as S.F. of the east, as if Ben Franklin’s Philly was the same then as it is now. You say Franklin was mostly French – though he stayed there for quite a few years, it does nothing to take away from the fact that he was one of the most influential people in forging our country.

    For me to say go back to school would be a joke, because you’re one of those people still upset that mommy lied to you about Santa Claus. You’ll never let those educated people take away your God! Your “facts” and “insights” are juvenille at best. Your arguments weaker than that. Enjoy your life under your rock. We’ll come wake you up when the 4 horsemen in your mind come galloping along.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 24, 2007 @ 7:05 am | Reply

  482. You used a lot of bible quotes to prove your point. You do realize that the bible was written by man and not by god and it is there for not infallible. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the bible spreads His message very well but all the little details aren’t what is important.

    Comment by Mike — May 24, 2007 @ 7:36 am | Reply

  483. Please tell me this is satire. I can’t tell any more, the present administration has completely broken my irony-detection faculties.

    Comment by lordrunningclam — May 24, 2007 @ 7:52 am | Reply

  484. Just out of interest, Sisyphus, what has made you style yourself after a damned figure from a heathen, decadent and pantheistic religious system quite at odds with our lovely monotheistic view of the universe?

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 8:17 am | Reply

  485. “Your “facts” and “insights” are juvenille at best. Your arguments weaker than that. Enjoy your life under your rock. We’ll come wake you up when the 4 horsemen in your mind come galloping along.”

    That’s the day when you’ll know I was right all along.

    “You used a lot of bible quotes to prove your point. You do realize that the bible was written by man and not by god and it is there for not infallible. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the bible spreads His message very well but all the little details aren’t what is important.”

    “God is in the details,” remember?

    “Please tell me this is satire. I can’t tell any more, the present administration has completely broken my irony-detection faculties.”

    I’m not sure what you mean, but no, this is not satire.

    “Just out of interest, Sisyphus, what has made you style yourself after a damned figure from a heathen, decadent and pantheistic religious system quite at odds with our lovely monotheistic view of the universe?”

    I enjoy some of the Pagan myths, as stories. The one of Sisyphus always particularly amused me. What apt punishments those Greeks could devise in their colorful lies! My only hope is that the real Hell is so inventive. Dante gives me hope that it is.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 8:33 am | Reply

  486. So, okay. The Earth doesn’t move. Your main argument, of course, being that the Bible says it doesn’t. But doesn’t the Bible also say that the Earth is laid on a foundation? Can you please share your theory of where this foundation is?

    Also, it speaks about the firmament, and windows in the sky. Are they there too?

    And unicorns? The bible mentions unicorns and satyrs. Did/do they really exist?

    I’m very confused about which parts of the Bible I need to take literally and which parts I can say are wrong because of interpretation or translation. I think I need someone smart and holy like you to straighten me out.

    Comment by Andy — May 24, 2007 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  487. Interesting. I wonder if I’m appreciating the humour of this on the same level as you.

    ““You used a lot of bible quotes to prove your point. You do realize that the bible was written by man and not by god and it is there for not infallible. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the bible spreads His message very well but all the little details aren’t what is important.”

    “God is in the details,” remember?”

    I wonder if you might elaborate a little further on the quote I’ve just highlighted. I think a good point’s being raised, and you’ve dealt with it in a rather facile manner.

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 8:46 am | Reply

  488. HEY! When I drive in my car, my tires spin the earth, and I stay in the same place. When I take a step, I push the earth in the direction I want to go, and I stay in the same place. All of these problems are solvable by your Heathen “physics” problems, just solve for the forces involved.

    Why can’t you athiests see this? Oh yeah, because when I drive my car, you get weak in the knees, because you are adjusting to the changed direction of the earth. Man, when I drive on the freeway, you suckers care in real danger, standin on an earth going 70 miles an hour! You’d better hope I don’t slam on the breaks! Physics says so! My grandfather was no monkey!

    Did you ever see a “crociduck”? How rediculous! Evolution is garbage! If i launch a satallite straight up into space, It’ll just hang there, in geosychronous orbit because the earth doesn’t move!

    If i get sick, i’ll bleed myself to get the demons out, because science says penicillin is good, that stupid science, i’ll show it. maybe i’ll stab myself with a dirty knife in my hand, to show you there is no such thing as microbes!

    Comment by Willey — May 24, 2007 @ 10:04 am | Reply

  489. “””—

    “You seem discard the science and mathematics that addresses absolute motion and insist that motion can only be determined relatively–that is, by examining the relative motion of bodies with respect to one another. Unfortunately, relative motion cannot resolve if an object has an absolute motion of zero. To claim otherwise is both bad science and bad logic.”

    I don’t even know what this means. Is this really English?

    —“””

    AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

    Yes, it’s english, and it’s physics, which apprently you and Mr. Brownback have no knowledge of. If you can’t even grasp that simple statement about “relative motion”, you really are a blind fool who cannot comprehend this idea of heliocentrism.

    Comment by Willey — May 24, 2007 @ 10:16 am | Reply

  490. Thanks for the ad hominems, Willey!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  491. “Thanks for the ad hominems, Willey!”

    Thanks for the misuse of the term ad hominem, Sisy.

    If I called you an incontrivertable twit, so you shouldn’t be listened to, THAT’s. ad hom. Stating that “Nasa is run by jews.” That’s ad hominem.

    Showing that you have no Credentials to be discussing such a topic is ABSOLUTELY NOT Ad Hom., it’s attacking the fact that your “opinion” on such a thing is so poorly understood, that you cannot enter into a conversation using even the most basic terminology of the information you are talking about.

    How can you enter into a conversation if you don’t understand the words we are using to discuss it?

    Comment by Willey — May 24, 2007 @ 10:55 am | Reply

  492. “I don’t even know what this means. Is this really English?”

    Yes.

    “Many people read without commenting. I’m very sure some of them came away with a newfound respect…”

    Good point. However, I suspect that a significant portion of them of them aren’t intelligent enough to really get your point (as shown by many of the comments).

    Comment by Aeolus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:01 am | Reply

  493. [...] get any stupider (that’s Bush-speak for “more stupid”), along comes a blog supporting Brownback for president that claims we’ve all been duped by science that says Earth [...]

    Pingback by Newflash: The Earth Doesn’t Move « In Repair — May 24, 2007 @ 11:05 am | Reply

  494. “How can you enter into a conversation if you don’t understand the words we are using to discuss it?”

    You called me a fool. That’s an attack at the messenger, rather than the message. Ergo, an ad hominem.

    “Good point. However, I suspect that a significant portion of them of them aren’t intelligent enough to really get your point (as shown by many of the comments).”

    True. But we really can’t expect to turn the clock back on 5 centuries of Helioleftist miseducation in a few short days, can we? We must persevere.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:09 am | Reply

  495. I refuse to beilieve in someone as ignorant as Sisyphus. Since I have never seen this “person” nor spoken with “it”, I cannot verify that this “person” actually exists. All I have are some digitally made words on my computer telling me that there is actually someone in our lovely country that devotes enormous amounts of time and effort into proping up the flimsy scaffolding that holds up ideas so contrary to reality that this “person” must then contradict “itself” in order to prove “its” point.
    “Yes, the religious freedom of embracing Christ in any denomination of one’s choice. If you’d ever opened a history book in your life, you’d know that I’m right.”
    And then-“Presumably, since some of the lived here in 1776 and this is a JUDEO-Christian country, Jewish people have every bit as much of a right to live here as Christians do”
    But I thought that Jewish people don’t believe Christ to be the “Son of God” and therefore would not fall into the category of “Christian”.

    I am certain there are MANY more, but I dont have time to read through it all.

    There is no sisyphus.

    Comment by 5ive — May 24, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  496. Guys, stop trying to rationally argue with Sisyphus. People like that shouldn’t be payed attention to, they should be contained. What matters is that besides himself and whatever 8 or 9 morons who actually believe him, he will have no impact on the world at all. It’s not worth debating him, it will only frustrate you. So to those of you reading this blog who are outraged with his idiocy, take your intelligence and devote it to a worthwhile activity because arguing with this guy is just a waste of your time. And just so the intelligent mega-majority who read this blog in disbelief can rest easy tonight, remember the fact that Brownback doesn’t stand a chance of becoming president (although granted, it’s depressing enough that a guy like him could be elected into teh senate).

    Comment by Jesus Christ, Superstar — May 24, 2007 @ 11:31 am | Reply

  497. 5ive- Shut up. I’m right here. I don’t care for your solipsisms.

    “Jesus Christ”- Thanks for blaspheming!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  498. Aeolus: “So only people who already believe in the same scripture to be the foremost and final word (the alpha and the omega, if you will) on everything will take your message with any validity. Those people likely already believe what you’re trying to say, and there’s no point in preaching to the choir.”

    Hold on now, I am a Bible believing Christian who doesn’t believe anything remotely similar to what is being said here.

    I said: “I have a feeling you are one to believe that if you dropped a hammer and a feather in a vacuum, you would think the hammer will hit the ground first.”

    Sisyphys said: “Of course it would!”

    Wow, are you serious? Have you EVER actually tried a science experiment? Have you seen the video footage where astronauts on the moon actually did this experiment? Or were the moon landings a hoax too?

    I said: “I really do feel pity for you that you think the Bible is on such weak grounds that you have to attempt to defend it in this way.”

    Sisyphys said: “Someone has to defend it when it’s under attack.”

    In this context, it isn’t under attack. It is your poor interpretation that is farcing you to defend it in this bizarre way.

    Sisyphys said: “Modern astronomy, like Darwinism and “social sciences” like Marxism and anthropology, is a pseudo-science.”

    So how do you figure modern astronomy is a pseudo-science?

    I am genuinely curious: what are your scientific credentials?

    You are putting us Christians in an awkward position because not only do I feel like I have to defend the Bible to the atheists how are, because of your use of scripture, attacking it WHILE AT THE SAME TIME defending the Bible and science against your misuse of both.

    Comment by mattithyahu — May 24, 2007 @ 12:36 pm | Reply

  499. [...] 24th, 2007 · No Comments A certain blog is making waves around the blogosphere, denouncing Heliocentrism as an “atheist [...]

    Pingback by Much Ado about Heliocentrism « Stancel Spencer — May 24, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  500. a beautiful spoof; I admire the consistency.

    Comment by Jorg — May 24, 2007 @ 1:04 pm | Reply

  501. Jesus Christ’s post was correct. Sisyphys is nuts.

    Comment by Abraham — May 24, 2007 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  502. “All I have are some digitally made words on my computer telling me that there is actually someone in our lovely country that devotes enormous amounts of time and effort…”

    How do you know what country Sisyphus is writing from?

    “Hold on now, I am a Bible believing Christian who doesn’t believe anything remotely similar to what is being said here.”

    First, I never said “Christian” or “Bible” but carefully chose to say “scripture”–please don’t put words in my mouth.
    Second, what I said was taking scripture “as the foremost and final word on everything”–that is, taking it as literal fact. Sisyphus’s stance is that of a literal fundamentalist. If you don’t fall into that category, then I was not referring to you. If you do fall into that category but do not put stock in Sisyphus’ writing, then you are a confused individual with paradoxical beliefs.

    “And just so the intelligent mega-majority who read this blog”

    This site presents itself as a right-wing fundamentalist blog. So it stands to reason that the “mega-majority” (the correct English word is supermajority) who read this blog are right-wing fundamentalists. In light of that, your comment seems to contradict itself.

    Despite what anyone may have read into my comments, I have said nothing of my own beliefs on the matter. However, it is clear to me by reading the comments that Sisyphus more intelligent than the “mega-majority” of people leaving them.

    Comment by Aeolus — May 24, 2007 @ 1:27 pm | Reply

  503. OOOOOH! I get it! This guy really wants McCain to win, so he’s highlighting this to show how crazy brownback is! Way to lose it for Brownback Sissy! Keep it up. Next time brownback says that Jesus Crapped us onto the face of the earth 600 years ago, tell us how right he is about that too!

    Comment by Willey — May 24, 2007 @ 1:30 pm | Reply

  504. Aeolus said: “First, I never said “Christian” or “Bible” but carefully chose to say “scripture”–please don’t put words in my mouth.
    Second, what I said was taking scripture “as the foremost and final word on everything”–that is, taking it as literal fact.”

    Fair enough. Although in this context scripture and Bible could be used interchangeably because the scripture he was quoting is the Bible.

    One thing doesn’t make sense here: to say the bible (again, I know you said scripture, but the context of the scripture IS the Bible here) is “the foremost and final word on everything” is the same thing as “taking it as literal fact” is a non sequitur. How does the first statement necessarily mean the second? Generally I do think the Bible/scripture holds supreme importance, but that does not mean that everything should be taken literally.

    “Sisyphus’s stance is that of a literal fundamentalist. If you don’t fall into that category, then I was not referring to you.”

    Indeed. I just wanted to make things clear because there are some that would group many Christians into the same category. I just wanted to distance myself from that belief.

    Comment by mattithyahu — May 24, 2007 @ 1:49 pm | Reply

  505. yup, ‘God Delusion’ alright.

    *People are not stupid, just ignorant about different things*

    Comment by gotzpe — May 24, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

  506. I passed this around the office even the “right thinkers” think this blog is satire or the author is a loon. If this is serious, how dare anyone say you are doing the Lord’s work. Almost every atrocity commited in the last two millennia has been the result of an arrogant wacko carrying out their Lord’s work and validating their reprehensible actions through scripture from tomes annotated by mortals. I know those who don’t share YOUR twisted beliefs are going to hell as that’s the typical response of delusional egotistical zealots who think they speak for all the members of their religion. Everyone I have witnessed making hell threats, playing “holier then thou” games and claiming to be pious and righteous while preaching hate and intolerance are morally destitute. Neither citing websites created by bigoted conspiracy theory loons nor twisting scripture pulled from multiple versions of the Bible to validate your agenda make your argument truth. Balderdash presented by “holy warriors” and evangelicals are why religions have stigmas attached to them and why so many are moving away from faith.

    Comment by lollerskates — May 24, 2007 @ 2:15 pm | Reply

  507. This guys nuts.

    Comment by Mike — May 24, 2007 @ 2:33 pm | Reply

  508. Surely you know that Pi is 3 and not 3.14159……. (1Kings 7:23)
    Actually, pi is 3.14159 is hidden inside the Hebrew Bible.

    Modern astronomy, like Darwinism and “social sciences” like Marxism and anthropology, is a pseudo-science.
    Look up the definition for pseudoscience first. By definition, a theory of science must make a TESTABLE, REPEATABLE prediction. Darwinism, modern astronomy and all modern sciences that you call “claptrap” follow the scientific method and therefore cannot be a pseudoscience.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 24, 2007 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

  509. The 1st-century BCE Epicurean philosopher Lucretius interprets the myth of Sisyphus as personifying politicians aspiring for political office who are constantly defeated, with the quest for power, in itself an “empty thing”, being likened to rolling the boulder up the hill. This usage by the blogger Sisyphus could be seen as referring to Brownback’s rather unlikely chances.

    http://stancelspencer.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/much-ado-about-heliocentrism/

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 24, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  510. as for those thinking he is using the name Sisyphus in reference to THIS blog, this is the name he uses for ALL of his blogs, so either the entire blog is real or he is serious with this.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 24, 2007 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  511. “OOOOOH! I get it! This guy really wants McCain to win, so he’s highlighting this to show how crazy brownback is! Way to lose it for Brownback Sissy! Keep it up. Next time brownback says that Jesus Crapped us onto the face of the earth 600 years ago, tell us how right he is about that too!”

    I despise McCain, Willey. You might as well root for Hillary Clinton. She’d end up in McCain’s Cabinet anyway.

    “If this is serious, how dare anyone say you are doing the Lord’s work. Almost every atrocity commited in the last two millennia has been the result of an arrogant wacko carrying out their Lord’s work and validating their reprehensible actions through scripture from tomes annotated by mortals.”

    Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, and Saddam Hussein have killed more people between them than every other dictator combined. Not one of them was a Christian; all of them were leftists, and 3 of them (Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein) were huge fans of science.

    Atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. Open a history book. Stalin and Hitler, alone, killed almost 100 million people between them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 3:11 pm | Reply

  512. lietk12:

    How on God’s sweet, flat earth can you think that Darwinists make testable, repeatable predictions? Surely they can’t repeat your evolution from a vole or a marmot or whatever Satan wants you to think you came from? Or astronomy? For Heaven’s sake, they can’t even demonstrate *once* that the Sun revolves around the Earth (obviously because it doesn’t), so how are they going to demonstrate it *repeatedly*?

    Those sound like pseudosciences to me. Perhaps you should track down a definition of ‘pseudoscience.’

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 3:19 pm | Reply

  513. “Well, Ron. According to the website cited by the Brownback campaign, NASA is part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the Jews and is falsifying their data.”

