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

1,778 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

    • You, my friend, are totally lost. Do you believe everything the nasa freemasons tell you?

      Comment by Brandon G — April 30, 2016 @ 12:04 pm | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Spoken like a true atheist.

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

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

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

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

    Good to hear it, Pale Horse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Cheers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Amen. Fine Presidents, both.

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

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

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

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

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

    It’s okay. I have thick skin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why are you so dishonest?

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

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

    Why are you so judgmental?

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

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

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

    “Why are you so judgmental?”

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

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

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

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

    If so, we’ll back off immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    and then you approvingly quote this:

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

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

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

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

    And of course there’s this gem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  33. Schlom- take your meds.

    Science Avenger- your rebuttal will take longer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  37. America was founded on freedom.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “In God We Trust.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Your concern is duly noted, moonbat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  51. Kind of reminds me of the movie Psycho.

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

  52. Brownback hates Brett Favre. Read below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Kind of reminds me of the movie Psycho.”

    Is that why you’re named Psycho?

    “Brownback hates Brett Favre. Read below.”

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

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

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

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

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

  56. Sisyphus,
    Are you Stephen Cobert? Seriously

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

  57. Are you guys gonna enter our header contest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  60. “Are you Stephen Cobert? Seriously”

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

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

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

    >>Could you please elaborate?

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

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

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

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

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

  63. Koh,10.14

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

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

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

  65. What does “Koh,10.14” mean?

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

  66. This post makes me weep for humanity.

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

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

    No, thank YOU, Marcia!

    “What does “Koh,10.14″ mean?”

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

    “This post makes me weep for humanity.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  70. Kohelet(Ecclesiastes) 10:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Just a hunch.

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

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

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

    Thanks for sharing about yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Lord moves in mysterious ways, Eduardo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I don’t even know what this means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is true.

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

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

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

    Your fears are understandable, yet groundless.

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

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

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

    and again,

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

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

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

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

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

  98. Repent now, and God may forgive you.

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

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

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

    “Repent now, and God may forgive you.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    God causes gravity, atheist.

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

  104. God causes gravity, atheist.

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

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

  105. “God causes gravity, atheist.”

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

    I apologize for the earlier terminological confusion.

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

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

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

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

  107. Sisyphus,

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

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

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

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

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

    Fight the power, Sis (if I may).

    Fight. The. Power.

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

  110. This is the greatest practical joke ever played.

    Well done, Sisyphus.

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

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

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

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

  112. Sisyphus said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You’re welcome.

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

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

    “Fight the power, Sis (if I may).

    Fight. The. Power.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  116. Science Avenger,

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

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

    Yours in Christ,

    DPS

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

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

    Well done, Sisyphus.”

    Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Science Avenger,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  120. Bravo!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  124. Teh stupid, it burns!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  128. Sisyphus, you are a false prophet!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Well done. The Onion would be proud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you for your time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Have a nice day.

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

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

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

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

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

    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 https://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… 🙄

    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. 😀

    Comment by AshPlant — May 21, 2007 @ 12:32 pm | Reply

  305. Sisyphus,

    Please respond to comment no. 164. I actually challenged a specific point from your blog post, rather than merely engaging in personal attacks on you. I’m willing to do this because if you are committed to the truth, you will engage in a serious discussion. If you are merely a prankster, not actually intellectually committed to the cosmology of Ptolemy, your refusal to debate the evidence is an admission of that. All the best to you.

    Comment by Chuck — May 21, 2007 @ 12:37 pm | Reply

  306. “Please respond to comment no. 164.”

    Oh, alright:

    “Next time you are on an airplane, at cruising speed 40,000 feet up, do a little experiment. Take a raisin out of the box of goodies you’re given by the stewardess, and drop it a few inches from one hand to the palm of another. Notice that it will fall straight down, not shoot 600 mph into your chest. That is because the raisin is in your frame of reference, and everything inside the plane is moving with the plane.”

    Maybe. Maybe it’s just that the front of the plane keeps the 600 mph wind from getting in. That’s why they haven’t had convertible airplanes since the Sopwith Camel, if you ask me.

    “The notion that there is an absolute space is responsible for the illusion that the earth is not moving when in fact it is.”

    God has set it up so that the Earth is stationary; the rest of the Universe expands, but we remain quite fixed in relation to it. Mathematically, it may be temporarily convenient to think of it in other ways; morally, theologically, and empirically, it never is.

    “If you have ever seen an insect such as a fly move inside your car when driving fifty five miles an hour down the highway, you’ll notice the same phenomenon. The fly isn’t struggling to keep up with the car even if it is flying in the air inside the car.”

    See above.

    “That’s because the air inside your car is moving with the car, and so it is part of the referene space of the car.”

    Okay. Not sure I see where you’re going with this, but I’ll grant you that for the sake of argument.

    “Same with the earth. It isn’t bad to assume the sun is moving around the earth – a lot of smart people thought precisely that for thousands of years. But a careful look at the evidence is enough to convince anyone willing to consider the evidence logically that the earth does, in fact, orbit around the sun under its gravitational influence, and not the other way around.”

    Why? Why does one HAVE to accept that? Why does one have to assume that the Earth orbits the Sun? Is it all based on mass? I’m to disregard the Bible because some robot shot up into space tells us a ball of gas is larger and more important than the Earth? Sorry, but I don’t buy this.

    “If you can’t maintain your faith in God in light of developments in science, that is most unfortunate for you.”

    It’s not that at all. It’s that these scientific observations are fallacious. You make assumptions I’m not willing to grant you, such as that the Earth is a closed system moving, like an airplane or a car. What if the Earth is like an oak tree, and we’re like the squirrels nesting inside its bark as the wind rages around us? We wouldn’t feel anything then, either, even if the wind were 100 mph. Unless the oak tree fell, of course… Say, if it were undermined by termites who gnawed away at its foundations by saying that the oak tree was designed to move, and was actually moving, and wasn’t that important anyway, because it’s not as if God placed that oak tree there for a reason anyway.

    You see where I’m going with this?…

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  307. Welcome to the 21st century!

    We have all kinds of blasphemy for sale including but not limited to:

    electricity

    computers

    motor vehicles

    processed cheese

    AND television to name a few. Oh yeah and there is that pesky idea that the earth isnt the center of the universe. I forgot to mention another improvement of the 21st century, the scientific. Using the scientific method and testing ideas against empirical data, we can actually discover the most accurate picture of reality currently possible. Which SOME of us are actually interested in. For those others, feel free to substitute the most comforting reality you can dream up and justify it with primitive religious text.

    Comment by hallow33 — May 21, 2007 @ 12:47 pm | Reply

  308. Why do you even bother answering these dishonest people, Sisyphus?

    Honestly, I think some of them might even be criminally deranged. These helioleftists seem like pretty unsavory people. If I ran this blog, I think I would’ve called the police by now. I don’t think you should keep humoring them by answering them like this.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 21, 2007 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

  309. Alright lets have some fun with these statements, I’ll start with the flaws in the logic of your arguments, specifically with the fallacies in your statements:

    “By the way, one point I would like to make to the scientifically challenged amongst you: earthquakes do NOT prove that the planet moves. They simply prove that parts of the planet move, at certain times, for reasons no one really knows.”

    Appeal to False Authority, namely since when are you a qualified geologist, or did you somehow forget to mention that somehow. You can’t claim to have absolute knowledge of something disproving something else unless you are actually qualified to do so last time I checked. That and you are crossing wires between astronomy and geology there considering that both are different fields of science altogether.

    “We can only speculate.”

    Ah but when we speculate and say something that doesn’t fit in your worldview you shout them down as godless and evil. Sure sounds like reasoned discussion of ideas to me.

    “When scientists speculate, it’s called a “theory.””

    Wrong definition, technically for a scientific idea to be considered a theory it must first be proven plausible by extensive, repeatable, and independently reproduceable experiments. What you are defining is called a hypothesis, very different from a theory.

    “When you speculate that, say, Kennedy was assassinated by Castro, you’re called a nutjob.”

    False analogy, what does the Kennedy assassination have anything to do with hard science? In the case of hard science we have mountains of evidence collected by numerous people from different times, places, and with different cultural and religious perspectives and coming to the same conclusion. In the case of the assassination there’s question as to whether or not all the evidence is even known or has been honestly presented to the public for perusal and examination.

    “The moral of this story is that people don’t respect the speculation, but they do respect the college degree from the left-wing secular humanist institution. That’s a product of media bias as much as anything else.”

    Ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad populum all of which are serious logical fallacies, ad hominem abusive being direct attacks on a person that are irrelevant to the facts at hand, ad hominem circumstantial being irrelevant attacks on the arguer based on circumstances that are not relevant to the facts at hand, and ad populum by trying to use an attack that is supposed to be an appeal to mob mentality and anti-intellectualism.

    “The more you ridicule me, the more you prove me right.”

    So anything that doesn’t fit with your view of the facts is ridicule?

    “No one in this thread has yet offered a compelling retort to the Bible.”

    Let’s see, we’re talking about a book that contradicts itself, has been translated at least seven times (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Vulgar Latin, German, then English) by the time you hit an English translation, nevermind how many times you have concepts that don’t translate from language to language like for example how there is no English word for schadenfreude and how mensch only loosely translates to man and means more than just that, was edited more than once by different groups of people with different agendas, none of the books having been written during the events they describe, and yet we’re somehow supposed to take it on faith alone considering all those things wrong with it that it is the literal and complete truth of all things under the sun, moon, and stars?

    Nevermind that according to the Bible itself you are not supposed to take it literally as is said in II Timothy (ch. III, v. 16-17):

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    That the man of God may be perect, throughly furnished unto all good works

    So if the entire Bible is inspired by God, is inerrant and correct, then what do you make of a biblical verse that says it is open for reproof and correction? Also remember that the Bible tries to explain an idea of divinity that is simply beyond human understanding. If you try to pour all the water you have in a pitcher into a drinking glass, you will overflow the glass and most of the water will run down the sides and onto the table and floor. The same thing of if you have an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing deity trying to explain things to a limited, mortal mind.

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 21, 2007 @ 1:39 pm | Reply

  310. The front of the plane keeps the 600 mph wind from getting in. However, if the raisin you drop is released from your hand, why should it fall straight down, and not at an angle? Since the plane is moving 600 mph, the rest of the plane should “leave behind” the raisin suspended in the air. Likewise with the fly in your car. The fly is not touching the inside surface of the car. So why does the fly hover effortlessly in the air inside the car?

    For another example, picture an insect sitting on a rock. Go to the top of a building and drop the rock and a marble from a high floor. The rock and the marble will fall towards the earth under its gravitational influence, accelerating at the same rate (think of Galileo’s leaning tower of Pisa experiment). From the standpoint of the insect, the rock will seem like it is moving only in that air is rushing past it. If it were in a vacuum, the rock would seem perfectly still. The marble would appear to be hovering nearby, but also would not appear to be moving (except, of course, in relation to the ground).

    In other words, you state that it seems obvious that the earth is not moving because we don’t feel it moving. What do you mean by that? What does it mean to “feel” movement? Do you think that we actually landed on the Moon, or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that says we didn’t?

    If you accept that Armstrong walked on the Moon, then why did he not feel the Moon moving? You accept that he Moon revolves around the Earth – which implies that it moves. Why did Armstrong seem to just stand on the Moon as we stand on the earth? If the Moon is moving (which I accept!), why did he not feel its motion? The answer is that motion is relative.

    Comment by Chuck — May 21, 2007 @ 2:03 pm | Reply

  311. Also, Sisyphus, I should point out that the atmosphere gets thinner the higher you get off the ground. You accept this? The atmosphere sinks under the influence of the earth’s gravity, which is why the air pressure is greater the closer you get to the surface. In space there are only minute quantities of gases, mostly hydrogen and ions from the sun (solar wind). The pressure exerted by these trace gases is so minute that astronauts don’t feel them. So the earth is moving through a largely empty space. The atmosphere, being under Earth’s gravitational influence, moves with the earth. That’s why, standing on the surface, you don’t feel the earth’s motion through space.

    Also, we have precise measurements of the earth’s mass, the sun’s mass, and the distance between the earth and the sun. We know beyond all doubt that the earth is moving through space under the sun’s gravitational influence. In the scientific method, models are used to calculate what is going on. Newton’s theory of gravity is such a model, and its predictive power is enormous – nearly perfect (it ignores phenomenon moving near the speed of light). Models in the scientific method take as their assumptions measurable empirical facts.

    In other words, the premises in scientific models are the data. That’s why the models exist – to account for the data. Data is merely experimental fact. You can pretend it doesn’t exist, but at what cost to intellectual honesty? Where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is the center of creation? Why do you have to “abandon the Bible because a robot says that the mass of the sun is greater than the earth”?

    If you place the Bible above truth, you are guilty of idolotry. God’s universe is without flaw – the Bible does not supercede nature. The Bible has been transmitted by man. The book of Nature is perfect.

    Comment by Chuck — May 21, 2007 @ 2:22 pm | Reply

  312. OK Sisyphus, back to your rock. You’ve had enough playing around here.

    Comment by thedevil — May 21, 2007 @ 2:32 pm | Reply

  313. 1) No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.
    What about Léon Foucault?

    2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.
    I’m sorry to burst your bubble but Mathematicians explore such concepts as quantity, structure, space, and change, and also the academic discipline that studies them, aiming to formulate new conjectures and establish their truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. It does not invent.

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

    4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.
    Obviously you don’t understand it. It’s not surprising as it is very complex.

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

    6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments–especially the light fringe results–prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God’s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.
    The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to prove the existence of an ether or medium through which light passed through. It failed to prove the existence of this medium. Quite the opposite in fact as it completely disproved it’s existence. It does not prove that the earth is not moving. You’re mixing up the results of experiments to try to prove your point.

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

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 21, 2007 @ 2:41 pm | Reply

  314. I am sorry, Sisyphus, but you are wrong. The Earth revolves around the Sun. Our Sun revolves around the center of our solar system. Our solar system is moving through space.

    Please visit our Vatican Website for clarification on valid science here:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm

    Peace be with you, my son.
    – The Pope

    Comment by The Pope — May 21, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Reply

  315. “Appeal to False Authority, namely since when are you a qualified geologist, or did you somehow forget to mention that somehow.”

    Geologists are Darwinists and liars. You expect me to trust those people? Might as well hire a Zeus-worshipper to read sheep entrails.

    “Wrong definition, technically for a scientific idea to be considered a theory it must first be proven plausible by extensive, repeatable, and independently reproduceable experiments. What you are defining is called a hypothesis, very different from a theory.”

    These experiments are prone to immense amounts of falsification, as when that Korean doctor claimed he’d cloned people. Frequently lies, and certainly less verifiable than the text within Scripture, which exists as set down long ago. If you ask me, “theories” exist to justify the prejudice of those who propogate them.

    “In the case of the assassination there’s question as to whether or not all the evidence is even known or has been honestly presented to the public for perusal and examination.”

    Same as with your “science.”

    “Let’s see, we’re talking about a book that contradicts itself,”

    You reveal your bias right here. I see no need to further respond to you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 2:45 pm | Reply

  316. “The front of the plane keeps the 600 mph wind from getting in. However, if the raisin you drop is released from your hand, why should it fall straight down, and not at an angle?”

    Because it’s in the plane.

    “Since the plane is moving 600 mph, the rest of the plane should “leave behind” the raisin suspended in the air.”

    Nope.

    “For another example, picture an insect sitting on a rock. Go to the top of a building and drop the rock and a marble from a high floor. The rock and the marble will fall towards the earth under its gravitational influence, accelerating at the same rate (think of Galileo’s leaning tower of Pisa experiment).”

    Drop a cannonball and a feather. They’re not going to fall at the same rate. Galileo was a hack and a liar.

    “From the standpoint of the insect, the rock will seem like it is moving only in that air is rushing past it. If it were in a vacuum, the rock would seem perfectly still.”

    I understand what you’re trying to say, but I disagree with your premises. You don’t need to concoct 1,001 analogies if I disagree with the premise behind every single one of them.

    “In other words, you state that it seems obvious that the earth is not moving because we don’t feel it moving. What do you mean by that? What does it mean to “feel” movement?”

    We’re not flies on marbles. We’re either hurtling through ether at high speed, or we’re stationary. If we were spinning around the Sun, we’d all have fallen off long ago.

    “Do you think that we actually landed on the Moon, or do you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that says we didn’t?”

    I have no idea. People here are showing me evidence that the world is flat. If that viewpoint is correct, then it follows that the Moon landing was fraudulent. But I haven’t had a chance to review their evidence yet, because I’m so busy arguing with other people.

    “If you accept that Armstrong walked on the Moon, then why did he not feel the Moon moving?”

    Assuming he did land there, who says he didn’t feel it moving?

    “You accept that he Moon revolves around the Earth – which implies that it moves.”

    Again, though, if those landings were fakes and the world is flat, we have to look to some other explanation. For all I know, the moon is also flat, and is pushed across the sky by angels.

    “Also, Sisyphus, I should point out that the atmosphere gets thinner the higher you get off the ground. You accept this?”

    Beats me. I’m told it does, by the same people who tell me the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun.

    “The atmosphere sinks under the influence of the earth’s gravity, which is why the air pressure is greater the closer you get to the surface.”

    Gravity only works because God wants it to work. If God chose to have gravity fail, it would fail. God does not allow the ether to fall to Earth, so clearly God has chosen either to make ether lighter than air, or God has chosen to deny the laws of gravity to the ether.

    “In space there are only minute quantities of gases, mostly hydrogen and ions from the sun (solar wind).”

    No, there is ether.

    “The pressure exerted by these trace gases is so minute that astronauts don’t feel them.”

    So I’m told, but this is why I doubt them. I believe in the ether.

    “So the earth is moving through a largely empty space.”

    The Earth is boxed in by ether.

    “The atmosphere, being under Earth’s gravitational influence, moves with the earth.”

    The air is moved by things on the Earth. A butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane later through ripple effects. But that has nothing to do with what lies above the Earth’s atmospehre.

    “Also, we have precise measurements of the earth’s mass, the sun’s mass, and the distance between the earth and the sun.”

    I refuse to believe the techniques used to acquire this information. All too often, science resorts to dubious “methods” to measure things- radiocarbon dating being a prime example. (This is also why I think global warming is a massive hoax.)

    “We know beyond all doubt that the earth is moving through space under the sun’s gravitational influence.”

    You still haven’t convinced me.

    “In the scientific method, models are used to calculate what is going on. Newton’s theory of gravity is such a model, and its predictive power is enormous – nearly perfect (it ignores phenomenon moving near the speed of light).”

    So? Could be lucky guess. Could be right for the wrong reasons. I’m not a theologist- how should I know?

    “Models in the scientific method take as their assumptions measurable empirical facts.”

    If I were moving, I could feel it and measure it. But I’m not.

    “In other words, the premises in scientific models are the data. That’s why the models exist – to account for the data. Data is merely experimental fact. You can pretend it doesn’t exist, but at what cost to intellectual honesty?”

    I doubt your techniques for measuring data. How is that dishonest?

    “Where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is the center of creation?”

    See post, above.

    “Why do you have to “abandon the Bible because a robot says that the mass of the sun is greater than the earth”?”

    You can’t take some of the text and reject other parts. We’re not lunchline Christians, here.

    “If you place the Bible above truth, you are guilty of idolotry. God’s universe is without flaw – the Bible does not supercede nature.”

    This is just silly. The Bible is God’s way of explaining to us how the world works.

    “The Bible has been transmitted by man. The book of Nature is perfect.”

    The Bible is perfect. Nature is marred by Satan and his tricks. “Scientific measurement” being one of them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:05 pm | Reply

  317. ““Let’s see, we’re talking about a book that contradicts itself,”

    You reveal your bias right here. I see no need to further respond to you.”

    Oh so what about the parts where God says He doesn’t lie then in later books of the Bible declares He does to test faith?

    So you ignore the relevant passage of scripture that says that the Bible is open to correction and revision that I posted earlier? I guess you DO NOT believe the Bible is, in fact, completely inspired by God and inerrant if you are ignoring a verse that says so. I shall post that verse again since you seem to be reading the Bible selectively and only in places that support your prejudices:

    II Timothy (ch. III, v. 16-17):

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

    So tell me, how does that square with what you’ve been saying so far? I’m guessing you’ve never even read all of, most of, or any of the Bible except the parts your pastor tells you to. So how does it feel to be putting the safety of your immortal soul in the hands of a man who might be under the influence of the Evil One?

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 21, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Reply

  318. Great, now we have someone blasphemously posing as “the Pope.”

    If Psyche Out reads this thread, he’ll be very angry.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Reply

  319. “Oh so what about the parts where God says He doesn’t lie then in later books of the Bible declares He does to test faith?”

    A test is not a lie. It’s a test.

    “I guess you DO NOT believe the Bible is, in fact, completely inspired by God and inerrant if you are ignoring a verse that says so.”

    I think that passage doesn’t mean what you say it does, and I think it’s incredibly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Beyond that, I won’t dignify you with a response.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  320. 1. Why would we fall off the Earth if it is moving around the sun? 2. Drop a cannonball and a feather in an extremely-low pressure environment, and they will fall at the same rate. A cannonball and a feather fall at different rates through air because the feather has a high enough surface area-to-mass ratio and a good shape to efficiently master air resistance. Birds can fly precisely beacuse of the design of their feathers. 3. What is ether? I’ve never heard of this substance.

    Why is radiocarbon dating dubious? What are your reasons for making this statement? What other scientific measuring methods are unreliable? Do you think that thermometers are unreliable?

    Comment by Chuck — May 21, 2007 @ 3:33 pm | Reply

  321. “I think that passage doesn’t mean what you say it does, and I think it’s incredibly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Beyond that, I won’t dignify you with a response.”

    So you concede you cannot respond as you have no means of responding to what I said? What about that whole thing of combating us poor, benighted heathens and all that? How about I’m reading exactly what it says and you are ignoring the Word of God as communicated in the New Testament. How does that make you faithful to the full text of your Holy Writ?

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 21, 2007 @ 3:40 pm | Reply

  322. I, like everyone else, am deeply disturbed by your diatribes Sisyphus. Your responses have been hateful and insulting to anyone that questions your assertions. You claim to be a Christian but you are very unhappy and not spreading the gospel with love and kindness.

    Scientists throughout history have done so much for us that they deserve your eternal gratitude and respect. You spit into the faces of those great minds who dedicated (and many times sacrificed) their lives so that yours could be better. Are they always right? No, of course not but they are doing the best they can and I am sure that the “truth” will be discovered to correct the errors.

    You think about science and you see “evil” and dare judge scientists without any knowledge of them personally. Thousands of great minds have developed these theories and thousands more will add to them until the end of time. You think some nefarious conspiracy happens within the scientific community to discredit God? Or do you think it more reasonable that scientists make observations and conduct experiements to the best of their ability with no evil master plan?

    You are scared and lonely, that much is obvious. I hope this was a joke as others have suggested because if you actually think God is working through you and causing you to insult his children while stroking your ego and declaring your superiority you will be reminded of this day when you meet your maker I assure you. You owe everyone an apology, not because they disagree but because you have conducted yourself so shamefully you have disgraced your entire religion today.

    Comment by Ashamed — May 21, 2007 @ 3:41 pm | Reply

  323. “1. Why would we fall off the Earth if it is moving around the sun?”

    We would shoot off into the ether like water flying from a wet towel spun in the air. Those of us not shot off the planet would be crushed by the pressure.

    “2. Drop a cannonball and a feather in an extremely-low pressure environment, and they will fall at the same rate.”

    How will you get such an environment? Nature abhors a vacuum.

    “A cannonball and a feather fall at different rates through air because the feather has a high enough surface area-to-mass ratio and a good shape to efficiently master air resistance.”

    Shape a ball of feathers into a cannonball, and it will still fall slower. A basketball would also fall slower than a cannonball.

    “Birds can fly precisely beacuse of the design of their feathers.”

    That’s part of it, I suppose.

    “3. What is ether? I’ve never heard of this substance.”

    Light cannot travel through a vauum, as a vacuum cannot truly exist. Nature abhors it. Therefore, space is filed with an extremely attenuated medium, filling the whole of space outside of ponderable matter, and allowing the light particles to swim through.

    “Why is radiocarbon dating dubious? What are your reasons for making this statement?”

    Beyond a few thousand years, it becomes highly inaccurate. Something which is 5,000 years old becomes 50,000 years old, or 500,000 years old, or 5,000,000 years old.

    “What other scientific measuring methods are unreliable? Do you think that thermometers are unreliable?”

    Probably under certain conditions, yes. Below or above certain temperatures/pressures, I’m sure of it.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:44 pm | Reply

  324. “If I were moving, I could feel it and measure it. But I’m not.”

    Some people really need to take some physics classes…

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 3:45 pm | Reply

  325. “So you concede you cannot respond as you have no means of responding to what I said? What about that whole thing of combating us poor, benighted heathens and all that?”

    One cannot respond to someone so wilfully dishonest with the text at hand. I am sorry for you.

    “How about I’m reading exactly what it says and you are ignoring the Word of God as communicated in the New Testament.”

    Again, you have my pity.

    “How does that make you faithful to the full text of your Holy Writ?”

    I am sorry for you. I will pray for your soul.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

  326. “Some people really need to take some physics classes…”

    Run by liberal charlatans, no doubt

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  327. YOU DO NOT FEEL MOTION UNLESS YOU ARE ACCELERATING!

    When you’re driving with a steady speed on the highway, do you feel you’re moving?

    Do you feel you’re moving when you sit in a train?

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  328. Ashamed- Get back in therapy. I mean that in the nicest possible way. I think it could help you if you wrestle with the tortures your Heliocentrism and your other ideas have indirectly inflicted on your soul.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 4:02 pm | Reply

  329. Now, I know where to go when I want to see monkeys making complete idiots of themselves. When I first came to this country, I thought the best place was the zoo, then as I got older, I thought it was the American School system, After military service, I thought the best place to see it was in congress. But now after reading this, I beleave Darwin was wrong. You are proving that with question, man has not evalvaled at all.

    Comment by Gordon Soderberg — May 21, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  330. “YOU DO NOT FEEL MOTION UNLESS YOU ARE ACCELERATING!”

    Yet if we’re on an elliptical solar orbit, we SHOULD accelerate as we near the Sun and its gravitational pull becomes stronger.

    “When you’re driving with a steady speed on the highway, do you feel you’re moving?”

    That’s because I’m sealed in a car.

    “Do you feel you’re moving when you sit in a train?”

    Only because I’m sealed in a train.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  331. Pray all you want, but it seems you are the one lacking in faith.

    Comment by Mr. Smith — May 21, 2007 @ 4:09 pm | Reply

  332. This cannot be real. Nobody would go through this much effort, carefully parsing together fragments of scientific thought, weaving such a rich tapestry of incoherent circular reasoning, to arrive at a conclusion so far removed from science.

    The more I read this, the more Sisyphus seems like a perfectly reasonable secular atheist/agnostic, who has adopted the persona of a rigid, fundamentalist, Brownbackian, in order to cast scorn and ridicule upon Brownback’s constituency.

    If not…keep on keepin’ on with that boulder, Sisyphus… you’re alost to the top!

    Comment by Ben Childs — May 21, 2007 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

  333. If the New Testiment is the perfect word of god, why did he have christians write two them? You can find any thing you want in the new bible to justify any number of horable actions and call it right by GODS LAW. Maybe that was the point of the rewrite? First testiment was too Jewish and didn’t have enough loop wholes.

    Comment by Gordon Soderberg — May 21, 2007 @ 4:23 pm | Reply

  334. You state earlier “evidence” from the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the existence of an ether. Please make up your mind.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 21, 2007 @ 4:24 pm | Reply

  335. “the New Testiment is the perfect word of god, why did he have christians write two them? You can find any thing you want in the new bible to justify any number of horable actions and call it right by GODS LAW. Maybe that was the point of the rewrite? First testiment was too Jewish and didn’t have enough loop wholes.”

    There are Four Gospels. They complement one another perfectly, in accordance with God’s will. The New Testament fulfills the Old. What is your problem with this?

    “You state earlier “evidence” from the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the existence of an ether. Please make up your mind.”

    I’m trying to keep an open mind about this. More than I can say for you moonbats, that’s for sure.

    BTW, I have no time to refute the people who accuse me of spoofing. That accusation isn’t worth dignifying with a response, anyway. Why would someone spend months working on a blog they didn’t believe in? Ask yourselves that question.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  336. Very very glad I found this website. Sometimes it seems like there aren’t many people left in this country who are willng to question the rigid orthodoxy of the secularists. They talk and talk about how “opne-minded” and “accepting” they are but if you question one of their sacred cows, look out!

    Don’t let the atheists silence you, Sisyphus. America needs brave men like you more than ever these days.

    Comment by Abe Liever — May 21, 2007 @ 4:49 pm | Reply

  337. Americans….the most ignorant folks on the “fixed planet”…
    Please, wake up and come down from the “idiot planet” to the real world
    thanks

    Comment by an italian boy — May 21, 2007 @ 4:51 pm | Reply

  338. “BTW, I have no time to refute the people who accuse me of spoofing. That accusation isn’t worth dignifying with a response, anyway. Why would someone spend months working on a blog they didn’t believe in? Ask yourselves that question.”

    I’ll go with the notion that you are insane. Any other explanation makes me fear for the future of, not just this country, but mankind.

    Comment by Dave — May 21, 2007 @ 4:54 pm | Reply

  339. “No. It’s far more rational to follow the edicts of a man who recanted his own views, a man who had carnal relations with Galapagos turtles, and the man who inspired Stalin and Pol Pot. Quite a triumvirate of reason you’ve got there, curseholder. Forgive me if I don’t immediately bow down and follow your false secularist idolatry just yet, but I’ve got an immortal soul to think about, not some garbage written a few hundred years ago by men who respected only money, power, and their own pleasures and appetites!”

    Oh, right. So the Bible, your bastion of truth, was written by whom?
    Which version of the bible is it you follow?
    What extra books does yours have?
    And in what year was it last ‘translated’? And by whom?

    One question. A request actually.
    As all of your proof seems to come from one piece of source material, namely a book that has been re-written hundreds of times, how can you solidly claim that it is proof of a stationary earth? Or of a flat earth, or of gravity being devinely-created, or of geology being false?
    Really, please back up your arguments with evidence, and not supposition based on a book that contradicts it self so many times it makes heads spin.
    Wait, spinning would make your nose sink into your face by your thoughts, wouldn’t it?

    By the way, just one more clarification please.
    At one point you said if we were movin

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 21, 2007 @ 4:54 pm | Reply

  340. Sisyphus, I see no evidence of you attempting to keep an open mind. You mention an experiment that was attempting to prove the existence of an ether that light was supposed to travel through in order to prove your point about an ether existing. Yet this experiment is well known to have indicated the opposing hypothesis. You persist on trying to use this evidence to support your statements, ignoring fact, ignoring evidence and ignoring just about anything that does not say what you want it to say.

    When someone makes a valid point you insult them, call them “moonbats” and refuse to engage them in debate.

    At the beginning of this entry you stated that the Earth is the centre of the universe and mentioned dozens of different theories to support your hypothesis. Over the last several hundred comments a wide range of people have repeatedly provided evidence to the contrary and yet you refuse to listen to reason, to counter each point or to provide supporting evidence for your theories.

    This is why: you have a single source for your evidence and that is the bible.

    Why is it that you cannot see that anyone else’s viewpoint may be valid and that only your right wing political agenda is realistic?

    I believe you when you say that this is not a spoof. No-one would take a spoof this far. To spoof something effectively you have to know when to stop at the bounds of believability. This has simply gone too far.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 21, 2007 @ 4:55 pm | Reply

  341. Sisyphus,

    Do you also take literally the passage in Genesis saying that man was created from the “dust of the earth”? Is this your response to evolution? Do you honestly believe that humanity was created by God from dust? If you believe it, whatever I don’t mind really, but to claim things like that are anything SCIENTIFIC is not only silly, but insane.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

  342. “Yet if we’re on an elliptical solar orbit, we SHOULD accelerate as we near the Sun and its gravitational pull becomes stronger.”

    You’re right, but this is effect is too small to be noticed by humans.

    What do you mean by sealed in a, no, wait, this just isn’t worth an answer

    Tip: search for “inertia”

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 5:16 pm | Reply

  343. “Why would someone spend months working on a blog they didn’t believe in? Ask yourselves that question.”

    I find with people who have a pretty rigid framework of comprehension, you sometimes have to help them carry their arguments to their ludicrous ends. As William Blake put it, the fool who persists in his folly will become wise.

    The dead giveaway is that politically, this blog doesn’t make any sense. Whether or not you actually believe this stuff, you have to realize that this argument, and your smug snot-nosed retorts is political anathema to Brownback.

    You serve Brownback just about as well as Stephen Colbert serves the Republican party. You can take that for whatever you think that’s worth, but the bottom line is either you’re in on the joke that is this blog, or you’re not.

    Either way, it’s funny as hell.

    Comment by Ben Childs — May 21, 2007 @ 5:22 pm | Reply

  344. I must forgive everyone who dismisses science as a conspiracy. I know God does. America allows those released from mental hospitals to walk the same streets that we do. America should also have sympathy for those caught up in the cult of the Christian Identity Movement. You have every right to believe what you can understand. But! You have no right to impose your twisted beliefs onto other people!!!

    Comment by bosskitty — May 21, 2007 @ 5:23 pm | Reply

  345. Oh, yes, it definitely is!

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 5:25 pm | Reply

  346. Got to agree with you Ben. I can’t imagine anyone who seriously wants to help Brownback would write a blog like this. But I can imagine some martyr for the cause (either the Democrats or a competitor) toiling for months to undermine Brownback with a series of blogs. If you’re getting paid, or just are nuts enough to believe you’re making a positive difference, then yes, I can see someone spending months writing the kind of garbage that appears in this blog.

    Comment by Karl Hallowell — May 21, 2007 @ 5:36 pm | Reply

  347. Abe Liever- Thank you!

    italian boy- If you hate America so much, go speak German. That’s the language you’d be speaking if it weren’t for us. Either German, or Russian.

    “Why is it that you cannot see that anyone else’s viewpoint may be valid and that only your right wing political agenda is realistic?”

    On Judgment Day, you’ll know the answer to that question.

    “I believe you when you say that this is not a spoof. No-one would take a spoof this far. To spoof something effectively you have to know when to stop at the bounds of believability. This has simply gone too far.”

    Whatever that means.

    “Do you also take literally the passage in Genesis saying that man was created from the “dust of the earth”?”

    Yes.

    “Is this your response to evolution?”

    Yes.

    “Do you honestly believe that humanity was created by God from dust?”

    Yes.

    “If you believe it, whatever I don’t mind really, but to claim things like that are anything SCIENTIFIC is not only silly, but insane.”

    So you honestly believe your grandpa was a chimpanzee, your great-grandpa was a squirrel whose brother got eaten by dinosaurs, and your great-great grandpa was a fish? NOW who sounds ridiculous?

    “You’re right, but this is effect is too small to be noticed by humans.”

    Sure it is. I’ve just disproven the elliptical orbit notion, and you duck and dodge and weave in an effort to escape. Why can’t you just admit that I’m right?

    “I find with people who have a pretty rigid framework of comprehension, you sometimes have to help them carry their arguments to their ludicrous ends. As William Blake put it, the fool who persists in his folly will become wise.”

    That’s the Democrat theory of success, yes.

    “The dead giveaway is that politically, this blog doesn’t make any sense. Whether or not you actually believe this stuff, you have to realize that this argument, and your smug snot-nosed retorts is political anathema to Brownback.”

    He’s losing votes amongst atheists who weren’t going to vote for him in the first place. The principle of standing by God is what will see him through this election and the next one. The next time you Democrats get a chance at the White House’ll be 2016. And then you probably still won’t win, unless we nominate Giuliani or Romney.

    “You serve Brownback just about as well as Stephen Colbert serves the Republican party. You can take that for whatever you think that’s worth, but the bottom line is either you’re in on the joke that is this blog, or you’re not.”

    Whatever. Pointless ad hominems. In my household, comparisons to Stephen Colbert are an insult.

    “I must forgive everyone who dismisses science as a conspiracy. I know God does. America allows those released from mental hospitals to walk the same streets that we do. America should also have sympathy for those caught up in the cult of the Christian Identity Movement. You have every right to believe what you can understand. But! You have no right to impose your twisted beliefs onto other people!!!”

    Go hug a tree.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 5:44 pm | Reply

  348. “italian boy- If you hate America so much, go speak German. That’s the language you’d be speaking if it weren’t for us. Either German, or Russian.”

    oh, the old history of the good american father….!!! Thank you very much!!! Thank you for the damocracy!!!
    I don’t hate America, I hate the stupid american like you; I hate the people who believe to be the owner of the world and consider the other people like slaves in the name of the oil wars masked in democracy

    Comment by an italian boy — May 21, 2007 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  349. Karl- You’re delusional. No one’s that stupid.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Reply

  350. “I don’t hate America, I hate the stupid american like you; I hate the people who believe to be the owner of the world and consider the other people like slaves in the name of the oil wars masked in democracy”

    We’re the only real Americans; those other people are not. You can have them. America would be better off without them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  351. mmmhhh….if I remember rightly 60 years ago Mussolini sayd something like that…or was he Adolf??? Maybe Stalin….the same thought: “we are the best!”
    Learn from history…
    ah, I’m forgetting that you know just the history your army made…sorry

    “real Americans” wich Americans??? The red skins? The pilgrim fathers (from England)? The Irish? The blacks? The italians (wow!)? The chinese? Wich one?

    Comment by an italian boy — May 21, 2007 @ 6:30 pm | Reply

  352. “So you honestly believe your grandpa was a chimpanzee, your great-grandpa was a squirrel whose brother got eaten by dinosaurs, and your great-great grandpa was a fish? NOW who sounds ridiculous?”

    Actually, all these people in my family tree were human. If you didn’t notice, evolution was a millions-year long process. Thus to suggest that those who recognize the existence of evolution believe that their grandpa was a chimpanzee, is just silly.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  353. “real Americans” wich Americans??? The red skins? The pilgrim fathers (from England)? The Irish? The blacks? The italians (wow!)? The chinese? Wich one?”

    Patriots. Most of them are Christian, but not all. The best sign of patriotism is if someone’s a Republican. Of course, there are some RINOs, and one or two Democrats who still love this country; but generally speaking, Republicans are patriots who understand what this country is about, while Democrats want Europe, the UN, and their hidden masters, the Islamists and Marxists, to win.

    That’s the difference in the world- those who serve freedom, and those who serve sin, evil, and Islamofascism.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 6:38 pm | Reply

  354. “Actually, all these people in my family tree were human. If you didn’t notice, evolution was a millions-year long process. Thus to suggest that those who recognize the existence of evolution believe that their grandpa was a chimpanzee, is just silly.”

    You think your grandpa’s grandpa was a chimpanzee, though.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 6:40 pm | Reply

  355. sorry, I forgot:
    “If you hate America so much, go speak German. That’s the language you’d be speaking if it weren’t for us. Either German, or Russian”, (thinking like you), americans have to say: thank you italians! thank you Cristoforo Colombo: you dicovered our continent!!!

    Comment by an italian boy — May 21, 2007 @ 6:44 pm | Reply

  356. “You think your grandpa’s grandpa was a chimpanzee, though.”

    Nope. My grandpa’s grandpa was a human. Try again.

    Maybe my grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa’s grandpa was a member of the common ancestor species of chimpanzee.

    THAT’S more of an appromixation of how long evolution takes. Buzz off with the nonsense, please.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 6:57 pm | Reply

  357. Sisyphus,

    I would like to encourage you to enroll in college and study biology, physics, geology etc. I know you are too afraid to do that because it is much easier to write a blog where all you have to do to explain your theory is call people names.

    Of all the blogs I have seen yours is by far the most hate-filled. Why won’t God work through you as you try to show us the light if you are right? I didn’t know God chose evil little mean spirited capitalists to spread his word.

    By the way, Jesus was a Democrat. Only selfish satanists are Republicans.

    Comment by Ashamed — May 21, 2007 @ 7:07 pm | Reply

  358. Americans just swallow these lies down quicker than an Indian with a bottle of firewater!
    Completely racist.

    (This is also why I think global warming is a massive hoax.)
    You’re the reason why our great-grandchildren, grandchildren, and maybe even our children won’t survive.

    So you honestly believe your grandpa was a chimpanzee, your great-grandpa was a squirrel whose brother got eaten by dinosaurs, and your great-great grandpa was a fish? NOW who sounds ridiculous?
    You obviously don’t keep an open mind. If you did, you would have read about evolution and learned that different species came from a different ancestor, not a close species. Therefore, our (extremely distant) ancestors would have also been the ancestors of other primates. By your “reasoning”, the “great-great grandpa” of a fish could have been a human. A 13-year-old knows more about evolution than you. You should be ashamed.

    2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.
    Scientists discover things. They don’t invent.

