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

1,714 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

  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, itR