    If the Jews were actually capable of all the things Hitler, bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and all the other folks – including Brownback, apparently (my, what lovely intellectual company he keeps!) – past and present who believe these numerous, impossible, macro-level global conspiracy theories about the Jews, then they [the Jews] are superhumans – indeed, demi-gods – and we should bow down to them. Alas, they are but mere mortals like the rest of us.

    Comment by Beth — May 24, 2007 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

  514. Sisyphus “..Satan can mangle experiments if he chooses to. He’s the Prince of Lies, and there’s nothing he loves more than modern science”.

    Ah, so any evidence at all that contradicts your position is bound to be the product of Satan’s mangling then? At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, any rational debate is pointless.

    Thanks for the thread – it’s been the most fun I’ve had in ages but I’m sooo glad I live on the other side of the world from you dangerous fucks.

    Comment by Farmgeek — May 24, 2007 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

  515. Ah!!! Satan hijacked my keyboard. I meant of course to say that they can’t prove even once that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

    Forgive me, Lord. I meant well.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 3:22 pm | Reply

  516. [...] isn’t satire, which is bizarre. The winner for one of the most unbelievable posts goes to: Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine. Yes that’s right; someone is actually arguing against the Heliocentric model (that is that [...]

    Pingback by Matt Jones’ Random Acts of Verbiage » An Argument Against the Heliocentric Model — May 24, 2007 @ 3:30 pm | Reply

  517. The earth does not move. my balls do.

    Comment by Lucifer — May 24, 2007 @ 3:34 pm | Reply

  518. “Well, Ron. According to the website cited by the Brownback campaign, NASA is part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the Jews and is falsifying their data.”

    Just because they’re right about one thing doesn’t make them right about everything. Stalin was right about Hitler, but that doesn’t mean I’d enjoy living under his thumb.

    “Ah, so any evidence at all that contradicts your position is bound to be the product of Satan’s mangling then? At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, any rational debate is pointless.”

    Yes, it is. You’re unwilling to abandon your Helioleftist prejudices and discuss the Biblical implications of these dangerous ideas of yours. Do you think the last 500 years have been a fun time for humanity? Nearly every evil of the last half-millenium can be laid squarely at the feet of Copernicus, your hero.

    Have fun with your pin-ups (or whatever) of him, whatever country you live in. America, on the other hand, strives to be moral and righteous in the sight of God.

    “The earth does not move. my balls do.”

    I cast thee aside and all thy works, evil one!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  519. Not one of them was a Christian; all of them were leftists and 3 of them (Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein) were huge fans of science.
    You mean to say “extremists”. No matter what their ideals are, they are still evil. Do you think Osama bin Laden is a leftist? BTW, Genghis Khan was not a dictator to the Mongols (but he is a dictator in the same way that an invader who usurps power is a dictator). They elected him. Science, like anything, can be used for evil. Many people have misused religion to further their own ideas or wealth.

    Atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. Open a history book. Stalin and Hitler, alone, killed almost 100 million people between them.
    Just because one atheist “person” (no real human would commit such gruesome crimes) and killed thousands doesn’t mean that all atheists kill. For example, many Crusaders killed and pillaged Constantinople in the fourth Crusade. That doesn’t mean that someone like the Pope is also a pillager. Also, Atheism hasn’t killed. It’s atheists who have, just as other religious people have, killed.

    How on God’s sweet, flat earth can you think that Darwinists make testable, repeatable predictions? Surely they can’t repeat your evolution from a vole or a marmot or whatever Satan wants you to think you came from? Or astronomy? For Heaven’s sake, they can’t even demonstrate *once* that the Sun revolves around the Earth (obviously because it doesn’t), so how are they going to demonstrate it *repeatedly*?
    Proof means a set of results that can beyond reasonable doubt. One can find observations that support evolution. And with sufficient time, it is possible to repeat evolution. You can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) by seeing for yourself. Or you can build your own satellite that you KNOW works and send it into space and see the pictures if you don’t trust NASA.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 24, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  520. Proof means a set of results that can beyond reasonable doubt.
    I meant scientific proof.

    You can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) by seeing for yourself.
    Sorry. I meant to take this out.

    crimes) and killed
    I meant to take out the “and”.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 24, 2007 @ 4:04 pm | Reply

  521. “Atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. Open a history book. Stalin and Hitler, alone, killed almost 100 million people between them.”

    I said almost all not all. Did you actually read your history books or just cherry pick it to validate your hate? Hitler publicly spoke highly of protestantism to exploit his christian country , the SS founded a new Christian church and he was a pagan. You’re all for anti-semtism so was Hitler and in Mein Kampf he states that killing jews and gays is the work of God….sound familiar? The only difference I see between you and him is that he had power and charisma, you’re both bigots and loons that generalize things.

    Christian violence:
    Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain at the hands of christians.
    Pagan services became punishable by death in 356
    Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity.
    15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order
    The crusades resulted in an estimated 20 million
    Witch burnings resulted in several hundred thousand deaths.
    15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain
    1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church
    1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee
    1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain
    17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg in Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain at the hands of
    Genocide of the American Indian because they were godless savages.
    1942 – 1943 Croatian concentration camps run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli killed 300, 000 Jews
    Saint Augustine’s cognite intrare
    The slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian
    Bosnia 300,00 dead muslims and the rape of 100,000 muslim women

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg I could spend days showing you how many have died because of manipulative fundamentalists of every religion but it would be futile because you’re one of them and you assume I’m atheist because you’re a zealot.

    Comment by lollerskates — May 24, 2007 @ 4:04 pm | Reply

  522. First:

    “I suppose the Indians weren’t Christian, but they certainly didn’t count for much.”

    As one of them “Indians,” to me this comment officialy makes you a jackass. Have you any idea how many of us were butchered in the name of Christianity?

    Second:

    “Atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. Open a history book. Stalin and Hitler, alone, killed almost 100 million people between them.”

    The difference here is that Christians (or Muslims, or any religious people ever) did/do what they did/do *in the name of* their religion. Stalin did not do what he did in the name of Athiesm, for Athiesm, or to glorify Athiesm. He was simply a power-hungry, blood-thirsty individual without recourse to any god to jusify his actions.

    And lollerskates already covered Hitler. Good job.

    Comment by Beth — May 24, 2007 @ 4:37 pm | Reply

  523. “Or you can build your own satellite that you KNOW works and send it into space and see the pictures if you don’t trust NASA.”

    Might as well tell me I can build my own time machine.

    “That’s just the tip of the iceberg I could spend days showing you how many have died because of manipulative fundamentalists of every religion”

    Don’t bother. You’ve already shown yourself to be dishonest by claiming that Rwanda was a Christian genocide. That’s almost as dumb as your claim that Hitler was Christian just because he paid lip service to it once or twice. (Guess what? His grandfather was Jewish! So I guess by your “reasoning,” that means the Third Reich was genocide committed by Jews against Jews.)

    Also, if it hadn’t been for Hitler the Ustashi wouldn’t have killed anyone. The Croatian genocide wraps up neatly into the Holocaust. To pretend otherwise is the height of dishonesty.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  524. Sisyphys, would you please share your scientific credentials? You make very bold claims about science yet I have seen nothing to suggest you have actually studied science.

    You would have us believe that much of science (astronomy in particular) is a massive conspiracy theory? Is that really what you are suggesting?

    So your interpretation of the Bible says that the Earth must be the center of the universe so therefore science should just be thrown out regardless of how well founded it is? Couldn’t it be more likely that your interpretation of the Bible might be a little skewed?

    Comment by mattithyahu — May 24, 2007 @ 5:08 pm | Reply

  525. In the context of Hitler, what’s important is not whether or not he himself actually was Christian, but rather that he used Christianity as a control tool and to justify his actions, and there were and still are people, Christian and non, who hold his views in high regard.

    Are you going to try to explain the Christian massacre of Native Americans at all, or is that one over your head?

    Comment by Beth — May 24, 2007 @ 5:47 pm | Reply

  526. P.S. That Hitler’s grandfather was Jewish doesn’t make him Jewish. I if recall correctly, Jewishness (for lack of a better word) runs on the mother’s side. If his mother were Jewish, that might be something.

    Comment by Beth — May 24, 2007 @ 5:49 pm | Reply

  527. Mary fucked joseph and made a baby. she just did not want to be called a whore. Jesus was a wonderful person. but people cannot take eveything the bible says literally, because if they do, we end up with MORONS like you, dumbass.

    Comment by sarah — May 24, 2007 @ 5:52 pm | Reply

  528. Sarah is a pottymouth, or possessed, or both. Keep an eye on her.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 7:09 pm | Reply

  529. Might as well tell me I can build my own time machine.
    No. A time machine is unfeasible to build, as theories have not been proved as to their existence. It is known how to build a satellite.

    (Guess what? His grandfather was Jewish! So I guess by your “reasoning,” that means the Third Reich was genocide committed by Jews against Jews.)
    This is by the reasoning if the Nazis.

    Comment 528: This is simply bad taste.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 24, 2007 @ 7:36 pm | Reply

  530. All of your rebuttals are strawman arguments and in typical fanatic fashion you were unable read what I wrote or between the lines. I never stated Hitler was a Christian. Beth covered exactly what I was talking about. There are wonderful people who are pious and there are horrible people. You can believe in science and God but you are to much of a coward to be objective or to be honest about history. Don’t worry you only see things in stereotypes and are unable to see grey so civil discourse with you is impossible, so as you said I won’t bother nor will I subject myself to anymore of your drivel. I also plan to talk to show this to my congregation and if a majority reflect your beliefs I will turn my back on the Church, not God, because it is corrupt, evil and delusional. Go build your time machine so that you can go participate in the violence you so revere, mephitic imperious hatemonger. You feel my heart with disgust and pity.

    Thank you Beth and all theists and atheists that value love and compassion and who are able to read and think objectively, honestly and without bigotry.

    Comment by lollerskates — May 24, 2007 @ 7:59 pm | Reply

  531. [...] or proving the Earth is flat— I haven’t quite figured it out yet. Some of the postings are rather astonishing, and make me wonder how these people can even find it in themselves to use advanced technology like [...]

    Pingback by Ironwolf » Blog Archive » Arguing with Biblical Literalists — May 24, 2007 @ 8:25 pm | Reply

  532. [...] Published May 24th, 2007 Uncategorized In a blog post advocating the idea that the earth is the center of the universe, many people have responded.  The author has basically used a dichotomy of “you’re [...]

    Pingback by I'm ashamed. « Meta-thoughts — May 24, 2007 @ 9:21 pm | Reply

  533. I suggest you read Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator. Why can’t you accept that God and science are compatible? Indeed, God created science. And I believe he wants us to use our brains to discover how he created the world and to praise him because of it. We have to read everything the Bible says in context and pray for wisdom to understand it better. For example, you should look up the way the Hebrew word for “day” can be used. It is not necessarily a literal 24-hour day, which breaks down the argument of the earth being only about 6000 years old.

    Also, you should not be selective of facts in your analysis. Galileo did not truly recant heliocentrism. He muttered under his breath that the earth does move. He only officially recanted to avoid the death penalty. It does not appear you are really searching for truth (historical, Biblical, scientific, etc.), otherwise you would have known this. You can’t say he recanted to support your position without acknowledging he did this under duress and didn’t mean it, just because that would refute your position.

    It is also condescending to say that it is so easy for anyone to see such and such, when most people don’t agree with your point of view. Indeed, you wrote this blog to convince people of your point of view because you realize that most people don’t agree with you. I think you need to pray not just for more wisdom, but more humility as well.

    Comment by smuthe80 — May 24, 2007 @ 9:50 pm | Reply

  534. [...] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Blogs 4 Brownback [...]

    Pingback by Interesting Links 05/24/2007 at Matt Jones’ Link Blog — May 24, 2007 @ 10:51 pm | Reply

  535. What about Peter? He was transformed into stone by Jesus, and then he built a church over him. Poor poor Peter[Petros-piedra-stone...]. Although there are some parts in the bible that don’t match some theoretically possible, such as the lightning tornado, imagine a lot of sand trapped in a tornado in which the grains are constantly crashing and producing static energy, and then bang! No body can go back to the Eden, which hasn’t been found yet…
    And Jesus never fulfilled his promise of making those guys into men-fishers.
    What about that place where milk and honey came out of stones, there are no leftovers anywhere to be found, what I’m pretty sure is that Muslims are hiding Noah’s ark. I don’t know. And in fact, how do I know that you are not Satan in disguise writing all this, even I could be, or even we could both be just a plan of Satan(wich you claim to be very powerful) and you can not prove me wrong, because maybe you don’t notice ahahahahah the devil is everywhere, there’s no where to hide!! You people, pay me a tenth part of what you have and you’ll be safe from the all powerful evil one. In fact why would Satan roma frrely in the land of God? Why?! Why do you fear an enemy of God?! If God is all mighty why does he allow devil in the world, whta I think, God made us free to choose either way we want and ther is no devil, just choices in the heart of men. I would have liked to be a fox like Herod -_-‘…

    Comment by mikaudes — May 24, 2007 @ 11:07 pm | Reply

  536. check out my critique of this crazy ass blog here:

    http://stancelspencer.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/much-ado-about-heliocentrism/

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 25, 2007 @ 12:24 am | Reply

  537. “Sisyphys, would you please share your scientific credentials? You make very bold claims about science yet I have seen nothing to suggest you have actually studied science.”

    My credentials are that I reject Copernicanism, Darwinism, and the other lies you think so highly of. I am credentialed by common sense and faithful Biblical study.

    “You would have us believe that much of science (astronomy in particular) is a massive conspiracy theory? Is that really what you are suggesting?”

    Yes.

    “So your interpretation of the Bible says that the Earth must be the center of the universe so therefore science should just be thrown out regardless of how well founded it is?”

    Yes. If it contradicts the Bible, it’s wrong no matter how many liars attest to it.

    “Couldn’t it be more likely that your interpretation of the Bible might be a little skewed?”

    No.

    “Are you going to try to explain the Christian massacre of Native Americans at all, or is that one over your head?”

    That was a two-way street. Three words for you to google: King Phillip’s War.

    sarah- Was that really necessary?

    “You feel my heart with disgust and pity.”

    Likewise.

    “Galileo did not truly recant heliocentrism. He muttered under his breath that the earth does move.”

    Apocryphal. If he muttered it under his breath, who could’ve heard it?

    “It is also condescending to say that it is so easy for anyone to see such and such, when most people don’t agree with your point of view.”

    The silent majority of readers agree with me. Nuts like sarah and self-righteous tree-huggers like Beth keep them from posting, but trust me, they’re there.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 3:30 am | Reply

  538. Keep up the good work.

    Comment by Albert Camus — May 25, 2007 @ 4:27 am | Reply

  539. Just as a matter of pedantry, it was Theodore Roosevelt in 1896 who called Paine a “filthy little atheist” (though in fact he bathed regularly, was taller than Roosevelt, and was a deist).

    George Washington was rather pleased with Paine’s morale-boosting support, with his writings “Common Sense” and “Crisis” during the revolution. They rewarded him with a land grant after the war.

    Comment by jeepyjay — May 25, 2007 @ 4:56 am | Reply

  540. Why does anyone bother arguing with this guy? He’s only focusing on one VERSION of the Bible and picking and choosing the bits he wants. If it were up to him we’d still sell our daughters, have multiple wives and concubines (no such luck for the women) and own slaves.
    Not to mention he is rude. He invites comments about a website he knows is going to upset people and then is rude to them. That is not showing God’s supposed love and tolerance. He’s really no different than the Muslim fundamentalists they claim to hate. Not surprising really when one considers that the term religious fundamentalist was coined for American Christians.

    Comment by hetepehres — May 25, 2007 @ 5:20 am | Reply

  541. Sisyphus, what about your fundamental belief in the Ten Commandments, especially the first: “I am the Lord your God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    You are aware of the history of the name “Sisyphus”?

    What would your “god” think of you believing in the king of the gods Zeus?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 25, 2007 @ 5:28 am | Reply

  542. “That was a two-way street. Three words for you to google: King Phillip’s War.”

    One war between one tribe and one group of settlers sparked over mistranslation does not jusitfy the genocide of an entire race of people. No. Try again.

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 6:03 am | Reply

  543. I am now convinced that this is a brilliant satire and that, following in the footsteps of Andy Kaufman, you will never break character – no matter what. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. My hat’s off to you, sir.

    I’ll have to check into this Brownback character. He must be a real piece of work.

    Comment by lordrunningclam — May 25, 2007 @ 7:18 am | Reply

  544. “Keep up the good work.”

    Thanks! Please be sure to vote Brownback!

    “What would your “god” think of you believing in the king of the gods Zeus?”

    Sisyphus blasphemed against that fellow. Rightly so. He was probably awaiting for the coming of the true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    “One war between one tribe and one group of settlers sparked over mistranslation does not jusitfy the genocide of an entire race of people. No. Try again.”