    This was the age of “The Enlightenment” which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as “that filthy little atheist”.
    The fallacy of appeal to authority.

    I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school.
    If so, send him/her to a private/parochial school. Amendment 1 says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Your opinions cannot be fulfilled in public schools, as it blatantly speaks of favoritism towards Christianity. It also goes against the separation of church and state.

    If you hate America so much, go speak German. That’s the language you’d be speaking if it weren’t for us.
    Your retort is a sure sign of intolerance of others.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 21, 2007 @ 7:15 pm | Reply

  359. “Kick Jerry Falwell while he’s down”? What, you figure he’s getting up again? (Oh, the Rapture, I suppose. I’m not sure he’ll be called.)

    Comment by Robert Carnegie — May 21, 2007 @ 7:24 pm | Reply

  360. Are you seriously trying to support this using statements from a religious text?
    That has nothing to do with science.
    May you lose terribly in the election, you fool.

    Oh the stupidity! I’m so glad I’m not American.

    Comment by Angela — May 21, 2007 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  361. People. People. Calm down. Let’s try to be fair.

    Some of you seem to believe in Copercinus. You think that the universe probably revolves around the Sun.

    Some of you seem to believe in God. You think that the universe probably revolves around the Earth.

    So here’s what I propose. Since there is so much controversy about what revolves around what and about whether Copercinus is more authoritative than God, maybe we should start teaching both sides of the issue in our schools? Present heliocentrism as the theory it is, and then present alternative theories—like for example geocentrism—as well. That way students can make up their own minds as to whether the entire universe moves around the sun or around the Earth, and about whether they trust God or Copercinus.

    Doesn’t that seem fairer?

    Comment by DPS — May 21, 2007 @ 8:35 pm | Reply

  362. DPS writes:

    “So here’s what I propose. Since there is so much controversy about what revolves around what and about whether Copercinus is more authoritative than God, maybe we should start teaching both sides of the issue in our schools? Present heliocentrism as the theory it is, and then present alternative theories—like for example geocentrism—as well. That way students can make up their own minds as to whether the entire universe moves around the sun or around the Earth, and about whether they trust God or Copercinus.”

    No. We already teach them ABOUT geocentrism, and that it IS wrong. It should stay that way.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 21, 2007 @ 9:00 pm | Reply

  363. stancelspencer writes:

    No. We already teach them ABOUT geocentrism, and that it IS wrong. It should stay that way.

    Oh, stancelspencer. Don’t cling to the past. Embrace the future. The children can decide. I believe the children are our future.

    Comment by DPS — May 21, 2007 @ 9:52 pm | Reply

  364. God loves you all, atheist mockers, and one day you will know the truth. Sisyphus, I know it’s hard, but you must love them too. Do not let their mockery get to you.

    But though I must love the mocker I will not love the mockery. And I do not agree with “teaching the controversy.” Why should we compromise with Satan? As Sisyphus bravely shows (and none of the mockers dares refute him!) these “scientists” are pagan satan-worshipers who have sex with animals. Why should we teach their lies to our vulnerable children?

    Comment by Praying hands — May 21, 2007 @ 10:00 pm | Reply

  365. If the earth didn’t move, and the sun moved around the earth, why is it that stars are in different parts of the sky as time progresses? Oh wait, God plays marbles in the sky with the stars and they just move around every night, right?

    Comment by NIck — May 21, 2007 @ 10:02 pm | Reply

  366. PRaying hands is right. even tho it feels good i dont think we shold have sex with animals just because it feels good.

    Comment by Gene72 — May 21, 2007 @ 10:13 pm | Reply

  367. Oh wow. I’ve finally stopped laughing enough to type. This is sublime.

    At first glance, I assumed this was fake. Upon reading a bit into the comments, as well as the rest of the blog, a creeping suspicion grew in me that it was real. I mean, surely there are people out there who would believe and type this, aren’t there? And apparently they’d be supporting Brownback. But as I’ve read more comments, the impressive style of the writing, despite some intentional informalities and affected bits of childishness, has convinced me finally that you are engaged in some sort of amazing combination of performance art and character assassination.

    It’s all the nice little touches: “the planet is chubby around the middle”; “The metric system is evil”; “… that Frenchman Voltaire.” Oh, and not blogging on Sundays, though you will still screen and post comments, just not reply. Beautiful, wickedly beautiful.

    It’s the scope that’s most amazing, really. You have to maintain this site and say nice things about various wingnuts, for the long term. Is the payoff the political impact, or the excuse to write lines like “… one cannot serve God and Copernicus.”? I know you can’t break character to answer, but still, your work deserves recognition and praise. I almost hope you take the time to call me a heathen moonbat who just doesn’t get it, but I think that would be a little too cute.

    Sisyphus, sir, madam, or otherwise, I salute you. I also feel for you a little. You’re even more bitter about dogmatic thinkers and American politics than I am, and that’s saying something.

    Comment by Ailurophobic Tomcat — May 21, 2007 @ 10:21 pm | Reply

  368. I totally agree with your theory!! But you have forgot another important point of interest: stop with this “natural sun movement”, the real truth was already known by our ancients many and many centuries ago: is the god Apollo that every morning carry the Sun up to the sky!!! STOP WITH THIS “NATURAL” SUN MOVEMENT!!!
    I have seen him, Apollo!! WAKE UP SCIENCE!!! The real truth is this one!!!!

    Compliments for your very interesting blog!! thank u for your courage!!!
    WE’LL WIN!!!

    Comment by your fan!! (but European) — May 22, 2007 @ 12:39 am | Reply

  369. […] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Blogs 4 Brownback Who believes the sun is the center of the Universe anymore? I thought we stopped worrying about the center of the universe and started worrying about more important things, like Cheez Whiz. (tags: Atheism evolution religion science theism antiscience idiocy) […]

    Pingback by links for 2007-05-22 « Love Uncle Sean — May 22, 2007 @ 3:41 am | Reply

  370. You should not teach geocentrism to children except as part of a lesson in history. It was a theory that has been proven wrong. Heliocentrism is a more reasonable theory but is still innaccurate in that it is too simplistic to properly describe the motion of solar bodies in space.

    We should teach children to think and to question so that they can discover for themselves what this world, this universe is like. This is clearly something that was omitted from your education, Praying hands. I mean, the very idea of scientists being pagan satan-worshipers who have sex with animals is ridiculous. It’s clearly something only a delusional mind could conjure up.

    Rather than throw insults about though I’d like to see specific responses to the comments that I and others have left discrediting the bibliocentric theories put forward in the original entry. I mean saying that I’ll have my answer on Judgement Day is not an effective counter argument. I want an answer now, not after some mythical post Ragnarök time, or are you just goign to call me names again?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 22, 2007 @ 4:28 am | Reply

  371. […] Wacky conversation […]

    Pingback by Time out from art - ya gotta see this « Gloria Hopkins’ Art Journal — May 22, 2007 @ 4:28 am | Reply

  372. “americans have to say: thank you italians! thank you Cristoforo Colombo: you dicovered our continent!!!”

    Actually, the Vikings were here first.

    “THAT’S more of an appromixation of how long evolution takes. Buzz off with the nonsense, please.”

    I shortened it for brevity. Still, the point remains that at some point in the past you believe your ancestors had carnal relations with monkeys, rodents, and fish. If that’s not disturbing, I don’t know what is.

    “By the way, Jesus was a Democrat. Only selfish satanists are Republicans.”

    Political parties didn’t exist back then, and if they had, Jesus wouldn’t have had a right to vote, since he wasn’t a Roman citizen.

    Jesus was a Likudnik, though, and that’s like being a Republican in America.

    “Oh the stupidity! I’m so glad I’m not American.”

    That makes two of us.

    DPS- Your proposal sounds like a reasonable compromise. We could vote this out at the school district level, and in some school districts that compromise might be the way to go. But in MY school district, I don’t even want my kids HEARING about Heliocentrism. And that’s final. I’m glad to see Praying Hands agrees with me on this one.

    Nick- stars move. The Earth doesn’t. Note the difference.

    “It’s the scope that’s most amazing, really. You have to maintain this site and say nice things about various wingnuts, for the long term. Is the payoff the political impact, or the excuse to write lines like “… one cannot serve God and Copernicus.”? I know you can’t break character to answer, but still, your work deserves recognition and praise. I almost hope you take the time to call me a heathen moonbat who just doesn’t get it, but I think that would be a little too cute.”

    Okay. I won’t say that about you. I’ll just call you illiterate. I addressed the spoofing accusation in an earlier comment. Please go back and read it. Thanks.

    “I totally agree with your theory!! But you have forgot another important point of interest: stop with this “natural sun movement”, the real truth was already known by our ancients many and many centuries ago: is the god Apollo that every morning carry the Sun up to the sky!!! STOP WITH THIS “NATURAL” SUN MOVEMENT!!!
    I have seen him, Apollo!! WAKE UP SCIENCE!!! The real truth is this one!!!!”

    If people are right about this “flat Earth” doctrine (still haven’t had a chance to read up on it- sorry!), then anything is possible, because that would mean NASA has been lying to us all along, probably so as to boondoggle away more of our tax dollars.

    You know, the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to believe NASA. I even disagree with President Bush on this one, I guess, except that I think he’s probably squirreling the money away for some important anti-terror program he doesn’t want to let those Defeatocrat Congress critters find out about.

    “We should teach children to think and to question so that they can discover for themselves what this world, this universe is like. This is clearly something that was omitted from your education, Praying hands. I mean, the very idea of scientists being pagan satan-worshipers who have sex with animals is ridiculous. It’s clearly something only a delusional mind could conjure up.”

    The text of the Bible is good enough for them, as it was good enough for their parents and grandparents and so on. If they learn to think too independently, they won’t read the text properly, and you’ll have a million Martin Luthers sowing anarchy and discord wherever they go.

    “Rather than throw insults about though I’d like to see specific responses to the comments that I and others have left discrediting the bibliocentric theories put forward in the original entry. I mean saying that I’ll have my answer on Judgement Day is not an effective counter argument. I want an answer now, not after some mythical post Ragnarök time, or are you just goign to call me names again?”

    Ragnarok is a Pagan holiday. Judgment Day is coming for all of us. On Judgment Day, you will understand why I kept my soul as pure as possible, and didn’t poison it by filling my head with Heliocentric lies.

    I hope that answers your question a little better.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 5:02 am | Reply

  373. “The text of the Bible is good enough for them, as it was good enough for their parents and grandparents and so on. If they learn to think too independently, they won’t read the text properly, and you’ll have a million Martin Luthers sowing anarchy and discord wherever they go.”

    Martin Luther was a German monk and theologian who translated the bible into his native tongue to make it more accessible to people. Do you want the bible to be written in Latin now?

    Martin Luther King Jr (who I assume you meant) was a Baptist minister who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work promoting peace and racial equality, he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. A million Martin Luthers would make this world a much better place than it is today. If teaching people how to think for themselves creates even one more great man (or woman) like Martin Luthor King then why would we not do this?

    Also Ragnarök isn’t a pagan holiday. Look it up, it’s a battle at the end of time, much like the Christian apocalypse myth.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 22, 2007 @ 5:45 am | Reply

  374. […] Phayngula blog reports that there’s a lot of buzz regarding Brownback supporters’ blogs denouncing Heliocentrism, the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun. From https://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com: I […]

    Pingback by Brownback Supporters Denounce Heliocentrism « The Great Realization — May 22, 2007 @ 6:28 am | Reply

  375. Karl- You’re delusional. No one’s that stupid.

    Nah, note the number of people in this article alone who are saying they won’t vote for Brownback now. Hope you’re getting paid for it.

    Of course, the alternative is that you’re picking and choosing phrases out of context from the Bible to support an inane theory. Ie, using a couple of phrases from the Bible to deny what is actually going on. If I were Christian, I’d then say that you’re doing the work of Satan not of God. Ie, you’re telling us how God did this or that in contradiction to easily established fact.

    My question is why would God tell you something that you can find out on your own with moderate effort? Maybe I got this wrong, but I don’t see God telling you what the weather’s like or putting your clothes on you. You can look outside (or something equivalent if you’re blind) and you can dress yourself. In a similar fashion, you can repeat the experiments that they did and see the same things they saw. And see that the Earth indeed moves around the Sun. No need for God to hold your hand and tell you this stuff. Now, on the otherhand, denying reality using words from the Bible? That’s Satan’s style, right?

    Finally, who are you to tell us how God does things? As I understand it, the Bible is considered the source of truth. One browses it in a more or less unique manner depending on the individual. I gather God then inspires the reader to peruse certain chapters and receive enlightenment.

    What I don’t get here is why only the Bible is suitable for this purpose? Why not the Principia Mathematica or The Origin of Species. Sure, these are works of men. But given that the authors were Christian, these works would seem to me divinely inspired, or at least good intentioned. Surely an all-power, all-knowing deity can inspire through these as well.

    Comment by Karl Hallowell — May 22, 2007 @ 6:36 am | Reply

  376. “My question is why would God tell you something that you can find out on your own with moderate effort? Maybe I got this wrong, but I don’t see God telling you what the weather’s like or putting your clothes on you. You can look outside (or something equivalent if you’re blind) and you can dress yourself. In a similar fashion, you can repeat the experiments that they did and see the same things they saw. And see that the Earth indeed moves around the Sun. No need for God to hold your hand and tell you this stuff. Now, on the otherhand, denying reality using words from the Bible? That’s Satan’s style, right?”

    Those experiments are based on lies. God told our fathers that the Earth is stationary; our fathers didn’t feel it move, and neither do I. Foucault’s pendulum and other French/Copernican/Marxist experiments are simply not as persuasive as the evidence of my own eyes.

    “Finally, who are you to tell us how God does things? As I understand it, the Bible is considered the source of truth. One browses it in a more or less unique manner depending on the individual. I gather God then inspires the reader to peruse certain chapters and receive enlightenment.”

    The text binds us immutably. Individualistic perusals result in individual answers suitable to the specific craven appetites of the individual. That should tell you what’s wrong with this method, right there.

    “What I don’t get here is why only the Bible is suitable for this purpose? Why not the Principia Mathematica or The Origin of Species. Sure, these are works of men. But given that the authors were Christian, these works would seem to me divinely inspired, or at least good intentioned. Surely an all-power, all-knowing deity can inspire through these as well.”

    They weren’t true Christians; they wrote books contradicting the Bible. Satan can inspire lies, too, you know.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 7:35 am | Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You know how saying stuff doesn’t magically make it true?

    This is a case in point.

    Comment by Dr A — May 22, 2007 @ 8:36 am | Reply

  378. “You know how saying stuff doesn’t magically make it true?

    This is a case in point.”

    Indeed it is. Blindly following the tenets of Copernicus doesn’t make them so.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 8:40 am | Reply

  379. I’m still not certain whether this post is meant to be a parody….? Seriously…?
    Still, the earth revolves around the sun… fine. It doesn’t…. fine. But it’s an accepted theory, and accepting others “based on science” is also a fine thing, only then how would you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t deserve to be presented in schools too? It deserves some space too!

    Just remember when writing, the Earth may be revolving around the sun, but no one said that Sun was the center of space, if such a thing can even be contemplated.

    Comment by Marmot — May 22, 2007 @ 8:41 am | Reply

  380. “I’m still not certain whether this post is meant to be a parody….? Seriously…?
    Still, the earth revolves around the sun… fine. It doesn’t…. fine. But it’s an accepted theory, and accepting others “based on science” is also a fine thing, only then how would you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t deserve to be presented in schools too? It deserves some space too!”

    NO. This is a Christian country. The Christian religion is the majority religion, and it needs to be respected. Sarcastic joke-religions invented by atheists should not be respected in public schools.

    I hope you can understand the difference between a True faith, based on the Judeo-Christian traditions that have made our civilization great, and a farcical lie devised by sinners to spite Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 8:48 am | Reply

  381. Those experiments are based on lies. God told our fathers that the Earth is stationary; our fathers didn’t feel it move, and neither do I. Foucault’s pendulum and other French/Copernican/Marxist experiments are simply not as persuasive as the evidence of my own eyes.

    You haven’t looked otherwise you wouldn’t say this. One doesn’t taste a song nor hear the tang of a lemon. And our senses are limited. Yes, you won’t feel the Earth move. But that’s not the sense to use. The pendulum sees things you can’t see.

    Also, experiments cannot be based on lies. Certain actions are performed, certain outcomes occur. Our perception of this can be tainted by lies, but not the actual experiment.

    The text binds us immutably. Individualistic perusals result in individual answers suitable to the specific craven appetites of the individual. That should tell you what’s wrong with this method, right there.

    So what “craven appetite” lead you to conclude from some vague passages that generations of scientists are wrong about a basic, easily observed fact of nature? I think hubris, playing God.

    They weren’t true Christians; they wrote books contradicting the Bible. Satan can inspire lies, too, you know.

    They were true Christians and these works do not contradict the Bible. Remember the people who wrote the Bible had crude comprehension of what was around them. There is no possible way that God could explain existence to them, nor is that the focus of the Bible. That’s why I claim the Bible does not say how the universe was created nor does it state how life came to be. You cannot have truth without understanding. It would make no sense for God to attempt to explain these things to them.

    Finally, here’s the reason that I’m upset at your writing. You don’t get to be God. You don’t get to decide how God makes the universe, Earth, life, or humanity. You don’t get to decide which books are “immutable” and which ones aren’t. Neither do you get to decide who is or isn’t Christian. Yet here you are telling me that the Earth is “immovable” based on your feeble interpretation of some biblical passages and terrible thinking (eg, you can’t “feel” the Earth move therefore it doesn’t move). Then you shrug off generations of human experience as “lies”. Then you slander some devout Christians merely because they say things that you happen to disagree with.

    God is not in your words.

    Comment by Karl Hallowell — May 22, 2007 @ 9:14 am | Reply

  382. “You haven’t looked otherwise you wouldn’t say this. One doesn’t taste a song nor hear the tang of a lemon.”

    Are you on drugs?

    “And our senses are limited. Yes, you won’t feel the Earth move. But that’s not the sense to use. The pendulum sees things you can’t see.”

    You’re on drugs, aren’t you?

    “Also, experiments cannot be based on lies. Certain actions are performed, certain outcomes occur. Our perception of this can be tainted by lies, but not the actual experiment.”

    The experiment can be flawed, or misreported, or the measurements can be erroneous. An experiment can be wrong a million ways; it can only be right one. I don’t believe the experiments of these pseudo-scientists, these Darwinists, these geologists, these astronomers. Their data is flawed, either from incompetence or distortion.

    “So what “craven appetite” lead you to conclude from some vague passages that generations of scientists are wrong about a basic, easily observed fact of nature? I think hubris, playing God.”

    I am faithful to the text. If I stray from the path the text sets out for me, my sins will set snares for me in the wilderness.

    “They were true Christians and these works do not contradict the Bible.”

    See the links provided in the post.

    “Remember the people who wrote the Bible had crude comprehension of what was around them. There is no possible way that God could explain existence to them, nor is that the focus of the Bible. That’s why I claim the Bible does not say how the universe was created nor does it state how life came to be. You cannot have truth without understanding.”

    So you’re calling Moses an idiot, is that right? The whole planet was peopled with morons until Copernicus came along. Wonderful. Still, this silly theory makes sense, when one realizes that the people who hold it also think that back in the old days their grandparents were monkeys, squirrels, and fish.

    “It would make no sense for God to attempt to explain these things to them.”

    If it were the Truth, it would’ve been explained. “Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.”

    “Finally, here’s the reason that I’m upset at your writing. You don’t get to be God.”

    Certainly not.

    “You don’t get to decide how God makes the universe, Earth, life, or humanity.”

    Neither do you. That’s why I rely on God’s text.

    “You don’t get to decide which books are “immutable” and which ones aren’t.”

    No, but God does.

    “Neither do you get to decide who is or isn’t Christian.”

    Those who refute Christianity are anti-Christian by default. Do you dispute this?

    “Yet here you are telling me that the Earth is “immovable” based on your feeble interpretation of some biblical passages and terrible thinking (eg, you can’t “feel” the Earth move therefore it doesn’t move). Then you shrug off generations of human experience as “lies”. Then you slander some devout Christians merely because they say things that you happen to disagree with.”

    Heliocentrism is as Godless as Darwinism, Marxism, Nazism, human cloning, sodomy, gambling, and a host of other ideas that moonbats like you have been asking me to embrace all weekend. Sorry, but I’m just not buying it.

    “God is not in your words.”

    God’s words are in the Bible.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 9:27 am | Reply

  383. Gosh I never even heard that! I can’t believe theyve been teaching my little Jake things that are against the Bible down to the school. they never even asked me if that was ok and im his mom for crying out loud. Thanks Senator Brownback I hope you do sometihng about this when you are president. Right now though Im going to call that principal and let her know what I think. things like this is why America is going all to heck in my opinion.

    Comment by topekajen — May 22, 2007 @ 9:50 am | Reply

  384. Oh, these helioleftists are the rudest people I have ever seen in my life! Sisyphus, why do you let them do this? I think they should shoo! Shoo! All of you! Leave decent people alone! Can’t you leave Sisyphus some peace? Look what you’ve put him through!

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 22, 2007 @ 9:59 am | Reply

  385. Well, you’ve got the Phelps family vote sewed up. Good work!

    Comment by Hexar — May 22, 2007 @ 10:09 am | Reply

  386. The Earth orbits the sun? Poppycock. The sun and stars orbit the Earth? Balderdash.

    All right-thinking Americans (and a few stinky Euros, like that Blair fellow) know that the Earth, sun, stars, moon, and all other celestial bodies revolve around our Leader, George Walker Bush. To believe otherwise is treason of the worst sort. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    Comment by Babs — May 22, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  387. Beautiful. Thank you. Thank you so much for helping to remove the scales from our eyes. You will be rewarded in heaven, for sure.

    Comment by tamram — May 22, 2007 @ 10:46 am | Reply

  388. Nice to finally get some support. Thank you, everyone! Next time these moonbat liars surge against us, we should stand together and take them on!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  389. ““You don’t get to decide how God makes the universe, Earth, life, or humanity.”

    Neither do you. That’s why I rely on God’s text. ”

    …Which was written by man, edited by man, changed by man, changed again by man, reinterpereted… well, you get the idea.
    If God’s word(that you follow) is devine and infallable, why did it need re-interperetation or editing? Why is there a ‘version’ after the name ‘Bible’ on the book? And unless you are reading it in the original Hebrew in which it was written/spoken, how can you say for sure that your text is the truth?

    “Those who refute Christianity are anti-Christian by default. Do you dispute this?”

    Yes. Those that refute Christianity are NON-christian by default. not Anti-christian. You are not a dog, does that by default make you anti-dog?

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 22, 2007 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  390. “If God’s word(that you follow) is devine and infallable, why did it need re-interperetation or editing?”

    I don’t think it did.

    “Why is there a ‘version’ after the name ‘Bible’ on the book?”

    Well, the English language is only about 900 years old in its current form.

    “And unless you are reading it in the original Hebrew in which it was written/spoken, how can you say for sure that your text is the truth?”

    If it weren’t, God wouldn’t have allowed my translation to become commonplace.

    “Yes. Those that refute Christianity are NON-christian by default. not Anti-christian. You are not a dog, does that by default make you anti-dog?”

    I don’t spew anti-dog diatribes. That’s the difference.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 11:25 am | Reply

  391. LOL!!! Oh, I can’t believe how many people are falling for this, and actually think you’re stupid enough to be serious! Well done! I haven’t laughed this hard in years!

    Comment by Maria — May 22, 2007 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  392. Sisyphus,

    You wrote “I am faithful to the text.”

    I assume you meant the Bible. I pointed out in comment #107 that a ‘literal’ reading of Luke 13:31-32 can not avoid the conclusion that Herod had a tail. Do you not see the problem of concluding that Herod had a bushy tail because Jesus called him a fox? Furthermore, do you not see the problem with the earth standing still being taken as ‘the earth stood still?’ Doesn’t a ‘literal’ reading of the text have to allow for intelligent inclusion of figurative speech? Surely, Jesus did not want us to think that Herod had a tail, did He?

    So, if you are going to be ‘faithful’ to the text you are going to have to either a) see Herod with a bushy tail or b) use some intelligence in interpreting the message of the passage. Which will you choose?

    Comment by David — May 22, 2007 @ 11:59 am | Reply

  393. “I assume you meant the Bible. I pointed out in comment #107 that a ‘literal’ reading of Luke 13:31-32 can not avoid the conclusion that Herod had a tail. Do you not see the problem of concluding that Herod had a bushy tail because Jesus called him a fox?”

    Perhaps he did. I wasn’t there; I never saw him. If he were secretly in league with Satan, it would make perfect sense.

    “Furthermore, do you not see the problem with the earth standing still being taken as ‘the earth stood still?’ Doesn’t a ‘literal’ reading of the text have to allow for intelligent inclusion of figurative speech? Surely, Jesus did not want us to think that Herod had a tail, did He?”

    It seems plausible to me, actually. Why are you so sure that’s not what He meant?

    “So, if you are going to be ‘faithful’ to the text you are going to have to either a) see Herod with a bushy tail or b) use some intelligence in interpreting the message of the passage. Which will you choose?”

    I choose a.)

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 1:50 pm | Reply

  394. Wow, now that this man has shown us the “truth” I guess NASA scientists can get on the ball and get us to the moon and start launching some of those deep space probes. Oh wait…they already did that because they are aware of the fact that THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN YOU MORONIC IDIOT. It is people like you who give Christianity a bad name by blinding following the written words that were poorly translated and interpreted to suit King James. I am a Christian, but I also know that God wanted me to think and learn and grow as an individual and to look at the clues that he placed in nature and the universe for us to understand. You do realize that the placement of sattelites and space probes can visually prove that the earth revolves around the sun don’t you? Do you also realize that if the Newtonian laws, which you discount in your essay, are false then most machines that we use every day would not function. By the way, Newton was a man of great Christian faith and probably knew far more about the scriptures than you do as he spent decades studying them. You are an antiquated tool and while God loves you, he should be ashamed of your pathetic usage of the intellect which he endowed you with.

    Comment by Kent — May 22, 2007 @ 2:02 pm | Reply

  395. Wow, now that this man has shown us the “truth” I guess NASA scientists can get on the ball and get us to the moon and start launching some of those deep space probes. Oh wait…they already did that because they are aware of the fact that THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN YOU MORONIC IDIOT.”

    Another brain-dead, deluded Helioleftist moonbat. I pity you, Kent. You’re intelligent enough to type, yet you fail to notice the web of lies entangling you.

    “Do you also realize that if the Newtonian laws, which you discount in your essay, are false then most machines that we use every day would not function. By the way, Newton was a man of great Christian faith and probably knew far more about the scriptures than you do as he spent decades studying them. You are an antiquated tool and while God loves you, he should be ashamed of your pathetic usage of the intellect which he endowed you with.”

    Newton was anti-Christian. He wrote treatises denouncing the shape of the Heavens. As for misuse of intellect, stop rehashing Copernican talking points and learn to think things through.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 2:19 pm | Reply

  396. Maria, you don’t seem to get it. An amazing amount of work has gone into this. Sisyphus paid his dues. He deserves to be taken seriously even if he’s not.

    And Sisyphus, I direct your attention to several of the Ten Commandments.

    * You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

    You use the Bible (as the immutable literal word of God). You use it to speak for God. In other words, you idolize the Bible. An idol is not just some trinket towards which worship is directed, but it also is inappropriate use of legitimate religious materials. This is the first part of my complaint with the idea of biblical literalism. According to this commandment, the Bible can’t be used as an idol.

    * You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

    You have been telling us what God did or didn’t do, using your faith in the Bible (not in God) as cause. I don’t know why you insist on the Earth being immovable. In addition to the copious evidence that Earth moves around the Sun, there’s also such things as tides and earthquakes. The ground heaves up and down by a small amount (yes, that you can’t feel) as Earth rotates with the greatest uplift occuring when the Moon or Sun is overhead or on the other side of the world. And of course, the ocean tides more clearly show this effect.

    Earthquakes almost always involve shifting of ground. The strong quakes can shift vast land areas by a few meters. For example, the various earthquakes on the San Andreas fault in California result in measurable shift, often by several yards for the largest quakes. Again something you can see, if you look for it.

    God has clearly decided to move the Earth. So be it.

    *Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.

    I consider the various lazy, fatuous arguments you’ve used in this thread to be dishonest. They aren’t lies in that you believe them to be true. But neither are they sincere. Many generations of scientists have documented observations that demonstrate that Earth indeed moves. This work is open and it can be duplicated. It isn’t “lies”. To even label them as such without consideration is a violation of the above commandment.

    No one has claimed that you can “feel” the Earth move, yet that is one of your more commonly repeated arguments. Another example of insincerity.

    Ultimately, a pendulum isn’t an agent of Satan or based on lies of Satan, but rather just an object in the universe, a weight hanging off some string. A relatively simple observation over a period of weeks of a swinging pendulum will show that it rotates as I and several others have indicated in this thread. That is consistent with the assertion that the Earth moves.

    And if you’re trolling, well I guess that’s bearing false witness as well. Tsk tsk.

    Comment by Karl Hallowell — May 22, 2007 @ 3:01 pm | Reply

  397. The text of the Bible is good enough for them, as it was good enough for their parents and grandparents and so on. If they learn to think too independently, they won’t read the text properly, and you’ll have a million Martin Luthers sowing anarchy and discord wherever they go.

    Science is good enough for us, as it was good enough for our parents and grandparents and so on. If people don’t learn to think too independently, they will still be under the control of whatever (usually corrupt) group that has the power (think Middle Ages corruption among many of the clergy (many positions were sold to the highest bidder), the Nazis, the Communists, etc.).

    Indeed it is. Blindly following the tenets of Copernicus doesn’t make them so.

    Neither does blindly following the tenets of the Bible

    NO. This is a Christian country. The Christian religion is the majority religion, and it needs to be respected. Sarcastic joke-religions invented by atheists should not be respected in public schools.
    I hope you can understand the difference between a True faith, based on the Judeo-Christian traditions that have made our civilization great, and a farcical lie devised by sinners to spite Our Lord Jesus Christ

    Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, the Baha’i Faith, Hinduism, and other TRUE religions also deserve to be respected (hint: see the Bill of Rights) (TRUE meaning that people actually believe in them, find direction from them, and devote their lives to them).

    The experiment can be flawed, or misreported, or the measurements can be erroneous.

    So can observations made by humans.

    Heliocentrism is as Godless as Darwinism, Marxism, Nazism, human cloning, sodomy, gambling, and a host of other ideas that moonbats like you have been asking me to embrace all weekend. Sorry, but I’m just not buying it.

    I take it you don’t believe in arithmetic since it is godless.

    If it weren’t, God wouldn’t have allowed my translation to become commonplace.

    And He wouldn’t have allowed the Torah, the Quran, the Vedas, etc. to spread so well. And He would have prevented the invention of the printing press to stop the texts from spreading and to prevent Luther’s 95 Theses from spreading.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 22, 2007 @ 3:01 pm | Reply

  398. Sisyphus,

    “Perhaps he (Herod) did (have a a bushy tail). I wasn’t there; I never saw him. If he were secretly in league with Satan, it would make perfect sense.”

    You are telling us that you never saw Herod and so you are not sure whether he might not have had a bushy tail? How many humans have you ever seen that did have a bushy tail? Then you intimate that being in league (secretly?) with Satan makes that even more reasonable. Where in Scripture does it give us any reason to conclude that those in league with him have tails, bushy or otherwise?

    “It (Jesus wanted us to think that Herod had a tail) seems plausible to me, actually. Why are you so sure that’s not what He meant?”

    Humans don’t have bushy tails. Nowhere in Scripture (or any secular writings) do we get any hint that Herod had a bushy tail. Isn’t that a good enough reason?

    And finally, you don’t choose to use intelligence in interpreting Scripture! Have you never used figures of speech in your communications? I would really like to know why you would choose to think that Herod had a tail rather than to use your God given intelligence to figure out what this passage is actually saying.

    Comment by David — May 22, 2007 @ 3:15 pm | Reply

  399. Atheists got doctrines? Who knew? I for one am hoping that someone asks Sam Brownback whether he believes that Mary remained a virgin while conceiving and her other several non – Messiah children, and if so what he believes that poor Joseph (consigned to a life of celibacy that was not only no choice of his own but also served no spiritual reason for himself or anyone else whatsoever) thought of or gained from the whole deal. Of course, having to raise, clothe, and feed the Redeemer of mankind is a great honor. But A) having to do the same for A BUNCH OF OTHER KIDS THAT ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY YOURS and B) NEVER GETTING TO HAVE RELATIONS WITH YOUR OWN WIFE? And to think that it is Mary alone that is accounted worthy of veneration while Joseph is merely the world’s most famous celibate cuckhold footnote. (That is if you believe Catholic tradition which claims that Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage, as opposed to the Bible which says that they did in Matthew 1:25 and similar.) If Santorum is able to explain this thing, then MAYBE I will consider voting for someone who left sola scriptura Protestantism for Roman Catholic tradition. Otherwise, I will have to pass. http://healtheland.wordpress.com

    Comment by healtheland — May 22, 2007 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

  400. “Another brain-dead, deluded Helioleftist moonbat. I pity you, Kent. You’re intelligent enough to type, yet you fail to notice the web of lies entangling you.”

    You have typed this in response to my points made to you. Yet you still have not responded to the facts that I presented that the rotation of the earth around the sun can be visibly proven with modern technology, or do you believe that this technology is the work of Satan?

    Newton was anti-Christian. He wrote treatises denouncing the shape of the Heavens. As for misuse of intellect, stop rehashing Copernican talking points and learn to think things through”

    Ok, now when you say that Newton was anti-Christian that is as much of a laugh as almost anything else you have said. Of course your argument for this is that he wrote papers that disagree with the lone point you are trying to make. As I said before…perhaps you should read some of Newtons work, though I doubt you could understand it. Of course, my guess is that your next treatise will speak of what a great Christian Thomas de’ Torquemada was, or perhaps Adolf Hitler.

    Dpn’t worry though. Just take comfort in this statement. God knows that you are a blind idiot, but he will forgive you and still love you.

    Comment by Kent — May 22, 2007 @ 4:18 pm | Reply

  401. Sisyphus:

    I pinged this post because I thought it was really crazy. But I just have to respond after reading more.

    I don’t think that you *are* a very religious person, regardless of how much of the Bible you have memorized. At least you’re not acting like a religious person. What Christians go around calling complete strangers idiots, moonbats (what the heck is that anyway), delusional, brain-dead, etc., etc.?

    That’s not very nice. If you post this kind of thing you’ve got to know that its going to attract a lot of negative attention. You seem to welcome it, relish it and even encourage it. Maybe you’re calling out for attention? I dunno – you’re just not reflecting the God I believe in. Not at all.

    Comment by Gloria Hopkins — May 22, 2007 @ 4:29 pm | Reply

  402. “Maria, you don’t seem to get it. An amazing amount of work has gone into this. Sisyphus paid his dues. He deserves to be taken seriously even if he’s not.”

    Thank you. But I am.

    “You use the Bible (as the immutable literal word of God). You use it to speak for God. In other words, you idolize the Bible. An idol is not just some trinket towards which worship is directed, but it also is inappropriate use of legitimate religious materials.”

    This is a false analogy. You purport to tell other people how to interpret the text away from its original meaning. That is the height of sinful arrogance.

    “This is the first part of my complaint with the idea of biblical literalism. According to this commandment, the Bible can’t be used as an idol.”

    It’s the Word of God. It’s not an idol. There’s a very big difference.

    “You have been telling us what God did or didn’t do, using your faith in the Bible (not in God) as cause.”

    The Bible tells us about God. You can only arrive at the Father through the Holy Spirit.

    “I don’t know why you insist on the Earth being immovable. In addition to the copious evidence that Earth moves around the Sun, there’s also such things as tides and earthquakes.”

    Caused by the moon, probably.

    “Earthquakes almost always involve shifting of ground. The strong quakes can shift vast land areas by a few meters.”

    Earthquakes are not caused by the Earth’s rotation even in the Copernican system.

    “God has clearly decided to move the Earth. So be it.”

    Small pieces of it, not the whole thing. Big, big difference.

    “I consider the various lazy, fatuous arguments you’ve used in this thread to be dishonest.”

    Good thing for me you’re not God.

    “They aren’t lies in that you believe them to be true. But neither are they sincere. Many generations of scientists have documented observations that demonstrate that Earth indeed moves. This work is open and it can be duplicated. It isn’t “lies”. To even label them as such without consideration is a violation of the above commandment.”

    That work is blasphemy. As such, it is dishonest.

    “No one has claimed that you can “feel” the Earth move, yet that is one of your more commonly repeated arguments. Another example of insincerity.”

    This makes no sense. I think you need to think this through again.

    “Ultimately, a pendulum isn’t an agent of Satan or based on lies of Satan, but rather just an object in the universe, a weight hanging off some string.”

    It’s used in a Satanic fashion.

    “A relatively simple observation over a period of weeks of a swinging pendulum will show that it rotates as I and several others have indicated in this thread. That is consistent with the assertion that the Earth moves.”

    It’s also consistent with the fact that Satan can mangle experiments if he chooses to. He’s the Prince of Lies, and there’s nothing he loves more than modern science.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 4:35 pm | Reply

  403. “You are telling us that you never saw Herod and so you are not sure whether he might not have had a bushy tail? How many humans have you ever seen that did have a bushy tail?”

    Who knows if he was even human?

    “Then you intimate that being in league (secretly?) with Satan makes that even more reasonable. Where in Scripture does it give us any reason to conclude that those in league with him have tails, bushy or otherwise?”

    Well, the passage you cited, for example.

    “Humans don’t have bushy tails. Nowhere in Scripture (or any secular writings) do we get any hint that Herod had a bushy tail. Isn’t that a good enough reason?”

    What about the passage you cited?

    “And finally, you don’t choose to use intelligence in interpreting Scripture! Have you never used figures of speech in your communications? I would really like to know why you would choose to think that Herod had a tail rather than to use your God given intelligence to figure out what this passage is actually saying.”

    Because the Bible says the Truth. Interpretation is not for us. To assign onesself that duty is the height of presumption.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 4:40 pm | Reply

  404. wow, this is pretty stupid. The earth rotates on it’s axis something like 600-800 miles an hour, but do we feel it? No. Just because you can’t feel it doesn’t mean that it isn’t real. And saying that the sun revolves around earth is the most retarded thing i have ever heard, considering that our spaceships have sat in space and ACTUALLY WATCHED THE EARTH ROTATE ON ITS OWN AXIS. I really thought that this was a satire or a parody at first, but then i realized that this tard was serious. Did you know that star constellations millions of lightyears away can only been seen during some months of the year? Do you honestly believe that the earth stands still and that stars millions of lightyears away make full revolutions around the earth
    (n lightyears X pi) in the course of one earth year? that is complete ludicrous. the most ludicrous thing is how this retard ever came to be a united states senator, with his narrow minded, biblical literalist views.

    Oh, and another thing; did you know that of all three biological therories (cell theory, DNA theory and evolutionary theory), evolutionary theory is the most documented and the most proven theory of them all. So saying that scientists were wrong about evolution worse than saying “cells do not make up our bodies” or “DNA does not control our cells.” And most critics of evolution have never taken a course on evolution. That is why most evo-critics don’t realize that we didn’t evolve FROM chimps, but WITH chimps from a common ancestor.

    Comment by Kevin — May 22, 2007 @ 4:41 pm | Reply

  405. My girl friend reckons the earth moves !

    Usually about once aweek.

    Comment by uknetzone — May 22, 2007 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  406. Sisyphus,

    The answer to my question “How many humans have you ever seen that did have a bushy tail?” ought to be in the form of a number. Your response was “Who knows if he (Herod) was even human?” Not a number!!

    Scripture treats him as human in numerous passages. He is a king, he has a brother, he has a wife, he has hands, he talks and gives orders, people do what he says, etc. EXCEPT this one statement about his being a fox. Of course, this statement is making use of a figure of speech. But, you choose to ignore all the other statements in God’s Word that clearly show that those who interacted with him had no question but that he was a human?

    “Well, the passage you cited, for example.”

    The passage I cited says nothing about Herod being in league with the devil. So would you please answer the question I asked. “Where in Scripture does it give us any reason to conclude that those in league with him (satan) have tails, bushy or otherwise?”

    “What about the passage you cited?”

    What about it??? The passage I cited does not say anything about tails. Jesus calls Herod a fox. Foxes have tails; humans don’t. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that Herod is a human. Doesn’t that have any weight in your grasp of the passage in Luke 13? I know that you never saw him personally and so you have a hard time figuring out if he was or was not human. But, the people who interacted with him make it clear that he was a member of a family of humans and treated him just like he actually was a human. Nobody treats him like he was a fox (the kind that have a bushy tail).

    “Because the Bible says the Truth.”

    We agree on that.

    “Interpretation is not for us.”