    The settlers understood, far better than you, that it was either the Indians, or them. Their way of life was under attack from an implacable foe who would stop at nothing to destroy them. They reacted accordingly.

    “I’ll have to check into this Brownback character. He must be a real piece of work.”

    He’s a fine man. You should vote for him, both in the primary and in the subsequent general election.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 7:55 am | Reply

  545. “The silent majority of readers agree with me.” stated Sisyphus.

    Eh, no. Actually the silent majority of readers agree with me.

    Oh, I can see where this is going…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 25, 2007 @ 8:07 am | Reply

  546. “Eh, no. Actually the silent majority of readers agree with me.

    Oh, I can see where this is going…”

    Trust me. I have access to the blog statistics.

    Additionally, I feel that the silent majority of Americans are quite conservative, and that liberals are only abut 20% of the population. You may disagree with me there, but the last 39 years of election results are more or less on my side.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 8:17 am | Reply

  547. “The settlers understood, far better than you, that it was either the Indians, or them. Their way of life was under attack from an implacable foe who would stop at nothing to destroy them. They reacted accordingly.”

    They could have, I don’t know, stayed in England, and not stolen my people’s land and tried to ruin *their* way of life. First things first, buddy. The *Europeans* were on *Native American* land, making them convert, assimilate, or die. Like I said in the immigration post, if my people were as cautious about immigration laws then as people are now we wouldn’t be teetering on the brink of extinction due to exposure to foreign disease, genocide, and forced assimilation. The settlers stopped at nothing to exterminate the Indians, and in a few generations they will have succeeded.

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 8:25 am | Reply

  548. I’d like to ask about the threat of science over theology (whichever brand you choose to favour). I should initially point out that I’m an atheist (and British), so no doubt you will detect some bias in that direction in my words.

    As an atheist, I can’t see how science really threatens religion. Taking something simple to start with, most religions that have a supreme being suggest some sort of heaven, paradise or other place in which one would spend their afterlife. Christianity talks about Heaven being somewhere above the sky. Man has been into space, and we know there’s no Heaven in the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere. However, this doesn’t imply there is no Heaven, just that it isn’t in close proximity of the earth. For all I know, it may be outside the edge of the universe (which by definition means it’s somewhere we could never physically travel to).

    Assuming you’re broadly speaking on board with that idea, I’ll wade into something more controversial. Over here in the UK, ideas like Creationism are not really in the public consciousness. I’m lead to believe that it’s quite a big deal in the US though. Whilst I’m no expert, I can’t see why Creationism instantly negates the idea of evolution though. I mean, firstly, Evolution is a theory, which means it’s a working premise of what’s going on, for which we’re looking for proof. Indeed, Man periodically finds anecdotal evidence of Evolution, and similarly finds anecdotal evidence to the contrary. It is this that leaves Evolution as a theory, and not proven fact.

    Without wanting to get in to any argument about how Creationism is/is not scientifically sound, I can’t see how it’s not entirely compatible with Evolution. Surely, enlightened learners would want to learn about both, and then choose which ever idea suits them best. Presumably, many Christians would choose Creationism, whereas others may prefer Evolution. Indeed, one could be lead to believe in bits of both, perhaps with something like the earth is 6000 years old, God created all the living things on the earth, but Evolution is what’s made Mankind a bit taller and generally less muscle-laden than our ancestors (or whatever – this is just a quick example off the top of my head, and quite probably full of holes).

    Doubtless there are plenty of debates to be had about what I’ve just said. However, in my mind at this point, the same broadly goes for Heliocentrism, and most other science based “isms” that exist.

    So ultimately, I wonder how, if I may quote you, “I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism” can be realistic. I would argue that whilst you are under no obligation to believe in Heliocentrism (or Evolution, or whatever), not learning about them, or at least being aware of them leaves you somewhat one-dimensional, and possibly vulnerable to those that are not like you (with the best will in the world, I doubt the entire world would ever all take on a single religious view and lifestyle). Further, broad knowledge is what leads to innovation and prosperity, both of which you enjoy.

    I can’t pretend to know much about Americanism, but surely the pursuit of knowledge isn’t anti-American, is it?

    Comment by Coofer Cat — May 25, 2007 @ 8:37 am | Reply

  549. Well, the *majority* of people on this blog think you’re an idiot. So, best to stick with the “silent” majority to make your point.

    Ah, the joys of cherry-picking statistics, scripture and election results.

    “Additionally, I feel that the silent majority of Americans are quite conservative…”

    You “feel” it? You can tell that from a feeling? Wow, get onto CNN, NBC, CBS and Reuters right away. This revelation could come in real handy for the general election. Save time actually polling the public, just ask Sisyphus how he “feels” the country will vote.

    Hate to burst your bubble, but if this majority are actually *silent*, how exactly do you know this? The Force? Tea leaves? Tarot Cards? Maybe the tooth fairy told you?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 25, 2007 @ 8:43 am | Reply

  550. Dear narrow-minded, misguided fool. On your filled-to-the-brim-with-painful-mistruths website you say that “To assert that the Earth does move is to renounce Christianity. It really is as simple as that.” Gee i guess i renounce Christianity then. Your views are so mind-bogglingly narrow minded and plainly incorrect that i was forced to heave up half my dinner after dirtying my brain with them. Pull your head out of your ass. Seriously. There is no room in this world for people like you who refuse to come to grips with scientific facts because they are so insecure they need ‘God’ to feel like their lives have meaning. You are holding back and generally pissing off the rest of the world. Well done dipshit. And why the hell do you call yourself Sisyphus anyway? Are you aware that name has nothing to do with Christianity and actually comes from a Greek myth which has strong thematic ties to the philosophy of existentialism (a philosophy which denies the existence of God.) Once again, i congratulate you on being such a hypocritical turd.

    Sincerely, an atheist (go fuck yourself)

    Comment by Jono — May 25, 2007 @ 9:34 am | Reply

  551. sorry for sending that twice by the way

    Comment by Jono — May 25, 2007 @ 9:41 am | Reply

  552. Sam Brownback can eat 50 hard boiled eggs and is a sexual dynamo. Films of him ravishing dozens of virgins at the Bohemian Grove are available to anyone faithful enough to give $1,000,000 to the GOP.

    He is the very embodiment of God on Earth and should not only be our Preznit, but Emperor of the Known Universe since God clearly speaks directly through him.

    Sissy, you da man. Keep the faith babe.

    Comment by doog — May 25, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  553. WHEN BORNWBACK TAKES OVER ALL YOU COMMIES WILL ROT IN JAIL YOU CAN TEACH YOUR BOYFRIENDS ABOUT HELIOPCRNTISM WHIEL YOUR BENDIGN OVER FRO THEM

    GO BROWNABCK! GO BRIOWNBAKC! GO BROWNBACK!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 25, 2007 @ 12:15 pm | Reply

  554. Wow !

    This truly is beyond belief. I know there’s plenty of morons out there, but this has to be the most inane piece of writing I’ve ever come across. I have no idea who Brownback is, and don’t really care (as thankfully I don’t live in the United Theocracy of America), but if his political opponents have got anything about them, they’ll make sure that all the voters see this drivel.

    In fact, on second thoughts, this must surely be written by a supporter of one of Brownback’s opponents in an attempt to smear him.

    Comment by flibble — May 25, 2007 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

  555. “Once again, i congratulate you on being such a hypocritical turd.”

    Thanks!

    “Sincerely, an atheist (go fuck yourself)”

    I love you!

    “sorry for sending that twice by the way”

    Oh, how polite!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  556. The best part about any devote Christian spewing their religious trash is that they are totally wound up in the fact that the bible is fiction. I mean, there is no proofs of any of these stories, just the fact that it has been re-written time and time again by many different kings, scholars, monks etc who was looking to dominate in their respective portion of the globe. I mean, can YOU accept that the world is round? Does it say anywhere in the bible about the Earth being round, or flat for that matter. Does anyone ever fall off the side of the earth? Better yet, according to your odd approach to relativity, can you prove through point of reference that the Earth is not moving (ignoring all fictional sources, i.e. the bible)? The better question would be, if someone started to add to the bible today, would you believe it tomorrow? If I wrote my own chapter, verse and psalms, and called it the “Age of Information” would it be accepted tomorrow as the stories in the bible are accepted today. NO, THEY WOULD NOT. It is easy to say the bible is the above all and end all when it comes to knowledge, but that does not allow us, as humans, to use our abilities to question, to determine, to think, to be critical about anything that is written in it. You will say, that is the devil at work, forcing me to think that way, and I will say, the devil is doing the same to you. I would love though, is your explanation as to how planes fly? What causes them to come back to earth, what causes them to stay up? I think we can rule out the an act of God, because if that was the cause, then it would appear that God is serving US, and not the other way around, as you would so graciously put it. You can retort all you want about my comments, I really dont care. But when humans acheive interstellar travel and start to colonize other planets, solar systems etc, please, leave the bible on earth, where it so apparently belongs.

    One last thing, how could have alot of the greatest discoveries of the past 100 years come about, if we are not supposed to question the bibles “facts”. I mean, why would have someone discovered electricity, harnessed it, made it availble for you to spew your banter all over the internet, if the bible does not talk of electricity (or, if it does, in some twisted, largely abstracted (BY YOU) form). You are using it, every day, in almost every aspect of your life. But, if the bible was the end all of all knowledge, then we would not have the luxury or convenience of it, EVERYDAY.

    Regards
    ~ Spinning Earth Advocate!

    Comment by Spinning Earth Advocate — May 25, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Reply

  557. “WHEN BORNWBACK TAKES OVER ALL YOU COMMIES WILL ROT IN JAIL YOU CAN TEACH YOUR BOYFRIENDS ABOUT HELIOPCRNTISM WHIEL YOUR BENDIGN OVER FRO THEM

    GO BROWNABCK! GO BRIOWNBAKC! GO BROWNBACK!”

    In the midst of your enthusiastic fervor I see that proper typing and grammar has been thrown out the window. If this is the sort of habit that love for Brownback induces, I fear that if he were to take over our literacy ratings would plummet to dangerous and shameful depths.

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

  558. You people scare the shit out of me.

    This post is evidence that no matter how much conclusive evidence you provide, idiots will keep spreading idiocy.

    id·i·o·cy (d–s)
    n.

    The state or condition of being an idiot; profound mental retardation.

    Comment by daelan — May 25, 2007 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  559. I fear that our literacy rate can’t afford to plummet much more with the “No Child Left Behind” act.

    “WHEN BORNWBACK TAKES OVER ALL YOU COMMIES WILL ROT IN JAIL YOU CAN TEACH YOUR BOYFRIENDS ABOUT HELIOPCRNTISM WHIEL YOUR BENDIGN OVER FRO THEM

    GO BROWNABCK! GO BRIOWNBAKC! GO BROWNBACK!”

    The problem with messages like these is that no one understands them.

    self-righteous tree-huggers like Beth

    It is extremely insulting to judge people before you know them, especially when they’re just voicing their opinions. You are voicing your own opinions, yet you verbally attack those who give statements that deserve serious consideration, as you want your geocentrism to be taken seriously. Name-calling is also extremely crude, and, as you said, “this is a family-oriented website”, so these insults are very out of place, rude, and inappropriate. One cannot be held responsible for the reactions of others, but they must be responsible for themselves.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  560. “COMMIES” is a term not to be taken lightly. There’s a difference between being moderate and being Communist. Personally, my ethnic country has been ravaged by communism. Much of the culture and knowledge of my parents’ country was destroyed. The Communists took over, and like a swarm of locusts, plagued our land, destroyed our resources, and ruind our economy. Don’t you dare to use “COMMIES” as an insult! (And I MEAN IT.)

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:13 pm | Reply

  561. *boggle*

    I haven’t called anyone names (Except Sisyphus some the other day; I called him a jackass for suggesting that some people are innately worth less than others, which is quite a rude and dangerous opinion to hold).

    In this case I have attacked no person. I never said this fellow himself is illiterate. Indeed, I gave him the benefit of the doubt saying that he does possess capablilties of proper grammar and typing, simply that they were put aside in a moment of fervor. But that would be a bad habit to get into, as these are very important things and should not be taken for granted or so easily tossed aside. If anyone wishes to make a point, it would be better made with fewer typos. It’s for the good of all.

    You, however, called me a self-righteous tree-hugger. So… who’s calling who names here?

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 4:21 pm | Reply

  562. If you’re responding to me, I apologize for the confusion.
    The first and third were referring to comment 554, not you (I probably should write the comment I’m responding to from now on. Oops.).
    The second was referring to comment 538.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  563. We’re doomed. No way to integrate new information into the Brownback fans. They are fact-resistant.

    Comment by enchantscoot — May 25, 2007 @ 4:27 pm | Reply

  564. Comment 561 refers to comment 560.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:29 pm | Reply

  565. Confused still, sorry… You did or didn’t call me a self-righteous tree-hugger?

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

  566. Of course I don’t. Sisyphus did, though, in comment 554.

    I’m sorry for any confusion or offense comment 560 has caused.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

  567. I was just quoting Sisyphus to respond to him.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  568. lietk12:

    Don’t be afraid to say what you really think. If you think Beth is a self-righteous tree-hugger, it’s OK to say so. That’s certainly what I suspect she is.

    I disagree with you about Sisyphus, however: I don’t think he’s a Communist, no matter what you say.

    Comment by DPS — May 25, 2007 @ 6:06 pm | Reply

  569. Alright, I no longer understand who said what to whom in this thread. I’m just going to cherry-pick random things that stuck out at me, and respond to them. Sorry if I don’t get to your comment, at this point I think everyone’s comments are on the verge of fusing into some hideous schizophrenic Master Comment. So bear with me, please:

    “You people scare the shit out of me.”

    Thanks for sharing.

    “It is extremely insulting to judge people before you know them, especially when they’re just voicing their opinions.”

    Yet you accused Jack Fremont of illiteracy. Or was that someone else?

    “Don’t you dare to use “COMMIES” as an insult! (And I MEAN IT.)”

    Okay, tone it down, Jack (or whomever). No more calling people Commie, it’s not much different than calling someone a Nazi just because you disagree with them.

    “Don’t be afraid to say what you really think. If you think Beth is a self-righteous tree-hugger, it’s OK to say so. That’s certainly what I suspect she is.”

    Me, too.

    “I disagree with you about Sisyphus, however: I don’t think he’s a Communist, no matter what you say.”

    Thank you! :)

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 6:53 pm | Reply

  570. I don’t even know what to say to this. This is idiocy in its purest form; an epidemic surely worse than that of cocaine. I have heard these preachings only once previous in my year and two decades on this [revolving] Earth, and that was from a homeless woman who was clearly suffering from numerous psychoses, likely drug-related. Though a “dirty” atheist myself, I am respectful and tolerant of religion in all its forms, but you demonstrate an intolerance, closed-mindedness, and egotism that deters more people from Christianity than attracts.

    There was one thing you did right, however. I wasn’t aware of Sen. Brownback’s views … but now that I am, thanks to you, I sure as hell will not be voting for him this coming election year. I did not even think it was even possible to find a candidate that could rival Bush for ignorance. But ignorance seems to be flavor of the weak.

    Comment by Michelle — May 25, 2007 @ 9:08 pm | Reply

  571. [...] Atheist Heliocentric Conspiracy! The damnable lie that the sun is the centre of the [...]

    Pingback by Atheist Heliocentric Conspiracy « Archies Archive — May 25, 2007 @ 9:56 pm | Reply

  572. [...] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine!!!! …sucker… [...]

    Pingback by DEELAAYYEED… « As Light Lives… — May 25, 2007 @ 10:36 pm | Reply

  573. Read, man. I *explicitly said* that I did *not* call him illiterate. Cherry picking indeed…

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 11:56 pm | Reply

  574. *more boggle*

    “Sisyphus did, though, in comment 554″

    On the page as I see it, comment 554 is Jack’s post. I think your posts must be numbered differently than mine. Odd… A bug, perhaps?

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 11:58 pm | Reply

  575. What about Peter? He was transformed into stone by Jesus, and then he built a church over him. Poor poor Peter[Petros-piedra-stone…]. Although there are some parts in the bible that don’t match some theoretically possible, such as the lightning tornado, imagine a lot of sand trapped in a tornado in which the grains are constantly crashing and producing static energy, and then bang! No body can go back to the Eden, which hasn’t been found yet…
    And Jesus never fulfilled his promise of making those guys into men-fishers.
    What about that place where milk and honey came out of stones, there are no leftovers anywhere to be found, what I’m pretty sure is that Muslims are hiding Noah’s ark. I don’t know. And in fact, how do I know that you are not Satan in disguise writing all this, even I could be, or even we could both be just a plan of Satan(which you claim to be very powerful) and you can not prove me wrong, because maybe you don’t notice ahahahahah the devil is everywhere, there’s no where to hide!! You people, pay me a tenth part of what you have and you’ll be safe from the all powerful evil one. In fact why would Satan roam freely in the land of God? Why?! Why do you fear an enemy of God?! If God is all mighty why does he allow devil in the world, what I think, God made us free to choose either way we want and there is no devil, just choices in the heart of men. I would have liked to be a fox like Herod -_-’…
    I mean, not in the way of ordering the murder of the mesias but you know, having a tail in those big ears, in some cultures foxes are considered as being very smart beings.