    Where does God say this? Interpretation is the assignment of meaning or significance to something. A set of words to which I have not assigned a meaning has no relevance to my thinking. So, even if they are true, they mean nothing to me without me interpreting them. It is not presumption to interpret; it is to be alive.

    Comment by David — May 22, 2007 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

  407. “wow, this is pretty stupid. The earth rotates on it’s axis something like 600-800 miles an hour, but do we feel it? No. Just because you can’t feel it doesn’t mean that it isn’t real.”

    Yet atheism is just fine by you.

    “And saying that the sun revolves around earth is the most retarded thing i have ever heard, considering that our spaceships have sat in space and ACTUALLY WATCHED THE EARTH ROTATE ON ITS OWN AXIS.”

    Those spaceships are fraudulent. Mankind has probably never entered outer space. I grow increasingly convinced of that.

    “Oh, and another thing; did you know that of all three biological therories (cell theory, DNA theory and evolutionary theory), evolutionary theory is the most documented and the most proven theory of them all.”

    Why should I believe anything said by a charmer like you?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  408. “My girl friend reckons the earth moves !

    Usually about once aweek.”

    Thanks for sharing. I assume you’re referring to sodomy. I will pray for you.

    “The answer to my question “How many humans have you ever seen that did have a bushy tail?” ought to be in the form of a number. Your response was “Who knows if he (Herod) was even human?” Not a number!!”

    That’s because I was pointing out that your fundamental initial assumption (that Herod was human) is flawed.

    “Scripture treats him as human in numerous passages. He is a king, he has a brother, he has a wife, he has hands, he talks and gives orders, people do what he says, etc. EXCEPT this one statement about his being a fox.”

    Maybe Jesus was the only one who knew he wasn’t human.

    “Of course, this statement is making use of a figure of speech. But, you choose to ignore all the other statements in God’s Word that clearly show that those who interacted with him had no question but that he was a human?”

    Herod was a fox. He was good at disguising himself, being cunning as a fox; but Jesus knew otherwise.

    “What about it??? The passage I cited does not say anything about tails. Jesus calls Herod a fox. Foxes have tails; humans don’t. The overwhelming witness of Scripture is that Herod is a human. Doesn’t that have any weight in your grasp of the passage in Luke 13? I know that you never saw him personally and so you have a hard time figuring out if he was or was not human. But, the people who interacted with him make it clear that he was a member of a family of humans and treated him just like he actually was a human. Nobody treats him like he was a fox (the kind that have a bushy tail).”

    Maybe he cut his tail off to hide the fact that he was really a fox. How should I know?

    “Where does God say this? Interpretation is the assignment of meaning or significance to something. A set of words to which I have not assigned a meaning has no relevance to my thinking. So, even if they are true, they mean nothing to me without me interpreting them. It is not presumption to interpret; it is to be alive.”

    Then write your own Bible, interpret it however you want, and do whatever you want. Luckily, not all of us ascribe to your formula for perfect anarchy.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 22, 2007 @ 6:06 pm | Reply

  409. I know that you will probably have some snide comment in response to this sisyphus but I’m not going to stay on this page long enough to read it.

    You are wrong. Thats all I’m going to say.

    Comment by Geoff — May 22, 2007 @ 7:21 pm | Reply

  410. We should teach the children Biblical truth, hoverfrog. Do they deserve anything less than truth? If we let them “discover for themselves” they will most likely discover SIN. The devil is everywhere.

    You call me “delusional” and then you start the very next paragraph “Rather than throw insults about.” Do not be a hypocrite, hoverfrog.

    God loves you, hoverfrog. Come into the light. Put aside your mean caviling, put aside your petty mockery! Do not be afraid of the truth.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 22, 2007 @ 8:11 pm | Reply

  411. […] – This aritcle is reposted from Blogs For Brownback.  We’re trying to get hold of the original author, sisyphus, and get proper permission, but […]

    Pingback by STR : THE FREEDOM BLOG » Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine — May 22, 2007 @ 10:01 pm | Reply

  412. Thank you for responding to my comment Praying Hands. I had hoped that Sisyphus would respond but he seems to be ignoring my comments.

    I wholeheartedly agree that we should teach our children the truth. Of course we have diagrammatically opposing views as to what the truth is. My views are based on science and logic while yours seem to be based on a literal reading of an edited and badly translated collection of documents. The search for truth is not something that can be found in any book, no matter how old, you need to actually get out into the world and discover it for yourself. Of course you seem perfectly content to wrap yourself up in a safe little bubble and block out the rest of the world so that you can justify your delusional ramblings with biblical quotes.

    I’d also try to find a different verb, “caviling” means to quibble over insignificant details. This is not what I’m doing. I am out and out disagreeing with you on every single one of your points and on Sisyphus’ points.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 3:50 am | Reply

  413. Bye, Geoff.

    I’m not intentionally ignoring anyone’s posts, hoverfrog. But when you get 20 or 30 posts demanding replies every time you get back to the computer, it’s hard to get to them all. I apologize. I’ll reply to the more recent one, though.

    “I wholeheartedly agree that we should teach our children the truth. Of course we have diagrammatically opposing views as to what the truth is.”

    I agree.

    “My views are based on science and logic while yours seem to be based on a literal reading of an edited and badly translated collection of documents.”

    I feel that our text is more reliable than your experiments.

    “The search for truth is not something that can be found in any book, no matter how old, you need to actually get out into the world and discover it for yourself. Of course you seem perfectly content to wrap yourself up in a safe little bubble and block out the rest of the world so that you can justify your delusional ramblings with biblical quotes.”

    The Bible is what got us where we are today. Following the Bible shows obedience to the will of God, and that is why God has blessed us with prosperity and security and leadership which understands the value of these things.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 4:53 am | Reply

  414. “He’s losing votes amongst atheists who weren’t going to vote for him in the first place.”

    Wow. Pure genius.

    Comment by Elmer's Evil Twin — May 23, 2007 @ 4:55 am | Reply

  415. Freedom Blog: You have my permission to repost this article in full. Everyone does. A man doesn’t light a candle and put it in a jar or hide it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 5:02 am | Reply

  416. “I feel that our text is more reliable than your experiments.”

    Yet you fail to conduct your own experiments and fail to question and explore the text. Ignorance doesn’t make you right, it just makes you ignorant.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 5:56 am | Reply

  417. In reply to:

    “It’s okay. I have thick skin.”
    ~~ Sisyphus, May 18, 2007 @ 3:10 pm ~~

    The evidence suggests thick head, Sysiphus. Are you trying to embarass Sam Brownback? That is what you are doing, by associating your stuff and nonsense with his name and campaign.

    With supporters like you, he doesn’t need a scandal. He might make a good president, he might not, but his merits and weaknesses are not related to your lack of grasp on reality and simply observed astronomical facts.

    Put another way, you represent Christians badly, by fitting the stereotype that some stheists have of Christians as idiots.

    You might want to stop playing for the opposing side if you wish to achieve something with this site.

    Either that, or accept that you are in the 90% regime of Sturgeon’s Law.

    DR

    Comment by DR — May 23, 2007 @ 6:41 am | Reply

  418. Sorry, that was supposed to be “atheists” rather than “stheists.” Sloppy me. 😦

    Comment by DR — May 23, 2007 @ 6:42 am | Reply

  419. Sisyphus,

    I must admit I have never come in contact with somebody who thinks like you apparently do. You are clearly intelligent, clever, and knowledgeable. And, yet you said: “Herod was a fox. He was good at disguising himself, being cunning as a fox; but Jesus knew otherwise.”

    For this to be true:
    – he would have had to have fox DNA and not human DNA,
    – he would somehow have to learn to talk (and much, much more) without any of the physical capabilities to do so,
    – he would have to disguise his body to look like a human (cutting off his tail (????) would only be the beginning of what he would have to be able to accomplish),
    – he would have to be able to fool his ‘parents’ into believing he was their son,
    – he would have to fool his wife into believing that he was human,
    – his wife would have to believe that she gave birth to children by him when in fact that would have been impossible,
    – etc. etc. etc. . . .

    He may have been ‘clever’ as you say; but, do you really believe that a fox (even a 10-sigma clever fox) could disguise himself to this degree? Would you please help me to understand how you put this all together?

    “Then write your own Bible, interpret it however you want, and do whatever you want. Luckily, not all of us ascribe to your formula for perfect anarchy.”

    Non Sequitur!!! Ad hominem!!! Can’t you do better than that?

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 7:43 am | Reply

  420. obviously the earth is the center of the universe, but what i want to know is…when is the rapture coming?

    Comment by shakes — May 23, 2007 @ 8:38 am | Reply

  421. “The evidence suggests thick head, Sysiphus.”

    More reasoned analysis from the “reality-based” community.

    “Are you trying to embarass Sam Brownback? That is what you are doing, by associating your stuff and nonsense with his name and campaign.”

    This blog is helping Brownback get elected. If nothing else, it helps him by drawing in the views of deranged leftists like yourself, so that reasonable voters can read them and see how unhinged you are.

    “With supporters like you, he doesn’t need a scandal. He might make a good president, he might not, but his merits and weaknesses are not related to your lack of grasp on reality and simply observed astronomical facts.”

    He’ll make an excellent President. Education reform will include a return to fact-based science education in our schools. Darwinism, Copernicanism, and Marxism will go out the window. Probably your meal ticket along with them, judging by your vehemence over all this.

    “Put another way, you represent Christians badly, by fitting the stereotype that some stheists have of Christians as idiots.”

    There’s nothing idiotic in what I’ve said so far. I stand by every post and comment I’ve made. It’s not my problem if some people are too stupid to comprehend the flaws in their education and background training. I pity them.

    “You might want to stop playing for the opposing side if you wish to achieve something with this site.”

    This site is achieving its goals, rallying support for Brownback. Tell Marcia P., Jack Fremont, DPS, Harry, and Praying Hands, among many others, what you’ve just told me. Brownbackers are rallying to this site, and we’re going to keep rallying until we overwhelm your corrupt, dishonest pseudoscientific Marxism-based political cabal.

    “Either that, or accept that you are in the 90% regime of Sturgeon’s Law.”

    I don’t know that one, sorry.

    “Sorry, that was supposed to be “atheists” rather than “stheists.” Sloppy me.”

    It’s okay, we knew what you meant.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 8:40 am | Reply

  422. “I must admit I have never come in contact with somebody who thinks like you apparently do. You are clearly intelligent, clever, and knowledgeable.”

    Aw, shucks. Thanks!

    “For this to be true:
    – he would have had to have fox DNA and not human DNA,”

    Satan could easily pull off such a minor trick. I’m sure of it. More certain than I am of DNA’s relevance, or even existence.

    “- he would somehow have to learn to talk (and much, much more) without any of the physical capabilities to do so,”

    Well, again, Satan could help him out.

    “- he would have to disguise his body to look like a human (cutting off his tail (????) would only be the beginning of what he would have to be able to accomplish),”

    Masks, wigs, and gloves could easily accomplish the rest.

    “- he would have to be able to fool his ‘parents’ into believing he was their son,
    – he would have to fool his wife into believing that he was human,
    – his wife would have to believe that she gave birth to children by him when in fact that would have been impossible,”

    All of this could be accomplished by the use of narcotics and changelings. Satan could easily engineer such a dastardly trick.

    “Non Sequitur!!! Ad hominem!!! Can’t you do better than that?”

    I feel very strongly that allowing people to interpret God’s Word willy-nilly is the perfect recipe for anarchy. I apologize if I poorly conveyed this concept to you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  423. “obviously the earth is the center of the universe, but what i want to know is…when is the rapture coming?”

    That’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? None of us know for certain. We can only pray that it comes as soon as possible. But in the fullness of time, it will certainly come to pass.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 8:47 am | Reply

  424. Sisyphus:

    You might want to check into this:
    http://tinyurl.com/89dbh
    “KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

    Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

    “Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

    Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

    Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

    According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God’s Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

    The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue “so they can make an informed decision.”

    “We just want the best possible education for Kansas’ kids,” Burdett said.

    Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein’s ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

    “Let’s take a look at the evidence,” said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden.”In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, ‘And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.’ He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, ‘But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.’ If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling.”

    Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton’s mathematics and Holy Scripture.

    “Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein’s general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world,” said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. “They’ve been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don’t know how.”

    “Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work,” Carson said. “What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that ‘gravity waves’ and ‘gravitons’ are just secular words for ‘God can do whatever He wants.'”

    Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

    “Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the ‘electromagnetic force,’ the ‘weak nuclear force,’ the ‘strong nuclear force,’ and so-called ‘force of gravity,'” Burdett said. “And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus.””

    Comment by Greg — May 23, 2007 @ 9:18 am | Reply

  425. Nice try, Greg. That’s from the Onion. I believe in gravity; I’m not an idiot, no matter how many times you atheistic sheep call me one.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 9:21 am | Reply

  426. Sisyphus,

    “Satan could easily pull off such a minor trick (changing a literal fox into the appearance of a man). I’m sure of it.”

    Please reference the Scripture that says ‘literally’ that satan has this power.

    “More certain than I am of DNA’s relevance, or even existence.”

    You honestly DON’T believe that you have things generally called ‘cells’ and that within those cells there are molecules that are generally referred to as ‘DNA’ and that this DNA is a major component in defining your physical characteristics? I assume you don’t have a fox like tail. Why is that? Why is it that foxes do have bushy tails? (And, please don’t respond that God did it; that is not the question.)

    “All of this could be accomplished by the use of narcotics and changelings. Satan could easily engineer such a dastardly trick.”

    Again, please reference the Scripture that says ‘literally’ that such narcotics were known to the generation being discussed and that satan has this power. Changelings!! How do you know there are such things from Scripture?

    “I apologize if I poorly conveyed this concept to you.”

    Apology accepted.

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 9:26 am | Reply

  427. “You honestly DON’T believe that you have things generally called ‘cells’ and that within those cells there are molecules that are generally referred to as ‘DNA’ and that this DNA is a major component in defining your physical characteristics? I assume you don’t have a fox like tail. Why is that? Why is it that foxes do have bushy tails? (And, please don’t respond that God did it; that is not the question.)”

    I honestly don’t know. It seems easy enough to prove, assuming that one has faith in microscopes.

    As for foxes, I assume because their fathers had bushy tails. The sperm is planted the field of the mother’s womb; the crops are tilled thence some time later. (I don’t want to get more graphic than that; this is a family-oriented website.)

    “Again, please reference the Scripture that says ‘literally’ that such narcotics were known to the generation being discussed and that satan has this power. Changelings!! How do you know there are such things from Scripture?”

    Narcotics and changelings have always been with us. The Scriptures frequently reference wine, which is itself a powerful enough drug to effectuate such a farce. “Changeling” is as easy as switching infants in a womb. One might argue that Jacob and Esau almost did such a thing, in the sense that Jacob stole his brother’s birthright.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 9:34 am | Reply

  428. I love how you equate King Herod to Basil Brush. I suppose a children’s TV show puppet is the work of Satan as well?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Reply

  429. hoverfrog writes:

    “I love how you equate King Herod to Basil Brush. I suppose a children’s TV show puppet is the work of Satan as well?”

    Teletubbies.

    I rest my case.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 10:28 am | Reply

  430. If you really believe this then you need medication.

    Comment by Educated man — May 23, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Reply

  431. Sisyphus,

    “I honestly don’t know (if DNA exists or is useful for anything). It seems easy enough to prove, assuming that one has faith in microscopes.”

    Do you have faith in microscopes? Because if you do, then others have already proved DNA’s existence using ‘microscopes’ and that frees you to answer my question directly (or literally if you prefer).

    “As for foxes, I assume because their fathers had bushy tails. The sperm is planted the field of . . . .”

    I only cut off the rest of your comment out of respect for this being “a family-oriented website.” My question is – how is it that you ‘believe’ in sperm and not DNA? The Scriptures never use the word sperm.

    “The Scriptures frequently reference wine, which is itself a powerful enough drug to effectuate such a farce (fooling his family and wife, during his entire life, into thinking he was a man when in reality he was a fox).”

    They (everybody who came into contact with him) would have had to have been drunk all their lives. They would all have had one heck of a hangover, don’t you think? You really believe that Herod pulled this masquerade off with wine?

    “Changeling is as easy as switching infants in a womb.”

    Easy???? Wow, I had never heard a definition like this! But, again, where in Scripture does it say that satan could do this easy switch in the womb?

    Literal interpretation seems to be one of your primary tenets. I have asked you in the previous posts for specific passages that support your assertions. I am sure you must know where Scripture says these things or you would not have said them in the first place. I continue to await your Scriptural references. I hope you don’t want to leave the impression through your witness here with the youngsters that are visiting this family oriented site that it is OK to state firm conclusions without any Scriptural support?

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  432. David:

    “Sperma” is just Greek for “seed”. And don’t even tell me that the books of the Law don’t talk about seed. If you look, you’ll find seed everywhere in your Bible.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  433. God SPEAKS to us through the Bible, hoverfrog. We hear the voice of God and we know it.

    “Experiments” are nothing but occult seances that invite the Devil to do his trickery. Newton and Galileo were known satanist alchemists and it has been downhill since then. What you call “the world” contains things made by the Lord, but it also contains things made by the Devil to trick us and lead us astray. Hoverfrog, do your scientists have instruments that can distinguish between the works of the Lord and the works of the Devil?

    It is a terrible sin that children are made to do “experiments” in classrooms, to “measure” things and write them down in satanic numbers in lab books, to memorize and chant devilish formulas. These “lab” courses are nothing but forced satan-worship and we should get them out of our schools now.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 23, 2007 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  434. Hi DPS,

    As you say, sperma is the Greek word which is usually, but not always, tranlated into English as ‘seed.’ Sperm is the English word for . . . well sperm. Our sperm is not literally a ‘seed.’ We have to stay literal here, Sisyphus makes the rules, you know.

    Also, as you said, in the “books of the Law” the English word seed appears many times. However, as you probably also know this is a translation of the Hebrew word zera. Certainly, Sisyphus did not learn about sperm from zera.

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  435. This is funny.
    You have totally demolished creationism by taking all of their arguments to their “logical” conclusions,
    but you forgot to deny that insects have six legs (’cause it says four in the bible),
    and you should claim that Biblical Scientists have indeed found the pillars on which the Earth rests, though they are invisible, and undetectable, unless you have faith.

    Let us all praise an ancient book written by people who would have been baffled by the concept of zero and for whom the wheelbarrow was an emerging technology!

    Comment by Jason Failes — May 23, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  436. I’m LOLing!

    I have to point this out, though, although someone probably has already: Galileo recanted under duress. He truly believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but the Catholic church considered this a heresy, which was a capital offense. In order to avoid execution, Galileo recanted.

    Under the threat of death, I think many people would recant beliefs that aren’t essential to their moral centers. That Galileo recanted shows how barbaric the Church was, not that Galileo was inconsistent.

    Comment by The Skepticist — May 23, 2007 @ 1:00 pm | Reply

  437. People like you Sisyphus should not be allowed to vote. I’m sorry, but voting irresponsibly breeds war-mongering presidents, inflated federal power, inflated deficits, ever-widening rifts in economic status, and what’s probably the worst thing possible for America – a melding of church and state. If you want to live in a sectarian land move to Iraq.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

  438. If you really believe this then you need medication.”

    Another tool of the scientists to keep us in their thrall.

    “God SPEAKS to us through the Bible, hoverfrog. We hear the voice of God and we know it.”

    Exactly.

    “I have to point this out, though, although someone probably has already: Galileo recanted under duress. He truly believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but the Catholic church considered this a heresy, which was a capital offense. In order to avoid execution, Galileo recanted.”

    He deserved all the duress he got. The man was a professional liar!

    “People like you Sisyphus should not be allowed to vote.”

    You’re a Marxist and an Islamofascist, Mr Burns.

    “If you want to live in a sectarian land move to Iraq.”

    Why? They’re your buddies, not mine.

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

  439. No Sisyphus, I’m a patriotic American who believes in what the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights grants us. Attempt to pigeonhole me with inaccurate tags if you want to, but you truly are the one in the dark.

    People of the middle east my buddies? No, but I am sympathetic to people and cultures all over the world, and it’s made possible by not having prejudices based on religious choice, and the dogma that religion provides. Your own savior spoke about tolerance and acceptance, or does your Christian sect choose to ignore those parts? Do you also choose to ignore the parts of the Bible that see slavery as acceptable? If the bible is God’s infallible word, then every word in it has to be accurate in your mind. So, we can conclude that you believe that slavery is acceptable.

    The theory of evolution is as solid fact as the theory of gravity – perhaps your god doesn’t allow you to believe in gravity either.

    Post biblical science is a beautiful thing. we actually learned things since then.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 1:46 pm | Reply

  440. I also have to thank you all for creating this blog site which is surely going to help damage his campaign. We already have a mindless idiot in the White House. Why would anyone want to replace that with his child?

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 1:54 pm | Reply

  441. Oh, wait, you’re…serious?

    Weird.

    Comment by Jason Failes — May 23, 2007 @ 2:07 pm | Reply

  442. Praying hands, I note with interest that you are quite happy to use the products of science. Computers and the Internet weren’t around 6000 or even 2000 years ago. They have been invented by men of science and are the product of decades of rational thought and experimentation. Clearly everything invented since electricity was first harnessed is the work of Satan and you should definitely shun it for fear of it corrupting your immortal soul.

    Or is some science alright? Do you get to pick and choose which tools of Satan are OK to use?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

  443. David: surely you’re not suggesting that Gen 38:9 is about sunflower seeds, or pumpkin seeds, or something like that? That doesn’t even make any sense. I’m starting to wonder if you’re maybe not just a parody. This is serious business, and your clowning around doesn’t help.

    Brian Burns: if you think that Senator Brownback is the child of President Bush, then maybe you’re the one who shouldn’t be allowed to vote. They don’t even have the same last name, and they’re only about 10 years apart in age. Get your facts straight before you go off on your angry, nonsensical rants.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 2:31 pm | Reply

  444. DPS

    Only your child-like mind would take “child” of Bush literally. The term was used to compare the two and nothing more. You might want to use a bit of common sense before you speak next time – or did the Great Creator God in the sky take that part of your mind away from you?

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 2:39 pm | Reply

  445. He’ll make an excellent President. Education reform will include a return to fact-based science education in our schools. Darwinism, Copernicanism, and Marxism will go out the window.
    Your stuff is pseudoscience, not science. It makes NO reproducible, testable hypotheses.

    The man was a professional liar!
    One only lies if he says one thing but knows the opposite to be true. Galileo actually believed his theory.

    You’re a Marxist and an Islamofascist, Mr Burns.
    Fascists tend to classify people and use propoganda to further their own interests.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 23, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  446. Bryan Burns:

    Shh. Shh. Calm your anger. There’s no need for heated words.

    As for “child,” how are we supposed to know when you mean something literally and when you mean it metaphorically? This is a problem that I see with liberals all the time, this slick rhetoric, this bobbing and weaving, this “I didn’t say what I said” attitude. This is how we get things like “it depends what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” If you could just say what you mean and stick to it, rather than weaving webs of deceptive rhetoric, it would be a lot easier to have a proper conversation.

    I’m glad, at least, to see that you acknowledge that there is a Great Creator God in the sky. Maybe we’re getting somewhere after all!

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  447. Lietk12

    I’m sorry to inform you that a Fascist believes in a centralized government headed up by a dictator. That would be anybody but me considering I believe in less government.

    Marxism? Nope.

    Try again?

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 3:53 pm | Reply

  448. Yes DPS

    I believe in the great creator god in the sky. Pardon me if I fail to capitalize – Other interests include – parasailing with women born of rib dust, surfing inside mouths of whales with my buddy Jonah, and keeping slaves since the great creator god in the sky tells me it’s ok to do so. I was thinking of doing the Leviticus thing and selling my daughter as a slave to my neighbor, but I am thinking now that this creator god in the sky stuff may not be entirely true afterall.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  449. URGENT message for Brian Burns:

    Please don’t do anything rash. If you look carefully, you’ll see that selling your daughter into slavery is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL. Please think long and hard before you take this very serious step. You should also consider carefully which of your neighbors you sell her to, if that’s what you decide to do in the end. I think you will feel better if you sell her to a kind master.

    As for the other business about whale surfing, I assume that this is another one of your metaphors, but I’m not sure. If it is, I’m not sure I want to know what it’s a metaphor for.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 4:17 pm | Reply

  450. Actually I have a stubborn and rebellious son, we’ve tried punishing him but he just won’t tidy his room. Should I follow Law as laid down in Deuteronomy 21 and have all the men of my town stone him to death at the town gate? I mean it is the law according to the bible, even though I’d be breaking the law of the land by committing murder. I’m sure the bible says something about obeying the law of man (I beleive slavery is considered illegal as well) but that can’t be right. The bible can’t contradict itself can it? Surely that would make it a flawed document and not suitable to base an entire life on. That just can’t be right?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 23, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  451. “No Sisyphus, I’m a patriotic American who believes in what the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights grants us.”

    That document was of Christians, by Christians, for Christians. The First Amendment guaranteed religious freedom amongst Christians throughout the 13 colonies. It’s true. Look it up. That was the Original Intent of the Founders.

    “People of the middle east my buddies? No, but I am sympathetic to people and cultures all over the world, and it’s made possible by not having prejudices based on religious choice, and the dogma that religion provides.”

    I think freedom and Christianity go hand in hand. Theoretically, people could exist otherwise; on the other hand, how many Muslim democracies has the world witnessed? (Turkey was autocratic under Ataturk, and Lebanon is sectarian; those two don’t count.)

    “Do you also choose to ignore the parts of the Bible that see slavery as acceptable?”

    Cite them.

    “The theory of evolution is as solid fact as the theory of gravity – perhaps your god doesn’t allow you to believe in gravity either.”

    Gravity exists. Sweeping declarations in favor of evolution don’t make it so, though.

    “Post biblical science is a beautiful thing. we actually learned things since then.”

    Apart from cars, the Internet, and military toys like stealth bombers, I have little use for most of it.

    “I also have to thank you all for creating this blog site which is surely going to help damage his campaign. We already have a mindless idiot in the White House. Why would anyone want to replace that with his child?”

    I assume you’re referring to Rudy McRomney’s campaign. That Cerberus is going to get all three of its jaws kicked in by Brownback come Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 4:58 pm | Reply

  452. “Actually I have a stubborn and rebellious son, we’ve tried punishing him but he just won’t tidy his room. Should I follow Law as laid down in Deuteronomy 21 and have all the men of my town stone him to death at the town gate?”

    If it’s gotten that out of hand, then yes. Rebellious children are a serious problem indeed. Maybe if we stoned a few of them, the rest would fall into line.

    “I mean it is the law according to the bible, even though I’d be breaking the law of the land by committing murder.”

    It’s okay in these circumstances.

    “I’m sure the bible says something about obeying the law of man (I beleive slavery is considered illegal as well) but that can’t be right. The bible can’t contradict itself can it? Surely that would make it a flawed document and not suitable to base an entire life on. That just can’t be right?”

    Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s; render unto God that which is God’s.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 5:04 pm | Reply

  453. DPS

    “surely you’re not suggesting that Gen 38:9 is about sunflower seeds, or pumpkin seeds, or something like that?”

    Of course not.

    “I’m starting to wonder if you’re maybe not just a parody. This is serious business, and your clowning around doesn’t help.”

    I assure you that I am not trying to be a clown and I really would like to help. You could help me by describing the problem that you think needs fixing here.

    Let me try to clarify the point I was making. The Bible does not literally use the English word sperm. It uses either zera (Hebrew) or Sperma (Greek). Now, Sisyphus, who is nothing if not literal, used the English word sperm in his comment. The Bible does not contain any word that is translated as the English word ‘sperm.’ So, he had no basis for using the word sperm as if it means the same thing as seed without some Biblical basis for doing so. Please note that sperm are not seeds. Of course you and I both know that the Bible uses the word seed in a figurative manner and clearly it is referring to sperm. But, ‘figurative’ is off base here. It was that which I was attempting to point out to Sisyphus. Remember, he thinks Herod was a literal fox who was continually drugging everybody in Israel with wine so that they would not see through his ‘man’ disguise. Of course, he had the help of satan!!

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 5:12 pm | Reply

  454. Sisyphus

    “That document was of Christians, by Christians, for Christians. The First Amendment guaranteed religious freedom amongst Christians throughout the 13 colonies. It’s true. Look it up. That was the Original Intent of the Founders.”

    The authors of our Constitution purposefully included “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”. This covers ALL religions including NO religion whatsoever. The second part of that line “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” allows me to worship the great creator god in the sky, or those atop Mt. Olympus, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster if I so choose. Thankfully, I can also be a free-thinking Atheist and maintain all of my inalienable rights. If Benjamin Franklin was such a Christian he never would’ve founded the first secular educational institution, since he would’ve been happy with the already existing Christian universities. George Washington used to visit religious shrines and churches spanning different beliefs, including Jewish synagogues to show support for the various belief systems as it was ALL American. Let’s not forget Thomas Jefferson’s countless essays and letters promoting the necessity of the seperation of church and state to keep America free from religious persecution. This, afterall, was one of the main reasons Americans built this country. It was about freedom to choose what’s best for oneself to when they specifically allow every American the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our Declaration of Independence. It’s about America the melting pot – not a portion of Americans that are Christian. You think by the time our “founding fathers” wrote these documents, there were still only Christians living in the colonies? You’d be wrong to say yes.

    So, I challenge you to “look it up”. Look up actual letters written by our founding fathers and communication they had with their friends, and you’ll see where nobody really knew what religion George Washington was, because even though he mentioned a Christian god in his early writings, later in his life he never spoke of any religion that he truly believed in. Read letters from Ben Franklin and you’ll see his staunch support of secularism over sectarianism, and his lack of Christianity, if it isn’t straight up Atheism.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 23, 2007 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

  455. David:

    I will defer to your knowledge of Hebrew if you can tell me that Hebrew has one word for ‘sperm’ and another for ‘seed’. I would be surprised if this were so, however, since Greek and Latin use the same word for both (‘sperma’ in Greek, ‘semen’ in Latin). Which is just to say that I think Sisyphus has an eminently sound Biblical basis for talking about sperm. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t talk about it.

    As regards the matter of Herod’s covert vulpine identity, given the unimpeachable testimony and literal truth of Holy Scripture, it seems altogether plausible that Herod should have been a disguised fox. That’s not to say that I would believe *you* if you told me, in the absence of Biblical testimony, that Herod was a fox. But I am quite content to put my trust in the word of God. Matthew 19:26.

    Now, I’m afraid I need to take little a break from fighting off these pagans, atheists, and heretics. It gets so exhausting. Their ignorance is matched only by their energy and persistence. Keep up the good fight, Sisyphus. I’ll try to check back in later.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 5:45 pm | Reply

  456. “This covers ALL religions including NO religion whatsoever”

    Yes, but if you look at the history it clearly referred to Christian religions. Poor drafting has caused this nation immense problems.

    “You think by the time our “founding fathers” wrote these documents, there were still only Christians living in the colonies? You’d be wrong to say yes.”

    Ben Franklin mostly lived in France with the other perverts. I suppose the Indians weren’t Christian, but they certainly didn’t count for much.

    “So, I challenge you to “look it up”. Look up actual letters written by our founding fathers and communication they had with their friends, and you’ll see where nobody really knew what religion George Washington was, because even though he mentioned a Christian god in his early writings, later in his life he never spoke of any religion that he truly believed in.”

    Later in life, he probably didn’t need to mention it. His faith was common knowledge, and he’d made his peace with God. It was tacit, and understood.

    Franklin, as I said, was mostly French, especially toward the end. When he was young, he was Philadelphian. I know all about Philly, and believe me, it’s like the San Francisco of the Eastern Seaboard. That place is so liberal the Scandinavians call them Communists. Scary town.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 5:56 pm | Reply

  457. DPS: Thank you for fending off David so well. Saves me the trouble.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 23, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  458. DPS,

    “I will defer to your knowledge of Hebrew if you can tell me that Hebrew has one word for ’sperm’ and another for ’seed’.”

    Please, don’t give me that much credit; but, as far as I know there was no separate word for sperm in Hebrew 2000-3000 years ago. God did not need for them to be 21st century biologists to accurately relay His message. Seed was a metaphor for sperm that works quite well. (As I have already said, literally, sperm are not seeds.) So, if one allows for some figurative use of the language in the Bible and does not hold to a wooden literalism, there is no problem with the use of seed.

    “I would be surprised if this were so, however, since Greek and Latin use the same word for both (’sperma’ in Greek, ’semen’ in Latin). Which is just to say that I think Sisyphus has an eminently sound Biblical basis for talking about sperm. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t talk about it.”

    Greek and Hebrew (and some Aramaic) were the original languages of the Bible. Latin is just a man’s translation. All translations are the work of men. So, referring to a translation does not give one license to justify anything. Finally, and I don’t mean to be offensive here, but whether you believe Sisyphus is correct or not has no bearing on this matter. The question is whether he is being consistently literal or only when it suits his purposes.

    “But I am quite content to put my trust in the word of God. Matthew 19:26.”

    As am I. However, certainly not because of Matthew 19:26. This verse just says that God can do anything He wants to do. It says nothing about the truth of Scripture. You would have to go to another verse for that bit of truth.

    By the way, I guess you too (like Sisyphus) are ready to accept that Herod was a fox because Jesus says so. Are you also ready to accept that Jesus was a grape vine? You must know that He said he was. Did He mean that literally? Did He have to hide all of those green leaves as He walked around so people would not question His being a man (I know He was also fully God; but, that is another discussion). Why do you not see that the Bible also contains figurative speech and that this does not detract from the truth?

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 6:16 pm | Reply

  459. Sisyphus,

    You don’t owe me a response, of course. And you are also free to believe that Herod was literally a fox. But, DPS has not ‘fended me off and saved you the trouble.’ If you can’t give me any Biblical support for your statements, just say so.

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 6:20 pm | Reply

  460. Dear David:

    >>Sigh.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 6:52 pm | Reply

  461. I see my earlier message didn’t make it through. Here it is in full:

    Dear David:

    >>Sigh.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 6:59 pm | Reply

  462. Oh well.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 7:00 pm | Reply

  463. If this doesn’t work, I’m a givin’ up:

    Dear David:

    I was vague about my point. My point about Latin and Greek is not that either is a Biblical language (though one is) or that either is related to Hebrew (which they are not). My point is that, in pre-modern languages including English the tendency seems to me to be for the same word to be used for “sp3rm” and “seed,” and that it is only because of a modern enlistment of Greek and Latin vocabulary into the (godless) sciences that English now calls “sp3rm” or “s3men” one of the things that it used to call “seed”.

    Re Matthew 19:26, my point is that, even if I find it out of the ordinary for a Jewish king to be a (possibly disguised, perhaps tailless) fox, it would be quite possible for him to be such a fox if God so wished. Do you deny that God could incoronate a fox-king if He so chose?

    Re Jesus as a vine in John 15: well, why not? Surely someone who is man as well as God can be vine as well? And many people failed to perceive that he was God; why shouldn’t they have failed to perceive that he was a vine? I am amazed by the limits you seek to impose on God’s power. Are you quite sure that you’re not a parody?

    Fending-off complete.

    Now, really, I need to rest. I’m not getting any younger.

    Comment by DPS — May 23, 2007 @ 7:37 pm | Reply

  464. wow .. ummm yes … i guess this fits in well with that flat earth theory too …

    Comment by Mark Wynter — May 23, 2007 @ 8:39 pm | Reply

  465. All of you pagans, heathens and atheists should be ashamed of yourselves! CLEARLY the Bible is chocked FULL of scientific wisdom and knowledge. I mean, Jacob was, in fact, the world’s first geneticist! Having 2 goats copulate while looking at streaked rods, he wound up with…streaked goats! (gen. 30:37-39)
    EVERYBODY knows that rabbits chew the cud! (Lev. 11:5-6)
    SURELY you believe that a bat is a bird and not a rodent! (Lev. 11:13, 19)
    Surely you know that Pi is 3 and not 3.14159……. (1Kings 7:23)
    Please……

    Comment by David — May 23, 2007 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  466. What I don’t understand is why your religion describes the anti-God with so many power. He has the power… per say… to fool the sons of God into believing that an animal (also a creation from God)is capable of ruling, mating and so. You say that Satan is everywhere, but isn’t God too? I know that as I’m typing this you will probably condemn to eternal suffer, thing which only your God can decide. I think that if God is really on your side, the devil/Satan/temptation may never touch you.
    -Alex/Mikaudes

    Did you know that almost all the history of christianity is written in blood, from the burn of witches, to the hunt of the Indians here in America, to the conquer of the “Holy” Roman Empire? Did you know that Mayans invented the zero at the same or maybe before as the Arabic system? Did you know that they had a measure of the year even more exact than the Egyptian? They could even predict solar eclipses with precision that goes until today. They KNEW that the Earth was orbiting the sun, as they were very advanced astronomers
    They didn’t worship Satan, they worshipped the rain, which grew their crops, the worshipped the Sun which gave them light, heat, everything.
    All their knowledge, all their culture, all their technology was lost because there weren’t crucifixes in their temples, you may think that they deserved this because they didn’t know God, but so did the rest of the world except for a small peninsula in Africa, until it began to grow and to stain the world in red blood; you know that most torturing devices where invented by monks right? Is that how they give the message of your God, what a shame I say. I used to be a Catholic until the former pope died, I lost all hope in the church when a former Nazi took control of it. And that’s how it all goes the church used to control all knowledge for their own purposes until a group of people risked their lives to give sense of true knowledge to the world, they weren’t content with books thousands of years old, they wanted to experience the real thing for themselves, and that’s how it all started to change. You may not believe this, you may close your eyes and nod violently while you try to calm yourself that this is not true, you may insult me pointlessly at finding no response to what I am writing, if you call me Darwinist, I will be very proud of being related to such great mind, if you call me tree hugger, yes I love God’s creation, scientists do too, so it is why they want to understand it, oh! so the devil you fear so much changes the result in the search of truth, are you implying again the he can manipulate God’s perfect creation.
    I trust God, what I don’t trust are people who call themselves Godsends.
    Sorry if I overreacted it’s just that I had been reading all the comments and I finally could express that, just speaking my mind here.

    Sisyphus, you are a person who is firmly stepped on his/her beliefs, and i respect you for that, but you should respect other’s people beliefs too, if we are going to hell or not (or if it even exists) is up to higher being that no one can really understand with a simple novel.
    I’m expecting your answer as you are truly a great mind by your own.

    Comment by mikaudes — May 23, 2007 @ 9:14 pm | Reply

  467. While I haven’t taken the time to read all the comment, I can only assume that they are mocking you for your lack of science knowledge. As a Bible believing Christian I want to be as gracious as I can (and I understand that were you stand on this issue has no bearing on your, or my, salvation), as someone who has graduated college with a degree in physics and astronomy I want to laugh uncontrollably at your assertions, but I suppose that wouldn’t be very gracious.

    I have a feeling you are one to believe that if you dropped a hammer and a feather in a vacuum, you would think the hammer will hit the ground first.

    I really do feel pity for you that you think the Bible is on such weak grounds that you have to attempt to defend it in this way. The Bible and science are not at odds, you don’t have to do what you are doing, it is ok to believe in science (and by science I mean REAL science, not the pseudo-science you are discussing here).

    The Earth is not the center of the universe, the Sun isn’t even the center of the universe. Heck, even our galaxy isn’t the center of the universe! NOT being the center of the universe does not mean we are any less redeemed or loved by God.

    Comment by mattithyahu — May 23, 2007 @ 11:40 pm | Reply

  468. Your mind was made by God, hoverfrog. If you are using your mind shouldn’t you honor its maker?

    The internet is Satan’s playground and I am not “happy” to use it, hoverfrog. It is full of filth and mockery, satanism and sodomy, science and liberalism. It gives me a lot of pain. But if we might save one innocent soul from corruption by testifying to the truth, even in the darkest, foulest places, should we not try, hoverfrog? And when I find someone like Sisyphus doing the Lord’s work and supporting a brave Godly handsome man like Senator Brownback, it fills me with joy. Does all your doubting and sneering give you joy, hoverfrog?

    Comment by Praying hands — May 23, 2007 @ 11:40 pm | Reply

  469. […] to that assumption, either to reject the Bible as inaccurate and out-of-hand, or to come up with some wild and whacked-out scientific “proof” that the earth really is at the center of t….  You just accept that what the Biblical writer said was true given what he knew of the world at […]

    Pingback by Fight Club 8: May God Have Mercy on My Soul... « Everyone’s Entitled to Joe’s Opinion — May 24, 2007 @ 12:00 am | Reply

  470. How about this?

    We are ignorant of the universe, and cannot define the true center? Maybe the earth is at the center of all the universe, known and unknown, that is “relatively” stable in it’s position as it relates to all other matter, thus defining the earth as the in fact center of the universe affected, and gauged, only by the materials that operate around it?

    It’s not impossible, astronomers were “astonished” after the images revealed by the 1 million second exposure into dark space that showed galaxy’s billions of light years away. The “center” is as yet, and likely never will be understood, and since there is no clearly defined alien life based on broad spec and broad area research says that it’s not impossible.

    I don’t believe it, but really, the arbitrary disdain of the faithful who see no evidence of exterior progression doesn’t remove the idea of the earth being at the center of the universe. There are also excercises in deconstructive sophystry that can demonstrate that in the absolute absence of greater information, then perhaps the precice definition of the earth being at the center of the universe can be redefined or examined, allowing for LIFE to be the foundation of center, rather than galactic geography, or energetic, or matter.

    I’m an atheist, but I do know this. Theres something more, It isn’t god (in my opinion) but there is a whole shitload more than what the secular arrogant scientists force on us.

    Comment by Wickedpinto — May 24, 2007 @ 12:21 am | Reply

  471. You guys noticed that Praying Hands is blatant parody, right?

    Scientists have sex with animals?

    I call Poe’s Law on this guy. Apologies if someone already beat me to it.

    Comment by abyssalleviathin — May 24, 2007 @ 12:48 am | Reply

  472. Sisyphus,

    You seem discard the science and mathematics that addresses absolute motion and insist that motion can only be determined relatively–that is, by examining the relative motion of bodies with respect to one another. Unfortunately, relative motion cannot resolve if an object has an absolute motion of zero. To claim otherwise is both bad science and bad logic.

    The rest of your stance seems to be based wholly on religious scripture.

    So only people who already believe in the same scripture to be the foremost and final word (the alpha and the omega, if you will) on everything will take your message with any validity. Those people likely already believe what you’re trying to say, and there’s no point in preaching to the choir. Everyone else–as evidenced among the comments–will just dismiss your words as lunacy, and you and they will just go around and around in circular logic with neither convincing the other of anything. There’s no point in that, either.

    In other words, there’s no point to this blog entry.

    -Aeolus

    Comment by Aeolus — May 24, 2007 @ 1:09 am | Reply

  473. “What about Léon Foucault?”

    Yeah, name checking some flamingly gay French philosopher and some “experiment” with his “pendulum” (is that what they’re calling these days?) really makes me want to believe you. Nice try Dim-o-Crap, but no matter how much sodomy you engage in, no matter how many experiments in butt science you do, it won’t make the words of JESUS any less true.

    Comment by Eduardo — May 24, 2007 @ 2:05 am | Reply

  474. The Truth is so much greater than your secular mentality can comprehend, well-named abyssal. You can not deny it. You can not face it. And so you call it parody.

    Sisyphus in 291 referred to Darwin’s well-known bestiality. The practices of other scientists are too vile to describe. But if you put “scientist” and “bestiality” into the Satan-search-engine Google you will find a lot to think about.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 24, 2007 @ 2:23 am | Reply

  475. Now I know that this is a parody.
    Eduardo: a pendulum is a real thing. You can make your own fairly easily using a piece of string and a weight. Of course you probably think that they are used in witchcraft, divination and such practices so won’t want to go near them. I’m not sure if it’s the string or the weight that you consider evil or the combination of the two.

    Praying Hands:
    “Your mind was made by God, hoverfrog. If you are using your mind shouldn’t you honor its maker?

    The internet is Satan’s playground and I am not “happy” to use it, hoverfrog. It is full of filth and mockery, satanism and sodomy, science and liberalism. It gives me a lot of pain. But if we might save one innocent soul from corruption by testifying to the truth, even in the darkest, foulest places, should we not try, hoverfrog? And when I find someone like Sisyphus doing the Lord’s work and supporting a brave Godly handsome man like Senator Brownback, it fills me with joy. Does all your doubting and sneering give you joy, hoverfrog?”

    Absolutely it gives me great joy to be able to think for myself.

    I should also let you know that I’ve decided not to have the men of my town stone my son to death. I mean he’s 9 and you have to expect a bit of rebelliousness don’t you. I expect he’ll grow out of it. If not then he might grow up to be a scientist or something dark and sinister like that. Better than being a complete fruitloop though.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 24, 2007 @ 3:45 am | Reply

  476. […] I rejected one of the more fatuous claims of modern science (the Helioleftist assertion that the Earth is not […]

    Pingback by Science: The New Inquisition « Blogs 4 Brownback — May 24, 2007 @ 4:26 am | Reply

  477. […] in the first place? Jump to Comments If you missed the discussion addressing the opinion that heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine, take a moment and peruse the post. Having not looked at a model of the universe since […]

    Pingback by What is so Atheistic about Heliocentrism? And what in the world is Heliocentrism in the first place? « The Journeymen — May 24, 2007 @ 4:43 am | Reply

  478. “All of you pagans, heathens and atheists should be ashamed of yourselves! CLEARLY the Bible is chocked FULL of scientific wisdom and knowledge.”

    Glad to see DPS has helped you come around, David.

    “What I don’t understand is why your religion describes the anti-God with so many power. He has the power… per say… to fool the sons of God into believing that an animal (also a creation from God)is capable of ruling, mating and so.”

    People are sinful and stupid. It’s our fault, not God’s.

    “They didn’t worship Satan, they worshipped the rain, which grew their crops, the worshipped the Sun which gave them light, heat, everything.”

    They also ate the hearts of teams that won their basketball All-Star tournaments. Wonderful culture, really. Not Satanist at all.

    “Sorry if I overreacted it’s just that I had been reading all the comments and I finally could express that, just speaking my mind here.”

    That’s fine, but I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree if you don’t like the Pope. He didn’t choose to be a Nazi, he was conscripted. Sorry I can’t get to the rest of your post right now, but there are about 30 others here that need responses too:

    “I have a feeling you are one to believe that if you dropped a hammer and a feather in a vacuum, you would think the hammer will hit the ground first.”

    Of course it would!

    “I really do feel pity for you that you think the Bible is on such weak grounds that you have to attempt to defend it in this way.”

    Someone has to defend it when it’s under attack.

    “The Bible and science are not at odds, you don’t have to do what you are doing, it is ok to believe in science (and by science I mean REAL science, not the pseudo-science you are discussing here).”

    Modern astronomy, like Darwinism and “social sciences” like Marxism and anthropology, is a pseudo-science. Some sciences, like those dealing with electricity and nuclear power, are not. You shall know them by their fruits.

    “The Earth is not the center of the universe, the Sun isn’t even the center of the universe. Heck, even our galaxy isn’t the center of the universe! NOT being the center of the universe does not mean we are any less redeemed or loved by God.”

    Earth is at the center of creation. It really is as simple as that. Mathematically, it may be convenient to pretend otherwise from time to time; but to dwell in these pretenses is the onset of madness.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:01 am | Reply

  479. “You seem discard the science and mathematics that addresses absolute motion and insist that motion can only be determined relatively–that is, by examining the relative motion of bodies with respect to one another. Unfortunately, relative motion cannot resolve if an object has an absolute motion of zero. To claim otherwise is both bad science and bad logic.”

    I don’t even know what this means. Is this really English?

    “The rest of your stance seems to be based wholly on religious scripture.”

    Scripture is Truth, not Esperanto or whatever language it is you’re using.

    “So only people who already believe in the same scripture to be the foremost and final word (the alpha and the omega, if you will) on everything will take your message with any validity.”

    They are willing to listen.

    “Those people likely already believe what you’re trying to say, and there’s no point in preaching to the choir. Everyone else–as evidenced among the comments–will just dismiss your words as lunacy, and you and they will just go around and around in circular logic with neither convincing the other of anything. There’s no point in that, either.”

    The atheist Mafia showed up and put the screws to me, but I fended them off.

    “In other words, there’s no point to this blog entry.”

    Many people read without commenting. I’m very sure some of them came away with a newfound respect for the Word of God.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:08 am | Reply

  480. “I should also let you know that I’ve decided not to have the men of my town stone my son to death. I mean he’s 9 and you have to expect a bit of rebelliousness don’t you. I expect he’ll grow out of it. If not then he might grow up to be a scientist or something dark and sinister like that. Better than being a complete fruitloop though.”

    Make sure to take him to Church every day. Also, don’t let him drink the tapwater or eat any soy products.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 5:12 am | Reply

  481. Sisyphus

    OK, thanks for proving what I believed all along. You’re either a parody, educatedly impared (like that? made it up just for you), or you’re 6.

    I asked you to read up on the founding fathers and, like the perfect Chrisitian, you fail to bother while spouting faux history, and opinion to protect what you’ve always been taught – a load of B.S.

    You describe Philly as S.F. of the east, as if Ben Franklin’s Philly was the same then as it is now. You say Franklin was mostly French – though he stayed there for quite a few years, it does nothing to take away from the fact that he was one of the most influential people in forging our country.

    For me to say go back to school would be a joke, because you’re one of those people still upset that mommy lied to you about Santa Claus. You’ll never let those educated people take away your God! Your “facts” and “insights” are juvenille at best. Your arguments weaker than that. Enjoy your life under your rock. We’ll come wake you up when the 4 horsemen in your mind come galloping along.

    Comment by Brian Burns — May 24, 2007 @ 7:05 am | Reply

  482. You used a lot of bible quotes to prove your point. You do realize that the bible was written by man and not by god and it is there for not infallible. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the bible spreads His message very well but all the little details aren’t what is important.

    Comment by Mike — May 24, 2007 @ 7:36 am | Reply

  483. Please tell me this is satire. I can’t tell any more, the present administration has completely broken my irony-detection faculties.

    Comment by lordrunningclam — May 24, 2007 @ 7:52 am | Reply

  484. Just out of interest, Sisyphus, what has made you style yourself after a damned figure from a heathen, decadent and pantheistic religious system quite at odds with our lovely monotheistic view of the universe?

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 8:17 am | Reply

  485. “Your “facts” and “insights” are juvenille at best. Your arguments weaker than that. Enjoy your life under your rock. We’ll come wake you up when the 4 horsemen in your mind come galloping along.”

    That’s the day when you’ll know I was right all along.

    “You used a lot of bible quotes to prove your point. You do realize that the bible was written by man and not by god and it is there for not infallible. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the bible spreads His message very well but all the little details aren’t what is important.”

    “God is in the details,” remember?

    “Please tell me this is satire. I can’t tell any more, the present administration has completely broken my irony-detection faculties.”

    I’m not sure what you mean, but no, this is not satire.

    “Just out of interest, Sisyphus, what has made you style yourself after a damned figure from a heathen, decadent and pantheistic religious system quite at odds with our lovely monotheistic view of the universe?”

    I enjoy some of the Pagan myths, as stories. The one of Sisyphus always particularly amused me. What apt punishments those Greeks could devise in their colorful lies! My only hope is that the real Hell is so inventive. Dante gives me hope that it is.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 8:33 am | Reply

  486. So, okay. The Earth doesn’t move. Your main argument, of course, being that the Bible says it doesn’t. But doesn’t the Bible also say that the Earth is laid on a foundation? Can you please share your theory of where this foundation is?

    Also, it speaks about the firmament, and windows in the sky. Are they there too?

    And unicorns? The bible mentions unicorns and satyrs. Did/do they really exist?

    I’m very confused about which parts of the Bible I need to take literally and which parts I can say are wrong because of interpretation or translation. I think I need someone smart and holy like you to straighten me out.

    Comment by Andy — May 24, 2007 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  487. Interesting. I wonder if I’m appreciating the humour of this on the same level as you.

    ““You used a lot of bible quotes to prove your point. You do realize that the bible was written by man and not by god and it is there for not infallible. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the bible spreads His message very well but all the little details aren’t what is important.”

    “God is in the details,” remember?”

    I wonder if you might elaborate a little further on the quote I’ve just highlighted. I think a good point’s being raised, and you’ve dealt with it in a rather facile manner.

    Comment by Rob — May 24, 2007 @ 8:46 am | Reply

  488. HEY! When I drive in my car, my tires spin the earth, and I stay in the same place. When I take a step, I push the earth in the direction I want to go, and I stay in the same place. All of these problems are solvable by your Heathen “physics” problems, just solve for the forces involved.

    Why can’t you athiests see this? Oh yeah, because when I drive my car, you get weak in the knees, because you are adjusting to the changed direction of the earth. Man, when I drive on the freeway, you suckers care in real danger, standin on an earth going 70 miles an hour! You’d better hope I don’t slam on the breaks! Physics says so! My grandfather was no monkey!

    Did you ever see a “crociduck”? How rediculous! Evolution is garbage! If i launch a satallite straight up into space, It’ll just hang there, in geosychronous orbit because the earth doesn’t move!

    If i get sick, i’ll bleed myself to get the demons out, because science says penicillin is good, that stupid science, i’ll show it. maybe i’ll stab myself with a dirty knife in my hand, to show you there is no such thing as microbes!

    Comment by Willey — May 24, 2007 @ 10:04 am | Reply

  489. “””—

    “You seem discard the science and mathematics that addresses absolute motion and insist that motion can only be determined relatively–that is, by examining the relative motion of bodies with respect to one another. Unfortunately, relative motion cannot resolve if an object has an absolute motion of zero. To claim otherwise is both bad science and bad logic.”

    I don’t even know what this means. Is this really English?

    —“””

    AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

    Yes, it’s english, and it’s physics, which apprently you and Mr. Brownback have no knowledge of. If you can’t even grasp that simple statement about “relative motion”, you really are a blind fool who cannot comprehend this idea of heliocentrism.

    Comment by Willey — May 24, 2007 @ 10:16 am | Reply

  490. Thanks for the ad hominems, Willey!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  491. “Thanks for the ad hominems, Willey!”

    Thanks for the misuse of the term ad hominem, Sisy.

    If I called you an incontrivertable twit, so you shouldn’t be listened to, THAT’s. ad hom. Stating that “Nasa is run by jews.” That’s ad hominem.

    Showing that you have no Credentials to be discussing such a topic is ABSOLUTELY NOT Ad Hom., it’s attacking the fact that your “opinion” on such a thing is so poorly understood, that you cannot enter into a conversation using even the most basic terminology of the information you are talking about.

    How can you enter into a conversation if you don’t understand the words we are using to discuss it?

    Comment by Willey — May 24, 2007 @ 10:55 am | Reply

  492. “I don’t even know what this means. Is this really English?”

    Yes.

    “Many people read without commenting. I’m very sure some of them came away with a newfound respect…”

    Good point. However, I suspect that a significant portion of them of them aren’t intelligent enough to really get your point (as shown by many of the comments).

    Comment by Aeolus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:01 am | Reply

  493. […] get any stupider (that’s Bush-speak for “more stupid”), along comes a blog supporting Brownback for president that claims we’ve all been duped by science that says Earth […]

    Pingback by Newflash: The Earth Doesn’t Move « In Repair — May 24, 2007 @ 11:05 am | Reply

  494. “How can you enter into a conversation if you don’t understand the words we are using to discuss it?”

    You called me a fool. That’s an attack at the messenger, rather than the message. Ergo, an ad hominem.

    “Good point. However, I suspect that a significant portion of them of them aren’t intelligent enough to really get your point (as shown by many of the comments).”

    True. But we really can’t expect to turn the clock back on 5 centuries of Helioleftist miseducation in a few short days, can we? We must persevere.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:09 am | Reply

  495. I refuse to beilieve in someone as ignorant as Sisyphus. Since I have never seen this “person” nor spoken with “it”, I cannot verify that this “person” actually exists. All I have are some digitally made words on my computer telling me that there is actually someone in our lovely country that devotes enormous amounts of time and effort into proping up the flimsy scaffolding that holds up ideas so contrary to reality that this “person” must then contradict “itself” in order to prove “its” point.
    “Yes, the religious freedom of embracing Christ in any denomination of one’s choice. If you’d ever opened a history book in your life, you’d know that I’m right.”
    And then-“Presumably, since some of the lived here in 1776 and this is a JUDEO-Christian country, Jewish people have every bit as much of a right to live here as Christians do”
    But I thought that Jewish people don’t believe Christ to be the “Son of God” and therefore would not fall into the category of “Christian”.

    I am certain there are MANY more, but I dont have time to read through it all.

    There is no sisyphus.

    Comment by 5ive — May 24, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  496. Guys, stop trying to rationally argue with Sisyphus. People like that shouldn’t be payed attention to, they should be contained. What matters is that besides himself and whatever 8 or 9 morons who actually believe him, he will have no impact on the world at all. It’s not worth debating him, it will only frustrate you. So to those of you reading this blog who are outraged with his idiocy, take your intelligence and devote it to a worthwhile activity because arguing with this guy is just a waste of your time. And just so the intelligent mega-majority who read this blog in disbelief can rest easy tonight, remember the fact that Brownback doesn’t stand a chance of becoming president (although granted, it’s depressing enough that a guy like him could be elected into teh senate).

    Comment by Jesus Christ, Superstar — May 24, 2007 @ 11:31 am | Reply

  497. 5ive- Shut up. I’m right here. I don’t care for your solipsisms.

    “Jesus Christ”- Thanks for blaspheming!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  498. Aeolus: “So only people who already believe in the same scripture to be the foremost and final word (the alpha and the omega, if you will) on everything will take your message with any validity. Those people likely already believe what you’re trying to say, and there’s no point in preaching to the choir.”

    Hold on now, I am a Bible believing Christian who doesn’t believe anything remotely similar to what is being said here.

    I said: “I have a feeling you are one to believe that if you dropped a hammer and a feather in a vacuum, you would think the hammer will hit the ground first.”

    Sisyphys said: “Of course it would!”

    Wow, are you serious? Have you EVER actually tried a science experiment? Have you seen the video footage where astronauts on the moon actually did this experiment? Or were the moon landings a hoax too?

    I said: “I really do feel pity for you that you think the Bible is on such weak grounds that you have to attempt to defend it in this way.”

    Sisyphys said: “Someone has to defend it when it’s under attack.”

    In this context, it isn’t under attack. It is your poor interpretation that is farcing you to defend it in this bizarre way.

    Sisyphys said: “Modern astronomy, like Darwinism and “social sciences” like Marxism and anthropology, is a pseudo-science.”

    So how do you figure modern astronomy is a pseudo-science?

    I am genuinely curious: what are your scientific credentials?

    You are putting us Christians in an awkward position because not only do I feel like I have to defend the Bible to the atheists how are, because of your use of scripture, attacking it WHILE AT THE SAME TIME defending the Bible and science against your misuse of both.

    Comment by mattithyahu — May 24, 2007 @ 12:36 pm | Reply

  499. […] 24th, 2007 · No Comments A certain blog is making waves around the blogosphere, denouncing Heliocentrism as an “atheist […]

    Pingback by Much Ado about Heliocentrism « Stancel Spencer — May 24, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  500. a beautiful spoof; I admire the consistency.

    Comment by Jorg — May 24, 2007 @ 1:04 pm | Reply

  501. Jesus Christ’s post was correct. Sisyphys is nuts.

    Comment by Abraham — May 24, 2007 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  502. “All I have are some digitally made words on my computer telling me that there is actually someone in our lovely country that devotes enormous amounts of time and effort…”

    How do you know what country Sisyphus is writing from?

    “Hold on now, I am a Bible believing Christian who doesn’t believe anything remotely similar to what is being said here.”

    First, I never said “Christian” or “Bible” but carefully chose to say “scripture”–please don’t put words in my mouth.
    Second, what I said was taking scripture “as the foremost and final word on everything”–that is, taking it as literal fact. Sisyphus’s stance is that of a literal fundamentalist. If you don’t fall into that category, then I was not referring to you. If you do fall into that category but do not put stock in Sisyphus’ writing, then you are a confused individual with paradoxical beliefs.

    “And just so the intelligent mega-majority who read this blog”

    This site presents itself as a right-wing fundamentalist blog. So it stands to reason that the “mega-majority” (the correct English word is supermajority) who read this blog are right-wing fundamentalists. In light of that, your comment seems to contradict itself.

    Despite what anyone may have read into my comments, I have said nothing of my own beliefs on the matter. However, it is clear to me by reading the comments that Sisyphus more intelligent than the “mega-majority” of people leaving them.

    Comment by Aeolus — May 24, 2007 @ 1:27 pm | Reply

  503. OOOOOH! I get it! This guy really wants McCain to win, so he’s highlighting this to show how crazy brownback is! Way to lose it for Brownback Sissy! Keep it up. Next time brownback says that Jesus Crapped us onto the face of the earth 600 years ago, tell us how right he is about that too!

    Comment by Willey — May 24, 2007 @ 1:30 pm | Reply

  504. Aeolus said: “First, I never said “Christian” or “Bible” but carefully chose to say “scripture”–please don’t put words in my mouth.
    Second, what I said was taking scripture “as the foremost and final word on everything”–that is, taking it as literal fact.”

    Fair enough. Although in this context scripture and Bible could be used interchangeably because the scripture he was quoting is the Bible.

    One thing doesn’t make sense here: to say the bible (again, I know you said scripture, but the context of the scripture IS the Bible here) is “the foremost and final word on everything” is the same thing as “taking it as literal fact” is a non sequitur. How does the first statement necessarily mean the second? Generally I do think the Bible/scripture holds supreme importance, but that does not mean that everything should be taken literally.

    “Sisyphus’s stance is that of a literal fundamentalist. If you don’t fall into that category, then I was not referring to you.”

    Indeed. I just wanted to make things clear because there are some that would group many Christians into the same category. I just wanted to distance myself from that belief.

    Comment by mattithyahu — May 24, 2007 @ 1:49 pm | Reply

  505. yup, ‘God Delusion’ alright.

    *People are not stupid, just ignorant about different things*

    Comment by gotzpe — May 24, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

  506. I passed this around the office even the “right thinkers” think this blog is satire or the author is a loon. If this is serious, how dare anyone say you are doing the Lord’s work. Almost every atrocity commited in the last two millennia has been the result of an arrogant wacko carrying out their Lord’s work and validating their reprehensible actions through scripture from tomes annotated by mortals. I know those who don’t share YOUR twisted beliefs are going to hell as that’s the typical response of delusional egotistical zealots who think they speak for all the members of their religion. Everyone I have witnessed making hell threats, playing “holier then thou” games and claiming to be pious and righteous while preaching hate and intolerance are morally destitute. Neither citing websites created by bigoted conspiracy theory loons nor twisting scripture pulled from multiple versions of the Bible to validate your agenda make your argument truth. Balderdash presented by “holy warriors” and evangelicals are why religions have stigmas attached to them and why so many are moving away from faith.

    Comment by lollerskates — May 24, 2007 @ 2:15 pm | Reply

  507. This guys nuts.

    Comment by Mike — May 24, 2007 @ 2:33 pm | Reply

  508. Surely you know that Pi is 3 and not 3.14159……. (1Kings 7:23)
    Actually, pi is 3.14159 is hidden inside the Hebrew Bible.

    Modern astronomy, like Darwinism and “social sciences” like Marxism and anthropology, is a pseudo-science.
    Look up the definition for pseudoscience first. By definition, a theory of science must make a TESTABLE, REPEATABLE prediction. Darwinism, modern astronomy and all modern sciences that you call “claptrap” follow the scientific method and therefore cannot be a pseudoscience.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 24, 2007 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

  509. The 1st-century BCE Epicurean philosopher Lucretius interprets the myth of Sisyphus as personifying politicians aspiring for political office who are constantly defeated, with the quest for power, in itself an “empty thing”, being likened to rolling the boulder up the hill. This usage by the blogger Sisyphus could be seen as referring to Brownback’s rather unlikely chances.

    http://stancelspencer.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/much-ado-about-heliocentrism/

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 24, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  510. as for those thinking he is using the name Sisyphus in reference to THIS blog, this is the name he uses for ALL of his blogs, so either the entire blog is real or he is serious with this.

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 24, 2007 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  511. “OOOOOH! I get it! This guy really wants McCain to win, so he’s highlighting this to show how crazy brownback is! Way to lose it for Brownback Sissy! Keep it up. Next time brownback says that Jesus Crapped us onto the face of the earth 600 years ago, tell us how right he is about that too!”

    I despise McCain, Willey. You might as well root for Hillary Clinton. She’d end up in McCain’s Cabinet anyway.

    “If this is serious, how dare anyone say you are doing the Lord’s work. Almost every atrocity commited in the last two millennia has been the result of an arrogant wacko carrying out their Lord’s work and validating their reprehensible actions through scripture from tomes annotated by mortals.”

    Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, and Saddam Hussein have killed more people between them than every other dictator combined. Not one of them was a Christian; all of them were leftists, and 3 of them (Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein) were huge fans of science.

    Atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. Open a history book. Stalin and Hitler, alone, killed almost 100 million people between them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 3:11 pm | Reply

  512. lietk12:

    How on God’s sweet, flat earth can you think that Darwinists make testable, repeatable predictions? Surely they can’t repeat your evolution from a vole or a marmot or whatever Satan wants you to think you came from? Or astronomy? For Heaven’s sake, they can’t even demonstrate *once* that the Sun revolves around the Earth (obviously because it doesn’t), so how are they going to demonstrate it *repeatedly*?

    Those sound like pseudosciences to me. Perhaps you should track down a definition of ‘pseudoscience.’

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 3:19 pm | Reply

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

    If the Jews were actually capable of all the things Hitler, bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and all the other folks – including Brownback, apparently (my, what lovely intellectual company he keeps!) – past and present who believe these numerous, impossible, macro-level global conspiracy theories about the Jews, then they [the Jews] are superhumans – indeed, demi-gods – and we should bow down to them. Alas, they are but mere mortals like the rest of us.

    Comment by Beth — May 24, 2007 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

  514. Sisyphus “..Satan can mangle experiments if he chooses to. He’s the Prince of Lies, and there’s nothing he loves more than modern science”.

    Ah, so any evidence at all that contradicts your position is bound to be the product of Satan’s mangling then? At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, any rational debate is pointless.

    Thanks for the thread – it’s been the most fun I’ve had in ages but I’m sooo glad I live on the other side of the world from you dangerous fucks.

    Comment by Farmgeek — May 24, 2007 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

  515. Ah!!! Satan hijacked my keyboard. I meant of course to say that they can’t prove even once that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

    Forgive me, Lord. I meant well.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 3:22 pm | Reply

  516. […] isn’t satire, which is bizarre. The winner for one of the most unbelievable posts goes to: Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine. Yes that’s right; someone is actually arguing against the Heliocentric model (that is that […]

    Pingback by Matt Jones’ Random Acts of Verbiage » An Argument Against the Heliocentric Model — May 24, 2007 @ 3:30 pm | Reply

  517. The earth does not move. my balls do.

    Comment by Lucifer — May 24, 2007 @ 3:34 pm | Reply

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

    Just because they’re right about one thing doesn’t make them right about everything. Stalin was right about Hitler, but that doesn’t mean I’d enjoy living under his thumb.

    “Ah, so any evidence at all that contradicts your position is bound to be the product of Satan’s mangling then? At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, any rational debate is pointless.”

    Yes, it is. You’re unwilling to abandon your Helioleftist prejudices and discuss the Biblical implications of these dangerous ideas of yours. Do you think the last 500 years have been a fun time for humanity? Nearly every evil of the last half-millenium can be laid squarely at the feet of Copernicus, your hero.

    Have fun with your pin-ups (or whatever) of him, whatever country you live in. America, on the other hand, strives to be moral and righteous in the sight of God.

    “The earth does not move. my balls do.”

    I cast thee aside and all thy works, evil one!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  519. Not one of them was a Christian; all of them were leftists and 3 of them (Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein) were huge fans of science.
    You mean to say “extremists”. No matter what their ideals are, they are still evil. Do you think Osama bin Laden is a leftist? BTW, Genghis Khan was not a dictator to the Mongols (but he is a dictator in the same way that an invader who usurps power is a dictator). They elected him. Science, like anything, can be used for evil. Many people have misused religion to further their own ideas or wealth.

    Atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. Open a history book. Stalin and Hitler, alone, killed almost 100 million people between them.
    Just because one atheist “person” (no real human would commit such gruesome crimes) and killed thousands doesn’t mean that all atheists kill. For example, many Crusaders killed and pillaged Constantinople in the fourth Crusade. That doesn’t mean that someone like the Pope is also a pillager. Also, Atheism hasn’t killed. It’s atheists who have, just as other religious people have, killed.

    How on God’s sweet, flat earth can you think that Darwinists make testable, repeatable predictions? Surely they can’t repeat your evolution from a vole or a marmot or whatever Satan wants you to think you came from? Or astronomy? For Heaven’s sake, they can’t even demonstrate *once* that the Sun revolves around the Earth (obviously because it doesn’t), so how are they going to demonstrate it *repeatedly*?
    Proof means a set of results that can beyond reasonable doubt. One can find observations that support evolution. And with sufficient time, it is possible to repeat evolution. You can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) by seeing for yourself. Or you can build your own satellite that you KNOW works and send it into space and see the pictures if you don’t trust NASA.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 24, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  520. Proof means a set of results that can beyond reasonable doubt.
    I meant scientific proof.

    You can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) by seeing for yourself.
    Sorry. I meant to take this out.

    crimes) and killed
    I meant to take out the “and”.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 24, 2007 @ 4:04 pm | Reply

  521. “Atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. Open a history book. Stalin and Hitler, alone, killed almost 100 million people between them.”

    I said almost all not all. Did you actually read your history books or just cherry pick it to validate your hate? Hitler publicly spoke highly of protestantism to exploit his christian country , the SS founded a new Christian church and he was a pagan. You’re all for anti-semtism so was Hitler and in Mein Kampf he states that killing jews and gays is the work of God….sound familiar? The only difference I see between you and him is that he had power and charisma, you’re both bigots and loons that generalize things.

    Christian violence:
    Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain at the hands of christians.
    Pagan services became punishable by death in 356
    Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity.
    15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order
    The crusades resulted in an estimated 20 million
    Witch burnings resulted in several hundred thousand deaths.
    15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain
    1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church
    1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee
    1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain
    17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg in Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain at the hands of
    Genocide of the American Indian because they were godless savages.
    1942 – 1943 Croatian concentration camps run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli killed 300, 000 Jews
    Saint Augustine’s cognite intrare
    The slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian
    Bosnia 300,00 dead muslims and the rape of 100,000 muslim women

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg I could spend days showing you how many have died because of manipulative fundamentalists of every religion but it would be futile because you’re one of them and you assume I’m atheist because you’re a zealot.

    Comment by lollerskates — May 24, 2007 @ 4:04 pm | Reply

  522. First:

    “I suppose the Indians weren’t Christian, but they certainly didn’t count for much.”

    As one of them “Indians,” to me this comment officialy makes you a jackass. Have you any idea how many of us were butchered in the name of Christianity?

    Second:

    “Atheism has killed more people than Christianity ever has. Open a history book. Stalin and Hitler, alone, killed almost 100 million people between them.”

    The difference here is that Christians (or Muslims, or any religious people ever) did/do what they did/do *in the name of* their religion. Stalin did not do what he did in the name of Athiesm, for Athiesm, or to glorify Athiesm. He was simply a power-hungry, blood-thirsty individual without recourse to any god to jusify his actions.

    And lollerskates already covered Hitler. Good job.

    Comment by Beth — May 24, 2007 @ 4:37 pm | Reply

  523. “Or you can build your own satellite that you KNOW works and send it into space and see the pictures if you don’t trust NASA.”

    Might as well tell me I can build my own time machine.

    “That’s just the tip of the iceberg I could spend days showing you how many have died because of manipulative fundamentalists of every religion”

    Don’t bother. You’ve already shown yourself to be dishonest by claiming that Rwanda was a Christian genocide. That’s almost as dumb as your claim that Hitler was Christian just because he paid lip service to it once or twice. (Guess what? His grandfather was Jewish! So I guess by your “reasoning,” that means the Third Reich was genocide committed by Jews against Jews.)

    Also, if it hadn’t been for Hitler the Ustashi wouldn’t have killed anyone. The Croatian genocide wraps up neatly into the Holocaust. To pretend otherwise is the height of dishonesty.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 24, 2007 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  524. Sisyphys, would you please share your scientific credentials? You make very bold claims about science yet I have seen nothing to suggest you have actually studied science.

    You would have us believe that much of science (astronomy in particular) is a massive conspiracy theory? Is that really what you are suggesting?

    So your interpretation of the Bible says that the Earth must be the center of the universe so therefore science should just be thrown out regardless of how well founded it is? Couldn’t it be more likely that your interpretation of the Bible might be a little skewed?

    Comment by mattithyahu — May 24, 2007 @ 5:08 pm | Reply

  525. In the context of Hitler, what’s important is not whether or not he himself actually was Christian, but rather that he used Christianity as a control tool and to justify his actions, and there were and still are people, Christian and non, who hold his views in high regard.

    Are you going to try to explain the Christian massacre of Native Americans at all, or is that one over your head?

    Comment by Beth — May 24, 2007 @ 5:47 pm | Reply

  526. P.S. That Hitler’s grandfather was Jewish doesn’t make him Jewish. I if recall correctly, Jewishness (for lack of a better word) runs on the mother’s side. If his mother were Jewish, that might be something.

    Comment by Beth — May 24, 2007 @ 5:49 pm | Reply

  527. Mary fucked joseph and made a baby. she just did not want to be called a whore. Jesus was a wonderful person. but people cannot take eveything the bible says literally, because if they do, we end up with MORONS like you, dumbass.

    Comment by sarah — May 24, 2007 @ 5:52 pm | Reply

  528. Sarah is a pottymouth, or possessed, or both. Keep an eye on her.

    Comment by DPS — May 24, 2007 @ 7:09 pm | Reply

  529. Might as well tell me I can build my own time machine.
    No. A time machine is unfeasible to build, as theories have not been proved as to their existence. It is known how to build a satellite.

    (Guess what? His grandfather was Jewish! So I guess by your “reasoning,” that means the Third Reich was genocide committed by Jews against Jews.)
    This is by the reasoning if the Nazis.

    Comment 528: This is simply bad taste.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 24, 2007 @ 7:36 pm | Reply

  530. All of your rebuttals are strawman arguments and in typical fanatic fashion you were unable read what I wrote or between the lines. I never stated Hitler was a Christian. Beth covered exactly what I was talking about. There are wonderful people who are pious and there are horrible people. You can believe in science and God but you are to much of a coward to be objective or to be honest about history. Don’t worry you only see things in stereotypes and are unable to see grey so civil discourse with you is impossible, so as you said I won’t bother nor will I subject myself to anymore of your drivel. I also plan to talk to show this to my congregation and if a majority reflect your beliefs I will turn my back on the Church, not God, because it is corrupt, evil and delusional. Go build your time machine so that you can go participate in the violence you so revere, mephitic imperious hatemonger. You feel my heart with disgust and pity.

    Thank you Beth and all theists and atheists that value love and compassion and who are able to read and think objectively, honestly and without bigotry.

    Comment by lollerskates — May 24, 2007 @ 7:59 pm | Reply

  531. […] or proving the Earth is flat— I haven’t quite figured it out yet. Some of the postings are rather astonishing, and make me wonder how these people can even find it in themselves to use advanced technology like […]

    Pingback by Ironwolf » Blog Archive » Arguing with Biblical Literalists — May 24, 2007 @ 8:25 pm | Reply

  532. […] Published May 24th, 2007 Uncategorized In a blog post advocating the idea that the earth is the center of the universe, many people have responded.  The author has basically used a dichotomy of “you’re […]

    Pingback by I'm ashamed. « Meta-thoughts — May 24, 2007 @ 9:21 pm | Reply

  533. I suggest you read Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator. Why can’t you accept that God and science are compatible? Indeed, God created science. And I believe he wants us to use our brains to discover how he created the world and to praise him because of it. We have to read everything the Bible says in context and pray for wisdom to understand it better. For example, you should look up the way the Hebrew word for “day” can be used. It is not necessarily a literal 24-hour day, which breaks down the argument of the earth being only about 6000 years old.

    Also, you should not be selective of facts in your analysis. Galileo did not truly recant heliocentrism. He muttered under his breath that the earth does move. He only officially recanted to avoid the death penalty. It does not appear you are really searching for truth (historical, Biblical, scientific, etc.), otherwise you would have known this. You can’t say he recanted to support your position without acknowledging he did this under duress and didn’t mean it, just because that would refute your position.

    It is also condescending to say that it is so easy for anyone to see such and such, when most people don’t agree with your point of view. Indeed, you wrote this blog to convince people of your point of view because you realize that most people don’t agree with you. I think you need to pray not just for more wisdom, but more humility as well.

    Comment by smuthe80 — May 24, 2007 @ 9:50 pm | Reply

  534. […] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Blogs 4 Brownback […]

    Pingback by Interesting Links 05/24/2007 at Matt Jones’ Link Blog — May 24, 2007 @ 10:51 pm | Reply

  535. What about Peter? He was transformed into stone by Jesus, and then he built a church over him. Poor poor Peter[Petros-piedra-stone…]. Although there are some parts in the bible that don’t match some theoretically possible, such as the lightning tornado, imagine a lot of sand trapped in a tornado in which the grains are constantly crashing and producing static energy, and then bang! No body can go back to the Eden, which hasn’t been found yet…
    And Jesus never fulfilled his promise of making those guys into men-fishers.
    What about that place where milk and honey came out of stones, there are no leftovers anywhere to be found, what I’m pretty sure is that Muslims are hiding Noah’s ark. I don’t know. And in fact, how do I know that you are not Satan in disguise writing all this, even I could be, or even we could both be just a plan of Satan(wich you claim to be very powerful) and you can not prove me wrong, because maybe you don’t notice ahahahahah the devil is everywhere, there’s no where to hide!! You people, pay me a tenth part of what you have and you’ll be safe from the all powerful evil one. In fact why would Satan roma frrely in the land of God? Why?! Why do you fear an enemy of God?! If God is all mighty why does he allow devil in the world, whta I think, God made us free to choose either way we want and ther is no devil, just choices in the heart of men. I would have liked to be a fox like Herod -_-‘…

    Comment by mikaudes — May 24, 2007 @ 11:07 pm | Reply

  536. check out my critique of this crazy ass blog here:

    http://stancelspencer.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/much-ado-about-heliocentrism/

    Comment by stancelspencer — May 25, 2007 @ 12:24 am | Reply

  537. “Sisyphys, would you please share your scientific credentials? You make very bold claims about science yet I have seen nothing to suggest you have actually studied science.”

    My credentials are that I reject Copernicanism, Darwinism, and the other lies you think so highly of. I am credentialed by common sense and faithful Biblical study.

    “You would have us believe that much of science (astronomy in particular) is a massive conspiracy theory? Is that really what you are suggesting?”

    Yes.

    “So your interpretation of the Bible says that the Earth must be the center of the universe so therefore science should just be thrown out regardless of how well founded it is?”

    Yes. If it contradicts the Bible, it’s wrong no matter how many liars attest to it.

    “Couldn’t it be more likely that your interpretation of the Bible might be a little skewed?”

    No.

    “Are you going to try to explain the Christian massacre of Native Americans at all, or is that one over your head?”

    That was a two-way street. Three words for you to google: King Phillip’s War.

    sarah- Was that really necessary?

    “You feel my heart with disgust and pity.”

    Likewise.

    “Galileo did not truly recant heliocentrism. He muttered under his breath that the earth does move.”

    Apocryphal. If he muttered it under his breath, who could’ve heard it?

    “It is also condescending to say that it is so easy for anyone to see such and such, when most people don’t agree with your point of view.”

    The silent majority of readers agree with me. Nuts like sarah and self-righteous tree-huggers like Beth keep them from posting, but trust me, they’re there.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 3:30 am | Reply

  538. Keep up the good work.

    Comment by Albert Camus — May 25, 2007 @ 4:27 am | Reply

  539. Just as a matter of pedantry, it was Theodore Roosevelt in 1896 who called Paine a “filthy little atheist” (though in fact he bathed regularly, was taller than Roosevelt, and was a deist).

    George Washington was rather pleased with Paine’s morale-boosting support, with his writings “Common Sense” and “Crisis” during the revolution. They rewarded him with a land grant after the war.

    Comment by jeepyjay — May 25, 2007 @ 4:56 am | Reply

  540. Why does anyone bother arguing with this guy? He’s only focusing on one VERSION of the Bible and picking and choosing the bits he wants. If it were up to him we’d still sell our daughters, have multiple wives and concubines (no such luck for the women) and own slaves.
    Not to mention he is rude. He invites comments about a website he knows is going to upset people and then is rude to them. That is not showing God’s supposed love and tolerance. He’s really no different than the Muslim fundamentalists they claim to hate. Not surprising really when one considers that the term religious fundamentalist was coined for American Christians.

    Comment by hetepehres — May 25, 2007 @ 5:20 am | Reply

  541. Sisyphus, what about your fundamental belief in the Ten Commandments, especially the first: “I am the Lord your God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    You are aware of the history of the name “Sisyphus”?

    What would your “god” think of you believing in the king of the gods Zeus?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 25, 2007 @ 5:28 am | Reply

  542. “That was a two-way street. Three words for you to google: King Phillip’s War.”

    One war between one tribe and one group of settlers sparked over mistranslation does not jusitfy the genocide of an entire race of people. No. Try again.