    Ok, so it is true you can claim the Earth to be fixed, but if that’s true, then everything is rotating it, that would mean that stars would have to reach speeds way over the speed of light (wich is impossible as the ether does not support such high speeds[which doesn't imply that I believe in it, just using langauage you may understand])also it is impossible to explain why certain bodies present anomalies in their movements (like som stopping, slowing down, or going backwards at times) unless we accept that the Earth goes around the Sun every 365.6 or so days, rotates over it’s own axis every 23:59.so hours and presents another movementin which it rotates on another axis avery 250 years. What will happen if going to other planets becomes available for common people (I’m sure I’m not going to be there), then it would surely appear to them that they stand still while the whole universe rotates around them, put some child there to make their own conclusions, and with time they will believe that their sun goes around them, they are the center of the universe, because they feel they are. Then again, “the lord of the abyss could be manipulating their minds again, he is everywhere, OMG he could be even in my keyboard gyaaagh!!”. I really fear people like you who can’t accept that we are free and are not always working under the influenze of God nor the Devil, that is what makes our choices worth to God when we make them, you are free to write this article and give a false testimony of the scripture, as we are free to go out there fearless of the evil-one and find out how is the creation made, without having to wait for God to tell us, we trul are the best of the creatures, as we were made able to comprehend the creation by ourselves.
    Tell me Misyphuz, where in the Bible is it written “and the Lord said, the Earth shall be fixed”, I only see the writing of some guy 6,000 years ago writing what HE/SHE believed, he wasn’t quoting anyone, just what he believed was true. That’s it.
    Tomorrow’s yesterday is today!

    Comment by mikaudes — May 26, 2007 @ 12:31 am | Reply

  576. Oh by the way, sorry for posting my comment again, but since you wouldn’t respond…
    I really admire you for standing your ground even against the solid evidence Sisyphus, but I just think you’re st*p!d. By the way being a tree hugger isn’t bad at all, I mean, don’t you love every being as well? Oh, and please tell what a Moonbat is, because I’m pretty sure they are not extraterrestrials

    Comment by mikaudes — May 26, 2007 @ 12:36 am | Reply

  577. Christians all over the (moving) planet should be embarrassed by this. I know I am. Using the Bible as a science book is wrong. I’m sorry, but you are very sad, and I’ll pray for you.

    Comment by Gawd — May 26, 2007 @ 2:12 am | Reply

  578. Most of the liberals, who are a very small minority of Americans compared to The Heartland, are homosexual, and want to force us all to be gay.

    Comment by Gary Ruppert — May 26, 2007 @ 6:40 am | Reply

  579. i was trying to give you people something else to talk about, i think the moral of the story is this earth is going to hell quickly if we cannot all get along and quit taking sides of such time wasting topics. maybe if we all just talked about how to save this planet and not putting out energy into this nut, as you like to call me. no matter what, you are feeding him energy by arguing about it.

    Comment by sarah — May 26, 2007 @ 8:08 am | Reply

  580. From now on, I will be using “>” to show where my replies are.

    #659: lietk12:

    Don’t be afraid to say what you really think. If you think Beth is a self-righteous tree-hugger, it’s OK to say so. That’s certainly what I suspect she is.

    >I DON’T think Beth is one.

    I disagree with you about Sisyphus, however: I don’t think he’s a Communist, no matter what you say.

    >I didn’t say he was. In fact, by his behavior, I think he will never be one. I was just saying to the author of comment #554 that “COMMIES” is not a term to be taken lightly. Now I think that no extremist label is appropriate for anyone that doesn’t actually belong to the organization.

    #570:
    >(skipped a lot)

    “It is extremely insulting to judge people before you know them, especially when they’re just voicing their opinions.”

    Yet you accused Jack Fremont of illiteracy. Or was that someone else?

    >Nope. Not me. In comment #558, beth said “I fear that if he were to take over our literacy ratings would plummet to dangerous and shameful depths.” I was just commenting on that.
    >(skipped a lot)

    #575: *more boggle*

    “Sisyphus did, though, in comment 554″

    On the page as I see it, comment 554 is Jack’s post. I think your posts must be numbered differently than mine. Odd… A bug, perhaps?

    >Here’s my comment:
    “WHEN BORNWBACK TAKES OVER ALL YOU COMMIES WILL ROT IN JAIL YOU CAN TEACH YOUR BOYFRIENDS ABOUT HELIOPCRNTISM WHIEL YOUR BENDIGN OVER FRO THEM

    GO BROWNABCK! GO BRIOWNBAKC! GO BROWNBACK!”

    The problem with messages like these is that no one understands them.

    >This refers to comment 554

    self-righteous tree-huggers like Beth

    It is extremely insulting to judge people before you know them, especially when they’re just voicing their opinions. You are voicing your own opinions, yet you verbally attack those who give statements that deserve serious consideration, as you want your geocentrism to be taken seriously. Name-calling is also extremely crude, and, as you said, “this is a family-oriented website”, so these insults are very out of place, rude, and inappropriate. One cannot be held responsible for the reactions of others, but they must be responsible for themselves.

    >This refers to comment 538, though I should have said so.

    #579: Most of the liberals, who are a very small minority of Americans compared to The Heartland, are homosexual, and want to force us all to be gay.

    >Avoid using stereotypes. At least try to do some research before you voice your opinions.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 9:19 am | Reply

  581. Ah! I found where Sisyphus called me a self-righteous tree-hugger. Amazing what control+f can do. :-P Should’ve done that sooner…

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Reply

  582. But what about the anthropocentric doctrine? When I stand on my skateboard and push the earth with my foot, the earth moves (I can feel it) and I stay still. I am able to explain the movement of cars, airplanes, etc with a large database of epicycles. This is a scientific process not understood by the helio- and geo-centrists (collectively followers homocentrism or gay physics). This is proved by Job 9:5 “He moves mountains without their knowing it”. It works in the same way as sitting in the middle of a spinning platform and kicking the other kids until they fall off.

    Comment by me — May 26, 2007 @ 10:01 am | Reply

  583. Hmm… I’m curious now. Is there a reason you, Sisyphus, think I’m a “self-righteous tree-hugger,” or did you pull those names out of a hat because you ran out of ideas? I want specifics. Because I don’t really even recycle (though I should, I admit), and I’m really rather self-critical.

    The only thing I’ve done here is try to get someone to admit that genocide was committed against Native Americans in the name of religion, and aside from that, that killing is killing and killing is wrong no matter who does it – Athiests, Muslims, Christians, whatever. Holding a certian religion doesn’t excuse one from certain truths: killing is bad. Hiding behind a god to excuse one’s bad behavior is cowardly.

    Just admit that Christians are not infallible. You may think the religion itself is perfect and infallible: fine. But to say everyone who holds that faith by simple virtue of having that faith is exempt from wrong-doing and has the right to do as they please to those who don’t have that faith is borderline deification.

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 10:07 am | Reply

  584. I would like to nominate three people to be considered for banning:

    #1. sarah, who, although she probably is not really possessed, is pretending very hard to be possessed. If she’s here, I worry that children who are reading these comments might get the idea that it is OK to be possessed.

    #2. Beth, who is terribly bewildered and is constantly sidetracking everything by being “boggled”. By now, I just assume that she’s permanently boggled and that there’s nothing we can to do unboggle her, so there’s no need for her to tell us that at the beginning of her comments that she is “boggled”. Banning her would be for her own safety and comfort, more than anything else.

    #3. lietk12, who keeps taking credit for things other people have said (he does this in comment 581 when he steals Jack Fremont’s insightful observation) and pretending that he didn’t say things he has already said, such as that Beth is “a self-righteous tree hugger.” I am however glad to see that he agrees with Gary Ruppert about how the liberals want to turn us all into homosexuals, so maybe he’s worth keeping around?

    Anyway, I could have reported them in an e-mail, but I thought it was better for them to see what I was saying about them.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 10:12 am | Reply

  585. You people are nuts.

    Comment by TallGuyinFla — May 26, 2007 @ 10:17 am | Reply

  586. This is a joke, right?

    It’s gotta be a joke – the arguments for support the arguments against, and vice versa…

    If it is a joke, I fear too many people won’t realize it as such…

    Comment by Technodaoist — May 26, 2007 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  587. Be afraid people! Guys like Sisyphus got the current moron elected to the presidency twice!!

    Lets make sure it doesn’t happen a third time!!

    Comment by jumpier — May 26, 2007 @ 10:25 am | Reply

  588. Saying something twice makes it permanent? Now that is fascinating…

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Reply

  589. I personally believe that the literal word of God is revealed in the works of Dr. Seuss, that green eggs and ham are the only true sacrament and that star-bellied Sneetches are coming to save us.

    Think I can get a tax exemption too?

    Comment by larryo — May 26, 2007 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  590. Thanks, Sisyphus, for your muscular, authoritarian, and single-minded statements of the Creed of the Religious Right in America. You are the most honest and complete expositor of the combination of the psychological underpinnings, the belief systems, the political positions, and rhetorical tactics which characterise this influential group.

    It is easy to mock those who choose to take an unpopular stand, such as yourself. But your time in the wilderness, misunderstood and powerless, the butt of the jibes of the Godless preterite, will soon come to an end in the millenial age which will be heralded by the sure election of Sam Brownback as Christian Commander in Chief of this beacon on the hill called America.

    We will together make those atheistic tree-hugging users of the satanic metric system experience here on this stationary earth what awaits them in the eternities!

    Comment by divadab — May 26, 2007 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  591. There are quite a few conditions affecting the brain that would explain that article. I’d suggest running, not walking, to Mayo or Johns Hopkins. Perhaps there is time to save you.

    By the way, there never was a Jesus, simple as that.

    Comment by John Swift — May 26, 2007 @ 11:14 am | Reply

  592. Beth:

    Are you sure that you find my observation “fascinating”? I think you may mean that you find it “boggling,” no?

    This was of course exactly my point.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  593. I don’t Sis wants to ban them, as he seems to be pleased with people trying to argue with his point of view that can’t be proven either right or wrong.

    Comment by mikaudes — May 26, 2007 @ 12:26 pm | Reply

  594. I have said boggle twice, and have otherwise made good, valid posts worthy of comment that you are blatantly ignoring by focusing on something miniscule and inconsequential. You are now doing the sidetracking, sir. We can get back on topic whenever you’re ready.

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 12:26 pm | Reply

  595. Sorry, P.S. one more thing:

    Also it’s clear now that lietk12 did not call me a self-righteous tree-hugger; he was quoting Sisyuphus. Go back and read. Use control+f like I did and you’ll see Sisyuphus used the names first, then lietk12 presented the quote again, sans quotation marks which made it somewhat confusing, and then called Sisyphus out for name-calling. One might say lietk12 was “defending my honor” in a sense. (Thanks, by the way)

    Okay

    *officially back on topic as soon as anyone is ready to engage in discussion*

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 12:35 pm | Reply

  596. #3. lietk12, who keeps taking credit for things other people have said (he does this in comment 581 when he steals Jack Fremont’s insightful observation)
    >What?
    and pretending that he didn’t say things he has already said, such as that Beth is “a self-righteous tree hugger.”
    >Think misunderstanding.
    I am however glad to see that he agrees with Gary Ruppert about how the liberals want to turn us all into homosexuals, so maybe he’s worth keeping around?
    >I don’t. Actually, I think that all conservatives are freaks trying to take over in the name of God in order to smother all culture, kill all others not like them, and then squander all resources to destroy humanity. (I actually don’t, but these two accusations are on the same level of conspiracy-theory-ness and craziness and idiocy).

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 1:30 pm | Reply

  597. Comment 584: #1. sarah, who, although she probably is not really possessed, is pretending very hard to be possessed. If she’s here, I worry that children who are reading these comments might get the idea that it is OK to be possessed.

    Children also might get the idea that it is OK to insult other people, ignore comments, and use lots of labels that they don’t even know the meaning of.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

  598. “The silent majority of readers agree with me. Nuts like sarah and self-righteous tree-huggers like Beth keep them from posting, but trust me, they’re there.”

    This is priceless. Are you the same guy who, a couple of years ago, was blogging about how some 9/11 memorial was actually a giant outdoor mosque created by evil muslim infiltrators? When he started getting torn to pieces on the board, he also invented a fictional army of readers who believed every single word he said, but were for some reason remaining silent.

    Tell us, what evidence do you have that this “silent majority” exists (the phrase ‘trust me’ never carries any weight in a logical discussion, but as you’re a wannabe-fascist radical right Christian and your entire movement is characterised by its hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, it’s obviously even more meaningless coming from you)? None, of course, but the same could be said of this and most likely every other cretinous “theory” you’ve espoused.

    As a final note, I love your assertion that certain “nuts” on the board are keeping the endless swathes of true believers from posting. How does that work, then? Godless liberals finding out the addresses of right-wingers and cutting their broadband cable? Psychic powers? Please enlighten us; it should be a scream.

    Comment by kiki — May 26, 2007 @ 1:48 pm | Reply

  599. From post: The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism

    Prove that it is “unsound, empirically fraudulent, and historically heretical”, WITHOUT using circular reasoning.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 1:52 pm | Reply

  600. Sorry, I meant:

    The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism

    >Prove that it is “unsound, empirically fraudulent, and historically heretical”, WITHOUT using circular reasoning, Sisyphus.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 1:53 pm | Reply

  601. I can’t believe I made it to the bottom of the page. A lot of you people need therapy! Brownback is just another boob, maybe he looks good on God but he’s really only in it for himself. Career goals anyone?

    Comment by William — May 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  602. Very well, we are back on topic.

    Beth and lietk12: as soon as you two are done flirting with each other, I am eager to hear some of your suggestions as to how we should prevent our government from forcing our children to learn about the false, godless doctine of heliocentrism.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 3:57 pm | Reply

  603. So, to summarize, because I 1.)believe the earth revolves around the sun, 2.)am not a biblical literalist and 3.)am against a theocracy I

    A.)am not a Christian, despite the fact that I’ve been a Lutheran my entire life

    B.)support terrorism

    C.)hate America

    Gee, you’re really helping to garner the votes of rational people. News flash: Despite your thoughts on polling, if Brownback ever went out and said the earth didn’t move, he’d become the laughingstock of the election (not that he isn’t already…species don’t adapt to their environment? What’s next, gravity doesn’t really exist?) Anyway, I won’t call you a name, or crazy, because it’s unproductive, but just know that you certainly aren’t helping Mr. Brownback get elected.

    Comment by Matthew — May 26, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

  604. Comment 594: Beth and lietk12: as soon as you two are done flirting with each other,
    >flirting?!?!?!?
    I am eager to hear some of your suggestions as to how we should prevent our government from forcing our children to learn about the false, godless doctine of heliocentrism.
    >How about we don’t learn anything? That solves your problem. And, as an added benefit, that will keep us under your thumb!

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 5:29 pm | Reply

  605. [...] the real good stuff on this blog is the post Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine. You learn something every day. On this May 18th post, we learn that according to the bible, the [...]

    Pingback by MEDICINE AGENCY BLOG! » Blog Archive » the earth is flat — May 26, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  606. Syphilis – you’re a nutter and an embarrassment to the human race. I guess it’s not your fault – you’ve evidently been indoctrinated and brain-washed by the god gang … and you’re now beyond reasoning and rational thought.

    Sad. Very sad.

    Comment by Jesus HC — May 26, 2007 @ 6:23 pm | Reply

  607. At last!: The $27,000,000 Creation Museum opens in Petersburg, KY on Monday, Memorial day. There are jobs available, both summertime and permanent, on its website.
    Items needed for possible employment
    · Resume
    · Salvation testimony
    · Creation belief statement
    · Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith
    Please send, with cover letter, to:
    HR Department

    Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith
    For a slightly more detailed copy of the Statement of Faith, please make your request in writing.
    (A) PRIORITIES
    1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    (B) BASICS
    1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
    2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
    3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
    4. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
    5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
    6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
    7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.
    (C) THEOLOGY
    1. The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
    2. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
    3. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
    4. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
    5. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
    6. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
    7. All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.
    8. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
    9. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
    10. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
    11. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
    12. The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage.
    (D) GENERAL
    1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
    2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
    3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
    4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
    5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious,’ is rejected.
    6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    Comment by Frank Smith — May 26, 2007 @ 6:56 pm | Reply

  608. To assert that the Earth does move is to renounce Christianity. It really is as simple as that.

    Consider it renounced. You people are trying to send us back to the dark ages… like you did before.

    Comment by Planet B — May 26, 2007 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

  609. “Syphilis – you’re a nutter and an embarrassment to the human race.”

    Hi!

    “At last!: The $27,000,000 Creation Museum opens in Petersburg, KY on Monday, Memorial day. There are jobs available, both summertime and permanent, on its website.”

    This sounds like a pretty good opportunity for those of you living in the general Kentucky area. (Marcia P.?) I wish I could apply, but unfortunately the Sisyphus household is unable to move at this time.

    “Consider it renounced. You people are trying to send us back to the dark ages… like you did before.”

    This is the darkest moral epoch in human history. Of course, to the blind man, all eras are equally dark.

    Hopefully, this website will serve as your seeing-eye dog. Keep coming back, and be sure to vote Brownback!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 26, 2007 @ 7:45 pm | Reply

  610. Just a little cut-n-paste from http://www.cfpf.org.uk/letters/2004/2004-05-29_vz2bg.html

    A LAWYER’S OPEN LETTER TO DR BILLY GRAHAM (and CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS)

    Dear Reverend,

    Does the Bible have AUTHORITY?

    Over a number of decades, as a charismatic Christian Bible crusader you influenced and you have attracted a huge number of people not only in the United States, but around the world. You swayed the multitude with your Biblical eloquence, with Biblical authority and you told them what to think, told them what is right, what is wrong, how to behave.

    You have advised some of the world’s leading religious and secular leaders. You have used your Biblical expertise to advise even American Presidents.

    Your honesty, your sincerity and your integrity are not in question. Nor is your character or your intention or your motivation in question.

    There is a universal perception that you are passionate about directing the multitude to the Bible as the ultimate authority. You have a fundamental right to your beliefs, your religion and to your Bible. I do respect that.

    But when you cite Biblical authority to support your claim that empiricism about the afterlife is wrong, then I have to respond to your most definitively erroneous assumptions.

    And undoubtedly, while you do have expertise in the Bible, that expertise cannot be equated with having objective, universal authority about what you state or how you interpret the Bible. Two thousand years of Christian history, your decades of Biblical preaching and being a Christian minister – and repeating ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in the Bible a million times do NOT amount to you or the Bible having objective authority – except having religious subjective authority.

    I state with great emphasis that empirical authority negates and invalidates any Biblical subjective authority.

    Accordingly, I state there are five grounds why evangelists and fundamental Christians do NOT and can never have universally acceptable, enforceable authority emanating from the Bible.

    i) the subjectivity of the Biblical texts (as against empiricism);
    ii) the original Biblical texts do not exist;
    iii) many of the contents cannot be attributed to God;
    iv) contents have been plagiarized from previous spiritual writings and
    v) the Bible has been changed a number of times greatly reducing its credibility.

    i) Subjectivity – your authority is subjective

    With the greatest respect, the authority you cite is subjective authority. This means that your Biblical authority extends only to those who want to believe in the Bible and to those who want to accept your interpretation of the Bible.

    Your Biblical authority is not and cannot be empirically tested for validity. I guarantee you that all accredited universities will agree with that statement. Ultimately you may state that your authority comes from God. Again, that is also an untested interpretation and inevitably a subjective statement NOT independently supported by science, empiricism or by any objectivity.

    And you know and all empiricists and scientists around the world know, anything subjective is itself subject to fundamental errors and to complete invalidation.

    ‘Faith’ and ‘belief’ – which are intrinsically most subjective – appear to be the most important words for evangelists and fundamental Christians. They occur in nearly every chapter of the New Testament and are used more than 200 times.

    At one time the Church in the middle ages taught that faith and belief are more powerful than science and were to be stated dogmatically and to be accepted without questioning. I submit, judging by ‘content analysis’ of what they preach and by their conduct, that most evangelists, clergy, priests and ministers still erroneously believe this to-day.

    When you ask people to believe in something purely on the basis of faith, you are robbing them of the fundamental right to question anything which is NOT supported by evidence.

    The Catholic Church with an alleged billion followers has a practice of NOT encouraging Catholics to study the Bible for themselves; they have a policy of referring them to a limited number of “safe” passages knowing there are huge irreconcilable problems with many other passages.

    Humans are given the power to think, to analyze, to evaluate, to investigate, to test all information for validity. I submit that any evangelist or anyone who tries to take away these things is himself committing a most heinous transgression, is violating Natural Law.
    Empiricism (measuring phenomena using scientific method)

    Whenever there is an inconsistency between theology and empiricism, between a personal religious belief and science, theology and personal beliefs inevitably are made invalid by empiricism.

    For example, the Bible talks about the geocentric view of cosmology – the sun revolving around the earth. You know, I know – and the whole world knows- that this is not correct. The episode where Joshua claimed God stopped the sun is but one where the Bible misleads, misinforms, misguides and is blatantly fundamentally inconsistent with science.

    Another example: Genesis fundamentally contradicts science – the earth is said to be older than the stars. That is definitively NOT the case. Is Dr Graham asking us to close our minds when we open the Bible?

    This unequivocally shows that the Biblical writings of the fourth century reflected the restricted epistemology of the time. Certainly the writers did not have the benefit of at least two hundred years of science, empiricism, advanced technology and the advanced methods of observation we have to-day. Especially, when research into the afterlife has now been taken over by psi empiricists.

    Empiricists state that faith and beliefs are irrelevant and immaterial as to evaluation of your worth on crossing over. Empiricists state that selfless service, doing anything to alleviate suffering, hardship, adversity of another person will be a million times more beneficial on crossing over than all the hallelujahs, amens and hymns sung and uttered during one’s lifetime. Selfless good works have an immediate positive impact on the spirit’s vibrations.

    Accordingly, anything critical to man’s understanding of his role in the universe has to come under the strictest empirical scrutiny to assess its validity. Biblical experts agree the Bible has egregious, insurmountable, irreconcilable problems when empirically tested. All these hugely reduce any alleged authority the Bible has. While the Bible has some very powerful poetry and inspiration, it cannot and must not be cited as the ultimate, infallible authority for universal spiritual truths.
    ii) Original Biblical documents do not exist

    It is procedural that any writings allegedly inspired by God have to be stringently tested and subjected to the toughest scrutiny. Now we find that the original New Testament Biblical texts are not original documents – i.e. the Biblical texts we have are NOT the authentic ones. No one knows who actually wrote them, they are not historical documents and no one has ever stated he or she ever saw the originals. Nobody knows when they were written. What remains are copies of copies, unsigned with no guarantee the contexts have not been altered.

    Even to-day the courts will not allow me or anybody else to submit into evidence copies of original documents. Copies of the originals are unreliable, reduce or negate authority, are open to suspicion of internal changes and are subject to a presumption of fraud which must be rebutted. This is usually done by presenting the authentic, original documents. This is something no evangelist can do concerning the Bible, now or in the future.
    iii) Many of the Biblical contents cannot be attributed to God

    You will agree that there are too many parts in the Bible which are unspiritual in the extreme. God is made out to be a cursing God of vengeance, of hatred, of war. God is made out to be really heinously evil with unconscionable determination to eliminate large numbers of innocent people for trivial deeds by someone relatively insignificant. God is made out to indiscriminately kill innocent human beings, hate men, women and children. You know Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Isaiah and other parts in the Bible are too vicious even to mention. All the horror, all the bizarreness, the cruelty and brutality in the Bible cannot be the word of God. Therefore the Bible shows itself to be a reflection of man’s own primitive thinking in the early ages and certainly not God’s. Below are some passages which attribute to God a morality less than an informed, spiritually advanced human being. In fact they are vulgar in the extreme, most horrible and only a fool would accept that these came from or were inspired by God – in justification of murder, hatred, genocide, fratricide and other conduct prohibited by law to-day. For example,

    (a most bizarre, unacceptable description of God). Ezek 1:4-21

    When God is angry ‘smoke and fire’ comes out of his body. Ps 18:7-8

    He (God) will shoot them with arrows, suddenly they will be struck down Ps 64:7

    God travels on a cloud Is 19:1

    I (God) will corrupt your seed and spread dung (cow’s shit) upon your faces. Malachi 2:3

    Lo I (God) have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung and thou shalt prepare thy bread herewith. Ex 4:15

    Serve the Lord with fear and trembling, kiss his feet or else he will get angry and you will perish in the way …Ps 2:11

    For the Lord is a devouring firer, a jealous God Deut. 4:24

    If your brother …daughter serve other gods… you shall kill him (her). Deut 13:6

    No man can be Jesus’ disciple unless he hates his parents, brethren …Luke 14:26

    The Lord is a man of war Ex 15:3

    And you shall destroy all the peoples that the Lord your God gives over to you, your eyes shall not pity them. Deut 7:16

    When the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them you must utterly destroy them and show no mercy to them Det 7:2

    ‘God’ orders a man to be stoned to death because he collected firewood on a Sunday Num 15:32-36.

    ‘God’ is the creator of evil … Is 45:7-8 Rom 11:32

    … the head of every woman is man Corinthians 1 11:3

    Whosever lieth with a beast surely be put to death and you shall slay the beast Lev 22:15

    The earth has pillars and foundation. Sam 1 2:8 Ps 104:5

    These are just but a fraction of the absurdities and primitive, bizarre directions and reflections to be found in the Bible which evangelists claim is ‘the word of God!’

    Accordingly, these would destroy any claim that the Bible it is the word of God.

    Further, the Bible is inundated with fundamental irreconcilable inconsistencies. The Internet lists hundreds of these- see Biblical inconsistencies. For example:

    The earth to abide for ever Ps 104:5 Eccles 1:4: The earth to be destroyed He 1:10-11 Peter 3:10

    Man is not justified by faith alone. James 2:21, 24 Man is justified by faith alone. Rom 3:20 Ga 2:16

    Salvation secured through good works Mark 10:17-19 Salvation is to be gained only through belief in Jesus as Saviour John 3:16 ff Eph 2:8

    I state that the Bible may be highly religious but not spiritual. These inconsistencies inevitably further reduce and even remove any notion that the Bible is God’s authority to be disseminated to mankind.
    iv) Contents are based on previous spiritual writings.

    It may or may not surprise you that there is much in the Bible which is not original. Research shows that much of what is in the Bible comes from Eastern and Middle Eastern spiritual writings: for example, the Creation and the Fall of Man was a belief in Babylon some 1500 years before the Hebrews claimed they originated these beliefs. The Ten Commandments, the Trinity, Jonah and the Big Fish, Samson and his Exploits, The Flood, Jacob’s Ladder, Ascension of Jesus – and many other items found in the Bible have been taken over from ancient beliefs.

    From Buddhism we get the stories of the Prodigal Son, the Loaves and the Fishes, and the admonition as to the plucking out of the right eye if it gives offence, ‘Peter’ walking on the sea, the woman at the well. The Last Supper and other customs and rites originated with the Essenes who can be traced first to Alexandria in Egypt then to India. Other ceremonies and beliefs were taken from Mithraism which originated in Turkey.

    But what is devastatingly critical evidence is the presentation made by Kersey Graves in his book THE WORLD’S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIOURS, chapter XXXIL entitled Three hundred and forty six striking analogies between Christ and Chrishna. This shows how the early Christian writers plagiarized from the then existing Eastern spiritual beliefs. The following are just a fraction of the similarities between Christianity and Eastern spiritual writings from India – – the God or Savior in each case is the second person of the Trinity. – Chrishna as well as Christ was held to be really God incarnate. – Chrishna as well as Jesus (Christ) were ‘Christ’ incarnate. – The mother in each case was a holy virgin. – The father of Chrishna as well as that of Christ was a carpenter, – God is claimed as the real father in both cases. – A spirit or ghost was the author of the conception of each. – Both were (allegedly) born on the 25th December. – Both at birth were visited by both men and shepherds. – Each Savior had a forerunner – John the Baptist in the one case, Bali Rama in the other. – Each sustained the character of a Messiah. – Chrishna as well as Christ was a redeemer. – Both proclaimed, “I am the resurrection.” – The mission of each was to deliver from sin. – The doctrine of atonement is practically realized in each case. – Both were human as well as divine. – Chrishna performed many miracles as well as Christ. – One of the first miracles of each was the cure of a leper. – Chrishna as well as Christ was crucified. – Darkness attended the crucifixion of each. – Each after giving up the ghost, descends into hell. – Chrishna and Christ resurrected. – A great and final day of judgment is taught by each.

    There are another three hundred and twenty four similarities between Krishna and Christ one could find the in the above mentioned Kersey Graves’ book.

    Kersey Graves, whose research has hitherto not been rebutted, also identifies there were sixteen “crucified” saviors before Jesus – all of whom claimed they were sent by God to save mankind. There is also a plethora of evidence that there is nothing original in Christianity and all of its concepts were taken from previous religions. Some critical books so far not rebutted is the classic work of the Rev Robert Taylor’s 437 page book DIEGESIS. There is the 380 page book MYTH, MAGIC AND MORALS by Fred Cornwallis Conybeare and BIBLE MYTHS and their PARALLELS IN OTHER RELIGIONS by T W Doane. All these works are highly intellectually substantiated by professors and although these most disturbing books have been around for nearly a hundred years, no one has been able to rebut the highly intellectual, most damaging research which shows the Bible has no authority.

    All these show in unequivocal terms that the Bible’s authority is necessarily subjective, restricted and mostly unreliable. This inevitably negates any authority anyone claims about the Bible being the word of God.
    v) the Bible has been changed a number of times greatly reducing its credibility.

    We are never informed why some ‘spiritual’ writings were selected and not others. The selection was inevitably subjectively done and we just cannot go back to the old adage – it was God’s will etc. Biblical scholars such as J.B. Phillips state even to-day that Matthew’s gospel had to have been written by somebody else. Nor can we accept that Moses’ Biblical account was written by himself when he described how he was buried (Deut. 34:5-6). We do know there were fundamental Biblical changes throughout the middle ages – see important research by Peter De Rosa, a former Catholic priest of Monsignor rank called Vicars of Christ, The Dark Side of the Papacy, about Papal Biblical changes.

    One can understand the huge problem of having to rely on the subjectivity and the questionable ecclesiastical discretion of the Popes of the middle ages as to what Biblical texts should contain. This was at a time of heightened Churchian dogmatism; even more sinister was the unspiritual, cruel and ungodly Inquisition during which the Popes thought of themselves to be omniscient and infallible. Even Luther had to use these doctored and manipulated Biblical texts. Because of the great number of changes in the Bible, there is not one authoritative Bible common to all Christians to-day. Each sect believes it has the true authorized version.

    It is not unreasonable to state that if Jesus wanted us to have a proper, authoritative Bible, he would have written one himself. That would inevitably have saved the massive slaughter, the genocides, the butchery, torture and needless suffering – and hundreds of millions of lives lost over some two thousand years, victims of conflicts in interpretation of the Bible.

    Changes in the Bible inevitably erode and even remove any claim of authority. All this negative conduct brought about because of the internal problems of the Bible reduce and even negate any claim the Bible has any enforceable authority.

    Victor Zammit, Lawyer of the Supreme Court of NSW and the High Court of Australia (retired). Corporations Law consultant, lecturer.
    A LAWYER PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE http://www.victorzammit.com

    Comment by disabled Marine — May 26, 2007 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  611. http://www.cfpf.org.uk/letters/2004/2004-05-29_vz2bg.html

    A LAWYER’S OPEN LETTER TO DR BILLY GRAHAM (and CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS)

    Dear Reverend,

    Does the Bible have AUTHORITY?

    Over a number of decades, as a charismatic Christian Bible crusader you influenced and you have attracted a huge number of people not only in the United States, but around the world. You swayed the multitude with your Biblical eloquence, with Biblical authority and you told them what to think, told them what is right, what is wrong, how to behave.

    You have advised some of the world’s leading religious and secular leaders. You have used your Biblical expertise to advise even American Presidents.

    Your honesty, your sincerity and your integrity are not in question. Nor is your character or your intention or your motivation in question.

    There is a universal perception that you are passionate about directing the multitude to the Bible as the ultimate authority. You have a fundamental right to your beliefs, your religion and to your Bible. I do respect that.

    But when you cite Biblical authority to support your claim that empiricism about the afterlife is wrong, then I have to respond to your most definitively erroneous assumptions.

    And undoubtedly, while you do have expertise in the Bible, that expertise cannot be equated with having objective, universal authority about what you state or how you interpret the Bible. Two thousand years of Christian history, your decades of Biblical preaching and being a Christian minister – and repeating ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in the Bible a million times do NOT amount to you or the Bible having objective authority – except having religious subjective authority.

    I state with great emphasis that empirical authority negates and invalidates any Biblical subjective authority.