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 6:03 am | Reply

  543. I am now convinced that this is a brilliant satire and that, following in the footsteps of Andy Kaufman, you will never break character – no matter what. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. My hat’s off to you, sir.

    I’ll have to check into this Brownback character. He must be a real piece of work.

    Comment by lordrunningclam — May 25, 2007 @ 7:18 am | Reply

  544. “Keep up the good work.”

    Thanks! Please be sure to vote Brownback!

    “What would your “god” think of you believing in the king of the gods Zeus?”

    Sisyphus blasphemed against that fellow. Rightly so. He was probably awaiting for the coming of the true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    “One war between one tribe and one group of settlers sparked over mistranslation does not jusitfy the genocide of an entire race of people. No. Try again.”

    The settlers understood, far better than you, that it was either the Indians, or them. Their way of life was under attack from an implacable foe who would stop at nothing to destroy them. They reacted accordingly.

    “I’ll have to check into this Brownback character. He must be a real piece of work.”

    He’s a fine man. You should vote for him, both in the primary and in the subsequent general election.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 7:55 am | Reply

  545. “The silent majority of readers agree with me.” stated Sisyphus.

    Eh, no. Actually the silent majority of readers agree with me.

    Oh, I can see where this is going…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 25, 2007 @ 8:07 am | Reply

  546. “Eh, no. Actually the silent majority of readers agree with me.

    Oh, I can see where this is going…”

    Trust me. I have access to the blog statistics.

    Additionally, I feel that the silent majority of Americans are quite conservative, and that liberals are only abut 20% of the population. You may disagree with me there, but the last 39 years of election results are more or less on my side.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 8:17 am | Reply

  547. “The settlers understood, far better than you, that it was either the Indians, or them. Their way of life was under attack from an implacable foe who would stop at nothing to destroy them. They reacted accordingly.”

    They could have, I don’t know, stayed in England, and not stolen my people’s land and tried to ruin *their* way of life. First things first, buddy. The *Europeans* were on *Native American* land, making them convert, assimilate, or die. Like I said in the immigration post, if my people were as cautious about immigration laws then as people are now we wouldn’t be teetering on the brink of extinction due to exposure to foreign disease, genocide, and forced assimilation. The settlers stopped at nothing to exterminate the Indians, and in a few generations they will have succeeded.

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 8:25 am | Reply

  548. I’d like to ask about the threat of science over theology (whichever brand you choose to favour). I should initially point out that I’m an atheist (and British), so no doubt you will detect some bias in that direction in my words.

    As an atheist, I can’t see how science really threatens religion. Taking something simple to start with, most religions that have a supreme being suggest some sort of heaven, paradise or other place in which one would spend their afterlife. Christianity talks about Heaven being somewhere above the sky. Man has been into space, and we know there’s no Heaven in the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere. However, this doesn’t imply there is no Heaven, just that it isn’t in close proximity of the earth. For all I know, it may be outside the edge of the universe (which by definition means it’s somewhere we could never physically travel to).

    Assuming you’re broadly speaking on board with that idea, I’ll wade into something more controversial. Over here in the UK, ideas like Creationism are not really in the public consciousness. I’m lead to believe that it’s quite a big deal in the US though. Whilst I’m no expert, I can’t see why Creationism instantly negates the idea of evolution though. I mean, firstly, Evolution is a theory, which means it’s a working premise of what’s going on, for which we’re looking for proof. Indeed, Man periodically finds anecdotal evidence of Evolution, and similarly finds anecdotal evidence to the contrary. It is this that leaves Evolution as a theory, and not proven fact.

    Without wanting to get in to any argument about how Creationism is/is not scientifically sound, I can’t see how it’s not entirely compatible with Evolution. Surely, enlightened learners would want to learn about both, and then choose which ever idea suits them best. Presumably, many Christians would choose Creationism, whereas others may prefer Evolution. Indeed, one could be lead to believe in bits of both, perhaps with something like the earth is 6000 years old, God created all the living things on the earth, but Evolution is what’s made Mankind a bit taller and generally less muscle-laden than our ancestors (or whatever – this is just a quick example off the top of my head, and quite probably full of holes).

    Doubtless there are plenty of debates to be had about what I’ve just said. However, in my mind at this point, the same broadly goes for Heliocentrism, and most other science based “isms” that exist.

    So ultimately, I wonder how, if I may quote you, “I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism” can be realistic. I would argue that whilst you are under no obligation to believe in Heliocentrism (or Evolution, or whatever), not learning about them, or at least being aware of them leaves you somewhat one-dimensional, and possibly vulnerable to those that are not like you (with the best will in the world, I doubt the entire world would ever all take on a single religious view and lifestyle). Further, broad knowledge is what leads to innovation and prosperity, both of which you enjoy.

    I can’t pretend to know much about Americanism, but surely the pursuit of knowledge isn’t anti-American, is it?

    Comment by Coofer Cat — May 25, 2007 @ 8:37 am | Reply

  549. Well, the *majority* of people on this blog think you’re an idiot. So, best to stick with the “silent” majority to make your point.

    Ah, the joys of cherry-picking statistics, scripture and election results.

    “Additionally, I feel that the silent majority of Americans are quite conservative…”

    You “feel” it? You can tell that from a feeling? Wow, get onto CNN, NBC, CBS and Reuters right away. This revelation could come in real handy for the general election. Save time actually polling the public, just ask Sisyphus how he “feels” the country will vote.

    Hate to burst your bubble, but if this majority are actually *silent*, how exactly do you know this? The Force? Tea leaves? Tarot Cards? Maybe the tooth fairy told you?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 25, 2007 @ 8:43 am | Reply

  550. Dear narrow-minded, misguided fool. On your filled-to-the-brim-with-painful-mistruths website you say that “To assert that the Earth does move is to renounce Christianity. It really is as simple as that.” Gee i guess i renounce Christianity then. Your views are so mind-bogglingly narrow minded and plainly incorrect that i was forced to heave up half my dinner after dirtying my brain with them. Pull your head out of your ass. Seriously. There is no room in this world for people like you who refuse to come to grips with scientific facts because they are so insecure they need ‘God’ to feel like their lives have meaning. You are holding back and generally pissing off the rest of the world. Well done dipshit. And why the hell do you call yourself Sisyphus anyway? Are you aware that name has nothing to do with Christianity and actually comes from a Greek myth which has strong thematic ties to the philosophy of existentialism (a philosophy which denies the existence of God.) Once again, i congratulate you on being such a hypocritical turd.

    Sincerely, an atheist (go fuck yourself)

    Comment by Jono — May 25, 2007 @ 9:34 am | Reply

  551. sorry for sending that twice by the way

    Comment by Jono — May 25, 2007 @ 9:41 am | Reply

  552. Sam Brownback can eat 50 hard boiled eggs and is a sexual dynamo. Films of him ravishing dozens of virgins at the Bohemian Grove are available to anyone faithful enough to give $1,000,000 to the GOP.

    He is the very embodiment of God on Earth and should not only be our Preznit, but Emperor of the Known Universe since God clearly speaks directly through him.

    Sissy, you da man. Keep the faith babe.

    Comment by doog — May 25, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  553. WHEN BORNWBACK TAKES OVER ALL YOU COMMIES WILL ROT IN JAIL YOU CAN TEACH YOUR BOYFRIENDS ABOUT HELIOPCRNTISM WHIEL YOUR BENDIGN OVER FRO THEM

    GO BROWNABCK! GO BRIOWNBAKC! GO BROWNBACK!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 25, 2007 @ 12:15 pm | Reply

  554. Wow !

    This truly is beyond belief. I know there’s plenty of morons out there, but this has to be the most inane piece of writing I’ve ever come across. I have no idea who Brownback is, and don’t really care (as thankfully I don’t live in the United Theocracy of America), but if his political opponents have got anything about them, they’ll make sure that all the voters see this drivel.

    In fact, on second thoughts, this must surely be written by a supporter of one of Brownback’s opponents in an attempt to smear him.

    Comment by flibble — May 25, 2007 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

  555. “Once again, i congratulate you on being such a hypocritical turd.”

    Thanks!

    “Sincerely, an atheist (go fuck yourself)”

    I love you!

    “sorry for sending that twice by the way”

    Oh, how polite!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  556. The best part about any devote Christian spewing their religious trash is that they are totally wound up in the fact that the bible is fiction. I mean, there is no proofs of any of these stories, just the fact that it has been re-written time and time again by many different kings, scholars, monks etc who was looking to dominate in their respective portion of the globe. I mean, can YOU accept that the world is round? Does it say anywhere in the bible about the Earth being round, or flat for that matter. Does anyone ever fall off the side of the earth? Better yet, according to your odd approach to relativity, can you prove through point of reference that the Earth is not moving (ignoring all fictional sources, i.e. the bible)? The better question would be, if someone started to add to the bible today, would you believe it tomorrow? If I wrote my own chapter, verse and psalms, and called it the “Age of Information” would it be accepted tomorrow as the stories in the bible are accepted today. NO, THEY WOULD NOT. It is easy to say the bible is the above all and end all when it comes to knowledge, but that does not allow us, as humans, to use our abilities to question, to determine, to think, to be critical about anything that is written in it. You will say, that is the devil at work, forcing me to think that way, and I will say, the devil is doing the same to you. I would love though, is your explanation as to how planes fly? What causes them to come back to earth, what causes them to stay up? I think we can rule out the an act of God, because if that was the cause, then it would appear that God is serving US, and not the other way around, as you would so graciously put it. You can retort all you want about my comments, I really dont care. But when humans acheive interstellar travel and start to colonize other planets, solar systems etc, please, leave the bible on earth, where it so apparently belongs.

    One last thing, how could have alot of the greatest discoveries of the past 100 years come about, if we are not supposed to question the bibles “facts”. I mean, why would have someone discovered electricity, harnessed it, made it availble for you to spew your banter all over the internet, if the bible does not talk of electricity (or, if it does, in some twisted, largely abstracted (BY YOU) form). You are using it, every day, in almost every aspect of your life. But, if the bible was the end all of all knowledge, then we would not have the luxury or convenience of it, EVERYDAY.

    Regards
    ~ Spinning Earth Advocate!

    Comment by Spinning Earth Advocate — May 25, 2007 @ 2:42 pm | Reply

  557. “WHEN BORNWBACK TAKES OVER ALL YOU COMMIES WILL ROT IN JAIL YOU CAN TEACH YOUR BOYFRIENDS ABOUT HELIOPCRNTISM WHIEL YOUR BENDIGN OVER FRO THEM

    GO BROWNABCK! GO BRIOWNBAKC! GO BROWNBACK!”

    In the midst of your enthusiastic fervor I see that proper typing and grammar has been thrown out the window. If this is the sort of habit that love for Brownback induces, I fear that if he were to take over our literacy ratings would plummet to dangerous and shameful depths.

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

  558. You people scare the shit out of me.

    This post is evidence that no matter how much conclusive evidence you provide, idiots will keep spreading idiocy.

    id·i·o·cy (d–s)
    n.

    The state or condition of being an idiot; profound mental retardation.

    Comment by daelan — May 25, 2007 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  559. I fear that our literacy rate can’t afford to plummet much more with the “No Child Left Behind” act.

    “WHEN BORNWBACK TAKES OVER ALL YOU COMMIES WILL ROT IN JAIL YOU CAN TEACH YOUR BOYFRIENDS ABOUT HELIOPCRNTISM WHIEL YOUR BENDIGN OVER FRO THEM

    GO BROWNABCK! GO BRIOWNBAKC! GO BROWNBACK!”

    The problem with messages like these is that no one understands them.

    self-righteous tree-huggers like Beth

    It is extremely insulting to judge people before you know them, especially when they’re just voicing their opinions. You are voicing your own opinions, yet you verbally attack those who give statements that deserve serious consideration, as you want your geocentrism to be taken seriously. Name-calling is also extremely crude, and, as you said, “this is a family-oriented website”, so these insults are very out of place, rude, and inappropriate. One cannot be held responsible for the reactions of others, but they must be responsible for themselves.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  560. “COMMIES” is a term not to be taken lightly. There’s a difference between being moderate and being Communist. Personally, my ethnic country has been ravaged by communism. Much of the culture and knowledge of my parents’ country was destroyed. The Communists took over, and like a swarm of locusts, plagued our land, destroyed our resources, and ruind our economy. Don’t you dare to use “COMMIES” as an insult! (And I MEAN IT.)

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:13 pm | Reply

  561. *boggle*

    I haven’t called anyone names (Except Sisyphus some the other day; I called him a jackass for suggesting that some people are innately worth less than others, which is quite a rude and dangerous opinion to hold).

    In this case I have attacked no person. I never said this fellow himself is illiterate. Indeed, I gave him the benefit of the doubt saying that he does possess capablilties of proper grammar and typing, simply that they were put aside in a moment of fervor. But that would be a bad habit to get into, as these are very important things and should not be taken for granted or so easily tossed aside. If anyone wishes to make a point, it would be better made with fewer typos. It’s for the good of all.

    You, however, called me a self-righteous tree-hugger. So… who’s calling who names here?

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 4:21 pm | Reply

  562. If you’re responding to me, I apologize for the confusion.
    The first and third were referring to comment 554, not you (I probably should write the comment I’m responding to from now on. Oops.).
    The second was referring to comment 538.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  563. We’re doomed. No way to integrate new information into the Brownback fans. They are fact-resistant.

    Comment by enchantscoot — May 25, 2007 @ 4:27 pm | Reply

  564. Comment 561 refers to comment 560.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:29 pm | Reply

  565. Confused still, sorry… You did or didn’t call me a self-righteous tree-hugger?

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

  566. Of course I don’t. Sisyphus did, though, in comment 554.

    I’m sorry for any confusion or offense comment 560 has caused.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

  567. I was just quoting Sisyphus to respond to him.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 25, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  568. lietk12:

    Don’t be afraid to say what you really think. If you think Beth is a self-righteous tree-hugger, it’s OK to say so. That’s certainly what I suspect she is.

    I disagree with you about Sisyphus, however: I don’t think he’s a Communist, no matter what you say.

    Comment by DPS — May 25, 2007 @ 6:06 pm | Reply

  569. Alright, I no longer understand who said what to whom in this thread. I’m just going to cherry-pick random things that stuck out at me, and respond to them. Sorry if I don’t get to your comment, at this point I think everyone’s comments are on the verge of fusing into some hideous schizophrenic Master Comment. So bear with me, please:

    “You people scare the shit out of me.”

    Thanks for sharing.

    “It is extremely insulting to judge people before you know them, especially when they’re just voicing their opinions.”

    Yet you accused Jack Fremont of illiteracy. Or was that someone else?

    “Don’t you dare to use “COMMIES” as an insult! (And I MEAN IT.)”

    Okay, tone it down, Jack (or whomever). No more calling people Commie, it’s not much different than calling someone a Nazi just because you disagree with them.

    “Don’t be afraid to say what you really think. If you think Beth is a self-righteous tree-hugger, it’s OK to say so. That’s certainly what I suspect she is.”

    Me, too.

    “I disagree with you about Sisyphus, however: I don’t think he’s a Communist, no matter what you say.”

    Thank you! 🙂

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 25, 2007 @ 6:53 pm | Reply

  570. I don’t even know what to say to this. This is idiocy in its purest form; an epidemic surely worse than that of cocaine. I have heard these preachings only once previous in my year and two decades on this [revolving] Earth, and that was from a homeless woman who was clearly suffering from numerous psychoses, likely drug-related. Though a “dirty” atheist myself, I am respectful and tolerant of religion in all its forms, but you demonstrate an intolerance, closed-mindedness, and egotism that deters more people from Christianity than attracts.

    There was one thing you did right, however. I wasn’t aware of Sen. Brownback’s views … but now that I am, thanks to you, I sure as hell will not be voting for him this coming election year. I did not even think it was even possible to find a candidate that could rival Bush for ignorance. But ignorance seems to be flavor of the weak.

    Comment by Michelle — May 25, 2007 @ 9:08 pm | Reply

  571. […] Atheist Heliocentric Conspiracy! The damnable lie that the sun is the centre of the […]

    Pingback by Atheist Heliocentric Conspiracy « Archies Archive — May 25, 2007 @ 9:56 pm | Reply

  572. […] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine!!!! …sucker… […]

    Pingback by DEELAAYYEED… « As Light Lives… — May 25, 2007 @ 10:36 pm | Reply

  573. Read, man. I *explicitly said* that I did *not* call him illiterate. Cherry picking indeed…

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 11:56 pm | Reply

  574. *more boggle*

    “Sisyphus did, though, in comment 554”

    On the page as I see it, comment 554 is Jack’s post. I think your posts must be numbered differently than mine. Odd… A bug, perhaps?

    Comment by Beth — May 25, 2007 @ 11:58 pm | Reply

  575. What about Peter? He was transformed into stone by Jesus, and then he built a church over him. Poor poor Peter[Petros-piedra-stone…]. Although there are some parts in the bible that don’t match some theoretically possible, such as the lightning tornado, imagine a lot of sand trapped in a tornado in which the grains are constantly crashing and producing static energy, and then bang! No body can go back to the Eden, which hasn’t been found yet…
    And Jesus never fulfilled his promise of making those guys into men-fishers.
    What about that place where milk and honey came out of stones, there are no leftovers anywhere to be found, what I’m pretty sure is that Muslims are hiding Noah’s ark. I don’t know. And in fact, how do I know that you are not Satan in disguise writing all this, even I could be, or even we could both be just a plan of Satan(which you claim to be very powerful) and you can not prove me wrong, because maybe you don’t notice ahahahahah the devil is everywhere, there’s no where to hide!! You people, pay me a tenth part of what you have and you’ll be safe from the all powerful evil one. In fact why would Satan roam freely in the land of God? Why?! Why do you fear an enemy of God?! If God is all mighty why does he allow devil in the world, what I think, God made us free to choose either way we want and there is no devil, just choices in the heart of men. I would have liked to be a fox like Herod -_-’…
    I mean, not in the way of ordering the murder of the mesias but you know, having a tail in those big ears, in some cultures foxes are considered as being very smart beings.

    Ok, so it is true you can claim the Earth to be fixed, but if that’s true, then everything is rotating it, that would mean that stars would have to reach speeds way over the speed of light (wich is impossible as the ether does not support such high speeds[which doesn’t imply that I believe in it, just using langauage you may understand])also it is impossible to explain why certain bodies present anomalies in their movements (like som stopping, slowing down, or going backwards at times) unless we accept that the Earth goes around the Sun every 365.6 or so days, rotates over it’s own axis every 23:59.so hours and presents another movementin which it rotates on another axis avery 250 years. What will happen if going to other planets becomes available for common people (I’m sure I’m not going to be there), then it would surely appear to them that they stand still while the whole universe rotates around them, put some child there to make their own conclusions, and with time they will believe that their sun goes around them, they are the center of the universe, because they feel they are. Then again, “the lord of the abyss could be manipulating their minds again, he is everywhere, OMG he could be even in my keyboard gyaaagh!!”. I really fear people like you who can’t accept that we are free and are not always working under the influenze of God nor the Devil, that is what makes our choices worth to God when we make them, you are free to write this article and give a false testimony of the scripture, as we are free to go out there fearless of the evil-one and find out how is the creation made, without having to wait for God to tell us, we trul are the best of the creatures, as we were made able to comprehend the creation by ourselves.
    Tell me Misyphuz, where in the Bible is it written “and the Lord said, the Earth shall be fixed”, I only see the writing of some guy 6,000 years ago writing what HE/SHE believed, he wasn’t quoting anyone, just what he believed was true. That’s it.
    Tomorrow’s yesterday is today!

    Comment by mikaudes — May 26, 2007 @ 12:31 am | Reply

  576. Oh by the way, sorry for posting my comment again, but since you wouldn’t respond…
    I really admire you for standing your ground even against the solid evidence Sisyphus, but I just think you’re st*p!d. By the way being a tree hugger isn’t bad at all, I mean, don’t you love every being as well? Oh, and please tell what a Moonbat is, because I’m pretty sure they are not extraterrestrials

    Comment by mikaudes — May 26, 2007 @ 12:36 am | Reply

  577. Christians all over the (moving) planet should be embarrassed by this. I know I am. Using the Bible as a science book is wrong. I’m sorry, but you are very sad, and I’ll pray for you.

    Comment by Gawd — May 26, 2007 @ 2:12 am | Reply

  578. Most of the liberals, who are a very small minority of Americans compared to The Heartland, are homosexual, and want to force us all to be gay.

    Comment by Gary Ruppert — May 26, 2007 @ 6:40 am | Reply

  579. i was trying to give you people something else to talk about, i think the moral of the story is this earth is going to hell quickly if we cannot all get along and quit taking sides of such time wasting topics. maybe if we all just talked about how to save this planet and not putting out energy into this nut, as you like to call me. no matter what, you are feeding him energy by arguing about it.

    Comment by sarah — May 26, 2007 @ 8:08 am | Reply

  580. From now on, I will be using “>” to show where my replies are.

    #659: lietk12:

    Don’t be afraid to say what you really think. If you think Beth is a self-righteous tree-hugger, it’s OK to say so. That’s certainly what I suspect she is.

    >I DON’T think Beth is one.

    I disagree with you about Sisyphus, however: I don’t think he’s a Communist, no matter what you say.

    >I didn’t say he was. In fact, by his behavior, I think he will never be one. I was just saying to the author of comment #554 that “COMMIES” is not a term to be taken lightly. Now I think that no extremist label is appropriate for anyone that doesn’t actually belong to the organization.

    #570:
    >(skipped a lot)

    “It is extremely insulting to judge people before you know them, especially when they’re just voicing their opinions.”

    Yet you accused Jack Fremont of illiteracy. Or was that someone else?

    >Nope. Not me. In comment #558, beth said “I fear that if he were to take over our literacy ratings would plummet to dangerous and shameful depths.” I was just commenting on that.
    >(skipped a lot)

    #575: *more boggle*

    “Sisyphus did, though, in comment 554″

    On the page as I see it, comment 554 is Jack’s post. I think your posts must be numbered differently than mine. Odd… A bug, perhaps?

    >Here’s my comment:
    “WHEN BORNWBACK TAKES OVER ALL YOU COMMIES WILL ROT IN JAIL YOU CAN TEACH YOUR BOYFRIENDS ABOUT HELIOPCRNTISM WHIEL YOUR BENDIGN OVER FRO THEM

    GO BROWNABCK! GO BRIOWNBAKC! GO BROWNBACK!”

    The problem with messages like these is that no one understands them.

    >This refers to comment 554

    self-righteous tree-huggers like Beth

    It is extremely insulting to judge people before you know them, especially when they’re just voicing their opinions. You are voicing your own opinions, yet you verbally attack those who give statements that deserve serious consideration, as you want your geocentrism to be taken seriously. Name-calling is also extremely crude, and, as you said, “this is a family-oriented website”, so these insults are very out of place, rude, and inappropriate. One cannot be held responsible for the reactions of others, but they must be responsible for themselves.

    >This refers to comment 538, though I should have said so.

    #579: Most of the liberals, who are a very small minority of Americans compared to The Heartland, are homosexual, and want to force us all to be gay.

    >Avoid using stereotypes. At least try to do some research before you voice your opinions.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 9:19 am | Reply

  581. Ah! I found where Sisyphus called me a self-righteous tree-hugger. Amazing what control+f can do. 😛 Should’ve done that sooner…

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Reply

  582. But what about the anthropocentric doctrine? When I stand on my skateboard and push the earth with my foot, the earth moves (I can feel it) and I stay still. I am able to explain the movement of cars, airplanes, etc with a large database of epicycles. This is a scientific process not understood by the helio- and geo-centrists (collectively followers homocentrism or gay physics). This is proved by Job 9:5 “He moves mountains without their knowing it”. It works in the same way as sitting in the middle of a spinning platform and kicking the other kids until they fall off.

    Comment by me — May 26, 2007 @ 10:01 am | Reply

  583. Hmm… I’m curious now. Is there a reason you, Sisyphus, think I’m a “self-righteous tree-hugger,” or did you pull those names out of a hat because you ran out of ideas? I want specifics. Because I don’t really even recycle (though I should, I admit), and I’m really rather self-critical.

    The only thing I’ve done here is try to get someone to admit that genocide was committed against Native Americans in the name of religion, and aside from that, that killing is killing and killing is wrong no matter who does it – Athiests, Muslims, Christians, whatever. Holding a certian religion doesn’t excuse one from certain truths: killing is bad. Hiding behind a god to excuse one’s bad behavior is cowardly.

    Just admit that Christians are not infallible. You may think the religion itself is perfect and infallible: fine. But to say everyone who holds that faith by simple virtue of having that faith is exempt from wrong-doing and has the right to do as they please to those who don’t have that faith is borderline deification.

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 10:07 am | Reply

  584. I would like to nominate three people to be considered for banning:

    #1. sarah, who, although she probably is not really possessed, is pretending very hard to be possessed. If she’s here, I worry that children who are reading these comments might get the idea that it is OK to be possessed.

    #2. Beth, who is terribly bewildered and is constantly sidetracking everything by being “boggled”. By now, I just assume that she’s permanently boggled and that there’s nothing we can to do unboggle her, so there’s no need for her to tell us that at the beginning of her comments that she is “boggled”. Banning her would be for her own safety and comfort, more than anything else.

    #3. lietk12, who keeps taking credit for things other people have said (he does this in comment 581 when he steals Jack Fremont’s insightful observation) and pretending that he didn’t say things he has already said, such as that Beth is “a self-righteous tree hugger.” I am however glad to see that he agrees with Gary Ruppert about how the liberals want to turn us all into homosexuals, so maybe he’s worth keeping around?

    Anyway, I could have reported them in an e-mail, but I thought it was better for them to see what I was saying about them.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 10:12 am | Reply

  585. You people are nuts.

    Comment by TallGuyinFla — May 26, 2007 @ 10:17 am | Reply

  586. This is a joke, right?

    It’s gotta be a joke – the arguments for support the arguments against, and vice versa…

    If it is a joke, I fear too many people won’t realize it as such…

    Comment by Technodaoist — May 26, 2007 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  587. Be afraid people! Guys like Sisyphus got the current moron elected to the presidency twice!!

    Lets make sure it doesn’t happen a third time!!

    Comment by jumpier — May 26, 2007 @ 10:25 am | Reply

  588. Saying something twice makes it permanent? Now that is fascinating…

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Reply

  589. I personally believe that the literal word of God is revealed in the works of Dr. Seuss, that green eggs and ham are the only true sacrament and that star-bellied Sneetches are coming to save us.

    Think I can get a tax exemption too?

    Comment by larryo — May 26, 2007 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  590. Thanks, Sisyphus, for your muscular, authoritarian, and single-minded statements of the Creed of the Religious Right in America. You are the most honest and complete expositor of the combination of the psychological underpinnings, the belief systems, the political positions, and rhetorical tactics which characterise this influential group.

    It is easy to mock those who choose to take an unpopular stand, such as yourself. But your time in the wilderness, misunderstood and powerless, the butt of the jibes of the Godless preterite, will soon come to an end in the millenial age which will be heralded by the sure election of Sam Brownback as Christian Commander in Chief of this beacon on the hill called America.

    We will together make those atheistic tree-hugging users of the satanic metric system experience here on this stationary earth what awaits them in the eternities!

    Comment by divadab — May 26, 2007 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  591. There are quite a few conditions affecting the brain that would explain that article. I’d suggest running, not walking, to Mayo or Johns Hopkins. Perhaps there is time to save you.

    By the way, there never was a Jesus, simple as that.

    Comment by John Swift — May 26, 2007 @ 11:14 am | Reply

  592. Beth:

    Are you sure that you find my observation “fascinating”? I think you may mean that you find it “boggling,” no?

    This was of course exactly my point.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  593. I don’t Sis wants to ban them, as he seems to be pleased with people trying to argue with his point of view that can’t be proven either right or wrong.

    Comment by mikaudes — May 26, 2007 @ 12:26 pm | Reply

  594. I have said boggle twice, and have otherwise made good, valid posts worthy of comment that you are blatantly ignoring by focusing on something miniscule and inconsequential. You are now doing the sidetracking, sir. We can get back on topic whenever you’re ready.

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 12:26 pm | Reply

  595. Sorry, P.S. one more thing:

    Also it’s clear now that lietk12 did not call me a self-righteous tree-hugger; he was quoting Sisyuphus. Go back and read. Use control+f like I did and you’ll see Sisyuphus used the names first, then lietk12 presented the quote again, sans quotation marks which made it somewhat confusing, and then called Sisyphus out for name-calling. One might say lietk12 was “defending my honor” in a sense. (Thanks, by the way)

    Okay

    *officially back on topic as soon as anyone is ready to engage in discussion*

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 12:35 pm | Reply

  596. #3. lietk12, who keeps taking credit for things other people have said (he does this in comment 581 when he steals Jack Fremont’s insightful observation)
    >What?
    and pretending that he didn’t say things he has already said, such as that Beth is “a self-righteous tree hugger.”
    >Think misunderstanding.
    I am however glad to see that he agrees with Gary Ruppert about how the liberals want to turn us all into homosexuals, so maybe he’s worth keeping around?
    >I don’t. Actually, I think that all conservatives are freaks trying to take over in the name of God in order to smother all culture, kill all others not like them, and then squander all resources to destroy humanity. (I actually don’t, but these two accusations are on the same level of conspiracy-theory-ness and craziness and idiocy).

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 1:30 pm | Reply

  597. Comment 584: #1. sarah, who, although she probably is not really possessed, is pretending very hard to be possessed. If she’s here, I worry that children who are reading these comments might get the idea that it is OK to be possessed.

    Children also might get the idea that it is OK to insult other people, ignore comments, and use lots of labels that they don’t even know the meaning of.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

  598. “The silent majority of readers agree with me. Nuts like sarah and self-righteous tree-huggers like Beth keep them from posting, but trust me, they’re there.”

    This is priceless. Are you the same guy who, a couple of years ago, was blogging about how some 9/11 memorial was actually a giant outdoor mosque created by evil muslim infiltrators? When he started getting torn to pieces on the board, he also invented a fictional army of readers who believed every single word he said, but were for some reason remaining silent.

    Tell us, what evidence do you have that this “silent majority” exists (the phrase ‘trust me’ never carries any weight in a logical discussion, but as you’re a wannabe-fascist radical right Christian and your entire movement is characterised by its hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, it’s obviously even more meaningless coming from you)? None, of course, but the same could be said of this and most likely every other cretinous “theory” you’ve espoused.

    As a final note, I love your assertion that certain “nuts” on the board are keeping the endless swathes of true believers from posting. How does that work, then? Godless liberals finding out the addresses of right-wingers and cutting their broadband cable? Psychic powers? Please enlighten us; it should be a scream.

    Comment by kiki — May 26, 2007 @ 1:48 pm | Reply

  599. From post: The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism

    Prove that it is “unsound, empirically fraudulent, and historically heretical”, WITHOUT using circular reasoning.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 1:52 pm | Reply

  600. Sorry, I meant:

    The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism

    >Prove that it is “unsound, empirically fraudulent, and historically heretical”, WITHOUT using circular reasoning, Sisyphus.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 1:53 pm | Reply

  601. I can’t believe I made it to the bottom of the page. A lot of you people need therapy! Brownback is just another boob, maybe he looks good on God but he’s really only in it for himself. Career goals anyone?

    Comment by William — May 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  602. Very well, we are back on topic.

    Beth and lietk12: as soon as you two are done flirting with each other, I am eager to hear some of your suggestions as to how we should prevent our government from forcing our children to learn about the false, godless doctine of heliocentrism.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 3:57 pm | Reply

  603. So, to summarize, because I 1.)believe the earth revolves around the sun, 2.)am not a biblical literalist and 3.)am against a theocracy I

    A.)am not a Christian, despite the fact that I’ve been a Lutheran my entire life

    B.)support terrorism

    C.)hate America

    Gee, you’re really helping to garner the votes of rational people. News flash: Despite your thoughts on polling, if Brownback ever went out and said the earth didn’t move, he’d become the laughingstock of the election (not that he isn’t already…species don’t adapt to their environment? What’s next, gravity doesn’t really exist?) Anyway, I won’t call you a name, or crazy, because it’s unproductive, but just know that you certainly aren’t helping Mr. Brownback get elected.

    Comment by Matthew — May 26, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

  604. Comment 594: Beth and lietk12: as soon as you two are done flirting with each other,
    >flirting?!?!?!?
    I am eager to hear some of your suggestions as to how we should prevent our government from forcing our children to learn about the false, godless doctine of heliocentrism.
    >How about we don’t learn anything? That solves your problem. And, as an added benefit, that will keep us under your thumb!

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 5:29 pm | Reply

  605. […] the real good stuff on this blog is the post Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine. You learn something every day. On this May 18th post, we learn that according to the bible, the […]

    Pingback by MEDICINE AGENCY BLOG! » Blog Archive » the earth is flat — May 26, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  606. Syphilis – you’re a nutter and an embarrassment to the human race. I guess it’s not your fault – you’ve evidently been indoctrinated and brain-washed by the god gang … and you’re now beyond reasoning and rational thought.

    Sad. Very sad.

    Comment by Jesus HC — May 26, 2007 @ 6:23 pm | Reply

  607. At last!: The $27,000,000 Creation Museum opens in Petersburg, KY on Monday, Memorial day. There are jobs available, both summertime and permanent, on its website.
    Items needed for possible employment
    · Resume
    · Salvation testimony
    · Creation belief statement
    · Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith
    Please send, with cover letter, to:
    HR Department

    Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith
    For a slightly more detailed copy of the Statement of Faith, please make your request in writing.
    (A) PRIORITIES
    1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    (B) BASICS
    1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
    2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
    3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
    4. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
    5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
    6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
    7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.
    (C) THEOLOGY
    1. The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
    2. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
    3. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
    4. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
    5. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
    6. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
    7. All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.
    8. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
    9. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
    10. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
    11. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
    12. The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage.
    (D) GENERAL
    1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
    2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
    3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
    4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
    5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious,’ is rejected.
    6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

    Comment by Frank Smith — May 26, 2007 @ 6:56 pm | Reply

  608. To assert that the Earth does move is to renounce Christianity. It really is as simple as that.

    Consider it renounced. You people are trying to send us back to the dark ages… like you did before.

    Comment by Planet B — May 26, 2007 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

  609. “Syphilis – you’re a nutter and an embarrassment to the human race.”

    Hi!

    “At last!: The $27,000,000 Creation Museum opens in Petersburg, KY on Monday, Memorial day. There are jobs available, both summertime and permanent, on its website.”

    This sounds like a pretty good opportunity for those of you living in the general Kentucky area. (Marcia P.?) I wish I could apply, but unfortunately the Sisyphus household is unable to move at this time.

    “Consider it renounced. You people are trying to send us back to the dark ages… like you did before.”

    This is the darkest moral epoch in human history. Of course, to the blind man, all eras are equally dark.

    Hopefully, this website will serve as your seeing-eye dog. Keep coming back, and be sure to vote Brownback!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 26, 2007 @ 7:45 pm | Reply

  610. Just a little cut-n-paste from http://www.cfpf.org.uk/letters/2004/2004-05-29_vz2bg.html

    A LAWYER’S OPEN LETTER TO DR BILLY GRAHAM (and CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS)

    Dear Reverend,

    Does the Bible have AUTHORITY?

    Over a number of decades, as a charismatic Christian Bible crusader you influenced and you have attracted a huge number of people not only in the United States, but around the world. You swayed the multitude with your Biblical eloquence, with Biblical authority and you told them what to think, told them what is right, what is wrong, how to behave.

    You have advised some of the world’s leading religious and secular leaders. You have used your Biblical expertise to advise even American Presidents.

    Your honesty, your sincerity and your integrity are not in question. Nor is your character or your intention or your motivation in question.

    There is a universal perception that you are passionate about directing the multitude to the Bible as the ultimate authority. You have a fundamental right to your beliefs, your religion and to your Bible. I do respect that.

    But when you cite Biblical authority to support your claim that empiricism about the afterlife is wrong, then I have to respond to your most definitively erroneous assumptions.

    And undoubtedly, while you do have expertise in the Bible, that expertise cannot be equated with having objective, universal authority about what you state or how you interpret the Bible. Two thousand years of Christian history, your decades of Biblical preaching and being a Christian minister – and repeating ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in the Bible a million times do NOT amount to you or the Bible having objective authority – except having religious subjective authority.

    I state with great emphasis that empirical authority negates and invalidates any Biblical subjective authority.

    Accordingly, I state there are five grounds why evangelists and fundamental Christians do NOT and can never have universally acceptable, enforceable authority emanating from the Bible.

    i) the subjectivity of the Biblical texts (as against empiricism);
    ii) the original Biblical texts do not exist;
    iii) many of the contents cannot be attributed to God;
    iv) contents have been plagiarized from previous spiritual writings and
    v) the Bible has been changed a number of times greatly reducing its credibility.

    i) Subjectivity – your authority is subjective

    With the greatest respect, the authority you cite is subjective authority. This means that your Biblical authority extends only to those who want to believe in the Bible and to those who want to accept your interpretation of the Bible.

    Your Biblical authority is not and cannot be empirically tested for validity. I guarantee you that all accredited universities will agree with that statement. Ultimately you may state that your authority comes from God. Again, that is also an untested interpretation and inevitably a subjective statement NOT independently supported by science, empiricism or by any objectivity.

    And you know and all empiricists and scientists around the world know, anything subjective is itself subject to fundamental errors and to complete invalidation.

    ‘Faith’ and ‘belief’ – which are intrinsically most subjective – appear to be the most important words for evangelists and fundamental Christians. They occur in nearly every chapter of the New Testament and are used more than 200 times.

    At one time the Church in the middle ages taught that faith and belief are more powerful than science and were to be stated dogmatically and to be accepted without questioning. I submit, judging by ‘content analysis’ of what they preach and by their conduct, that most evangelists, clergy, priests and ministers still erroneously believe this to-day.

    When you ask people to believe in something purely on the basis of faith, you are robbing them of the fundamental right to question anything which is NOT supported by evidence.

    The Catholic Church with an alleged billion followers has a practice of NOT encouraging Catholics to study the Bible for themselves; they have a policy of referring them to a limited number of “safe” passages knowing there are huge irreconcilable problems with many other passages.

    Humans are given the power to think, to analyze, to evaluate, to investigate, to test all information for validity. I submit that any evangelist or anyone who tries to take away these things is himself committing a most heinous transgression, is violating Natural Law.
    Empiricism (measuring phenomena using scientific method)

    Whenever there is an inconsistency between theology and empiricism, between a personal religious belief and science, theology and personal beliefs inevitably are made invalid by empiricism.

    For example, the Bible talks about the geocentric view of cosmology – the sun revolving around the earth. You know, I know – and the whole world knows- that this is not correct. The episode where Joshua claimed God stopped the sun is but one where the Bible misleads, misinforms, misguides and is blatantly fundamentally inconsistent with science.

    Another example: Genesis fundamentally contradicts science – the earth is said to be older than the stars. That is definitively NOT the case. Is Dr Graham asking us to close our minds when we open the Bible?

    This unequivocally shows that the Biblical writings of the fourth century reflected the restricted epistemology of the time. Certainly the writers did not have the benefit of at least two hundred years of science, empiricism, advanced technology and the advanced methods of observation we have to-day. Especially, when research into the afterlife has now been taken over by psi empiricists.

    Empiricists state that faith and beliefs are irrelevant and immaterial as to evaluation of your worth on crossing over. Empiricists state that selfless service, doing anything to alleviate suffering, hardship, adversity of another person will be a million times more beneficial on crossing over than all the hallelujahs, amens and hymns sung and uttered during one’s lifetime. Selfless good works have an immediate positive impact on the spirit’s vibrations.

    Accordingly, anything critical to man’s understanding of his role in the universe has to come under the strictest empirical scrutiny to assess its validity. Biblical experts agree the Bible has egregious, insurmountable, irreconcilable problems when empirically tested. All these hugely reduce any alleged authority the Bible has. While the Bible has some very powerful poetry and inspiration, it cannot and must not be cited as the ultimate, infallible authority for universal spiritual truths.
    ii) Original Biblical documents do not exist

    It is procedural that any writings allegedly inspired by God have to be stringently tested and subjected to the toughest scrutiny. Now we find that the original New Testament Biblical texts are not original documents – i.e. the Biblical texts we have are NOT the authentic ones. No one knows who actually wrote them, they are not historical documents and no one has ever stated he or she ever saw the originals. Nobody knows when they were written. What remains are copies of copies, unsigned with no guarantee the contexts have not been altered.

    Even to-day the courts will not allow me or anybody else to submit into evidence copies of original documents. Copies of the originals are unreliable, reduce or negate authority, are open to suspicion of internal changes and are subject to a presumption of fraud which must be rebutted. This is usually done by presenting the authentic, original documents. This is something no evangelist can do concerning the Bible, now or in the future.
    iii) Many of the Biblical contents cannot be attributed to God

    You will agree that there are too many parts in the Bible which are unspiritual in the extreme. God is made out to be a cursing God of vengeance, of hatred, of war. God is made out to be really heinously evil with unconscionable determination to eliminate large numbers of innocent people for trivial deeds by someone relatively insignificant. God is made out to indiscriminately kill innocent human beings, hate men, women and children. You know Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Isaiah and other parts in the Bible are too vicious even to mention. All the horror, all the bizarreness, the cruelty and brutality in the Bible cannot be the word of God. Therefore the Bible shows itself to be a reflection of man’s own primitive thinking in the early ages and certainly not God’s. Below are some passages which attribute to God a morality less than an informed, spiritually advanced human being. In fact they are vulgar in the extreme, most horrible and only a fool would accept that these came from or were inspired by God – in justification of murder, hatred, genocide, fratricide and other conduct prohibited by law to-day. For example,

    (a most bizarre, unacceptable description of God). Ezek 1:4-21

    When God is angry ‘smoke and fire’ comes out of his body. Ps 18:7-8

    He (God) will shoot them with arrows, suddenly they will be struck down Ps 64:7

    God travels on a cloud Is 19:1

    I (God) will corrupt your seed and spread dung (cow’s shit) upon your faces. Malachi 2:3

    Lo I (God) have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung and thou shalt prepare thy bread herewith. Ex 4:15

    Serve the Lord with fear and trembling, kiss his feet or else he will get angry and you will perish in the way …Ps 2:11

    For the Lord is a devouring firer, a jealous God Deut. 4:24

    If your brother …daughter serve other gods… you shall kill him (her). Deut 13:6

    No man can be Jesus’ disciple unless he hates his parents, brethren …Luke 14:26

    The Lord is a man of war Ex 15:3

    And you shall destroy all the peoples that the Lord your God gives over to you, your eyes shall not pity them. Deut 7:16

    When the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them you must utterly destroy them and show no mercy to them Det 7:2

    ‘God’ orders a man to be stoned to death because he collected firewood on a Sunday Num 15:32-36.

    ‘God’ is the creator of evil … Is 45:7-8 Rom 11:32

    … the head of every woman is man Corinthians 1 11:3

    Whosever lieth with a beast surely be put to death and you shall slay the beast Lev 22:15

    The earth has pillars and foundation. Sam 1 2:8 Ps 104:5

    These are just but a fraction of the absurdities and primitive, bizarre directions and reflections to be found in the Bible which evangelists claim is ‘the word of God!’

    Accordingly, these would destroy any claim that the Bible it is the word of God.

    Further, the Bible is inundated with fundamental irreconcilable inconsistencies. The Internet lists hundreds of these- see Biblical inconsistencies. For example:

    The earth to abide for ever Ps 104:5 Eccles 1:4: The earth to be destroyed He 1:10-11 Peter 3:10

    Man is not justified by faith alone. James 2:21, 24 Man is justified by faith alone. Rom 3:20 Ga 2:16

    Salvation secured through good works Mark 10:17-19 Salvation is to be gained only through belief in Jesus as Saviour John 3:16 ff Eph 2:8

    I state that the Bible may be highly religious but not spiritual. These inconsistencies inevitably further reduce and even remove any notion that the Bible is God’s authority to be disseminated to mankind.
    iv) Contents are based on previous spiritual writings.

    It may or may not surprise you that there is much in the Bible which is not original. Research shows that much of what is in the Bible comes from Eastern and Middle Eastern spiritual writings: for example, the Creation and the Fall of Man was a belief in Babylon some 1500 years before the Hebrews claimed they originated these beliefs. The Ten Commandments, the Trinity, Jonah and the Big Fish, Samson and his Exploits, The Flood, Jacob’s Ladder, Ascension of Jesus – and many other items found in the Bible have been taken over from ancient beliefs.

    From Buddhism we get the stories of the Prodigal Son, the Loaves and the Fishes, and the admonition as to the plucking out of the right eye if it gives offence, ‘Peter’ walking on the sea, the woman at the well. The Last Supper and other customs and rites originated with the Essenes who can be traced first to Alexandria in Egypt then to India. Other ceremonies and beliefs were taken from Mithraism which originated in Turkey.

    But what is devastatingly critical evidence is the presentation made by Kersey Graves in his book THE WORLD’S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIOURS, chapter XXXIL entitled Three hundred and forty six striking analogies between Christ and Chrishna. This shows how the early Christian writers plagiarized from the then existing Eastern spiritual beliefs. The following are just a fraction of the similarities between Christianity and Eastern spiritual writings from India – – the God or Savior in each case is the second person of the Trinity. – Chrishna as well as Christ was held to be really God incarnate. – Chrishna as well as Jesus (Christ) were ‘Christ’ incarnate. – The mother in each case was a holy virgin. – The father of Chrishna as well as that of Christ was a carpenter, – God is claimed as the real father in both cases. – A spirit or ghost was the author of the conception of each. – Both were (allegedly) born on the 25th December. – Both at birth were visited by both men and shepherds. – Each Savior had a forerunner – John the Baptist in the one case, Bali Rama in the other. – Each sustained the character of a Messiah. – Chrishna as well as Christ was a redeemer. – Both proclaimed, “I am the resurrection.” – The mission of each was to deliver from sin. – The doctrine of atonement is practically realized in each case. – Both were human as well as divine. – Chrishna performed many miracles as well as Christ. – One of the first miracles of each was the cure of a leper. – Chrishna as well as Christ was crucified. – Darkness attended the crucifixion of each. – Each after giving up the ghost, descends into hell. – Chrishna and Christ resurrected. – A great and final day of judgment is taught by each.

    There are another three hundred and twenty four similarities between Krishna and Christ one could find the in the above mentioned Kersey Graves’ book.

    Kersey Graves, whose research has hitherto not been rebutted, also identifies there were sixteen “crucified” saviors before Jesus – all of whom claimed they were sent by God to save mankind. There is also a plethora of evidence that there is nothing original in Christianity and all of its concepts were taken from previous religions. Some critical books so far not rebutted is the classic work of the Rev Robert Taylor’s 437 page book DIEGESIS. There is the 380 page book MYTH, MAGIC AND MORALS by Fred Cornwallis Conybeare and BIBLE MYTHS and their PARALLELS IN OTHER RELIGIONS by T W Doane. All these works are highly intellectually substantiated by professors and although these most disturbing books have been around for nearly a hundred years, no one has been able to rebut the highly intellectual, most damaging research which shows the Bible has no authority.

    All these show in unequivocal terms that the Bible’s authority is necessarily subjective, restricted and mostly unreliable. This inevitably negates any authority anyone claims about the Bible being the word of God.
    v) the Bible has been changed a number of times greatly reducing its credibility.

    We are never informed why some ‘spiritual’ writings were selected and not others. The selection was inevitably subjectively done and we just cannot go back to the old adage – it was God’s will etc. Biblical scholars such as J.B. Phillips state even to-day that Matthew’s gospel had to have been written by somebody else. Nor can we accept that Moses’ Biblical account was written by himself when he described how he was buried (Deut. 34:5-6). We do know there were fundamental Biblical changes throughout the middle ages – see important research by Peter De Rosa, a former Catholic priest of Monsignor rank called Vicars of Christ, The Dark Side of the Papacy, about Papal Biblical changes.

    One can understand the huge problem of having to rely on the subjectivity and the questionable ecclesiastical discretion of the Popes of the middle ages as to what Biblical texts should contain. This was at a time of heightened Churchian dogmatism; even more sinister was the unspiritual, cruel and ungodly Inquisition during which the Popes thought of themselves to be omniscient and infallible. Even Luther had to use these doctored and manipulated Biblical texts. Because of the great number of changes in the Bible, there is not one authoritative Bible common to all Christians to-day. Each sect believes it has the true authorized version.

    It is not unreasonable to state that if Jesus wanted us to have a proper, authoritative Bible, he would have written one himself. That would inevitably have saved the massive slaughter, the genocides, the butchery, torture and needless suffering – and hundreds of millions of lives lost over some two thousand years, victims of conflicts in interpretation of the Bible.

    Changes in the Bible inevitably erode and even remove any claim of authority. All this negative conduct brought about because of the internal problems of the Bible reduce and even negate any claim the Bible has any enforceable authority.

    Victor Zammit, Lawyer of the Supreme Court of NSW and the High Court of Australia (retired). Corporations Law consultant, lecturer.
    A LAWYER PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE http://www.victorzammit.com

    Comment by disabled Marine — May 26, 2007 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  611. http://www.cfpf.org.uk/letters/2004/2004-05-29_vz2bg.html

    A LAWYER’S OPEN LETTER TO DR BILLY GRAHAM (and CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS)

    Dear Reverend,

    Does the Bible have AUTHORITY?

    Over a number of decades, as a charismatic Christian Bible crusader you influenced and you have attracted a huge number of people not only in the United States, but around the world. You swayed the multitude with your Biblical eloquence, with Biblical authority and you told them what to think, told them what is right, what is wrong, how to behave.

    You have advised some of the world’s leading religious and secular leaders. You have used your Biblical expertise to advise even American Presidents.

    Your honesty, your sincerity and your integrity are not in question. Nor is your character or your intention or your motivation in question.

    There is a universal perception that you are passionate about directing the multitude to the Bible as the ultimate authority. You have a fundamental right to your beliefs, your religion and to your Bible. I do respect that.

    But when you cite Biblical authority to support your claim that empiricism about the afterlife is wrong, then I have to respond to your most definitively erroneous assumptions.

    And undoubtedly, while you do have expertise in the Bible, that expertise cannot be equated with having objective, universal authority about what you state or how you interpret the Bible. Two thousand years of Christian history, your decades of Biblical preaching and being a Christian minister – and repeating ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in the Bible a million times do NOT amount to you or the Bible having objective authority – except having religious subjective authority.

    I state with great emphasis that empirical authority negates and invalidates any Biblical subjective authority.

    Accordingly, I state there are five grounds why evangelists and fundamental Christians do NOT and can never have universally acceptable, enforceable authority emanating from the Bible.

    i) the subjectivity of the Biblical texts (as against empiricism);
    ii) the original Biblical texts do not exist;
    iii) many of the contents cannot be attributed to God;
    iv) contents have been plagiarized from previous spiritual writings and
    v) the Bible has been changed a number of times greatly reducing its credibility.

    i) Subjectivity – your authority is subjective

    With the greatest respect, the authority you cite is subjective authority. This means that your Biblical authority extends only to those who want to believe in the Bible and to those who want to accept your interpretation of the Bible.

    Your Biblical authority is not and cannot be empirically tested for validity. I guarantee you that all accredited universities will agree with that statement. Ultimately you may state that your authority comes from God. Again, that is also an untested interpretation and inevitably a subjective statement NOT independently supported by science, empiricism or by any objectivity.

    And you know and all empiricists and scientists around the world know, anything subjective is itself subject to fundamental errors and to complete invalidation.

    ‘Faith’ and ‘belief’ – which are intrinsically most subjective – appear to be the most important words for evangelists and fundamental Christians. They occur in nearly every chapter of the New Testament and are used more than 200 times.

    At one time the Church in the middle ages taught that faith and belief are more powerful than science and were to be stated dogmatically and to be accepted without questioning. I submit, judging by ‘content analysis’ of what they preach and by their conduct, that most evangelists, clergy, priests and ministers still erroneously believe this to-day.

    When you ask people to believe in something purely on the basis of faith, you are robbing them of the fundamental right to question anything which is NOT supported by evidence.

    The Catholic Church with an alleged billion followers has a practice of NOT encouraging Catholics to study the Bible for themselves; they have a policy of referring them to a limited number of “safe” passages knowing there are huge irreconcilable problems with many other passages.

    Humans are given the power to think, to analyze, to evaluate, to investigate, to test all information for validity. I submit that any evangelist or anyone who tries to take away these things is himself committing a most heinous transgression, is violating Natural Law.
    Empiricism (measuring phenomena using scientific method)

    Whenever there is an inconsistency between theology and empiricism, between a personal religious belief and science, theology and personal beliefs inevitably are made invalid by empiricism.

    For example, the Bible talks about the geocentric view of cosmology – the sun revolving around the earth. You know, I know – and the whole world knows- that this is not correct. The episode where Joshua claimed God stopped the sun is but one where the Bible misleads, misinforms, misguides and is blatantly fundamentally inconsistent with science.

    Another example: Genesis fundamentally contradicts science – the earth is said to be older than the stars. That is definitively NOT the case. Is Dr Graham asking us to close our minds when we open the Bible?

    This unequivocally shows that the Biblical writings of the fourth century reflected the restricted epistemology of the time. Certainly the writers did not have the benefit of at least two hundred years of science, empiricism, advanced technology and the advanced methods of observation we have to-day. Especially, when research into the afterlife has now been taken over by psi empiricists.

    Empiricists state that faith and beliefs are irrelevant and immaterial as to evaluation of your worth on crossing over. Empiricists state that selfless service, doing anything to alleviate suffering, hardship, adversity of another person will be a million times more beneficial on crossing over than all the hallelujahs, amens and hymns sung and uttered during one’s lifetime. Selfless good works have an immediate positive impact on the spirit’s vibrations.

    Accordingly, anything critical to man’s understanding of his role in the universe has to come under the strictest empirical scrutiny to assess its validity. Biblical experts agree the Bible has egregious, insurmountable, irreconcilable problems when empirically tested. All these hugely reduce any alleged authority the Bible has. While the Bible has some very powerful poetry and inspiration, it cannot and must not be cited as the ultimate, infallible authority for universal spiritual truths.
    ii) Original Biblical documents do not exist

    It is procedural that any writings allegedly inspired by God have to be stringently tested and subjected to the toughest scrutiny. Now we find that the original New Testament Biblical texts are not original documents – i.e. the Biblical texts we have are NOT the authentic ones. No one knows who actually wrote them, they are not historical documents and no one has ever stated he or she ever saw the originals. Nobody knows when they were written. What remains are copies of copies, unsigned with no guarantee the contexts have not been altered.

    Even to-day the courts will not allow me or anybody else to submit into evidence copies of original documents. Copies of the originals are unreliable, reduce or negate authority, are open to suspicion of internal changes and are subject to a presumption of fraud which must be rebutted. This is usually done by presenting the authentic, original documents. This is something no evangelist can do concerning the Bible, now or in the future.
    iii) Many of the Biblical contents cannot be attributed to God

    You will agree that there are too many parts in the Bible which are unspiritual in the extreme. God is made out to be a cursing God of vengeance, of hatred, of war. God is made out to be really heinously evil with unconscionable determination to eliminate large numbers of innocent people for trivial deeds by someone relatively insignificant. God is made out to indiscriminately kill innocent human beings, hate men, women and children. You know Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Isaiah and other parts in the Bible are too vicious even to mention. All the horror, all the bizarreness, the cruelty and brutality in the Bible cannot be the word of God. Therefore the Bible shows itself to be a reflection of man’s own primitive thinking in the early ages and certainly not God’s. Below are some passages which attribute to God a morality less than an informed, spiritually advanced human being. In fact they are vulgar in the extreme, most horrible and only a fool would accept that these came from or were inspired by God – in justification of murder, hatred, genocide, fratricide and other conduct prohibited by law to-day. For example,

    (a most bizarre, unacceptable description of God). Ezek 1:4-21

    When God is angry ‘smoke and fire’ comes out of his body. Ps 18:7-8

    He (God) will shoot them with arrows, suddenly they will be struck down Ps 64:7

    God travels on a cloud Is 19:1

    I (God) will corrupt your seed and spread dung (cow’s shit) upon your faces. Malachi 2:3

    Lo I (God) have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung and thou shalt prepare thy bread herewith. Ex 4:15

    Serve the Lord with fear and trembling, kiss his feet or else he will get angry and you will perish in the way …Ps 2:11

    For the Lord is a devouring firer, a jealous God Deut. 4:24

    If your brother …daughter serve other gods… you shall kill him (her). Deut 13:6

    No man can be Jesus’ disciple unless he hates his parents, brethren …Luke 14:26

    The Lord is a man of war Ex 15:3

    And you shall destroy all the peoples that the Lord your God gives over to you, your eyes shall not pity them. Deut 7:16

    When the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them you must utterly destroy them and show no mercy to them Det 7:2

    ‘God’ orders a man to be stoned to death because he collected firewood on a Sunday Num 15:32-36.

    ‘God’ is the creator of evil … Is 45:7-8 Rom 11:32

    … the head of every woman is man Corinthians 1 11:3

    Whosever lieth with a beast surely be put to death and you shall slay the beast Lev 22:15

    The earth has pillars and foundation. Sam 1 2:8 Ps 104:5

    These are just but a fraction of the absurdities and primitive, bizarre directions and reflections to be found in the Bible which evangelists claim is ‘the word of God!’

    Accordingly, these would destroy any claim that the Bible it is the word of God.

    Further, the Bible is inundated with fundamental irreconcilable inconsistencies. The Internet lists hundreds of these- see Biblical inconsistencies. For example:

    The earth to abide for ever Ps 104:5 Eccles 1:4: The earth to be destroyed He 1:10-11 Peter 3:10

    Man is not justified by faith alone. James 2:21, 24 Man is justified by faith alone. Rom 3:20 Ga 2:16

    Salvation secured through good works Mark 10:17-19 Salvation is to be gained only through belief in Jesus as Saviour John 3:16 ff Eph 2:8

    I state that the Bible may be highly religious but not spiritual. These inconsistencies inevitably further reduce and even remove any notion that the Bible is God’s authority to be disseminated to mankind.
    iv) Contents are based on previous spiritual writings.

    It may or may not surprise you that there is much in the Bible which is not original. Research shows that much of what is in the Bible comes from Eastern and Middle Eastern spiritual writings: for example, the Creation and the Fall of Man was a belief in Babylon some 1500 years before the Hebrews claimed they originated these beliefs. The Ten Commandments, the Trinity, Jonah and the Big Fish, Samson and his Exploits, The Flood, Jacob’s Ladder, Ascension of Jesus – and many other items found in the Bible have been taken over from ancient beliefs.

    From Buddhism we get the stories of the Prodigal Son, the Loaves and the Fishes, and the admonition as to the plucking out of the right eye if it gives offence, ‘Peter’ walking on the sea, the woman at the well. The Last Supper and other customs and rites originated with the Essenes who can be traced first to Alexandria in Egypt then to India. Other ceremonies and beliefs were taken from Mithraism which originated in Turkey.

    But what is devastatingly critical evidence is the presentation made by Kersey Graves in his book THE WORLD’S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIOURS, chapter XXXIL entitled Three hundred and forty six striking analogies between Christ and Chrishna. This shows how the early Christian writers plagiarized from the then existing Eastern spiritual beliefs. The following are just a fraction of the similarities between Christianity and Eastern spiritual writings from India – – the God or Savior in each case is the second person of the Trinity. – Chrishna as well as Christ was held to be really God incarnate. – Chrishna as well as Jesus (Christ) were ‘Christ’ incarnate. – The mother in each case was a holy virgin. – The father of Chrishna as well as that of Christ was a carpenter, – God is claimed as the real father in both cases. – A spirit or ghost was the author of the conception of each. – Both were (allegedly) born on the 25th December. – Both at birth were visited by both men and shepherds. – Each Savior had a forerunner – John the Baptist in the one case, Bali Rama in the other. – Each sustained the character of a Messiah. – Chrishna as well as Christ was a redeemer. – Both proclaimed, “I am the resurrection.” – The mission of each was to deliver from sin. – The doctrine of atonement is practically realized in each case. – Both were human as well as divine. – Chrishna performed many miracles as well as Christ. – One of the first miracles of each was the cure of a leper. – Chrishna as well as Christ was crucified. – Darkness attended the crucifixion of each. – Each after giving up the ghost, descends into hell. – Chrishna and Christ resurrected. – A great and final day of judgment is taught by each.

    There are another three hundred and twenty four similarities between Krishna and Christ one could find the in the above mentioned Kersey Graves’ book.

    Kersey Graves, whose research has hitherto not been rebutted, also identifies there were sixteen “crucified” saviors before Jesus – all of whom claimed they were sent by God to save mankind. There is also a plethora of evidence that there is nothing original in Christianity and all of its concepts were taken from previous religions. Some critical books so far not rebutted is the classic work of the Rev Robert Taylor’s 437 page book DIEGESIS. There is the 380 page book MYTH, MAGIC AND MORALS by Fred Cornwallis Conybeare and BIBLE MYTHS and their PARALLELS IN OTHER RELIGIONS by T W Doane. All these works are highly intellectually substantiated by professors and although these most disturbing books have been around for nearly a hundred years, no one has been able to rebut the highly intellectual, most damaging research which shows the Bible has no authority.

    All these show in unequivocal terms that the Bible’s authority is necessarily subjective, restricted and mostly unreliable. This inevitably negates any authority anyone claims about the Bible being the word of God.
    v) the Bible has been changed a number of times greatly reducing its credibility.

    We are never informed why some ‘spiritual’ writings were selected and not others. The selection was inevitably subjectively done and we just cannot go back to the old adage – it was God’s will etc. Biblical scholars such as J.B. Phillips state even to-day that Matthew’s gospel had to have been written by somebody else. Nor can we accept that Moses’ Biblical account was written by himself when he described how he was buried (Deut. 34:5-6). We do know there were fundamental Biblical changes throughout the middle ages – see important research by Peter De Rosa, a former Catholic priest of Monsignor rank called Vicars of Christ, The Dark Side of the Papacy, about Papal Biblical changes.

    One can understand the huge problem of having to rely on the subjectivity and the questionable ecclesiastical discretion of the Popes of the middle ages as to what Biblical texts should contain. This was at a time of heightened Churchian dogmatism; even more sinister was the unspiritual, cruel and ungodly Inquisition during which the Popes thought of themselves to be omniscient and infallible. Even Luther had to use these doctored and manipulated Biblical texts. Because of the great number of changes in the Bible, there is not one authoritative Bible common to all Christians to-day. Each sect believes it has the true authorized version.

    It is not unreasonable to state that if Jesus wanted us to have a proper, authoritative Bible, he would have written one himself. That would inevitably have saved the massive slaughter, the genocides, the butchery, torture and needless suffering – and hundreds of millions of lives lost over some two thousand years, victims of conflicts in interpretation of the Bible.

    Changes in the Bible inevitably erode and even remove any claim of authority. All this negative conduct brought about because of the internal problems of the Bible reduce and even negate any claim the Bible has any enforceable authority.

    Victor Zammit, Lawyer of the Supreme Court of NSW and the High Court of Australia (retired). Corporations Law consultant, lecturer.
    A LAWYER PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE http://www.victorzammit.com

    Comment by disabled Marine — May 26, 2007 @ 8:41 pm | Reply

  612. OPEN LETTER TO:

    Reverend Albert Mohler (and other fundies as well)
    President,
    Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

    Dear Reverend Mohler,

    You may recall that we met – well, I guess we didn’t actually meet, so perhaps I’d be more correct in saying we appeared together – on Larry King Live this past June 22nd. At the time you said some things that have given me pause to reflect.

    The reason for our being on the show was the execution of a young man by the name of Gary Graham (he preferred his chosen African name of Shaka Sankofa, but since that name was never used on the show I suspect it may not mean much to you). His life was “forfeit,” as you put it, while we sat there talking about him.

    I, impertinently I now understand, objected to the execution at the time. However, the power of your oratorical skills and your faith-based confidence set me into a quandary from which I have not yet fully recovered. As you doubtless noticed, your ability to speak for God and your fundamental grasp of the Bible left me somewhat tongue-tied.

    As you said that evening in defense of the execution, “(t)he Bible makes very clear that God mandated capital punishment as a way of underlining and affirming the value of human life. In the book of Genesis, it is said God said, ‘When a man sheds another man’s blood, by a man his blood shall be shed, for God made man in his own image.'”

    Well, see, I checked, and it’s all there just as you said. God not only supports capital punishment, He requires it. You probably know this, but He says it again, in Leviticus 24, 17-18, “Anyone who strikes down any other human being will be put to death” So, Reverend, let me say it: I was a fool to doubt you. And, too, in that Leviticus one God adds, “and anyone who strikes down an animal, the same,” which made me glad I’m a vegetarian. You too, huh?

    Anyway, as you can imagine, I am humbled by this newfound knowledge and deeply grateful to you for exposing me to it. In retrospect, I’m embarrassed to recall my pitiful attempts to debate you. When I said, for example, that Jesus had repudiated the rationale for capital punishment in Matthew 5 by saying, “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but now I tell you, do not take revenge on someone who does you wrong,” your immediate and learned riposte was “(w)ell, let me say also that the death penalty is clearly supported in the New Testament, which is a testimony to the gospel of Jesus, where the apostle Paul said that the government holds the sword to avenge evil and does so justly.” So now, already humiliated by my ignorance, I am further embarrassed to confess that I had the poor taste to consider challenging your rejoinder by asking if since you countered the words of Christ with the words of Paul I should consider you a Paulist rather than a Christian. I shudder to think what your answer might have been to such effrontery.

    But thanks to you I have seen the light and have endeavored to live by your example since that Damascene night. But I pray you will understand that as one new to Biblical literalism I periodically find myself somewhat confused in my studies and dearly hope that your unerring grasp of Scripture can once again enlighten me.

    For example, what am I to make of Deuteronomy 17, verses 4 – 7: “If any man or woman violates the covenant, you must take this man or woman outside the city gates and there you must stone the man or woman to death. The witnesses’ hands must strike the first blow in putting the condemned to death, the rest of the people following.”

    Now, I’m frankly a little queasy at the idea of stoning anyone, even covenant-violators, but I’m willing to learn. The thing is, what exactly is this ‘covenant’ and how do we know when it’s being violated? Since this is from what we call the Old Testament, don’t I have to assume the covenant here is between God and the people of Israel? This gets tricky, I think, because clearly Christians, as followers of Jesus, a Jew, but also God, must see themselves as the inheritors of the covenant and thus not violators of it. Mustn’t they? But if that’s true, doesn’t that make Jews who don’t follow Jesus violators? Either way, it sounds to me like there’s a whole lot of stoning that’s way overdue and I’d like to get started. Then there’s the problem of finding the city gates. But I digress.

    I have a son. He’s a bit rambunctious at times, and certainly stubborn. I’m not sure I think it would be fair to call him rebellious, but I don’t want to “spare the rod,” you know? Deuteronomy. 21, 18-21, says, “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice either of his father or of his mother and, even when they punish him, still will not pay attention to them, his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of the city. All his fellow citizens must then stone the boy to death.” Now that’s sort of tough, I have to admit, even for a newly dedicated believer. I mean there have been times, sure, when he wouldn’t listen. Sometimes, when he got hard-headed, he wouldn’t listen even after we punished him. But, being ignorant of the rules, we gave him another chance and he matured a bit and now he’s a pretty good boy, if I do say so myself. But I guess that’s self-serving, huh? ‘Cause, see, the truth is I’d really rather not take hold of him and turn him over to the elders for the citizens to stone to death. You know, he’s my son. And, I don’t even know where the damn gates are!

    Sorry! I didn’t mean to use that word. I’m just a bit scared. Because now that I’ve learned the Way I find that there are some pretty tricky obstacles in the path of one who wants to be a good Bible-believer. See, a lot of people would say, ‘Forget it. Your son was young, you didn’t know the rules. It’s in the past. You don’t have to kill him now.’ But it says in Deuteronomy 17, 12, “If anyone presumes to disobey the priests, that person must die.” And, again, I guess that must have meant Jewish priests and all, but if this covenant has been passed I guess I have to think of you as one of them now, don’t I? And if that’s so and you say the Word is the Word, I sure don’t want to disobey you, do I? No sirree!

    Listen, off the subject just for a minute? I know you live in another part of the country and all, but now that I’m trying to learn the Way I’m hoping that I can open a Bible believer’s bank account or whatever you have down there. I’ll need you to help me figure that one out. I ask because, as you know, in Deuteronomy 23, 20-21, it says “You are forbidden to charge interest whenever you loan money – unless the borrower is a foreigner.” Sounds like a good deal to me and even though I know California is thought of as a bit weird, I don’t think I should be considered a foreigner – at least any more – do you?

    And you know, this Bible study business has really helped clear up a couple of other things for me. Leviticus 20, 10? “A man who commits adultery, and the woman he sleeps with, will be put to death”? Now I know why we don’t see Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart around any more.

    But back to my point. I live in Hollywood, Reverend Mohler, and I work, God forgive me, in show business. Deuteronomy 22, 22, says “If a man is caught having sexual intercourse with another man’s wife, both must be put to death – the man who has slept with her and the woman herself.” Now I’m not one who goes along with all those who think of Hollywood as Sodom and Gomorrah (of course I’m open on that), but I kind of have a sense some of that happens out here. Is ‘caught’ the operative word? Should I assume that it’s our job to sniff out and smite adulterers? If so, I guess “The National Enquirer” has to be seen as part of the Lord’s Army, which may explain their popularity with the faithful. See, I’m learning! Now note I was careful to say “smite” because God didn’t specify the how of the putting to death in this case. Can I ask how you managed that with Jim and Jimmy?

    Anyway, I guess that about covers it for now, Reverend. This death thing, that is. I just kind of need your guidance on what my responsibilities are. I mean I could tell that you had pretty much taken on the job of reassuring people that it was okay to kill Shaka er Gary Graham, so that they wouldn’t be confused by the misguided ramblings of (former) infidels like myself, or doubts about his guilt or stuff like that. But now, from my reading, I see that ours is a bigger task than that.

    It’s certainly not limited to executing people – though I must say it seems to involve that a lot. Deuteronomy 22, 23-24, says “If a virgin is engaged to a man and another man encounters her in the town and has sexual intercourse with her, you will take them both to the gate of the town in question and stone them to death: the girl, for not having called for help in the town, and the man, for having exploited his fellow-citizen’s wife.” That one takes some real pondering, you know? First of all, I had no idea that ‘encountering’ someone could lead to sexual intercourse in the first place, so you can rest assured I’ve put an end to that in my life. And as for her “not having called for help in the town,” for goodness sake, what’s the matter with her? What is she, embarrassed, ashamed, mute? I say, if you don’t have enough self-respect to call for help in the town it’s the gate and the stones for you, baby.

    Sorry, I don’t mean to be flippant, but this reading has given me a whole new way to look at things. And I have you to thank for it. Speaking of which, and I’ll just keep this between us as it’s not what you might call P.C. (smile), but Leviticus 25, 44-45: “You may freely purchase male and female slaves – and the slaves become your property, and you may leave them as a legacy to your sons” sure does put another face on some of the things those Big Government boys have been shoving down our throats, doesn’t it though?

    Two small notes, Reverend, and I’ll let you get back to your evangelizing. I’m not sure what “an abomination to the Lord” is. The dictionary says abomination means abhorrence and disgust. I guess I can figure that God isn’t happy about something like that, but it doesn’t call for stoning or burning or anything, does it? As you know, Deuteronomy 22, 5, says “A woman who wears trousers is an abomination to the Lord” and, well my wife is a woman I know well, I was just wondering.

    And, this may be silly, but I have a friend who dresses like a clown and juggles and makes people laugh and all. And occasionally he makes things appear out of a hat, or disappear, or whatever. I was just wondering, because Leviticus 20, 27, says “Any man or woman who is a magician will be put to death; they must be stoned to death” and well I certainly won’t hang around with him any more, but you know. Do I have to?

    Thanks for your attention.

    Anxiously awaiting the Word,

    Mike Farrell

    Comment by disabled Marine — May 26, 2007 @ 8:54 pm | Reply

  613. Comment 610: This is the darkest moral epoch in human history. Of course, to the blind man, all eras are equally dark.

    >And to the color-blind man, all ideas are either black or white.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 26, 2007 @ 9:36 pm | Reply

  614. Matthew @ 604:

    It is widely known that Lutheranism is an urban legend, and that gravity exists. Please stop using these comments to propagate your absurd lies.

    lietk12 @ 605:

    1). “flirting”: to be fair, Beth has been the one flirting with you, for the most part. I think you are wise not to reciprocate her interest. I am sure she is very attractive and agreeable, but she frequently seems boggled.

    2). “not learning”: no, that won’t do at all. How can we leave our children uneducated in the truth? We must find a way to teach them about geocentrism while protecting them from devilish falsehoods about heliocentrism, geospherism, and Darwinism. That’s the most important issue raised by this post, and all I am hearing from you, sir, is negativity. You are now a Negative Nelly in my book. That’s right, I said it: a Negative Nelly. I hope you’re happy.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 10:08 pm | Reply

  615. If I had any idea what you are talking about, DPS, I’d respond…I was simply trying to state how ignorant I believe the point of view of this blog post to be.

    Comment by Matthew — May 26, 2007 @ 10:26 pm | Reply

  616. DPS, you have mentioned my being boggled *far* more frequently than I’ve said I was boggled (again, only twice, and twice does not equal frequently). *You* are the one who seems quite fixed on something. Get off it. I’ve been trying to move on. You should try reading my posts and actually addressing them.

    And before you even try saying anything like my silence must mean consent or some such, no, I’m not flirting. I’m happily engaged to be married and it is not to lietk12. Not to say he doesn’t seem like a decent fellow, but I don’t flirt with strangers; I’m not that kind of woman. Though I am quite open to healthy debate with anyone. Speaking of which…

    …Please stop hiding behind your baseless uninventive insults and get to discussing, unless of course, you have nothing to say regarding the matters at hand, in which case please say so, and stop stalling.

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 10:36 pm | Reply

  617. Look, I fell for the ‘Lutheran’ scam once, I lost more than $200, I know the deal, and I’m not going to bite again. I’m sorry. I’m sure you’ll find other victims, but I won’t be one of them. You won’t be having a laugh about me sitting around the clubhouse divvying up the loot with all your fellow ‘Lutherans.’

    As for the existence of gravity, you’re obviously just trying to discredit Senator Brownback by posing as a supporter and questioning the existence of gravity. The Senator is a real American patriot and hero, and a scourge of the sodomite, and I won’t stand for someone trying to smear his reputation like that. But I suppose that’s acceptable in ‘Lutheranism,’ right?

    Whatever.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 10:39 pm | Reply

  618. I’ll start by giving you the same respect I’d expect you to give to me, by addressing your question:

    I personally believe in heliocentrism and so does my fiance, so we’d be fine with our children learning it in school. Though we do plan to home school our children…

    Your turn.

    Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 10:42 pm | Reply

  619. Dear Beth:

    Don’t worry, I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to tell your fiance how you have betrayed him in your heart for lietk12. Nor would I know how to contact him. That is between you and the Lord.

    To respond to your thoughts: Homeschooling is an excellent idea. My wife homeschools all of my children (it keeps her from watching TV all day, which is an additional advantage). This is an ideal situation, since you can control what your children’s tender young minds are exposed to in a way you cannot in the public schools (at least until we have a President Brownback!). I would urge you however not to teach your children godless, Satanic, anti-Biblical lies like heliocentrism and Darwinism. If you want them to learn those, you don’t need to do anything: they’ll pick up that kind of dreck in the soda fountains and (God forbid!) billiards halls all by themselves. What you can offer them is the truth: a geocentric universe, a flat Earth, and the fear of the good Lord. And a little beating now and then never hurt, of course.

    I am afraid that I have grown exhausted in this expenditure of my Christian charity. Now I must rest.

    Comment by DPS — May 26, 2007 @ 11:25 pm | Reply

  620. This guy’s mother was obviously impregnated by her brother because this douchebag has at least 2 or 3 extra chomosomes.
    But I must admit it’s good to hear these shit-for-brains discussing their views like they actually matter. It’s these kind of blind sycophants that led to the current implosion of the Republifuck party. Brownback is pathetic.
    Go get one of the many guns in your closet and shoot yourself in the face. You are a waste of skin.
    With people like this voicing their views, Republifucks expose themselves for the imbreeder mouthbreathers they are.

    Comment by Secomav — May 26, 2007 @ 11:48 pm | Reply

  621. “Don’t worry, I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to tell your fiance how you have betrayed him in your heart for lietk12. Nor would I know how to contact him. That is between you and the Lord.”

    As if you would know. Your sarcasm is not as effective as you would like it to be. I suggest other tactics.

    “godless, Satanic, anti-Biblical lies like heliocentrism and Darwinism”

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree here, since I’m certain neither one of us is going to convince the other of our respective views.

    Now, if you, or anyone really, could address one of my earlier posts. I had written something to the effect of:

    According to many posts by several people on a number of bloggings on this site, violence is advocated as long as it’s Christians against others. But killing is killing and killing is wrong no matter who does it – Athiests, Muslims, Christians, whatever. Holding a certian religion doesn’t excuse one from certain truths: killing is bad. Hiding behind a god to excuse one’s bad behavior is cowardly.

    Christians are not infallible. One may think the religion itself is perfect and infallible: fine, to each his/her own. But to say everyone who holds that faith by simple virtue of having that faith is exempt from wrong-doing and has the right to do as they please to those who don’t have that faith is borderline deification.

    Discuss…

    Comment by Beth — May 27, 2007 @ 12:29 am | Reply

  622. I find it disappointing that once your existence has run its course, you will most likely never know just how far you’ve errored.

    Comment by Phardros — May 27, 2007 @ 12:29 am | Reply

  623. Sysisphuz, I know I can’t convince you of my beliefs, but you must at least accept that tha majority of the people agrees that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that neither is the center of the Universe, and that Ethers are two carbon chains joined by an oxygen. What I’m trying to gat at is that going against the flow isn’t going to help Brownback’s image. If you disagree with what your kids learn in school, if you disagree with the majority of America, if you hold this arcane beliefs realted to the Universe, then go and take your people somwhere you can do things your own way, I know is Christian’s thing to try to save other people, but sometimes, people are just happy the way they are and don’t actually need to be saved. Why do you think yours has to be the only real truth, what about the other religions? Isn’t doing good to others and live just like God would have liked it enough? Are all those non-Christian continents going to hell just because they call their higher being by different names? You threat everyone with hell, does that make you closer to God? You call others stupid, does that make you smarter? Answer me Sysiphuz! Or do my question threat your way of thinking in such harsh way that you prefer to ignore them? [well if this doesn’t call his attention, nothing will…]
    BLAKOOPAKOOLAKALOOGADAROOGA
    _.:-~+=`’*^*’`=+~-:._

    Comment by mikaudes — May 27, 2007 @ 2:56 am | Reply

  624. This is some of the best satire I have read in a long time!
    How Brownback lets you get away with it, I’ll never know. If he was serious about his run, I’m sure he would have his legal team at your home offering to buy this domain name from you. If that didn’t work, he could just take it from you through the courts, like New York State did to the kid who owned the New York State Fair domain.

    Comment by teknikAL — May 27, 2007 @ 4:52 am | Reply

  625. Comment 620: To respond to your thoughts: Homeschooling is an excellent idea.
    >It will certainly be when fanatics take over the world like they did to Germany
    My wife homeschools all of my children (it keeps her from watching TV all day, which is an additional advantage). This is an ideal situation, since you can control what your children’s tender young minds are exposed to in a way you cannot in the public schools (at least until we have a President Brownback!).
    >You make it sound like manipulation, at which you have clearly mastered.
    I would urge you however not to teach your children godless, Satanic, anti-Biblical lies like heliocentrism and Darwinism.
    >AGAIN, PROVE THAT IT IS GODLESS, SATANIC, ANTI-BIBLICAL, AND UNTRUTHFUL. (Sorry, my caps-lock key was stuck)
    If you want them to learn those, you don’t need to do anything: they’ll pick up that kind of dreck in the soda fountains and (God forbid!) billiards halls all by themselves.
    >Wow, I’ve never done that! I didn’t even know soda fountains and billiard halls still existed! In fact, I never knew that truth would come magically to me so that I wouldn’t have had to study for the SAT and ACT (and get a 36 on math)! BTW, I’m not in 11th or 12th grade, so it’s extremely unrealistic that your sarcasm about Beth would be true.
    What you can offer them is the truth: a geocentric universe, a flat Earth, and the fear of the good Lord. And a little beating now and then never hurt, of course.
    >Violence begets violence. Don’t push it.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 27, 2007 @ 8:16 am | Reply

  626. Beth @ 622:

    “According to many posts by several people on a number of bloggings on this site, violence is advocated as long as it’s Christians against others. But killing is killing and killing is wrong no matter who does it – Athiests, Muslims, Christians, whatever. Holding a certian religion doesn’t excuse one from certain truths: killing is bad. Hiding behind a god to excuse one’s bad behavior is cowardly.”

    Of course it is better not to kill. *Murder* is never justified. However, justified killing is by definition justified. The Biblical account of the Hebrew settlement of the Promised Land will supply you with many such examples of justified, glorious, and praiseworthy killing. So, as long as it’s justified, I say, kill away!

    “Christians are not infallible. One may think the religion itself is perfect and infallible: fine, to each his/her own. But to say everyone who holds that faith by simple virtue of having that faith is exempt from wrong-doing and has the right to do as they please to those who don’t have that faith is borderline deification.”