    Accordingly, I state there are five grounds why evangelists and fundamental Christians do NOT and can never have universally acceptable, enforceable authority emanating from the Bible.

    i) the subjectivity of the Biblical texts (as against empiricism);
    ii) the original Biblical texts do not exist;
    iii) many of the contents cannot be attributed to God;
    iv) contents have been plagiarized from previous spiritual writings and
    v) the Bible has been changed a number of times greatly reducing its credibility.

    i) Subjectivity – your authority is subjective

    With the greatest respect, the authority you cite is subjective authority. This means that your Biblical authority extends only to those who want to believe in the Bible and to those who want to accept your interpretation of the Bible.

    Your Biblical authority is not and cannot be empirically tested for validity. I guarantee you that all accredited universities will agree with that statement. Ultimately you may state that your authority comes from God. Again, that is also an untested interpretation and inevitably a subjective statement NOT independently supported by science, empiricism or by any objectivity.

    And you know and all empiricists and scientists around the world know, anything subjective is itself subject to fundamental errors and to complete invalidation.

    ‘Faith’ and ‘belief’ – which are intrinsically most subjective – appear to be the most important words for evangelists and fundamental Christians. They occur in nearly every chapter of the New Testament and are used more than 200 times.

    At one time the Church in the middle ages taught that faith and belief are more powerful than science and were to be stated dogmatically and to be accepted without questioning. I submit, judging by ‘content analysis’ of what they preach and by their conduct, that most evangelists, clergy, priests and ministers still erroneously believe this to-day.

    When you ask people to believe in something purely on the basis of faith, you are robbing them of the fundamental right to question anything which is NOT supported by evidence.

    The Catholic Church with an alleged billion followers has a practice of NOT encouraging Catholics to study the Bible for themselves; they have a policy of referring them to a limited number of “safe” passages knowing there are huge irreconcilable problems with many other passages.

    Humans are given the power to think, to analyze, to evaluate, to investigate, to test all information for validity. I submit that any evangelist or anyone who tries to take away these things is himself committing a most heinous transgression, is violating Natural Law.
    Empiricism (measuring phenomena using scientific method)

    Whenever there is an inconsistency between theology and empiricism, between a personal religious belief and science, theology and personal beliefs inevitably are made invalid by empiricism.

    For example, the Bible talks about the geocentric view of cosmology – the sun revolving around the earth. You know, I know – and the whole world knows- that this is not correct. The episode where Joshua claimed God stopped the sun is but one where the Bible misleads, misinforms, misguides and is blatantly fundamentally inconsistent with science.

    Another example: Genesis fundamentally contradicts science – the earth is said to be older than the stars. That is definitively NOT the case. Is Dr Graham asking us to close our minds when we open the Bible?

    This unequivocally shows that the Biblical writings of the fourth century reflected the restricted epistemology of the time. Certainly the writers did not have the benefit of at least two hundred years of science, empiricism, advanced technology and the advanced methods of observation we have to-day. Especially, when research into the afterlife has now been taken over by psi empiricists.

    Empiricists state that faith and beliefs are irrelevant and immaterial as to evaluation of your worth on crossing over. Empiricists state that selfless service, doing anything to alleviate suffering, hardship, adversity of another person will be a million times more beneficial on crossing over than all the hallelujahs, amens and hymns sung and uttered during one’s lifetime. Selfless good works have an immediate positive impact on the spirit’s vibrations.

    Accordingly, anything critical to man’s understanding of his role in the universe has to come under the strictest empirical scrutiny to assess its validity. Biblical experts agree the Bible has egregious, insurmountable, irreconcilable problems when empirically tested. All these hugely reduce any alleged authority the Bible has. While the Bible has some very powerful poetry and inspiration, it cannot and must not be cited as the ultimate, infallible authority for universal spiritual truths.
    ii) Original Biblical documents do not exist

    It is procedural that any writings allegedly inspired by God have to be stringently tested and subjected to the toughest scrutiny. Now we find that the original New Testament Biblical texts are not original documents – i.e. the Biblical texts we have are NOT the authentic ones. No one knows who actually wrote them, they are not historical documents and no one has ever stated he or she ever saw the originals. Nobody knows when they were written. What remains are copies of copies, unsigned with no guarantee the contexts have not been altered.

    Even to-day the courts will not allow me or anybody else to submit into evidence copies of original documents. Copies of the originals are unreliable, reduce or negate authority, are open to suspicion of internal changes and are subject to a presumption of fraud which must be rebutted. This is usually done by presenting the authentic, original documents. This is something no evangelist can do concerning the Bible, now or in the future.
    iii) Many of the Biblical contents cannot be attributed to God

    You will agree that there are too many parts in the Bible which are unspiritual in the extreme. God is made out to be a cursing God of vengeance, of hatred, of war. God is made out to be really heinously evil with unconscionable determination to eliminate large numbers of innocent people for trivial deeds by someone relatively insignificant. God is made out to indiscriminately kill innocent human beings, hate men, women and children. You know Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Isaiah and other parts in the Bible are too vicious even to mention. All the horror, all the bizarreness, the cruelty and brutality in the Bible cannot be the word of God. Therefore the Bible shows itself to be a reflection of man’s own primitive thinking in the early ages and certainly not God’s. Below are some passages which attribute to God a morality less than an informed, spiritually advanced human being. In fact they are vulgar in the extreme, most horrible and only a fool would accept that these came from or were inspired by God – in justification of murder, hatred, genocide, fratricide and other conduct prohibited by law to-day. For example,

    (a most bizarre, unacceptable description of God). Ezek 1:4-21

    When God is angry ‘smoke and fire’ comes out of his body. Ps 18:7-8

    He (God) will shoot them with arrows, suddenly they will be struck down Ps 64:7

    God travels on a cloud Is 19:1

    I (God) will corrupt your seed and spread dung (cow’s shit) upon your faces. Malachi 2:3

    Lo I (God) have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung and thou shalt prepare thy bread herewith. Ex 4:15

    Serve the Lord with fear and trembling, kiss his feet or else he will get angry and you will perish in the way …Ps 2:11

    For the Lord is a devouring firer, a jealous God Deut. 4:24

    If your brother …daughter serve other gods… you shall kill him (her). Deut 13:6

    No man can be Jesus’ disciple unless he hates his parents, brethren …Luke 14:26

    The Lord is a man of war Ex 15:3

    And you shall destroy all the peoples that the Lord your God gives over to you, your eyes shall not pity them. Deut 7:16

    When the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them you must utterly destroy them and show no mercy to them Det 7:2

    ‘God’ orders a man to be stoned to death because he collected firewood on a Sunday Num 15:32-36.

    ‘God’ is the creator of evil … Is 45:7-8 Rom 11:32

    … the head of every woman is man Corinthians 1 11:3

    Whosever lieth with a beast surely be put to death and you shall slay the beast Lev 22:15

    The earth has pillars and foundation. Sam 1 2:8 Ps 104:5

    These are just but a fraction of the absurdities and primitive, bizarre directions and reflections to be found in the Bible which evangelists claim is ‘the word of God!’

    Accordingly, these would destroy any claim that the Bible it is the word of God.

    Further, the Bible is inundated with fundamental irreconcilable inconsistencies. The Internet lists hundreds of these- see Biblical inconsistencies. For example:

    The earth to abide for ever Ps 104:5 Eccles 1:4: The earth to be destroyed He 1:10-11 Peter 3:10

    Man is not justified by faith alone. James 2:21, 24 Man is justified by faith alone. Rom 3:20 Ga 2:16

    Salvation secured through good works Mark 10:17-19 Salvation is to be gained only through belief in Jesus as Saviour John 3:16 ff Eph 2:8

    I state that the Bible may be highly religious but not spiritual. These inconsistencies inevitably further reduce and even remove any notion that the Bible is God’s authority to be disseminated to mankind.
    iv) Contents are based on previous spiritual writings.

    It may or may not surprise you that there is much in the Bible which is not original. Research shows that much of what is in the Bible comes from Eastern and Middle Eastern spiritual writings: for example, the Creation and the Fall of Man was a belief in Babylon some 1500 years before the Hebrews claimed they originated these beliefs. The Ten Commandments, the Trinity, Jonah and the Big Fish, Samson and his Exploits, The Flood, Jacob’s Ladder, Ascension of Jesus – and many other items found in the Bible have been taken over from ancient beliefs.

    From Buddhism we get the stories of the Prodigal Son, the Loaves and the Fishes, and the admonition as to the plucking out of the right eye if it gives offence, ‘Peter’ walking on the sea, the woman at the well. The Last Supper and other customs and rites originated with the Essenes who can be traced first to Alexandria in Egypt then to India. Other ceremonies and beliefs were taken from Mithraism which originated in Turkey.

    But what is devastatingly critical evidence is the presentation made by Kersey Graves in his book THE WORLD’S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIOURS, chapter XXXIL entitled Three hundred and forty six striking analogies between Christ and Chrishna. This shows how the early Christian writers plagiarized from the then existing Eastern spiritual beliefs. The following are just a fraction of the similarities between Christianity and Eastern spiritual writings from India – – the God or Savior in each case is the second person of the Trinity. – Chrishna as well as Christ was held to be really God incarnate. – Chrishna as well as Jesus (Christ) were ‘Christ’ incarnate. – The mother in each case was a holy virgin. – The father of Chrishna as well as that of Christ was a carpenter, – God is claimed as the real father in both cases. – A spirit or ghost was the author of the conception of each. – Both were (allegedly) born on the 25th December. – Both at birth were visited by both men and shepherds. – Each Savior had a forerunner – John the Baptist in the one case, Bali Rama in the other. – Each sustained the character of a Messiah. – Chrishna as well as Christ was a redeemer. – Both proclaimed, “I am the resurrection.” – The mission of each was to deliver from sin. – The doctrine of atonement is practically realized in each case. – Both were human as well as divine. – Chrishna performed many miracles as well as Christ. – One of the first miracles of each was the cure of a leper. – Chrishna as well as Christ was crucified. – Darkness attended the crucifixion of each. – Each after giving up the ghost, descends into hell. – Chrishna and Christ resurrected. – A great and final day of judgment is taught by each.

    There are another three hundred and twenty four similarities between Krishna and Christ one could find the in the above mentioned Kersey Graves’ book.

    Kersey Graves, whose research has hitherto not been rebutted, also identifies there were sixteen “crucified” saviors before Jesus – all of whom claimed they were sent by God to save mankind. There is also a plethora of evidence that there is nothing original in Christianity and all of its concepts were taken from previous religions. Some critical books so far not rebutted is the classic work of the Rev Robert Taylor’s 437 page book DIEGESIS. There is the 380 page book MYTH, MAGIC AND MORALS by Fred Cornwallis Conybeare and BIBLE MYTHS and their PARALLELS IN OTHER RELIGIONS by T W Doane. All these works are highly intellectually substantiated by professors and although these most disturbing books have been around for nearly a hundred years, no one has been able to rebut the highly intellectual, most damaging research which shows the Bible has no authority.

    All these show in unequivocal terms that the Bible’s authority is necessarily subjective, restricted and mostly unreliable. This inevitably negates any authority anyone claims about the Bible being the word of God.
    v) the Bible has been changed a number of times greatly reducing its credibility.

    We are never informed why some ‘spiritual’ writings were selected and not others. The selection was inevitably subjectively done and we just cannot go back to the old adage – it was God’s will etc. Biblical scholars such as J.B. Phillips state even to-day that Matthew’s gospel had to have been written by somebody else. Nor can we accept that Moses’ Biblical account was written by himself when he described how he was buried (Deut. 34:5-6). We do know there were fundamental Biblical changes throughout the middle ages – see important research by Peter De Rosa, a former Catholic priest of Monsignor rank called Vicars of Christ, The Dark Side of the Papacy, about Papal Biblical changes.

    One can understand the huge problem of having to rely on the subjectivity and the questionable ecclesiastical discretion of the Popes of the middle ages as to what Biblical texts should contain. This was at a time of heightened Churchian dogmatism; even more sinister was the unspiritual, cruel and ungodly Inquisition during which the Popes thought of themselves to be omniscient and infallible. Even Luther had to use these doctored and manipulated Biblical texts. Because of the great number of changes in the Bible, there is not one authoritative Bible common to all Christians to-day. Each sect believes it has the true authorized version.

    It is not unreasonable to state that if Jesus wanted us to have a proper, authoritative Bible, he would have written one himself. That would inevitably have saved the massive slaughter, the genocides, the butchery, torture and needless suffering – and hundreds of millions of lives lost over some two thousand years, victims of conflicts in interpretation of the Bible.

    Changes in the Bible inevitably erode and even remove any claim of authority. All this negative conduct brought about because of the internal problems of the Bible reduce and even negate any claim the Bible has any enforceable authority.

    Victor Zammit, Lawyer of the Supreme Court of NSW and the High Court of Australia (retired). Corporations Law consultant, lecturer.
    A LAWYER PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE http://www.victorzammit.com

    Comment by disabled Marine — May 26, 2007 @ 8:41 pm | Reply

  612. OPEN LETTER TO:

    Reverend Albert Mohler (and other fundies as well)
    President,
    Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

    Dear Reverend Mohler,

    You may recall that we met – well, I guess we didn’t actually meet, so perhaps I’d be more correct in saying we appeared together – on Larry King Live this past June 22nd. At the time you said some things that have given me pause to reflect.

    The reason for our being on the show was the execution of a young man by the name of Gary Graham (he preferred his chosen African name of Shaka Sankofa, but since that name was never used on the show I suspect it may not mean much to you). His life was “forfeit,” as you put it, while we sat there talking about him.

    I, impertinently I now understand, objected to the execution at the time. However, the power of your oratorical skills and your faith-based confidence set me into a quandary from which I have not yet fully recovered. As you doubtless noticed, your ability to speak for God and your fundamental grasp of the Bible left me somewhat tongue-tied.

    As you said that evening in defense of the execution, “(t)he Bible makes very clear that God mandated capital punishment as a way of underlining and affirming the value of human life. In the book of Genesis, it is said God said, ‘When a man sheds another man’s blood, by a man his blood shall be shed, for God made man in his own image.'”

    Well, see, I checked, and it’s all there just as you said. God not only supports capital punishment, He requires it. You probably know this, but He says it again, in Leviticus 24, 17-18, “Anyone who strikes down any other human being will be put to death” So, Reverend, let me say it: I was a fool to doubt you. And, too, in that Leviticus one God adds, “and anyone who strikes down an animal, the same,” which made me glad I’m a vegetarian. You too, huh?

    Anyway, as you can imagine, I am humbled by this newfound knowledge and deeply grateful to you for exposing me to it. In retrospect, I’m embarrassed to recall my pitiful attempts to debate you. When I said, for example, that Jesus had repudiated the rationale for capital punishment in Matthew 5 by saying, “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but now I tell you, do not take revenge on someone who does you wrong,” your immediate and learned riposte was “(w)ell, let me say also that the death penalty is clearly supported in the New Testament, which is a testimony to the gospel of Jesus, where the apostle Paul said that the government holds the sword to avenge evil and does so justly.” So now, already humiliated by my ignorance, I am further embarrassed to confess that I had the poor taste to consider challenging your rejoinder by asking if since you countered the words of Christ with the words of Paul I should consider you a Paulist rather than a Christian. I shudder to think what your answer might have been to such effrontery.

    But thanks to you I have seen the light and have endeavored to live by your example since that Damascene night. But I pray you will understand that as one new to Biblical literalism I periodically find myself somewhat confused in my studies and dearly hope that your unerring grasp of Scripture can once again enlighten me.

    For example, what am I to make of Deuteronomy 17, verses 4 – 7: “If any man or woman violates the covenant, you must take this man or woman outside the city gates and there you must stone the man or woman to death. The witnesses’ hands must strike the first blow in putting the condemned to death, the rest of the people following.”

    Now, I’m frankly a little queasy at the idea of stoning anyone, even covenant-violators, but I’m willing to learn. The thing is, what exactly is this ‘covenant’ and how do we know when it’s being violated? Since this is from what we call the Old Testament, don’t I have to assume the covenant here is between God and the people of Israel? This gets tricky, I think, because clearly Christians, as followers of Jesus, a Jew, but also God, must see themselves as the inheritors of the covenant and thus not violators of it. Mustn’t they? But if that’s true, doesn’t that make Jews who don’t follow Jesus violators? Either way, it sounds to me like there’s a whole lot of stoning that’s way overdue and I’d like to get started. Then there’s the problem of finding the city gates. But I digress.

    I have a son. He’s a bit rambunctious at times, and certainly stubborn. I’m not sure I think it would be fair to call him rebellious, but I don’t want to “spare the rod,” you know? Deuteronomy. 21, 18-21, says, “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice either of his father or of his mother and, even when they punish him, still will not pay attention to them, his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of the city. All his fellow citizens must then stone the boy to death.” Now that’s sort of tough, I have to admit, even for a newly dedicated believer. I mean there have been times, sure, when he wouldn’t listen. Sometimes, when he got hard-headed, he wouldn’t listen even after we punished him. But, being ignorant of the rules, we gave him another chance and he matured a bit and now he’s a pretty good boy, if I do say so myself. But I guess that’s self-serving, huh? ‘Cause, see, the truth is I’d really rather not take hold of him and turn him over to the elders for the citizens to stone to death. You know, he’s my son. And, I don’t even know where the damn gates are!

    Sorry! I didn’t mean to use that word. I’m just a bit scared. Because now that I’ve learned the Way I find that there are some pretty tricky obstacles in the path of one who wants to be a good Bible-believer. See, a lot of people would say, ‘Forget it. Your son was young, you didn’t know the rules. It’s in the past. You don’t have to kill him now.’ But it says in Deuteronomy 17, 12, “If anyone presumes to disobey the priests, that person must die.” And, again, I guess that must have meant Jewish priests and all, but if this covenant has been passed I guess I have to think of you as one of them now, don’t I? And if that’s so and you say the Word is the Word, I sure don’t want to disobey you, do I? No sirree!

    Listen, off the subject just for a minute? I know you live in another part of the country and all, but now that I’m trying to learn the Way I’m hoping that I can open a Bible believer’s bank account or whatever you have down there. I’ll need you to help me figure that one out. I ask because, as you know, in Deuteronomy 23, 20-21, it says “You are forbidden to charge interest whenever you loan money – unless the borrower is a foreigner.” Sounds like a good deal to me and even though I know California is thought of as a bit weird, I don’t think I should be considered a foreigner – at least any more – do you?

    And you know, this Bible study business has really helped clear up a couple of other things for me. Leviticus 20, 10? “A man who commits adultery, and the woman he sleeps with, will be put to death”? Now I know why we don’t see Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart around any more.

    But back to my point. I live in Hollywood, Reverend Mohler, and I work, God forgive me, in show business. Deuteronomy 22, 22, says “If a man is caught having sexual intercourse with another man’s wife, both must be put to death – the man who has slept with her and the woman herself.” Now I’m not one who goes along with all those who think of Hollywood as Sodom and Gomorrah (of course I’m open on that), but I kind of have a sense some of that happens out here. Is ‘caught’ the operative word? Should I assume that it’s our job to sniff out and smite adulterers? If so, I guess “The National Enquirer” has to be seen as part of the Lord’s Army, which may explain their popularity with the faithful. See, I’m learning! Now note I was careful to say “smite” because God didn’t specify the how of the putting to death in this case. Can I ask how you managed that with Jim and Jimmy?

    Anyway, I guess that about covers it for now, Reverend. This death thing, that is. I just kind of need your guidance on what my responsibilities are. I mean I could tell that you had pretty much taken on the job of reassuring people that it was okay to kill Shaka er Gary Graham, so that they wouldn’t be confused by the misguided ramblings of (former) infidels like myself, or doubts about his guilt or stuff like that. But now, from my reading, I see that ours is a bigger task than that.

    It’s certainly not limited to executing people – though I must say it seems to involve that a lot. Deuteronomy 22, 23-24, says “If a virgin is engaged to a man and another man encounters her in the town and has sexual intercourse with her, you will take them both to the gate of the town in question and stone them to death: the girl, for not having called for help in the town, and the man, for having exploited his fellow-citizen’s wife.” That one takes some real pondering, you know? First of all, I had no idea that ‘encountering’ someone could lead to sexual intercourse in the first place, so you can rest assured I’ve put an end to that in my life. And as for her “not having called for help in the town,” for goodness sake, what’s the matter with her? What is she, embarrassed, ashamed, mute? I say, if you don’t have enough self-respect to call for help in the town it’s the gate and the stones for you, baby.

    Sorry, I don’t mean to be flippant, but this reading has given me a whole new way to look at things. And I have you to thank for it. Speaking of which, and I’ll just keep this between us as it’s not what you might call P.C. (smile), but Leviticus 25, 44-45: “You may freely purchase male and female slaves – and the slaves become your property, and you may leave them as a legacy to your sons” sure does put another face on some of the things those Big Government boys have been shoving down our throats, doesn’t it though?

    Two small notes, Reverend, and I’ll let you get back to your evangelizing. I’m not sure what “an abomination to the Lord” is. The dictionary says abomination means abhorrence and disgust. I guess I can figure that God isn’t happy about something like that, but it doesn’t call for stoning or burning or anything, does it? As you know, Deuteronomy 22, 5, says “A woman who wears trousers is an abomination to the Lord” and, well my wife is a woman I know well, I was just wondering.

    And, this may be silly, but I have a friend who dresses like a clown and juggles and makes people laugh and all. And occasionally he makes things appear out of a hat, or disappear, or whatever. I was just wondering, because Leviticus 20, 27, says “Any man or woman who is a magician will be put to death; they must be stoned to death” and well I certainly won’t hang around with him any more, but you know. Do I have to?

    Thanks for your attention.

    Anxiously awaiting the Word,

    Mike Farrell

    Comment by disabled Marine — May 26, 2007 @ 8:54 pm | Reply

  613. Comment 610: This is the darkest moral epoch in human history. Of course, to the blind man, all eras are equally dark.

    >And to the color-blind man, all ideas are either black or white.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 9:36 pm | Reply

  614. Matthew @ 604:

    It is widely known that Lutheranism is an urban legend, and that gravity exists. Please stop using these comments to propagate your absurd lies.

    lietk12 @ 605:

    1). “flirting”: to be fair, Beth has been the one flirting with you, for the most part. I think you are wise not to reciprocate her interest. I am sure she is very attractive and agreeable, but she frequently seems boggled.

    2). “not learning”: no, that won’t do at all. How can we leave our children uneducated in the truth? We must find a way to teach them about geocentrism while protecting them from devilish falsehoods about heliocentrism, geospherism, and Darwinism. That’s the most important issue raised by this post, and all I am hearing from you, sir, is negativity. You are now a Negative Nelly in my book. That’s right, I said it: a Negative Nelly. I hope you’re happy.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 10:08 pm | Reply

  615. If I had any idea what you are talking about, DPS, I’d respond…I was simply trying to state how ignorant I believe the point of view of this blog post to be.

    Comment by Matthew — May 26, 2007 @ 10:26 pm | Reply

  616. DPS, you have mentioned my being boggled *far* more frequently than I’ve said I was boggled (again, only twice, and twice does not equal frequently). *You* are the one who seems quite fixed on something. Get off it. I’ve been trying to move on. You should try reading my posts and actually addressing them.

    And before you even try saying anything like my silence must mean consent or some such, no, I’m not flirting. I’m happily engaged to be married and it is not to lietk12. Not to say he doesn’t seem like a decent fellow, but I don’t flirt with strangers; I’m not that kind of woman. Though I am quite open to healthy debate with anyone. Speaking of which…

    …Please stop hiding behind your baseless uninventive insults and get to discussing, unless of course, you have nothing to say regarding the matters at hand, in which case please say so, and stop stalling.

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 10:36 pm | Reply

  617. Look, I fell for the ‘Lutheran’ scam once, I lost more than $200, I know the deal, and I’m not going to bite again. I’m sorry. I’m sure you’ll find other victims, but I won’t be one of them. You won’t be having a laugh about me sitting around the clubhouse divvying up the loot with all your fellow ‘Lutherans.’

    As for the existence of gravity, you’re obviously just trying to discredit Senator Brownback by posing as a supporter and questioning the existence of gravity. The Senator is a real American patriot and hero, and a scourge of the sodomite, and I won’t stand for someone trying to smear his reputation like that. But I suppose that’s acceptable in ‘Lutheranism,’ right?

    Whatever.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 10:39 pm | Reply

  618. I’ll start by giving you the same respect I’d expect you to give to me, by addressing your question:

    I personally believe in heliocentrism and so does my fiance, so we’d be fine with our children learning it in school. Though we do plan to home school our children…

    Your turn.

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 10:42 pm | Reply

  619. Dear Beth:

    Don’t worry, I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to tell your fiance how you have betrayed him in your heart for lietk12. Nor would I know how to contact him. That is between you and the Lord.

    To respond to your thoughts: Homeschooling is an excellent idea. My wife homeschools all of my children (it keeps her from watching TV all day, which is an additional advantage). This is an ideal situation, since you can control what your children’s tender young minds are exposed to in a way you cannot in the public schools (at least until we have a President Brownback!). I would urge you however not to teach your children godless, Satanic, anti-Biblical lies like heliocentrism and Darwinism. If you want them to learn those, you don’t need to do anything: they’ll pick up that kind of dreck in the soda fountains and (God forbid!) billiards halls all by themselves. What you can offer them is the truth: a geocentric universe, a flat Earth, and the fear of the good Lord. And a little beating now and then never hurt, of course.

    I am afraid that I have grown exhausted in this expenditure of my Christian charity. Now I must rest.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 11:25 pm | Reply

  620. This guy’s mother was obviously impregnated by her brother because this douchebag has at least 2 or 3 extra chomosomes.
    But I must admit it’s good to hear these shit-for-brains discussing their views like they actually matter. It’s these kind of blind sycophants that led to the current implosion of the Republifuck party. Brownback is pathetic.
    Go get one of the many guns in your closet and shoot yourself in the face. You are a waste of skin.
    With people like this voicing their views, Republifucks expose themselves for the imbreeder mouthbreathers they are.

    Comment by Secomav — May 26, 2007 @ 11:48 pm | Reply

  621. “Don’t worry, I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to tell your fiance how you have betrayed him in your heart for lietk12. Nor would I know how to contact him. That is between you and the Lord.”

    As if you would know. Your sarcasm is not as effective as you would like it to be. I suggest other tactics.

    “godless, Satanic, anti-Biblical lies like heliocentrism and Darwinism”

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree here, since I’m certain neither one of us is going to convince the other of our respective views.

    Now, if you, or anyone really, could address one of my earlier posts. I had written something to the effect of:

    According to many posts by several people on a number of bloggings on this site, violence is advocated as long as it’s Christians against others. But killing is killing and killing is wrong no matter who does it – Athiests, Muslims, Christians, whatever. Holding a certian religion doesn’t excuse one from certain truths: killing is bad. Hiding behind a god to excuse one’s bad behavior is cowardly.

    Christians are not infallible. One may think the religion itself is perfect and infallible: fine, to each his/her own. But to say everyone who holds that faith by simple virtue of having that faith is exempt from wrong-doing and has the right to do as they please to those who don’t have that faith is borderline deification.

    Discuss…

    Comment by Beth — May 27, 2007 @ 12:29 am | Reply

  622. I find it disappointing that once your existence has run its course, you will most likely never know just how far you’ve errored.

    Comment by Phardros — May 27, 2007 @ 12:29 am | Reply

  623. Sysisphuz, I know I can’t convince you of my beliefs, but you must at least accept that tha majority of the people agrees that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that neither is the center of the Universe, and that Ethers are two carbon chains joined by an oxygen. What I’m trying to gat at is that going against the flow isn’t going to help Brownback’s image. If you disagree with what your kids learn in school, if you disagree with the majority of America, if you hold this arcane beliefs realted to the Universe, then go and take your people somwhere you can do things your own way, I know is Christian’s thing to try to save other people, but sometimes, people are just happy the way they are and don’t actually need to be saved. Why do you think yours has to be the only real truth, what about the other religions? Isn’t doing good to others and live just like God would have liked it enough? Are all those non-Christian continents going to hell just because they call their higher being by different names? You threat everyone with hell, does that make you closer to God? You call others stupid, does that make you smarter? Answer me Sysiphuz! Or do my question threat your way of thinking in such harsh way that you prefer to ignore them? [well if this doesn't call his attention, nothing will...]
    BLAKOOPAKOOLAKALOOGADAROOGA
    _.:-~+=`’*^*’`=+~-:._

    Comment by mikaudes — May 27, 2007 @ 2:56 am | Reply

  624. This is some of the best satire I have read in a long time!
    How Brownback lets you get away with it, I’ll never know. If he was serious about his run, I’m sure he would have his legal team at your home offering to buy this domain name from you. If that didn’t work, he could just take it from you through the courts, like New York State did to the kid who owned the New York State Fair domain.

    Comment by teknikAL — May 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am | Reply

  625. Comment 620: To respond to your thoughts: Homeschooling is an excellent idea.
    >It will certainly be when fanatics take over the world like they did to Germany
    My wife homeschools all of my children (it keeps her from watching TV all day, which is an additional advantage). This is an ideal situation, since you can control what your children’s tender young minds are exposed to in a way you cannot in the public schools (at least until we have a President Brownback!).
    >You make it sound like manipulation, at which you have clearly mastered.
    I would urge you however not to teach your children godless, Satanic, anti-Biblical lies like heliocentrism and Darwinism.
    >AGAIN, PROVE THAT IT IS GODLESS, SATANIC, ANTI-BIBLICAL, AND UNTRUTHFUL. (Sorry, my caps-lock key was stuck)
    If you want them to learn those, you don’t need to do anything: they’ll pick up that kind of dreck in the soda fountains and (God forbid!) billiards halls all by themselves.
    >Wow, I’ve never done that! I didn’t even know soda fountains and billiard halls still existed! In fact, I never knew that truth would come magically to me so that I wouldn’t have had to study for the SAT and ACT (and get a 36 on math)! BTW, I’m not in 11th or 12th grade, so it’s extremely unrealistic that your sarcasm about Beth would be true.
    What you can offer them is the truth: a geocentric universe, a flat Earth, and the fear of the good Lord. And a little beating now and then never hurt, of course.
    >Violence begets violence. Don’t push it.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 27, 2007 @ 8:16 am | Reply

  626. Beth @ 622:

    “According to many posts by several people on a number of bloggings on this site, violence is advocated as long as it’s Christians against others. But killing is killing and killing is wrong no matter who does it – Athiests, Muslims, Christians, whatever. Holding a certian religion doesn’t excuse one from certain truths: killing is bad. Hiding behind a god to excuse one’s bad behavior is cowardly.”

    Of course it is better not to kill. *Murder* is never justified. However, justified killing is by definition justified. The Biblical account of the Hebrew settlement of the Promised Land will supply you with many such examples of justified, glorious, and praiseworthy killing. So, as long as it’s justified, I say, kill away!

    “Christians are not infallible. One may think the religion itself is perfect and infallible: fine, to each his/her own. But to say everyone who holds that faith by simple virtue of having that faith is exempt from wrong-doing and has the right to do as they please to those who don’t have that faith is borderline deification.”

    Of course Christians are not infallible. God and his infallible Word are infallible. Because they are infallible, I know that Christianity is true and perfect, and that other faiths are evils lies. Therefore “to each his own” is unacceptable. The injunctions of Christianity should be enshrined in law, and the government should actively seek to convert atheists, pagans, apostates, and heretics to the One True Faith. Also, it should put an end to the ‘Lutheran’ scam, which has been allowed to go on for far too long.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 9:23 am | Reply

  627. lietk12 @ 620:

    “>It will certainly be when fanatics take over the world like they did to Germany”

    If you think homeschooling is a bad idea, then you need to take that up with Beth as well, who is planning to homeschool her children.

    “>You make it sound like manipulation, at which you have clearly mastered.”

    Sigh. If only I could manipulate you out of your hatred for God. I will keep trying, though.

    “>AGAIN, PROVE THAT IT IS GODLESS, SATANIC, ANTI-BIBLICAL, AND UNTRUTHFUL. (Sorry, my caps-lock key was stuck)”

    In his excellent post, Sisyphus posted a number of examples of completely unambigious Biblical statements that we live on a fixed Earth around which revolve the heavenly bodies. Heliocentrism therefore contradicts the Bible. Therefore it is untruthful, since the Bible is true, and godless, because the Bible is the word of God. Because Satan hates God, the Bible, and the truth, it seems reasonable to say that he is pleased with and advances whenever he can the doctrine of heliocentrism. As for Darwinism, all you need to do is to read the creation narrative in Genesis.

    “>Wow, I’ve never done that! I didn’t even know soda fountains and billiard halls still existed!”

    They are still there, and they ensnare souls every day. I am glad to see that you have kept out of them.

    “In fact, I never knew that truth would come magically to me so that I wouldn’t have had to study for the SAT and ACT (and get a 36 on math)!”

    Alas! The soda fountain is already in your heart. We have much damage to undo, lietk12.

    “BTW, I’m not in 11th or 12th grade, so it’s extremely unrealistic that your sarcasm about Beth would be true.”

    I’m not sure what sarcasm you’re discussing. I don’t think she was offering to homeschool you, though, if that’s what you’re talking about.

    I didn’t realize you were so young! That’s great. Senator Brownback needs more supporters among the young people.

    “>Violence begets violence. Don’t push it.”