    Of course Christians are not infallible. God and his infallible Word are infallible. Because they are infallible, I know that Christianity is true and perfect, and that other faiths are evils lies. Therefore “to each his own” is unacceptable. The injunctions of Christianity should be enshrined in law, and the government should actively seek to convert atheists, pagans, apostates, and heretics to the One True Faith. Also, it should put an end to the ‘Lutheran’ scam, which has been allowed to go on for far too long.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 9:23 am | Reply

  627. lietk12 @ 620:

    “>It will certainly be when fanatics take over the world like they did to Germany”

    If you think homeschooling is a bad idea, then you need to take that up with Beth as well, who is planning to homeschool her children.

    “>You make it sound like manipulation, at which you have clearly mastered.”

    Sigh. If only I could manipulate you out of your hatred for God. I will keep trying, though.

    “>AGAIN, PROVE THAT IT IS GODLESS, SATANIC, ANTI-BIBLICAL, AND UNTRUTHFUL. (Sorry, my caps-lock key was stuck)”

    In his excellent post, Sisyphus posted a number of examples of completely unambigious Biblical statements that we live on a fixed Earth around which revolve the heavenly bodies. Heliocentrism therefore contradicts the Bible. Therefore it is untruthful, since the Bible is true, and godless, because the Bible is the word of God. Because Satan hates God, the Bible, and the truth, it seems reasonable to say that he is pleased with and advances whenever he can the doctrine of heliocentrism. As for Darwinism, all you need to do is to read the creation narrative in Genesis.

    “>Wow, I’ve never done that! I didn’t even know soda fountains and billiard halls still existed!”

    They are still there, and they ensnare souls every day. I am glad to see that you have kept out of them.

    “In fact, I never knew that truth would come magically to me so that I wouldn’t have had to study for the SAT and ACT (and get a 36 on math)!”

    Alas! The soda fountain is already in your heart. We have much damage to undo, lietk12.

    “BTW, I’m not in 11th or 12th grade, so it’s extremely unrealistic that your sarcasm about Beth would be true.”

    I’m not sure what sarcasm you’re discussing. I don’t think she was offering to homeschool you, though, if that’s what you’re talking about.

    I didn’t realize you were so young! That’s great. Senator Brownback needs more supporters among the young people.

    “>Violence begets violence. Don’t push it.”

    Sure, *some* violence begets violence. Other violence begets obedience and godliness.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 9:40 am | Reply

  628. See how the supporters of heliocentrism have given up even the semblance of calm discussion of evidence, and degenerated into insults and filth. Heresy is like that: a thin crust of reasonableness to trick the unwary, and hideous evil underneath.

    Comment by Praying hands — May 27, 2007 @ 10:51 am | Reply

  629. Killing is bad. No matter what. Breing Christian doesn’t make one special enough to get away with it, and hiding behind a god to justify bad behavior, again, is cowardly. People need to own up to their own actions.

    My husband-to-be and I plan to homeschool our kids so that in case someone like brown back gets in they won’t learn helioleftism.

    Comment by Beth — May 27, 2007 @ 11:38 am | Reply

  630. Comment 627:
    Because they are infallible, I know that Christianity is true and perfect, and that other faiths are evils lies.
    >Don’t be a bigot.

    I’m not sure what sarcasm you’re discussing. I don’t think she was offering to homeschool you, though, if that’s what you’re talking about.
    >You were talking about flirting

    Alas! The soda fountain is already in your heart.
    >I don’t drink soda. Therefore, I cannot spew soda.

    In his excellent post, Sisyphus posted a number of examples of completely unambigious Biblical statements that we live on a fixed Earth around which revolve the heavenly bodies. Heliocentrism therefore contradicts the Bible. Therefore it is untruthful, since the Bible is true, and godless, because the Bible is the word of God. Because Satan hates God, the Bible, and the truth, it seems reasonable to say that he is pleased with and advances whenever he can the doctrine of heliocentrism. As for Darwinism, all you need to do is to read the creation narrative in Genesis.
    >Fine, as long as you accept the Bible as true. Prove that the Bible is true, without using a circular argument (e.g. saying that it is the word of God, because that’s what the Bible says).

    Comment by lietk12 — May 27, 2007 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  631. could somebody please provide the evidence that
    Jesus ever existed. If you don’t like my science text books that support helio-centerism
    why should I subscribe to your text aka the bible?

    Comment by Cafe dog — May 27, 2007 @ 3:55 pm | Reply

  632. Praying hands @ 629:

    yes, I can smell the fetid evil of their pie of heresy. It is not a pie of which I would gladly taste.

    Beth @ 630:

    But the Bible not only permits killing and depicts it in a positive light but in fact commands it in certain cases! I do not see how a good Christian can reject bloodshed without sinning against God.

    lietk12 @ 631:

    Jesus invested his apostles with divine authority. His apostles and their successors, also invested with divine authority, composed and/or assembled the texts of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is authorized by God. Either the Bible is true, then, or God is a liar. If God were a liar, he would not be God, but Satan. God is Truth, and Satan is the Prince of Lies. So, if God is not a liar, the Bible is true. QED

    Cafe dog @ 632:

    Well, your science textbooks are the word of witches, homosexuals, and radical heliofascists. The Bible is the inerrant Word of the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. Even you have to admit that the latter is pretty well credentialed.

    The existence of Jesus is attested by the pagan Roman biographer Suetonius and the pagan Roman historian Tacitus, so if you don’t want to believe the Gospels authorized by God and would rather listen to some heathens, there they are.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  633. I left out the most important development:

    Beth @ 630
    “My husband-to-be and I plan to homeschool our kids so that in case someone like brown back gets in they won’t learn helioleftism.”

    Finally Beth agrees that children should not be taught helioleftism!!! I love it when we make progress like this! I makes all this commenting worthwhile. 🙂

    I really have to say, though, that I hope (and expect) Senator Brownback will do everything he can to extirpate helioleftism from our schools. If you don’t like helioleftism, in other words, you should vote Brownback!!!

    Woohoo!!! Go, Beth! Go, Beth!

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

  634. Comment 633: radical heliofascists
    >I thought there was a discussion banning the use of the labels “COMMIES” and “fascists”.

    Jesus invested his apostles with divine authority. His apostles and their successors, also invested with divine authority, composed and/or assembled the texts of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is authorized by God. Either the Bible is true, then, or God is a liar. If God were a liar, he would not be God, but Satan. God is Truth, and Satan is the Prince of Lies. So, if God is not a liar, the Bible is true. QED

    >But the idea of God is from the Bible, is it not? And the divine-ness of his apostles is also from the Bible, is it not? Can’t this also work for the gods of other religions (I mean the part about “Either the (insert holy text here) is true, then, or God is a liar. If God was a liar, he would not be God. Therefore, the Bible is true.”) Enlighten me.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 27, 2007 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  635. I gladly renounce Christianity in favor of sound science.

    Comment by justanothername — May 27, 2007 @ 8:53 pm | Reply

  636. lietk12:

    I like you. You’re a sharp guy, and I thought you were an adult. I think you should spend some time attentively admiring the nuances of that image on the main page in which Senator Brownback appears. Also, someday you should look into the “Critias fragment.” That should put you on the path to the truth.

    That’s the last I have to say to you, young man.

    Comment by DPS — May 27, 2007 @ 11:18 pm | Reply

  637. This blog is one of the great trolls I have yet seen on the intertubes. I’d go so far as to call it an epic troll. Hats off to this trolliest of trolls.

    Comment by nihility — May 28, 2007 @ 12:50 am | Reply

  638. I’m assuming this is not a joke. You are too ignorant and stupid to be president.

    Comment by Art Vandelay — May 28, 2007 @ 1:04 am | Reply

  639. I don’t believe it. Normally creationists and their ilk don’t bother me, but this takes the cake. This actually offends me. You implicitly support returning to the dark ages. Also did you make any actual attempt to review the evidence or understand relativity before writing it off so carelessly?

    Comment by AH — May 28, 2007 @ 1:55 am | Reply

  640. I’m just inquiring as to why you think that a 200 year old book is sufficient evidence for any theory. Just because something is said to be holy doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily true. And how do you explain people who have been in space and seen the earth move around the sun?

    Comment by Theron — May 28, 2007 @ 2:20 am | Reply

  641. “Jesus invested his apostles with divine authority. His apostles and their successors, also invested with divine authority, composed and/or assembled the texts of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is authorized by God. Either the Bible is true, then, or God is a liar. If God were a liar, he would not be God, but Satan. God is Truth, and Satan is the Prince of Lies. So, if God is not a liar, the Bible is true. QED.” You are making several very large assumptions here DPS. I’m afraid the lack of sane logic is all too consistent with the previous arguments of yourself and Sisyphus. Firstly you are assuming God exists, and that there was actually someone with the power to “invest the apostles with divine authority.” You go on to provide a very clever riddle apparently ‘proving’ the truth of the bible. You say if the bible is untrue then “God is a liar. If God were a liar, he would not be God, but Satan.” Indeed how can we know it was not Satan who tricked the apostles and in fact invested them with demonic wickedness? How can we know the apostles were commissioned by God in the first place? How can we know the apostles were accurate historians? How can we know they do not exaggerate? Now you may say you don’t know, but you have such faith in the word of God that it is like knowing. However, I’m afraid your faith won’t do you any good in a rational argument. You need to provide evidence. It cannot be said that the bible is inherently and inerrably true. And remember that the bible also suggests the earth is flat and therefore cannot be ultimate truth. QED

    Just one more thing. God can do anything right (being all powerful)? In that case could He create a rock so heavy that He was unable to lift it?

    Comment by Elliott — May 28, 2007 @ 2:29 am | Reply

  642. So let me get this right… the Earth doesn’t move and it’s obvious because we can’t feel it moving. If the Earth were moving, we could feel it. Have you ever been in a car?

    Comment by Captain Josh Stein — May 28, 2007 @ 3:33 am | Reply

  643. I feel the earth move sometimes, does that mean it’s moving when I feel it- all the time? Or does it mean that when i feel it moving it moves only then and then returns to a state of stillness?

    I’m not the only one that feels the earth move. Maybe our combined thoughts are moving the earth, maybe you have to accept the fact that your theory is not the only one out there and to accept those of others.

    How can we see the earth when the source that creates it is unreliable?

    Comment by Elliott — May 28, 2007 @ 3:48 am | Reply

  644. Actually my car is the centre of the Universe. When I am in it, the Earth travels beneath it. Can’t you dumb Physicsts see it!. My car is the centre of the Universe! I have just proved it.
    Hail to the centre of the Universe. Our new symbol is the steering wheel.

    Never mind that the stars and the Sun re-appear every night and day. They know their place! They travel as does the Earth around my car. Hail to the car!

    (Are there really people so stupid!)

    Comment by fourbrick — May 28, 2007 @ 5:51 am | Reply

  645. Galileo recanted so he wouldn’t be killed.

    And it’s idiots like you who give Christianity a bad name. People have actually been into space ok, it’s undeniable that the earth revolves around teh Sun. Ignorant people like you who run around blind give sensible Christians a bad name. I hope you never get in as President, Bush is the best “christian” in US politics and he’s getting a hard time as it is, you would completely screw over the normal Christians if you got into office. Fortunately a majority of America is either non-Christian so they’ll think you’re a lunatic and not vote for you, or they’ll be normal Christians and will want to distance themselves from you as much as possible.

    Comment by Maria — May 28, 2007 @ 6:44 am | Reply

  646. “(Are there really people so stupid!)”

    Unfortunately, yes. Read the comment just below yours.

    “Galileo recanted so he wouldn’t be killed.”

    He knew he’d lost his battle to overthrow the Church, so he surrendered. Galileo was trying to overthrow Catholicism and set up an early Marxist tyranny; decent Catholics did what they had to do to defend themselves.

    “People have actually been into space ok, it’s undeniable that the earth revolves around teh Sun.”

    Rubbish. No one has been there except for those in the employ of NASA and equivalent leftist boondoggles. That you could fall for this only highlights your ignorance.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 7:43 am | Reply

  647. Comment 647: He knew he’d lost his battle to overthrow the Church, so he surrendered. Galileo was trying to overthrow Catholicism and set up an early Marxist tyranny
    >This reeks of the label “COMMIES”. There was a discussion banning the term. By the time the church threatened him with death and torture unless he recanted, Galileo was old. It’s the equivalent of breaking the skull of your grandparents and then burning them.

    Rubbish. No one has been there except for those in the employ of NASA and equivalent leftist boondoggles. That you could fall for this only highlights your ignorance.
    >Explain why one of my Christian, conservative friends works for NASA.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 28, 2007 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  648. “There was a discussion banning the term. By the time the church threatened him with death and torture unless he recanted, Galileo was old. It’s the equivalent of breaking the skull of your grandparents and then burning them.”

    Sorry, lietk12. When someone’s a Communist, I’m going to call them a Communist. “Commie” is a flippant, derogatory term. But it’s an historical fact that the invention of Communism was a direct offshoot of Copernican, Darwinian thought, and that Galileo was a nascent Darwinian. Draw your own conclusions; I’ve drawn mine.

    As for his age, so what? Marx was an old man when he died, and so was Lenin. So was Stalin. Is it off-limits to criticize them now, too?

    “Explain why one of my Christian, conservative friends works for NASA”

    I don’t know him, but presumably, $$$.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 9:21 am | Reply

  649. 1). Elliott, your sophistries have already been decisively refuted elsewhere in this thread, and in others. If you wish to learn from the community here at B4B, you must read the comments carefully. No one has time to go back for stragglers like you.

    Further, you write: “It cannot be said that the bible is inherently and inerrably true. And remember that the bible also suggests the earth is flat and therefore cannot be ultimate truth. QED”

    But this is ludicrous. Sisyphus already demonstrated in another post that the Earth is quite likely to be flat. Again, no time for stragglers.

    (Also, the word you want is “inerrantly”.) You’re welcome!

    2). fourbrick: I have just checked. Your car is not in the Bible. You, sir, are a heretic.

    3). Sometimes I think that when we have a President Brownback, we should have public paddlings of all of these atheists and Darwinists and helioleftists and pagans and yoga instructors etc., but I worry that a lot of them would enjoy it. These are sick, sick people, and it’s going to take a clever president to deal with them appropriately.

    Comment by DPS — May 28, 2007 @ 11:25 am | Reply

  650. After reading all these posts, I’ve concluded that no amount of evidence will convince Sisyphus and co. of anything that contradicts the Bible. If they conducted experiments that contradicted the Bible I think they would still disregard them. So there is little reason to actually present evidence since they will simply disregard it.

    I propose that little green gremlins are inside Sisyphus and co.’s brains, filling them with the notion that the Bible is inerrant and any Biblically conflicting science is also false. If you think that’s silly, I would say that it’s just the gremlin making you think that it’s silly. Any proof you have that the earth is only thousands of years old or that the earth is not moving is just that gremlin making you think that the Bible is inerrant again. Please try to prove to me that this gremlin doesn’t exist.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  651. From Sisyphus logic, one could conclude that a plane doesn’t actually move, that rather it is the Earth that turns underneath it. After all, the people don’t feel that they’re moving while they’re on the plane. So much for your “empirical” evidence.

    As for the Bible, well, may I refer you to Luke 21:32: ” Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled”, Luke 21 being the chapter where Jesus describes what happens at the end of the world. (see also Matthew 24:34) What, you say? The end of the world did not come before Jesus’s generation passed away? Well, you’re clearly wrong, see? The Scriptures CLEARLY state that the end of the world has happened shortly after Jesus’s time. Since the Bible is inerrant, then we must all be in the Kingdom of Heaven right now, or we’re all in Hell. But since I distinctly remember there being a night a few hours ago, I can’t be in the Kingdom of Heaven (according to Revelations 21:25), and I can’t be in Hell, because that’s a lake “which burneth with fire and brimstone” (according to Revelations 21:8), and I don’t see any lakes, especially not burning ones. So, if I’m not in the world, and not in Heaven, and not in Hell, where am I?

    In other words, Bible inerrancy is worth shit.

    Comment by Elaro — May 28, 2007 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  652. “Sometimes I think that when we have a President Brownback, we should have public paddlings of all of these atheists and Darwinists and helioleftists and pagans and yoga instructors etc., but I worry that a lot of them would enjoy it. These are sick, sick people, and it’s going to take a clever president to deal with them appropriately.”

    This is a great idea! I was thinking we might have to tie them to stones and leave them to the Lord to drive the demons out of them, but this proposal is far more humane. Really, though, it’s up to Brownback to decide what to do with these people.

    “After reading all these posts, I’ve concluded that no amount of evidence will convince Sisyphus and co. of anything that contradicts the Bible. If they conducted experiments that contradicted the Bible I think they would still disregard them. So there is little reason to actually present evidence since they will simply disregard it.”

    Such an experiment is completely impossible. The Bible is incapable of error.

    “What, you say? The end of the world did not come before Jesus’s generation passed away?”

    Jesus lives forever, so His generation has not yet passed away.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 1:56 pm | Reply

  653. I am shocked beyond all belief that someone who governs could be so ignorant as to believe that sun revolves around the Earth.

    As someone who has a very string background in math and physics I am completely stupefied. How can this post even be real?

    Comment by Eric — May 28, 2007 @ 1:59 pm | Reply

  654. “Such an experiment is completely impossible. The Bible is incapable of error.”

    Once again, that gremlin in your brain is making you think that the Bible is incapable of error.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:06 pm | Reply

  655. “Jesus lives forever, so His generation has not yet passed away.”

    If I say something like “That car will keep going TILL it runs out of gas” the implication would be that once it runs out of gas it will stop going. If not, why would I bother writing the bit about it running out of gas?

    Look at the quote again: “This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.”

    This implies that once all has been fulfilled, this generation would pass away. By your interpretation, this would imply that once all has been fulfilled, Jesus would stop living forever!

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:11 pm | Reply

  656. “As someone who has a very string background in math and physics I am completely stupefied.”

    That tends to be an unfortunate side effect of studying these phony sciences too extensively.

    “Once again, that gremlin in your brain is making you think that the Bible is incapable of error.”

    I don’t have a demon, sir.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

  657. “I don’t have a demon, sir.”

    Please prove to me that you don’t have a demon/gremlin in your brain. You just think you don’t because the gremlin wants you to think that.

    “That tends to be an unfortunate side effect of studying these phony sciences too extensively.”

    You do realize that nuclear science is a branch of physics, right? In one of your posts you seem to accept nuclear power (perhaps you mean science?) as “real” science, which would appear to be a contradiction.

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:22 pm | Reply

  658. “Please prove to me that you don’t have a demon/gremlin in your brain. You just think you don’t because the gremlin wants you to think that.”

    I am a humble servant of the Lord. To suggest otherwise is to slander me, sir.

    “You do realize that nuclear science is a branch of physics, right? In one of your posts you seem to accept nuclear power (perhaps you mean science?) as “real” science, which would appear to be a contradiction.”

    Nuclear weapons are God’s providence to this country. Physics is partly based upon helping America, and partly based on pursuing Godless branches of phony experimentation. I trust that sensible minds can distinguish the two paths.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:37 pm | Reply

  659. “I am a humble servant of the Lord. To suggest otherwise is to slander me, sir.”

    Nope, the gremlin just wants you to think that too!

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  660. Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:37 pm: “I am a humble servant of the Lord.”

    So was Ted Haggard. What’s your point?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 28, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  661. Neither one of you is very religious, so what difference does it make that you choose to slander me and blaspheme?

    God knows the truth, and God will continue to bless these United States no matter what the moonbats do to besmirch her moral standing in His eyes!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:58 pm | Reply

  662. “God will continue to bless these United States”

    Last I checked, the USA isn’t mentioned in the Bible, so what authority do you have to claim that God will bless or is blessing the USA as a country?

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  663. Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:58 pm: “God will continue to bless these United States no matter what the moonbats do to besmirch her moral standing in His eyes!”

    So where was your “god” on 9/11?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 28, 2007 @ 3:04 pm | Reply

  664. Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 2:58 pm: “God will continue to bless these United States no matter what the moonbats do to besmirch her moral standing in His eyes!”

    Ah yes, the defence by insanity plea. And where exactly was was your “god” on 9/11?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 28, 2007 @ 3:06 pm | Reply

  665. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

    God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can.

    If he wants to and cannot, he is weak – and this does not apply to God.
    If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to God’s nature.

    If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god.
    If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from and why? Or why does he not eliminate them?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 28, 2007 @ 3:15 pm | Reply

  666. i guess the world is flat too, eh?

    Comment by robert — May 28, 2007 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

  667. May I ask what is wrong with Karl Marx and communism?

    Before you pull out the “evil” card etc, may I point out that communism was good on paper and in principle, and was twisted by human nature and people such as Stalin.

    Also, if there is a God, why do you believe that all his teachings and so on have been perfectly written down by humanity? You may believe God is infallible, but humanity certainly is not.

    Comment by Tin Can Man — May 28, 2007 @ 3:38 pm | Reply

  668. I am unsurprised that it was Tyler Durden who made comment 666. Altogether fitting, I think. How dare he insult the victims and heroes of 9/11!?!?!? Sickening. Absolutely sickening. Has he no shame? I think he should apologize for what he said or be banned from commenting. Otherwise where will it end?

    Comment by DPS — May 28, 2007 @ 5:06 pm | Reply

  669. DPS, that’s a pitiful attempt at answering a simple question!! Do you think by simply giving out about the nature of the question it will make it go away? Well?

    Man, you wouldn’t last 2 minutes in a high-school debate, politics or on a New York subway.

    I was in New York on 9/11, I guess your “god” wasn’t. (That’s not an insult, just a statement of fact.)

    If this exchange were taking place on a playground, I guess you’d be taking your football/basketball home while sulking all the way back to your mommmy?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 28, 2007 @ 5:38 pm | Reply

  670. “So where was your “god” on 9/11?”

    He was Everywhere, and He was testing our faith. I see that you’ve failed that test.

    “i guess the world is flat too, eh?”

    According to the best guesses of True science, yes, it probably is.

    “May I ask what is wrong with Karl Marx and communism?”

    The fool hath said in his heart, “There is no God.” Well, that and all the murders.

    “Before you pull out the “evil” card etc, may I point out that communism was good on paper and in principle, and was twisted by human nature and people such as Stalin.”

    And everyone else who’s ever tried to practice it. It fails to take human nature into consideration. Greed, jealousy, and the prejudices and grievances pre-existing this wonderful new social order it promises are likewise disregarded. Frankly, Marx himself didn’t seem to have any idea what the “proletarian utopia” should look like. No bourgeois, rah rah rah. Then what? Time for the killing fields, I guess.

    “You may believe God is infallible, but humanity certainly is not”

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    “I am unsurprised that it was Tyler Durden who made comment 666. Altogether fitting, I think. How dare he insult the victims and heroes of 9/11!?!?!? Sickening. Absolutely sickening. Has he no shame? I think he should apologize for what he said or be banned from commenting. Otherwise where will it end?”

    Tyler, consider yourself warned. Some of us DO believe that God was in New York City on 9/11. If you persist in insulting us, I’m going to have to ban you for 24 hours. I don’t want to do that, but you’re offending the rest of us.

    You were in New York on 9/11, good for you. So were lots of people. So what? I had family there too. I happen to believe God saw them through that mess. I find it offensive when you assert otherwise. I’m not asking you to agree with me, but I do ask that you respect my right to disagree with you on this point.

    Thank you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 28, 2007 @ 5:54 pm | Reply

  671. Comment 649: But it’s an historical fact that the invention of Communism was a direct offshoot of Copernican, Darwinian thought
    >Prove it.
    As for his age, so what? Marx was an old man when he died, and so was Lenin. So was Stalin. Is it off-limits to criticize them now, too?
    >You’re missing the point. I’m talking about justifying Galileo’s recanting.

    Comment 659: I am a humble servant of the Lord.
    >You act far from humble.

    Nuclear weapons are God’s providence to this country.
    >So why do Iran, etc. have nuclear weapons?

    Comment 667: How dare he insult the victims and heroes of 9/11!?!?!?
    >Where does he insult them? Show me the sentence!

    I think he should apologize for what he said or be banned from commenting.
    >Just as the Chinese government makes innocent people admit to a crime they didn’t commit or be tortured. Kind of mean, don’t you think?

    Comment by lietk12 — May 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  672. >> “He was Everywhere, and He was testing our faith.”

    Why, oh why, do innocent people have to die in order for this “god” to test your faith? Surely if he’s omnipotent and omniscient he can see how this “test” would end up by simpy looking into your head or your heart?

    And can you please point out where I insulted you? I asked a simple question. If you find the question insulting because of your belief, that’s not the same as me actually insulting you. It is you looking to find it insulting, not the other way around.

    Sisyphus, you have every right to disagree with me, as I have with you (or DPS, or whoever). However, it does seem a tad cowardly to “ban” people when you (or DPS) have an issue with a post you don’t agree with or simply cannot answer. Whatever happened to the the issue of Free Speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 28, 2007 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  673. […] Recently 3 out of 10 Republican candidates proudly proclaimed their disbelief in evolution.  While this public exhibition of willful ignorance was undoubtedly disturbing, it did at least offer a fantastic opportunity for satire. […]

    Pingback by Deepish Thought » Blog Archive » Repubilcan Devolution — May 28, 2007 @ 7:27 pm | Reply

  674. Wait… you’re serious?

    I think my head just exploded, and not in a good way.

    Comment by Alison Rush — May 28, 2007 @ 8:53 pm | Reply

  675. Tyler Durden:

    ‘Why, oh why, do innocent people have to die in order for this “god” to test your faith? Surely if he’s omnipotent and omniscient he can see how this “test” would end up by simpy looking into your head or your heart?’

    Sure. In fact, since He knew how everything was going to go, there was no need for the Universe actually to come into existence. So clearly the Universe does not exist.

    Do you see the madness to which your Satanic, vegetarian, Rastafarian lies lead, Tyler? If you will not believe the evidence of the Bible, will you not at least allow the testimony of your eyes to tell you the the world exists? Or are you going to say that the world is just a lie perpetrated by the New York Fire Department?

    For shame, Mr. Durden.

    For shame.

    Comment by DPS — May 28, 2007 @ 10:40 pm | Reply

  676. “Sure. In fact, since He knew how everything was going to go, there was no need for the Universe actually to come into existence. So clearly the Universe does not exist.”

    I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that because something doesn’t need to exist it clearly does not exist?

    “Do you see the madness to which your Satanic, vegetarian, Rastafarian lies lead, Tyler?”

    Can we please stop the name calling? If you expect us to respect your beliefs then please stop the name calling!

    Comment by Nobody — May 28, 2007 @ 11:33 pm | Reply

  677. can i just say comment 644 was not made by me. Some guy pretending to be me. Wow he can feel the earth move. Intense.

    Comment by Elliott — May 29, 2007 @ 2:17 am | Reply

  678. DPS – enough of your mindless waffle, answer the question: Where was your “god” on 9/11?

    This blatant, infantile tactic of avoiding the question is not going to work. Is this what you usually do when you encounter something that you can’t handle? Call people names? Run away? Avoid the issue?

    Everybody here can see you’re hiding behind your mommy’s apron – come on out and play…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 29, 2007 @ 2:29 am | Reply

  679. “Do you see the madness to which your Satanic, vegetarian, Rastafarian lies lead, Tyler? If you will not believe the evidence of the Bible, will you not at least allow the testimony of your eyes to tell you the the world exists? Or are you going to say that the world is just a lie perpetrated by the New York Fire Department?” I agree with “Nobody.” Your name calling is just a weak excuse for debate. There is no evidence Tyler is vegetarian or rastafarian or Satanic. And at what point did he deny the existence of the world? The world exists alright, in it’s (almost) spherical form as it orbits the sun.

    Comment by Elliott — May 29, 2007 @ 2:30 am | Reply

  680. Satanism is an established and accepted religion in the US as is the Rastafari movement. You may not agree with their philosophies but you cannot deny that their are people who follow them.

    Vegetarianism is the practice of not consuming the flesh of any animals. Veganism is “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practical—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” A vegan does not consume any animal products.

    I’m explaining because I don’t think you know what they mean. If you need help with anything else then feel free to let me know.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 29, 2007 @ 2:59 am | Reply

  681. “Don’t take my word for it” you sad, and choice to put in some sentens from the old, outdated BLACK book, which you called “the bible”.

    Its interesting how you choice to use this old book, as something like “proof”.

    Its interesting and in the very end, you will by your self, feel “its sad”.

    Keep up, don’t give up!

    Comment by Publicpgp — May 29, 2007 @ 3:28 am | Reply

  682. By the very end: GOD DO NOT EXISTS! OR IF YOUR GOD EXISTS, HE IS A SHITHEAD AND I HAVE ALREADY KILL HIM FOR YOU! Thank me! Pray to me!

    Ps. I do not joke 🙂

    Comment by Publicpgp — May 29, 2007 @ 3:33 am | Reply

  683. Quote by DPS ” Fourbrick, your car is not mentioned in the bible. You, sir, are a heretic.”

    Sorry to disappoint you, DPS, but ” the apostles were all in one Accord.”
    Better get back to your bible reading, son.

    “Heretic- somobody whose theological or religious opinion or doctrine is maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative.”

    In view of the total rubbish spouted by religious bigots, I’m proud to be a heretic.

    Comment by fourbrick — May 29, 2007 @ 4:14 am | Reply

  684. “And yet, it moves…”

    I think that’s what Galileo muttered under his breath after y’all were done torturing him.

    Comment by Hahahaha — May 29, 2007 @ 4:49 am | Reply

  685. […] While not yet announced, I’m sure an exhibit demonstrating the biblical truth that the earth is fixed, immovable and the center of the universe is soon to […]

    Pingback by Newspeak: Creation Science « Modern Spiritualism — May 29, 2007 @ 5:11 am | Reply

  686. “Sisyphus, you have every right to disagree with me, as I have with you (or DPS, or whoever). However, it does seem a tad cowardly to “ban” people when you (or DPS) have an issue with a post you don’t agree with or simply cannot answer. Whatever happened to the the issue of Free Speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?”

    No one can answer your question. Scientific proof/disproof of God is impossible, therefore atheism, like Christianity, is a faith. You antagonize people because you disagree with their religion; why would you choose to do that in a predominantly Christian forum?

    I won’t ban you this time, but please bear in mind that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private interaction. I can say whatever I want, but presumably if I came into your house and tried to teach your family about Jesus, you’d throw me into the street. The way the First Amendment has been misinterpreted by the US Supreme Court, that’s your right. But that’s a two-way street, you know.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 5:25 am | Reply

  687. “I think that’s what Galileo muttered under his breath after y’all were done torturing him.”

    I didn’t torture him. I wasn’t even alive yet. How do you know what he muttered under his breath? Were you there? How did you hear him?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 5:28 am | Reply

  688. I think it’s good that they used enhanced interrogation techniques to extract from Galileo his true belief that the Earth is fixed in place. That’s what we rightly do to terrorists, and the links between atheism and heliocentrism on the one hand and terrorism on the other are well known. Anyway, how else was the Church supposed to keep him from spreading those ridiculous lies that not even he believed?

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

    Non. Si. Muove.

    Comment by DPS — May 29, 2007 @ 11:07 am | Reply

  689. I don’t know if this was already answered, but Jon Swift was an Englishman who wrote an essay (A Modest Proposal) that satired British policies towards Ireland by suggesting that the Irish eat their children for food.

    Comment by Mark — May 29, 2007 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

  690. Sisyphus, if you’re looking for something to support your delusions, I think hallucinogens would be safer for you than attempts to understand science.

    Comment by Him — May 29, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  691. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHahahahahhahahaha heh heheheh heh heh ahhh…. tee…. *snort* sniff… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Comment by Mr. Pablo — May 29, 2007 @ 12:54 pm | Reply

  692. Thank you for this…. I have been laughing myself silly for the last half hour.

    One of my faves: “I think it’s good that they used enhanced interrogation techniques to extract from Galileo his true belief that the Earth is fixed in place. That’s what we rightly do to terrorists, and the links between atheism and heliocentrism on the one hand and terrorism on the other are well known.”

    I love even more the people….. hmmm…. how do I say this……. that can’t, um, read between the lines. But good job keeping that nutjob Brownback out. BRAVO!

    BRAVO!

    Comment by Thankful — May 29, 2007 @ 1:37 pm | Reply

  693. It’s physically impossible for the earth to have seasons AND day/night while being in a fixed position. That’s all the proof you should need.

    Comment by Xytrex — May 29, 2007 @ 1:42 pm | Reply

  694. Einsteins theory of relativity proves that you can’t prove where the center of the universe is.

    When you need to do some math on movements/directions etc of objects you need to pick a reference frame as a ‘temporary center of the universe’ in order to make the calculations etc. This is just a mathematical convenience.

    Obviously this doesn’t mean that from God’s point of view (if you believe in God) there isn’t a center of the universe… it’s just that we can’t prove where it is.

    So if, according to your faith, you happen to believe the Earth is at center of the universe then so be it. There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn’t contradict any part of modern scientific understanding.

    Comment by Someone — May 29, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  695. 676: Sure. In fact, since He knew how everything was going to go, there was no need for the Universe actually to come into existence. So clearly the Universe does not exist.
    >He didn’t say anything about the nonexistence of death of innocent people. He was talking about why they had to die. So your reply is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. This also features a non sequitur, namely the conclusion that the Universe doesn’t exist because it doesn’t need to.

    Comment 687: Scientific proof/disproof of God is impossible, therefore atheism, like Christianity, is a faith.
    >Therefore, anything in the Bible is also a faith thing, and it is impossible to prove that heliocentrism is incorrect based on the Bible. Also, certain types of atheism are more like “lack of faith” because they neither affirm nor deny the existence of God.

    Comment 689: Anyway, how else was the Church supposed to keep him from spreading those ridiculous lies that not even he believed?
    >Prove it that he didn’t believe in his ideas.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 29, 2007 @ 1:49 pm | Reply

  696. The earth doesn’t move because I don’t have everyday experience of it moving. Things that I cannot sense do not exist. I trust my senses to tell me what is true and what is false. Therefore, god doesn’t exist because it doesn’t fit into my everyday experience.

    On the other hand, this book covers a few things which I’m willing to accept exist on faith alone, without reference to my everyday experience…

    Comment by mbs — May 29, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

  697. Sisyphus MANY christians do believe in heliocentrism and for YOU to say that we are anti-Bible, anti-American, and anti-Christian, is about the most ignorant thing I’ve heard in a long time… You should also realize that there is Very real proof humans have been into outer space (the giant void the earth is rotating in).

    If you don’t mind, I’d LOVE to re-quote you some of the misinterpruted verses you quoted in your original document.

    “Psalms 104:5 Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” This is easily interpruted many ways…..one could be your version, or one could be the more obvious, and probably correct version. If you want to REALLY be literal then you’d have to agree God is saying that the earth cannot be shaken, like a salt shaker. And really it couldn’t be seeing as how no one is that big besides God. I don’t see how this translates to “The earth is not rotating around the sun.”

    Second Quote.

    “Chronicles 1 – 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” I’m curious, when God says “world” in this does he even mean earth? Can you prove that’s what he meant? What if he simply means the world as in universe, or many universes, which the earth is a small part of?

    Anyways I could go on about all this, but I’d hope using a small amount of reason you see my logic here…Anyways MANY Christians do believe in heliocentrism, and will continue too. It’s sad to see people with such close minded views on such things.

    I do have one question….. What is SO horrible about the earth rotating around the sun? If you tell me it undermines the bible and is blasphemy, well….I Could go back and quote you 50 times being judgmental and rude and cynical and many other things to a lot of the people that have commented this. Hypocritical at all? Does the bible condone that? Would Jesus condone that? Please Sisyphus, help out the Christian community by not posting anymore unless it’s logical. Please don’t misquote the bible again either…that’s very offensive.

    W-W-J-D

    Comment by Martin — May 29, 2007 @ 2:14 pm | Reply

  698. I only read the first few paragraphs but Sisyphus, you are confused about one very important thing. We don’t “feel” movement, we only “feel” acceleration. So as long as the velocity of anything on which we are riding remains constant (be it a car, airplane, or big sphere of rock which we call Earth) we won’t percieve any movement. That is also empiricism. If you don’t believe me, get on an airplane and you won’t “feel” yourself moving 600 mph. Then jump out of the door and since the thrust generated by the plane’s engines is no longer acting on you, you will “feel” rapid negative acceleration and you will slow down. Then as you fall to Earth, you will reach a point called terminal velocity at which Earth’s gravity can accelerate you no longer and you will once again “feel” no movement. Then, as your dogmatic rock of a brain smashes into the surface of Earth you will again “feel” enormous negative acceleration…for just a fraction of a second before you liquify.

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

  699. I only read the first few paragraphs but Sisyphus, you are confused about one very important thing. We don’t “feel” movement, we only “feel” acceleration. So as long as the velocity of anything on which we are riding remains constant (be it a car, airplane, or big sphere of rock which we call Earth) we won’t perceive any movement. That is also empiricism. If you don’t believe me, get on an airplane and you won’t “feel” yourself moving 600 mph. Then jump out of the door and since the thrust generated by the plane’s engines is no longer acting on you, you will “feel” rapid negative acceleration and you will slow down. Then as you fall to Earth, you will reach a point called terminal velocity at which Earth’s gravity can accelerate you no longer and you will once again “feel” no movement. Then, as your dogmatic rock of a brain smashes into the surface of Earth you will again “feel” enormous negative acceleration…for just a fraction of a second before you liquefy.

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

  700. You never did tell us how geostationary satelites can be explained if the Earth is not moving?

    Comment by Peter — May 29, 2007 @ 2:23 pm | Reply

  701. One more thing…good scientists never use the word “prove” because that is not what Science can do. Science is a tool and it was not designed to prove things. It was designed to remove theories that failed to explain the way things are. Science can’t prove that the earth is moving or unmoving, because proof requires absolute certainty (like in a mathematical or logical proof). Because we can’t be ABSOLUTELY certain that what we perceive is what is actually there, we can’t use any tools to prove things about what is actually there (garbage in, garbage out). Since our perceptions are suspect, all of our conclusions must be as well. Science is a dynamic collection of theories and the any theory that is “in the lead” so to speak, may very well be dismissed shortly thereafter because of advances in thought or technology that changes the information contained in our perceptions.

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

  702. Could God move an Earth that he made unmovable?

    Comment by FaithChallenger — May 29, 2007 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

  703. I don’t know if this was already answered, but Jon Swift was an Englishman who wrote an essay (A Modest Proposal) that satired British policies towards Ireland by suggesting that the Irish eat their children for food.”

    Thanks. He sounds like a disgusting man, though.

    “It’s physically impossible for the earth to have seasons AND day/night while being in a fixed position. That’s all the proof you should need.”

    Who are you to usurp the role of God?

    “Einsteins theory of relativity proves that you can’t prove where the center of the universe is.”

    Einstein was a fraud.

    “So if, according to your faith, you happen to believe the Earth is at center of the universe then so be it. There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn’t contradict any part of modern scientific understanding.”

    Well… Thanks, I guess! Please be sure to tell your fellow moonbats, though. They’ve been giving me a very hard time about it.

    “Therefore, god doesn’t exist because it doesn’t fit into my everyday experience.”

    God is a priori synthetic cognition, tough guy. You’re not weaseling your way out of Christianity THAT easily.

    “W-W-J-D”

    Probably drive your demons out and put them into swine, Martin.

    “We don’t “feel” movement, we only “feel” acceleration.”

    Scientific mumbo-jumbo for “The Earth’s not moving, but it’s in my interest to claim otherwise.”

    You never did tell us how geostationary satelites can be explained if the Earth is not moving?”

    There are no satellites. Mankind has probably never been into “outer space,” a concept which probably doesn’t even exist. I addressed all this in a different thread. Forgive me if I forego repetition here.

    “Science is a tool and it was not designed to prove things.”

    Science is a tool for tools.

    “Could God move an Earth that he made unmovable?”

    Certainly. God is omnipotent. Omnipotence includes the power to temporarily abridge His own power. So God could temporarily make Himself weak, thereby eliminating His ability to move the Heavens. But it’s blasphemous to pursue this line of reasoning, you know.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 3:15 pm | Reply

  704. This is true, but isn’t it also true that by hosting viewpoints that oppose the lord you are in fact playing a role in challenging faith in the lord and therefor culprit of blaspheming. The truly faithful man would remove all blasphemous comments made allowing only those from true believers therefor achieving truth through subjective objectivity.

    Comment by FaithChallenger — May 29, 2007 @ 3:23 pm | Reply

  705. Ah, DPS, you’re back from hiding behind your mommy’s apron… still haven’t answered my question I see.

    So much easier to rag on poor ol’ Galileo, who can’t actually defend himself. Tsk, tsk, such cowardice!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 29, 2007 @ 3:24 pm | Reply

  706. >Who are you to usurp the role of God?