    Sure, *some* violence begets violence. Other violence begets obedience and godliness.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 9:40 am | Reply

  628. See how the supporters of heliocentrism have given up even the semblance of calm discussion of evidence, and degenerated into insults and filth. Heresy is like that: a thin crust of reasonableness to trick the unwary, and hideous evil underneath.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 27, 2007 @ 10:51 am | Reply

  629. Killing is bad. No matter what. Breing Christian doesn’t make one special enough to get away with it, and hiding behind a god to justify bad behavior, again, is cowardly. People need to own up to their own actions.

    My husband-to-be and I plan to homeschool our kids so that in case someone like brown back gets in they won’t learn helioleftism.

    Comment by Beth — May 27, 2007 @ 11:38 am | Reply

  630. Comment 627:
    Because they are infallible, I know that Christianity is true and perfect, and that other faiths are evils lies.
    >Don’t be a bigot.

    I’m not sure what sarcasm you’re discussing. I don’t think she was offering to homeschool you, though, if that’s what you’re talking about.
    >You were talking about flirting

    Alas! The soda fountain is already in your heart.
    >I don’t drink soda. Therefore, I cannot spew soda.

    In his excellent post, Sisyphus posted a number of examples of completely unambigious Biblical statements that we live on a fixed Earth around which revolve the heavenly bodies. Heliocentrism therefore contradicts the Bible. Therefore it is untruthful, since the Bible is true, and godless, because the Bible is the word of God. Because Satan hates God, the Bible, and the truth, it seems reasonable to say that he is pleased with and advances whenever he can the doctrine of heliocentrism. As for Darwinism, all you need to do is to read the creation narrative in Genesis.
    >Fine, as long as you accept the Bible as true. Prove that the Bible is true, without using a circular argument (e.g. saying that it is the word of God, because that’s what the Bible says).

    Comment by lietk12 — May 27, 2007 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  631. could somebody please provide the evidence that
    Jesus ever existed. If you don’t like my science text books that support helio-centerism
    why should I subscribe to your text aka the bible?

    Comment by Cafe dog — May 27, 2007 @ 3:55 pm | Reply

  632. Praying hands @ 629:

    yes, I can smell the fetid evil of their pie of heresy. It is not a pie of which I would gladly taste.

    Beth @ 630:

    But the Bible not only permits killing and depicts it in a positive light but in fact commands it in certain cases! I do not see how a good Christian can reject bloodshed without sinning against God.

    lietk12 @ 631:

    Jesus invested his apostles with divine authority. His apostles and their successors, also invested with divine authority, composed and/or assembled the texts of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is authorized by God. Either the Bible is true, then, or God is a liar. If God were a liar, he would not be God, but Satan. God is Truth, and Satan is the Prince of Lies. So, if God is not a liar, the Bible is true. QED

    Cafe dog @ 632:

    Well, your science textbooks are the word of witches, homosexuals, and radical heliofascists. The Bible is the inerrant Word of the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. Even you have to admit that the latter is pretty well credentialed.

    The existence of Jesus is attested by the pagan Roman biographer Suetonius and the pagan Roman historian Tacitus, so if you don’t want to believe the Gospels authorized by God and would rather listen to some heathens, there they are.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  633. I left out the most important development:

    Beth @ 630
    “My husband-to-be and I plan to homeschool our kids so that in case someone like brown back gets in they won’t learn helioleftism.”

    Finally Beth agrees that children should not be taught helioleftism!!! I love it when we make progress like this! I makes all this commenting worthwhile. :)

    I really have to say, though, that I hope (and expect) Senator Brownback will do everything he can to extirpate helioleftism from our schools. If you don’t like helioleftism, in other words, you should vote Brownback!!!

    Woohoo!!! Go, Beth! Go, Beth!

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

  634. Comment 633: radical heliofascists
    >I thought there was a discussion banning the use of the labels “COMMIES” and “fascists”.

    Jesus invested his apostles with divine authority. His apostles and their successors, also invested with divine authority, composed and/or assembled the texts of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is authorized by God. Either the Bible is true, then, or God is a liar. If God were a liar, he would not be God, but Satan. God is Truth, and Satan is the Prince of Lies. So, if God is not a liar, the Bible is true. QED

    >But the idea of God is from the Bible, is it not? And the divine-ness of his apostles is also from the Bible, is it not? Can’t this also work for the gods of other religions (I mean the part about “Either the (insert holy text here) is true, then, or God is a liar. If God was a liar, he would not be God. Therefore, the Bible is true.”) Enlighten me.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 27, 2007 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  635. I gladly renounce Christianity in favor of sound science.

    Comment by justanothername — May 27, 2007 @ 8:53 pm | Reply

  636. lietk12:

    I like you. You’re a sharp guy, and I thought you were an adult. I think you should spend some time attentively admiring the nuances of that image on the main page in which Senator Brownback appears. Also, someday you should look into the “Critias fragment.” That should put you on the path to the truth.

    That’s the last I have to say to you, young man.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 11:18 pm | Reply

  637. This blog is one of the great trolls I have yet seen on the intertubes. I’d go so far as to call it an epic troll. Hats off to this trolliest of trolls.

    Comment by nihility — May 28, 2007 @ 12:50 am | Reply

  638. I’m assuming this is not a joke. You are too ignorant and stupid to be president.

    Comment by Art Vandelay — May 28, 2007 @ 1:04 am | Reply

  639. I don’t believe it. Normally creationists and their ilk don’t bother me, but this takes the cake. This actually offends me. You implicitly support returning to the dark ages. Also did you make any actual attempt to review the evidence or understand relativity before writing it off so carelessly?

    Comment by AH — May 28, 2007 @ 1:55 am | Reply

  640. I’m just inquiring as to why you think that a 200 year old book is sufficient evidence for any theory. Just because something is said to be holy doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily true. And how do you explain people who have been in space and seen the earth move around the sun?

    Comment by Theron — May 28, 2007 @ 2:20 am | Reply

  641. “Jesus invested his apostles with divine authority. His apostles and their successors, also invested with divine authority, composed and/or assembled the texts of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is authorized by God. Either the Bible is true, then, or God is a liar. If God were a liar, he would not be God, but Satan. God is Truth, and Satan is the Prince of Lies. So, if God is not a liar, the Bible is true. QED.” You are making several very large assumptions here DPS. I’m afraid the lack of sane logic is all too consistent with the previous arguments of yourself and Sisyphus. Firstly you are assuming God exists, and that there was actually someone with the power to “invest the apostles with divine authority.” You go on to provide a very clever riddle apparently ‘proving’ the truth of the bible. You say if the bible is untrue then “God is a liar. If God were a liar, he would not be God, but Satan.” Indeed how can we know it was not Satan who tricked the apostles and in fact invested them with demonic wickedness? How can we know the apostles were commissioned by God in the first place? How can we know the apostles were accurate historians? How can we know they do not exaggerate? Now you may say you don’t know, but you have such faith in the word of God that it is like knowing. However, I’m afraid your faith won’t do you any good in a rational argument. You need to provide evidence. It cannot be said that the bible is inherently and inerrably true. And remember that the bible also suggests the earth is flat and therefore cannot be ultimate truth. QED

    Just one more thing. God can do anything right (being all powerful)? In that case could He create a rock so heavy that He was unable to lift it?

    Comment by Elliott — May 28, 2007 @ 2:29 am | Reply

  642. So let me get this right… the Earth doesn’t move and it’s obvious because we can’t feel it moving. If the Earth were moving, we could feel it. Have you ever been in a car?

    Comment by Captain Josh Stein — May 28, 2007 @ 3:33 am | Reply

  643. I feel the earth move sometimes, does that mean it’s moving when I feel it- all the time? Or does it mean that when i feel it moving it moves only then and then returns to a state of stillness?

    I’m not the only one that feels the earth move. Maybe our combined thoughts are moving the earth, maybe you have to accept the fact that your theory is not the only one out there and to accept those of others.

    How can we see the earth when the source that creates it is unreliable?

    Comment by Elliott — May 28, 2007 @ 3:48 am | Reply

  644. Actually my car is the centre of the Universe. When I am in it, the Earth travels beneath it. Can’t you dumb Physicsts see it!. My car is the centre of the Universe! I have just proved it.
    Hail to the centre of the Universe. Our new symbol is the steering wheel.

    Never mind that the stars and the Sun re-appear every night and day. They know their place! They travel as does the Earth around my car. Hail to the car!

    (Are there really people so stupid!)

    Comment by fourbrick — May 28, 2007 @ 5:51 am | Reply

  645. Galileo recanted so he wouldn’t be killed.

    And it’s idiots like you who give Christianity a bad name. People have actually been into space ok, it’s undeniable that the earth revolves around teh Sun. Ignorant people like you who run around blind give sensible Christians a bad name. I hope you never get in as President, Bush is the best “christian” in US politics and he’s getting a hard time as it is, you would completely screw over the normal Christians if you got into office. Fortunately a majority of America is either non-Christian so they’ll think you’re a lunatic and not vote for you, or they’ll be normal Christians and will want to distance themselves from you as much as possible.

    Comment by Maria — May 28, 2007 @ 6:44 am | Reply

  646. “(Are there really people so stupid!)”

    Unfortunately, yes. Read the comment just below yours.

    “Galileo recanted so he wouldn’t be killed.”

    He knew he’d lost his battle to overthrow the Church, so he surrendered. Galileo was trying to overthrow Catholicism and set up an early Marxist tyranny; decent Catholics did what they had to do to defend themselves.

    “People have actually been into space ok, it’s undeniable that the earth revolves around teh Sun.”

    Rubbish. No one has been there except for those in the employ of NASA and equivalent leftist boondoggles. That you could fall for this only highlights your ignorance.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 7:43 am | Reply

  647. Comment 647: He knew he’d lost his battle to overthrow the Church, so he surrendered. Galileo was trying to overthrow Catholicism and set up an early Marxist tyranny
    >This reeks of the label “COMMIES”. There was a discussion banning the term. By the time the church threatened him with death and torture unless he recanted, Galileo was old. It’s the equivalent of breaking the skull of your grandparents and then burning them.

    Rubbish. No one has been there except for those in the employ of NASA and equivalent leftist boondoggles. That you could fall for this only highlights your ignorance.
    >Explain why one of my Christian, conservative friends works for NASA.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 28, 2007 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  648. “There was a discussion banning the term. By the time the church threatened him with death and torture unless he recanted, Galileo was old. It’s the equivalent of breaking the skull of your grandparents and then burning them.”

    Sorry, lietk12. When someone’s a Communist, I’m going to call them a Communist. “Commie” is a flippant, derogatory term. But it’s an historical fact that the invention of Communism was a direct offshoot of Copernican, Darwinian thought, and that Galileo was a nascent Darwinian. Draw your own conclusions; I’ve drawn mine.

    As for his age, so what? Marx was an old man when he died, and so was Lenin. So was Stalin. Is it off-limits to criticize them now, too?

    “Explain why one of my Christian, conservative friends works for NASA”

    I don’t know him, but presumably, $$$.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 9:21 am | Reply

  649. 1). Elliott, your sophistries have already been decisively refuted elsewhere in this thread, and in others. If you wish to learn from the community here at B4B, you must read the comments carefully. No one has time to go back for stragglers like you.

    Further, you write: “It cannot be said that the bible is inherently and inerrably true. And remember that the bible also suggests the earth is flat and therefore cannot be ultimate truth. QED”

    But this is ludicrous. Sisyphus already demonstrated in another post that the Earth is quite likely to be flat. Again, no time for stragglers.

    (Also, the word you want is “inerrantly”.) You’re welcome!

    2). fourbrick: I have just checked. Your car is not in the Bible. You, sir, are a heretic.

    3). Sometimes I think that when we have a President Brownback, we should have public paddlings of all of these atheists and Darwinists and helioleftists and pagans and yoga instructors etc., but I worry that a lot of them would enjoy it. These are sick, sick people, and it’s going to take a clever president to deal with them appropriately.

    Comment by DPS — May 28, 2007 @ 11:25 am | Reply

  650. After reading all these posts, I’ve concluded that no amount of evidence will convince Sisyphus and co. of anything that contradicts the Bible. If they conducted experiments that contradicted the Bible I think they would still disregard them. So there is little reason to actually present evidence since they will simply disregard it.

    I propose that little green gremlins are inside Sisyphus and co.’s brains, filling them with the notion that the Bible is inerrant and any Biblically conflicting science is also false. If you think that’s silly, I would say that it’s just the gremlin making you think that it’s silly. Any proof you have that the earth is only thousands of years old or that the earth is not moving is just that gremlin making you think that the Bible is inerrant again. Please try to prove to me that this gremlin doesn’t exist.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  651. From Sisyphus logic, one could conclude that a plane doesn’t actually move, that rather it is the Earth that turns underneath it. After all, the people don’t feel that they’re moving while they’re on the plane. So much for your “empirical” evidence.

    As for the Bible, well, may I refer you to Luke 21:32: ” Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled”, Luke 21 being the chapter where Jesus describes what happens at the end of the world. (see also Matthew 24:34) What, you say? The end of the world did not come before Jesus’s generation passed away? Well, you’re clearly wrong, see? The Scriptures CLEARLY state that the end of the world has happened shortly after Jesus’s time. Since the Bible is inerrant, then we must all be in the Kingdom of Heaven right now, or we’re all in Hell. But since I distinctly remember there being a night a few hours ago, I can’t be in the Kingdom of Heaven (according to Revelations 21:25), and I can’t be in Hell, because that’s a lake “which burneth with fire and brimstone” (according to Revelations 21:8), and I don’t see any lakes, especially not burning ones. So, if I’m not in the world, and not in Heaven, and not in Hell, where am I?

    In other words, Bible inerrancy is worth shit.

    Comment by Elaro — May 28, 2007 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  652. “Sometimes I think that when we have a President Brownback, we should have public paddlings of all of these atheists and Darwinists and helioleftists and pagans and yoga instructors etc., but I worry that a lot of them would enjoy it. These are sick, sick people, and it’s going to take a clever president to deal with them appropriately.”

    This is a great idea! I was thinking we might have to tie them to stones and leave them to the Lord to drive the demons out of them, but this proposal is far more humane. Really, though, it’s up to Brownback to decide what to do with these people.

    “After reading all these posts, I’ve concluded that no amount of evidence will convince Sisyphus and co. of anything that contradicts the Bible. If they conducted experiments that contradicted the Bible I think they would still disregard them. So there is little reason to actually present evidence since they will simply disregard it.”

    Such an experiment is completely impossible. The Bible is incapable of error.

    “What, you say? The end of the world did not come before Jesus’s generation passed away?”

    Jesus lives forever, so His generation has not yet passed away.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 1:56 pm | Reply

  653. I am shocked beyond all belief that someone who governs could be so ignorant as to believe that sun revolves around the Earth.

    As someone who has a very string background in math and physics I am completely stupefied. How can this post even be real?

    Comment by Eric — May 28, 2007 @ 1:59 pm | Reply

  654. “Such an experiment is completely impossible. The Bible is incapable of error.”

    Once again, that gremlin in your brain is making you think that the Bible is incapable of error.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:06 pm | Reply

  655. “Jesus lives forever, so His generation has not yet passed away.”

    If I say something like “That car will keep going TILL it runs out of gas” the implication would be that once it runs out of gas it will stop going. If not, why would I bother writing the bit about it running out of gas?

    Look at the quote again: “This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.”

    This implies that once all has been fulfilled, this generation would pass away. By your interpretation, this would imply that once all has been fulfilled, Jesus would stop living forever!

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:11 pm | Reply

  656. “As someone who has a very string background in math and physics I am completely stupefied.”

    That tends to be an unfortunate side effect of studying these phony sciences too extensively.

    “Once again, that gremlin in your brain is making you think that the Bible is incapable of error.”

    I don’t have a demon, sir.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

  657. “I don’t have a demon, sir.”

    Please prove to me that you don’t have a demon/gremlin in your brain. You just think you don’t because the gremlin wants you to think that.

    “That tends to be an unfortunate side effect of studying these phony sciences too extensively.”

    You do realize that nuclear science is a branch of physics, right? In one of your posts you seem to accept nuclear power (perhaps you mean science?) as “real” science, which would appear to be a contradiction.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:22 pm | Reply

  658. “Please prove to me that you don’t have a demon/gremlin in your brain. You just think you don’t because the gremlin wants you to think that.”

    I am a humble servant of the Lord. To suggest otherwise is to slander me, sir.

    “You do realize that nuclear science is a branch of physics, right? In one of your posts you seem to accept nuclear power (perhaps you mean science?) as “real” science, which would appear to be a contradiction.”

    Nuclear weapons are God’s providence to this country. Physics is partly based upon helping America, and partly based on pursuing Godless branches of phony experimentation. I trust that sensible minds can distinguish the two paths.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:37 pm | Reply