    Huh?? Nevermind. Oh, Sisyphus, someone forgot to tell the Catholic Church.

    It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

    As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

    Catholic Answers – The Galileo Controversy(http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp)

    Comment by Xytrex — May 29, 2007 @ 3:35 pm | Reply

  707. 704.
    >> “Einsteins theory of relativity proves that you can’t prove where the center of the universe is.”

    > Einstein was a fraud.

    I disagree, though even if he was a fraud, his theories have been tested again and again and proved accurate thousands of times by many unaffiliated people.

    If he was a fraud, I suppose you believe all the nuclear bomb tests and the two attacks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hoaxes? And for that matter I guess all nuclear power plants are nothing more than fancy dressed-up coal power plants?

    I guess it could be true… I suppose I can’t believe everything I read or see on television.

    Comment by Someone — May 29, 2007 @ 3:39 pm | Reply

  708. Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 5:25 am: “No one can answer your question. Scientific proof/disproof of God is impossible.”

    I know proof/disproof of God is impossible, and I’m not looking to do that here. I’m just interested in your take on where your “god” was on 9/11 when he was actually needed?

    Atheism is not a faith. “Faith” is just a cop-out, an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence available to us. “Faith” is belief, in spite of, even perhaps because of, the LACK of evidence, whereas I choose to trust the evidence.

    It would seem the more we/atheists/science show you evidence, the stronger your faith becomes in the superstition of religion. That, to me, is the classic “Head in the sand” mentality. Or the infantile version of sticking your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing what you don’t want to hear.

    You may not want to hear it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not actually true.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 29, 2007 @ 3:45 pm | Reply

  709. “We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.”

    I guess Tycho Brahe was correct, then.

    “If he was a fraud, I suppose you believe all the nuclear bomb tests and the two attacks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hoaxes? And for that matter I guess all nuclear power plants are nothing more than fancy dressed-up coal power plants?”

    Those were right for different reasons than those given by Einstein. If you look in a haystack long enough, eventually you’ll find a needle.

    “I guess it could be true… I suppose I can’t believe everything I read or see on television.”

    That’s what I’ve been trying to explain to these moonbat pinheads all week, but they don’t seem to get it!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  710. “I’m just interested in your take on where your “god” was on 9/11 when he was actually needed?”

    Asked and answered.

    “Atheism is not a faith. “Faith” is just a cop-out, an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence available to us. “Faith” is belief, in spite of, even perhaps because of, the LACK of evidence, whereas I choose to trust the evidence.”

    In other words, atheism is your faith.

    “You may not want to hear it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not actually true.”

    Big talk, coming from someone who still fancies the Sun revolves around the Earth. Take the tinfoil hat off, and start talking some sense!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 3:53 pm | Reply

  711. Wow, you had me a little worried about the seriousness of this site, until I realized the at the guy pushing for Brownback to be president calls himself “Sisyphus”.

    Great site in the fine Socratic tradition. I’m sure all us Pastafarians support you.

    Comment by Shane — May 29, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  712. 704: Who are you to usurp the role of God?
    >Who are you to judge others and tell them what to do?

    Scientific mumbo-jumbo for “The Earth’s not moving, but it’s in my interest to claim otherwise.”
    >Nope. If you’re on an escalator that’s not speeding up, you don’t FEEL movement. Of course, you see it, but you can’t detect it. I don’t see how that is “Scientific mumbo-jumbo for “The Earth’s not moving, but it’s in my interest to claim otherwise.””

    710: That’s what I’ve been trying to explain to these moonbat pinheads all week, but they don’t seem to get it!
    >You can’t believe everything on the internet, either.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 29, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  713. So, approx 3,000 innocent people died on 9/11 just so your “god” could test your “faith”. Wow, talk about self-important. Are you sure you don’t think you’re the centre of the universe?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 3:53 pm : “Big talk, coming from someone who still fancies the Sun revolves around the Earth. Take the tinfoil hat off, and start talking some sense!”

    Huh?!?!? Actually, I believe the Earth revolves around the Sun. You know – Heliocentrism. What’s your point? Or do you even have one at this stage?? Yawn!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 29, 2007 @ 4:13 pm | Reply

  714. Clearly the Earth is flat; as evidence I offer this:
    From the Bible, Isaiah 11-12 (King James Version):

    And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

    & Revelation 7-1:

    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.

    The reference to four corners does not imply that the writers of these texts believed that the Earth was flat (although they may well have done). the seconed citation above suggests more that the four corners were the four compass points. There is a better explanation here:
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html

    Also pertinent is this VERY informative site:
    http://rapturewatch.cephasministry.com/305%20Destruction%20of%20U.S.A.%20will%20come%20from%20Earth%92s%20Four%20Corners.html

    I do not personally need to go into space to bolster my beliefs; everything around me tells me the earth is standing still and it is flat as a billiard table in many places I have been, especially out on the Staked Plains (Llano Estacado)out in west Texas and perhaps more so in eastern Colorado

    Comment by VAJim — May 29, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  715. Like several others who have commented – I cannot believe that anyone in this day and age could devolve to a Dark-Ages mentality. If this Brownback guy is a candidate for ANYTHING and would hang his hat on any of this bunk then, like so many before me, No Vote.

    Comment by Russ Morgan — May 29, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  716. Hey this is a great start to bring light to the truth of our existence. Lets now move on to using the scriptures to prove the internet does not actually exist.

    Comment by Arkturus — May 29, 2007 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  717. Answer my questions sisyphus…..from my previous post.

    Comment by Martin — May 29, 2007 @ 5:00 pm | Reply

  718. “Sisyphus”. There’s no better name for someone hawking such anachronistic dogma, than the mythic Greek figure synonymous with pointless and futile activities.

    Comment by Chris — May 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm | Reply

  719. Tyler. Oh, Tyler.

    I did not realize that, when you asked questions, you needed to have them answered by everyone who comments on the blog. Sisyphus has already explained that God was everywhere on September 11th 2001, as He was on the 10th and the 12th.

    Now what you appear really to mean is, if there is a God and He is good, how are we to explain the existence of suffering, injustice, and evil in the world.

    But surely what you’re doing isn’t just to comment over and over again “Why do bad things happen to good people?” Is it? Do you really expect to topple the edifice of Christianity by repeating over and over again the most basic question of theodicy? Surely you realize that Christians have thought of your question before, right?

    The answer to this question, in some cases, is obviously “we don’t know.” It is not always possible to fathom the motives of God.

    So, now I have repeated to you the answer you have already received from Sisyphus to the question you keep asking, and I have also given you the answer to the question you were trying to ask but couldn’t actually locate the words for. This was an entirely free service.

    Now, if you’ll please excuse me, I have to return to the comfort and safety of my mother’s apron.

    Comment by DPS — May 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  720. Nope yall got it wrong folks , the entire universe actually revolves around me , no odd confusing logic or cricluar reasoning needed , its just so incredibly obious.

    Seriously, being a world citizen with a whollisticcally inclusiv spiritual perspective, living in Norway , I cannot fathom how the person wrotr this article i getting a polictical position , they really got trough with confusing the masses now didnt they …
    Cousious and enlightned people of The United Staes Of America its time to act , to take back your freedom !!. If your country and the world is to be liveable for future generations
    You are the ones that history will crown
    with the acoplishment of humnanity standing at the brink of the era of a golden age united in Oneness and sealed in Univerial Fraternity

    One Love !

    Comment by Beyond_Words — May 29, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  721. Dearest,
    Forgive God’s son Sisyphus for creating disharmony in your hearts. Forgive the heliocentrists, for they know not what they do. The Christ said, “Be ye therefore perfect, like your Father in Heaven is perfect” and would have you not debate but love one another. God’s greatest commandments came from the Christ’s lips: “Love the one true God above all else. And love your neighbor as yourself.” Sisyphus: you ought never have said that “Science is a tool for tools.” This illustrates a lack of love for thine neighbor and you ought to ask for God’s forgiveness. While I agree with you that the Sun and all other celestial objects orbit around our God-given home, this debate is unimportant…as is the hatred of abortionists, homosexuals, or any enemies of the tribes of Israel.

    Go in Grace.

    Comment by Baptist — May 29, 2007 @ 6:02 pm | Reply

  722. Awww, DPS, after all that wait, that’s the best you’ve got?? (Now tell me you weren’t waiting on Sisyphus to answer my post first? C’mon, tell the truth…)

    >>It is not always possible to fathom the motives of God.

    Is it EVER possible? Why is the self-proclaimed creator of the universe so concerned with what we humans do in the privacy of our own bedrooms? Doesn’t he have a universe to run?

    >>The answer to this question, in some cases, is obviously “we don’t know.”

    Funny, that answer always seems to crop up. Ye guys aren’t making this all up as you go, are ya?

    As for toppling “the edifice of Christianity” – all one need do is read the bible, that should do the job all by itself. It’s not a science book, nor a geography book, nor even a decent history book, yet it claims to be everything – and more!?!?!

    How many times must we hear about the “end of times”? – only to wake up the next day safe and sound.

    How many billions of Chritians have died without having witnessed the “second coming”? And yet people still believe he’s on his way. Fine line between faith and delusuion.

    Example: Why is the “resurrection” of Jesus not actually mentioned in the original version of Mark’s Gospel – which Matthew and Luke are largely derived from.

    An event of this magnitude should have been front and centre in the New Testament, yet scholars today know the account of the “resurrection” was not added to Mark’s Gospel until the 2nd Century, and are unsure as to its exact origins. A case of judicious editing methinks.

    Christians are more than welcome to their faith. The Greeks had their faith in Zeus, the Norse in Thor and the Egyptians in Ra, which is to say, just because you have faith in it doesn’t make it true.

    “Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.” Oscar Wilde.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 29, 2007 @ 6:33 pm | Reply

  723. “One Love !”

    You blaspheme.

    “Forgive the heliocentrists, for they know not what they do.”

    Amen.

    “Christians are more than welcome to their faith. The Greeks had their faith in Zeus, the Norse in Thor and the Egyptians in Ra, which is to say, just because you have faith in it doesn’t make it true.”

    Those people are all Christians these days, except the Egyptians. Most of them are Muslims.

    “Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.” Oscar Wilde.”

    Atheism is also a religion.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 6:51 pm | Reply

  724. Allo Sisyphus? God here. Seems you have misinterpreted some of my works’ meaning and set out on a crusade of your own for your own egotistic satisfaction. You’ve lost a good bunch of heaven brownie points already, better get back in line with the program!!

    Comment by heretic — May 29, 2007 @ 7:01 pm | Reply

  725. 724: “Christians are more than welcome to their faith. The Greeks had their faith in Zeus, the Norse in Thor and the Egyptians in Ra, which is to say, just because you have faith in it doesn’t make it true.”
    >Actually, there’s a small minority of Greeks who worship the Greek gods, as there is a very small minority of the Scandinavians who worship the Norse gods.

    Atheism is also a religion.
    >But not all obey it like dogma.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 29, 2007 @ 7:08 pm | Reply

  726. Is One Love Blaspheme ? , ok i guess your entitled to your opinion Sisyphus

    The essence of Dharma and all religion :

    “20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.””

    Gopsel of Luke

    “So many scriptures say so many things, and they are sometimes contradictory to one another. Now what to do? What is an ordinary man to do? Whom to follow and whom not to follow?

    There are so many social codes in the world. And amongst intellectuals there are so many diversities of opinion. One intellectual doesn’t express, doesn’t recommend, doesn’t support, the views of others. And it is the greatest weakness of intellectuals that they always encourage disunity. They always support heterogeneity.

    Then where lies the secret of Dharma [the innate nature of humanity]? ‘Dharma’ means ’spirituality’ – not ’spiritualism’, but spirituality’.

    Now the Supreme Entity [the One Infinite Consciousness], the Controlling Entity, the final stance of Dharma, lies covert within one’s own ‘I’ feeling. That is, you are to search internally and not externally.

    Everything is within you, because the Supreme always remains with you, within the very core of your heart. So search within, O spiritual aspirant, not without, but within – within your very existence.

    Your only object of ideation is the Supreme, and not any dogma, not any scripture.”

    – Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, 13 May 1979, Fiesch, Switzerland

    Comment by Beyond_Words — May 29, 2007 @ 7:11 pm | Reply

  727. The essence of Dharma and all religion :

    “20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.””

    Gopsel of Luke

    “So many scriptures say so many things, and they are sometimes contradictory to one another. Now what to do? What is an ordinary man to do? Whom to follow and whom not to follow?

    There are so many social codes in the world. And amongst intellectuals there are so many diversities of opinion. One intellectual doesn’t express, doesn’t recommend, doesn’t support, the views of others. And it is the greatest weakness of intellectuals that they always encourage disunity. They always support heterogeneity.

    Then where lies the secret of Dharma [the innate nature of humanity]? ‘Dharma’ means ’spirituality’ – not ’spiritualism’, but spirituality’.

    Now the Supreme Entity [the One Infinite Consciousness], the Controlling Entity, the final stance of Dharma, lies covert within one’s own ‘I’ feeling. That is, you are to search internally and not externally.

    Everything is within you, because the Supreme always remains with you, within the very core of your heart. So search within, O spiritual aspirant, not without, but within – within your very existence.

    Your only object of ideation is the Supreme, and not any dogma, not any scripture.”

    – Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, 13 May 1979, Fiesch, Switzerland

    Comment by Beyond_Words — May 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm | Reply

  728. […] He had me going, until I read this entry: Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine. […]

    Pingback by HumorNiche » Satire Or Fundamentalist? — May 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm | Reply

  729. “Atheism is also a religion.”

    Every definition of the word religion involves belief in a supernatural being. What supernatural being do atheists believe in?

    Comment by Nobody — May 29, 2007 @ 7:25 pm | Reply

  730. If I throw a baseball at 50 mph, is the baseball moving? Are you sure the baseball isn’t standing still, and the earth isn’t going 50 mph in the opposite direction? How do you decide which object is moving and which is standing still? There is nothing special about the baseball.

    This situation is exactly analogous to the earth moving relative to the rest of the universe.

    Comment by lithiumdeuteride — May 29, 2007 @ 7:55 pm | Reply

  731. There are those who believe the universe revolves around Uranus. I heard someone shout this at the President on TV.

    Comment by The Black Adder — May 29, 2007 @ 8:03 pm | Reply

  732. i’d like to point out that relativity states only inertial reference frames are equivalent. as such, you can’t switch from a heliocentric reference frame to an earth-is-stationary frame without effects that would be experimentally observable (for example, the centrifugal force). unless you would like to invent some new unexplained forces to back up your biblical interpretation, your argument does not hold. (and in case you do want to do that, please provide some evidence other than “God said it is so”)

    Comment by fzx.mike — May 29, 2007 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  733. Comment 726: #

    “Atheism is also a religion.”

    Every definition of the word religion involves belief in a supernatural being. What supernatural being do atheists believe in?

    >One exception is Buddhism, which is a religion but does not necessarily have a supernatural being.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 29, 2007 @ 8:40 pm | Reply

  734. When I first saw this article, I must say that I was intrigued by that fact that someone was actually denying one of the earliest tenets of science. As I read through your article, I began to realize that it was written by a one of the most hypocritical and blind persons to walk the face of the Earth. I guess I will start with your “summary” at the end of your morass of denial.

    1) I guess you can claim this, and even if I do cite any evidence to the contrary, you will most likely claim it is biased, skewed, or false. However, even though you claim that the motion of Earth has not been proven, NO ONE has proven that the Earth is motionless either, so even though you claim that heliocentrism is false, your own argument has no scientific basis either.

    2)As with the first point, this is your own opinion, and even if I do have to walk you through all the advanced mathematics involved, you will probably pull out some random expert who will run around pointing at this and that claiming that the entire theory is a sham, or are you a professor of mathematics or something?

    3)These “Experiments” were performed with crude tools, and have margins of error that do not allow for the use of these experiments as viable evidence. Second, all of these “experiments” seem to be at least a hundred years old. Where are your modern experiments using reliable tools and peer reviewed ethods?

    4)E=mc^2, oh my have I just violated this blogs sanctity by putting this profane equation on it? You claim that this equation and all of Einstein’s other discoveries are false, but in doing so you have bundered into a marvelous trap. These equations help to explain the events that take place during nuclear fusion and fission. A small amount of mass turns into a massive amount of energy. If you claim that this is false, then you claim that nuclear power is non-existent as well even though it has been powering cities and vehicles for nearly 5 DECADES, and even more interesting is that by saying that this equation is false, you also claim that nuclear weapons DON’T exist. If that is true, then how were Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed, was the radiation left over from the explosion just a myth, were the hundreds of thousands of people who died a myth as well? No they were not. Einstein’s equations and the relativity equations are true, until you get to the molecular level and quantum mechanics but that is another story, and if you claim otherwise, you are going against not only scientific proof, but historical proof as well. Also, if you respond to this, do not claim that what I just said is not what you “meant”. By denying relativity and Einstein’s equations, you deny this as well, OR you are a complete moron who does not understand the full implications of science and the intricacies involved with it, take your pick.

    6) The Mitchison Morley experiment ha sbeen proven wrong and is of no scientific or logical value in your argument. First, it used instruments that were hopelessly inaccurate and Therefore, the data cannot be admitted as valid information. Second, the experiment was an attempt to prove that an aether existed in outer space, NOT to prove that the Earth stood still. This experminet violated the scientific method by assuming to the very end that there was actually an aether around the Earth. Where in the bible does it say that, NOWHERE, is of no relevance and is also invalidated.

    7) Finally, the clincher, It is the bible. Christian extremists last resort, “THE BIBLE SAYS SO, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!” The perfect argument, God cannot be disproven by any scientist, not only because he is not of this world, but also because he is REAL. I say this with perfect sincerity, I am Christian, and I believe in God. However, your argument is a misuse of the bible and you are twisting its words to suit your own earthly purposes.
    ALL of the quotations above are spoken, written, or seen by human beings. God does not say directly to any man, women, or child, “The Earth is not moving” You assume that every single word in that bible directly means what you think it means, but on that point you are dead WRONG. When you typed in those quotes, they were in English, but the bible was not written in English, English did not even exist then. So, it follows that it must be translated into English, but who did the translating? well, there are multitudes of different versions of the bible translated into English, each one with the same ideals, and concepts, but with different words, that can be used to derive different meanings, and do not claim that the translations were written by “inspired or holy” persons. Many were written for profit, and the King James version was written by translators who worked under King James I in 1600 and he put enormous pressure on them to change parts slightly etc. For all we know the lines about the Earth being still were embellished by his translators to refute the up and coming idea of heliocentric theory. Also, before the bible was written, The old testament was passed down orally like any other ancient work, so that means that many of the stories were most likely changed somewhere along the line from what god said or inspired, to its current state unfortunately everyone who passed on the story remembered it in a slightly different way which means that certain parts although they keep the teachings of Christ and God, cannot be used as direct quotations.

    I look forward to your rebuttal, and hope that it uses some science and logic to back it up.

    Comment by vsbst — May 29, 2007 @ 9:17 pm | Reply

  735. “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.”

    Yup… been there, done that. When comparing the internally-inconsistent drivel of a few book collected from translated oral tradition verses the MOUNTAINS of tested theory that that been established, over and over again, through scientific investigation, the answer is pretty obvious. The word-for-word biblical truth version of Christianity is simply wrong. Yup, I renounce that version of Christianity…absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever. Not even a smidgen. Nada. Even the Pope has given up on this version.

    There is no real debate over the word-for-word truth of the Christian bible – just one side saying it’s true and the other side, being anthropologists and sociologists, studying these true-believers as an oddity of contemporary culture. Very odd, and quite funny. It’s kind of like those post-WWII pacific islanders building effigies of their new airplane gods.

    Whenever I read stuff like this, I get the sense that if God himself appeared – with absolute proof of being the actual one God – and said that the Christian bible got it wrong, these word-for-word people would point to the book and start arguing.

    Comment by Dave — May 29, 2007 @ 10:05 pm | Reply

  736. “”It’s physically impossible for the earth to have seasons AND day/night while being in a fixed position. That’s all the proof you should need.”
    Who are you to usurp the role of God?”

    Well… it’s no use debating with someone who answers questions with “Who are you to usurp the rule of God?”
    Who are you to usurp the rule of science???
    At least scientists are consistent, i.e. in their scientific method (characterization, hypothesis, prediction, experiment).

    Comment by Tijl Kindt — May 29, 2007 @ 10:49 pm | Reply

  737. Even my RW christian bush supporting mom would find you to be a sad soul.

    Comment by cyn — May 29, 2007 @ 11:00 pm | Reply

  738. “Atheism is also a religion.”

    I’d have to agree with Sisyphus on that one. Atheists should not be confused with Agnostics. Atheists “believe” that there is no God or an all-powerful deity. That very belief is built on “Faith” which is part of our innate “Belief systems”… the very thing that makes people religious. When it comes down to asking for ground evidence, we cannot prove/disprove the existence of a deity. We can only prove/disprove entries in the Quran or the Bible or the Da Vinci code… or whatever. This is where Agnostics come in – they require more evidence to come to a conclusion. Generally, most scientists/historians/philosophers/etc. are Agnostic rather than Atheistic since it’s more open-minded than Atheism.

    If you really break it down to the basics, the only thing that all religions (including Buddhism) have in common, is to tap into that innate “belief system” or “Faith” that we all have. It’s been well established that us humans NEED to have Faith in something or the other. Whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, even Science, Mother Nature (paganism), or even good ol’ Love, we’re always searching for answers to the big questions. Most religions have very simple straight-forward answers, but they require a great deal of blind “Faith”… which most of us are well equipped with. Apparently, this Sisyphus’s ability to “blindly believe” through “Faith” surpasses anything I’ve ever seen. He would truly be an interesting case study for a psychiatrist – no offense dude. You have to admit – you’re one of a kind.

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 2:18 am | Reply

  739. “Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.” Oscar Wilde.

    As a scientist myself, I have to admit that Science works VAGUELY similar to a Religion. A scientific theory is “simply the opinion that has survived” within the scientific community. However, the key difference lies in that our theories continually change until conclusive evidence forces us to settle on a single opinion. For you religious folk, you could equate this with a group of people constantly debating and updating sections of the Bible. Ohh… the sacrilege! Incidentally, biblical scholars do this all the time (except the “updating” part). That very ability – to not take things at face value – is Science at work right there.

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 2:58 am | Reply

  740. >>The answer to this question, in some cases, is obviously “we don’t know.”

    And along with “He moves in mysterious ways” and “God Did It” to answer the majority of other questions – I guess that’s the “holy trinity” of ignorance.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 6:51: “Atheism is also a religion.”

    No it’s not. Before you engage in a discussion on such a subject of religion v atheism, try to do a little research:

    “Atheism is defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.

    Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Other arguments for atheism are philosophical, social or historical. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

    The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and was sometimes used to describe oneself.”

    Of course, it must be hard to do research like this with your head stuck in the sand all day…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 30, 2007 @ 3:44 am | Reply

  741. Tyler Durden,

    You’re taking Wikipedia at face value. Please don’t call that “Research”. It’s true that Wikipedia reflects popular scientific opinion since it’s open source to everyone… but Wikipedia has not matured to the point that we can include citations to it in our research journals. It still remains a popular source of information… but definitely not the most reliable.

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 4:27 am | Reply

  742. I also wanted to add that trying to argue Faith vs Faith is an endless argument unless Reason steps in. The “absence of a belief in deity” and the “belief in the absence of a deity” imply different meanings. But, in the mind of a person, they are both based on blind “Faith” since there is no ground evidence to prove/disprove the existence of a deity.

    “Faith” is the ability of a person to believe in something without requiring evidence. It’s a very fundamental aspect in all of us. For example, the fact that you “trust” a close friend is based on “Faith”. A detective’s gut feeling about a suspect is based on “Faith”. A scientist that spent half his life trying to prove that the entire universe can be explained by a single mathematical formula (Einstein)… is based on “Faith”. Of course, that has been disproved now (at least theoretically) and the popular opinion is that nothing is deterministic. At a subatomic level, we can only assign a probability to everything. Oops! I’m rambling…

    Anyways, my point is that you simply cannot separate “Faith” from the “Human”. And like I said earlier, arguing Faith vs Faith is an endless argument. The only answer is open-mindedness and ironically – Faith in Good Reason.

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 4:48 am | Reply

  743. “If I throw a baseball at 50 mph, is the baseball moving? Are you sure the baseball isn’t standing still, and the earth isn’t going 50 mph in the opposite direction? How do you decide which object is moving and which is standing still? There is nothing special about the baseball.”

    God has decreed that the Earth stands still. That’s what makes it special.

    Read the Bible, friend.

    “Every definition of the word religion involves belief in a supernatural being. What supernatural being do atheists believe in?

    >One exception is Buddhism, which is a religion but does not necessarily have a supernatural being.”

    Your definition of religion is flawed. Buddhism is an example of why. (Another example: people who believe in space aliens for our origin; space aliens are not supernatural, merely silly.)

    Religion is an act of faith. The “supernatural” is merely an element that occurs in many religions. It is not the defining element of religion, nor of faith.

    “I look forward to your rebuttal, and hope that it uses some science and logic to back it up.”

    Sorry. I wasn’t listening.

    “I’d have to agree with Sisyphus on that one. Atheists should not be confused with Agnostics. Atheists “believe” that there is no God or an all-powerful deity. That very belief is built on “Faith” which is part of our innate “Belief systems”… the very thing that makes people religious. When it comes down to asking for ground evidence, we cannot prove/disprove the existence of a deity.”

    Exactly. According to Aquinas, only deiformity (i.e., the Holy Spirit) can lead us unto Christ. Reason alone is not enough to satisfy those inclined to doubt.

    “You have to admit – you’re one of a kind.”

    There are hundreds of millions of Christians in the world.

    “And along with “He moves in mysterious ways” and “God Did It” to answer the majority of other questions – I guess that’s the “holy trinity” of ignorance.”

    You thump your chest in pride and self-love; but your belief system necessitates that you accept your entire existence as an empty act of chemical pointlessness, meat temporarily burbling out of mud through Darwinism on a rock moving according to Copernican principles. It really makes no difference whether you become President of the United States or die in a freak stapler mishap tomorrow, does it nihilist?

    “Atheism is defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.”

    In other words, atheism is a religion.

    “Of course, it must be hard to do research like this with your head stuck in the sand all day…”

    “Why do you even bother? Your existence is so pointless that if you died tomorrow no one would even care enough to remember it 50 years later. A cheerful worldview you atheist nihilists embrace!

    “You’re taking Wikipedia at face value. Please don’t call that “Research”. It’s true that Wikipedia reflects popular scientific opinion since it’s open source to everyone… but Wikipedia has not matured to the point that we can include citations to it in our research journals. It still remains a popular source of information… but definitely not the most reliable.”

    Amen. Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Stick with Conservapedia if you’re going to use publicly-edited references as “research.”

    “I also wanted to add that trying to argue Faith vs Faith is an endless argument unless Reason steps in. The “absence of a belief in deity” and the “belief in the absence of a deity” imply different meanings. But, in the mind of a person, they are both based on blind “Faith” since there is no ground evidence to prove/disprove the existence of a deity.”

    Exactly.

    “Anyways, my point is that you simply cannot separate “Faith” from the “Human”. And like I said earlier, arguing Faith vs Faith is an endless argument. The only answer is open-mindedness and ironically – Faith in Good Reason.”

    The only thing that takes me beyond this is the Holy Spirit. But Good Reason is as far as we can get by our own devices, until we open our hearts to some form of faith. (The smug snuggle of atheism counts, too, Tyler.)

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 30, 2007 @ 5:06 am | Reply

  744. 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)

    HAHA, so how do you measure a day on Earth without the sun? It seems like god got a convenient undefined headstart!

    Has this guy ever heard about the tides?

    Comment by Markos Alexandrou — May 30, 2007 @ 5:17 am | Reply

  745. That was fun to read it.
    It’s hard to belive in so big ignorance without reading this.

    Ok, let’s back to 1500ad and try pin Earth to one fixed location.. good luck.
    Then explain me why all your universe will begin to shake?

    This is what I’m writing about:
    1. http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/parallax/parallax.html
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax#Stellar_parallax

    btw.
    In 1497 Copernicus’ uncle was ordained Bishop of Warmia (Poland) and Copernicus was named a canon at Frombork Cathedral. You can not call him atheist.

    Comment by :) :) — May 30, 2007 @ 5:36 am | Reply

  746. Tyler,

    You see? Even though he’s a frikkin’ lunatic, Sisyphus and I get along just fine. Why can’t we all just be friends?! 😉

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 5:44 am | Reply

  747. So, because I don’t believe in a supernatural deity, I’m now a “nihilist”?

    Sisyphus, ya gotta stop using big words that you don’t understand. Really, you’re just embarrassing yourself in front of all these nice people. Are you also averse to using a dictionary now and again, or is that against your Christian teachings?

    “An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.” Can’t put it any simpler than that.

    “Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman deity or deities, usually involving devotional and ritual observances such as keeping the sabbath holy, attending church and offering prayer.”

    By that rationale, atheism is not a religion. QED

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 30, 2007 @ 5:53 am | Reply

  748. Hmmm. Am I all alone in my method of reasoning? I can’t be the only person who thinks the way I do… or am I?

    Can I get a show of hands for everyone who agrees with my comments above? Sisyphus already agreed with me for all the wrong reasons… but how about you Tyler?

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 6:04 am | Reply

  749. Well faith isn’t based on evidence where science is so I’m going to disagree and say that science isn’t faith. You don’t need evidence to disprove something, just a lack of evidence to prove it or evidence to the contrary.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 30, 2007 @ 6:18 am | Reply

  750. Cyriac, the fact that Sisyphus has already agreed with you for all the *wrong* reasons should be feedback enough – even without a show of hands.

    One thing you mentioned above: Atheists “believe” that there is no God or an all-powerful deity. That very belief is built on “Faith” which is part of our innate “Belief systems”…

    I’m an atheist because of the lack of evidence of a supernatural deity. Atheism is not a faith. “Faith” is just a cop-out, an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence available to us. “Faith” is belief, in spite of, even perhaps because of, the LACK of evidence, whereas I choose to trust the evidence.

    I am well able to function in the world without the need for a supernatural security blanket called religion/god.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 30, 2007 @ 6:22 am | Reply

  751. “Well faith isn’t based on evidence whereas science is”

    That’s true. But you’re missing the point. The “Method of Science” is based on proposed theories and gathering evidence to support it. And mind you – I’m a staunch supporter of the method of Science. However, I also realize that my support is still based on a “Faith” that I have in Science.

    For example – A scientist’s belief that his proposed theory is correct provides his motivation to work harder towards proving it with evidence. This is the behavior that I’m trying to emphasize. Science by itself is not a Religion… but the belief that “it’s a method that works” still requires a certain degree of “Faith”.

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 6:33 am | Reply

  752. Cyriac, I see you point, however I wonder if you are using the word “Faith” with regard to science, where the word “Passion”, “initiative” or “Enthusiasm” would be better used.

    Also, as you stated: “A scientist’s belief that his proposed theory is correct provides his motivation to work harder towards proving it with evidence…” – and as soon as the evidence shows otherwise, the scientist changes his view, updates his theory – this does not happen with religions faith/belief.

    Show a true believer no evidence whatsoever and their faith will remain *or* become stronger for the fact that there is no evidence (back to that “He works in mysterious ways” nonsense!). This is not how science works otherwise we’d be back in the dark ages!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 30, 2007 @ 6:48 am | Reply

  753. Lemme put things into perspective – String Theory came up with the conclusion that there are actually 10 physical dimensions in our universe, of which we can only perceive 3 of them… we all know which dimensions those are. We call them X, Y and Z. ‘Time’ could be considered a 11th dimension.

    Now, mind you – it’s only a theory at this point. So we must not take it at face value until more evidence comes through. The most convincing evidence so far, is the obvious fact that 3 dimensions are the bare minimum for life to exist. Even without conclusive evidence, we are still allowed to think beyond and about the implications of such a result… Could it be that we are stuck in 3 dimensions and our puny brains are incapable of comprehending anything beyond that? Should we re-assess the current “Method of Science” since it currently only accepts evidence that our brains can comprehend?

    You see where I’m going with this? If I was to rate how well an idea answers the big questions in life between 0 and 100… I’d place Religion at 95/100. Sure, it may not be a sincere answer, but it’s still significant in the very malleable human mind. At the other extreme, Science is still at x/100. A few decades ago Einstein made x = 35. After String theory became more prominent than the Einstein school of thought, x = 10. In other words – If you join the path of Science, you’ll never know how much there is left to know.

    Check out this really cool video that gives a really nice perspective into this way of thought –
    http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 7:01 am | Reply

  754. I guess what I was trying to say was – is “evidence” enough to conclusively prove a theorem? Luckily, the beauty of Science is in it’s ability to continually question itself.

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 7:08 am | Reply

  755. For Sisyphus’ sake, I’d like to reword my previous comment –
    “Luckily, the beauty of Science is in it’s ability to continually question itself AND provide elegant answers to them.”

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 7:30 am | Reply

  756. This is what is wrong with the world. How much time have all of us spent reading and commenting on this. Why should Sam Brownback care if the Earth is standing still, or flying through Space time, or hanging from a string in some giant superior beings bedroom? Sam brownback will lose on the issues. “Fixing the Family” is not the answer. Dissolving the family might be, but probably not. Having the government get out of all our business, personal and otherwise. The government should protect you from my swinging fost, to paraphrase a wonderful chief justice. The vitriol you spew sisyphus, the name calling, shows that while you have read the bible, you do not understand it. Furthermore, your President Bush has let the moneychangers in the temple. We all know what came from that. This is totaly tasteless, but maybe 9/11 was a punishment for letting the money changers (Exxon, Haliburton, et. al) in the temple (the executive). Tell me what you think of my friend who runs around with a bunch of other guys, isn’t married, has long hair and preaches free love. Anyway, when the reveloution comes, Mot of us will end up with our brains splayed against the wall because we choose to think. Hope you enjoy what’s left when the brain trust is gone sisyphus.

    Comment by Shrugging Atlas — May 30, 2007 @ 7:31 am | Reply

  757. Sorry, after all that rambling, I forgot to make my point – The belief that “Science works” is based on a Faith. At the same time – I believe that Science works because I have faith in it. Probably sounds like roundabout reasoning, but considering how little we really know about this Universe (at least in Physics), we cannot reject the existence of a deity altogether. Of course, I don’t believe in a deity… but there again – that belief is based on a “Faith”.

    But hey!… everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs.

    Science rulez! Now, let me back to having a life.

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 7:45 am | Reply

  758. I wish commenters here had to pass a drug test before they were permitted to press ‘submit’.

    Comment by DPS — May 30, 2007 @ 7:47 am | Reply

  759. >>At the same time – I believe that Science works because I have faith in it.

    One could also argue that science would work even if you didn’t have faith in it. Maybe it would just *work*. I don’t see how faith could somehow influence the workings of science. They’re both seperate entities.

    Science works as an independent process; add in any type of an agenda, bias or faith and the results get skewed. Best to leave science to itself.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 30, 2007 @ 7:57 am | Reply

  760. DPS – if you’ve nothing of value to add the conversation why not just run along and play with your toy soldiers or have a nap – the adults are trying to talk.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 30, 2007 @ 8:00 am | Reply

  761. Aww DPS… C’mon! You just discredited everything I just said with a joke. Damn all humans and their easily influenced minds.

    PS. I have to admit I AM HIGH on caffeine right now. If you notice all my comments, they span over the whole of last night. I’m a CS grad student working on my thesis and right now, I technically have no life. Still… I demand recognition for my hard work on the comments above… I…

    ZZZZZzzz…

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 8:10 am | Reply

  762. So when humans land on Mars and the cosmonauts don’t feel any ‘movement’ on the planet, then the issue will be resolved, right?

    Comment by dobbie — May 30, 2007 @ 8:12 am | Reply

  763. Tyler, you said –

    “One could also argue that science would work even if you didn’t have faith in it. Maybe it would just *work*. I don’t see how faith could somehow influence the workings of science. They’re both separate entities.”

    But step outside your body (I mean hypothetically!) and look back at yourself… the very fact that your brain is only 3 dimensional might indicate that your reasoning is flawed. In a 3D world, what you say is quite solid, but the fact remains – we really can’t tell for sure because our brains might not even be able to comprehend the truth beyond 3 dimensions. It almost seems like Science led us to a dead end. Luckily for us, there’s always Math to help Physicists represent more than 3 dimensions in any context. So don’t give up hope… whoops! There’s my Faith again.

    When Human Science is able to conclusively answer everything about this Universe and maybe even beyond the known Universe, it will cease to be a “Faith” and become a “Truth”.

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 8:57 am | Reply

  764. I have ben thinking, and why are we arguing heliocentrism when most of the physics I read invloves a center to the universe from whence all galaxies came. heliocentrism is outdated, like gaia-centrism, and galactic-centrism, and homo-centrism, and most other -centrisms. As Einstein supposed, it’s all relative

    Comment by Shrugging Atlas — May 30, 2007 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  765. “I am well able to function in the world without the need for a supernatural security blanket called religion/god.”

    If there’s ANY statement conclusively disproven by this thread, I think it’s that one. Why can’t you be more like Cyriac, Tyler? He agrees with you, but he’s civil about it.

    “So when humans land on Mars and the cosmonauts don’t feel any ‘movement’ on the planet, then the issue will be resolved, right?”

    How will they get there? Are they going to paddle through the ether? Get real. For all we know, Mars is a tiny dot located a couple thousand miles from here. It’s beyond airplane reach, but beyond that I’m unwilling to conclude anything about it. Unlike you, I’m waiting until all the facts are in, and I’ve been there myself.

    “I have ben thinking, and why are we arguing heliocentrism when most of the physics I read invloves a center to the universe from whence all galaxies came. heliocentrism is outdated, like gaia-centrism, and galactic-centrism, and homo-centrism, and most other -centrisms. As Einstein supposed, it’s all relative”

    The Earth is immobile, and probably flat and disc-shaped, with the edge at Antarctica and the center at the North Pole. Beyond that, I’m unwilling to conclude anything about the Universe. Einstein was more wrong than right, though, and that’s putting it diplomatically.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 30, 2007 @ 9:46 am | Reply

  766. I am almost certain this essay is a joke as are all the comments made by the author. Just for fun and to see what humorous comments can be gathered.

    The steps involved:
    -Decide upon a topic (could have used the Earth is flat but it would have been much harder and less personal for people, too obviously a joke)
    -Write up a fair well written serious sounding essay
    -Put it on the internet
    -Watch as hilarity ensues

    If I were less lazy / had more time on my hands I would love doing this myself one day.

    Comment by Tim — May 30, 2007 @ 10:42 am | Reply

  767. Philippe Chantreau [Member] May 29, 2007 @ 10:22 pm writes:
    I checked the link and there were a few more pearls by the author and some respondents, such as: “Einstein was a fraud. Relativity is pure claptrap 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. As for those offering evidence the Earth is flat, I have to say that you may be on to something.” It looks as if the all thing is actually a spoof on the politician that the site is supposed to support. The all thing is so excessive, it’s hard to tell!

    Copied from a blog on Scientific American’s web site:
    http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=heliocentrism_is_the_devil&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&ref=rss

    Thats great! Very funny.

    Note – Last comment (in the steps involved section) should have read:
    -Write up a fairly well written serious sounding essay

    Sorry to ruin your fun.

    Comment by Tim — May 30, 2007 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  768. DPS, sorry, but I just couldn’t let this one go by

    “I wish commenters here had to pass a drug test before they were permitted to press ’submit’.”

    You’re not talking about banning people high on the opiate of the masses are you?

    Comment by Shane — May 30, 2007 @ 11:19 am | Reply

  769. MOONBATS BRUN IN HELL! BRIWNBACK FOR PRESIDENT!!!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 30, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  770. I think that like some who commented, that this has got to be a joke. No one sane, today, believes that the earth does not move. Some one please tell me that Brownback really did not say such things. Even creationists are not that stupid.

    Comment by gerald martin — May 30, 2007 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

  771. what I really just can’t get over is the fact that sisyphus believes that his opinion is in the majority with “real” america and the senator brownback is going to win the presidency. It’s one thing to have a theory about planets millions of miles away, but to not recognize the feelings of people who are all around you…..

    If brownback wins the presidency, I will accept the jesus christ as the one and almighty god and my savior, and accept creationism and heliocentrism and anything else that the bible says is true.

    Comment by sherald — May 30, 2007 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  772. Sisyphus, I find it commical that you’ll continue arguing for your position while your religion and and religious leader has confessed the scientists to be accurate.

    Comment by Xytrex — May 30, 2007 @ 12:43 pm | Reply

  773. Sisyphus,
    your stated opinion on interplanetary travel(“How will they get there? Are they going to paddle through the ether?”) and use of the Michelson-Morley experiment to support your initial hypothesis are clearly at odds. The Michelson-Morley experiment was intended to disprove the existence of the ‘luminiferous aether’ (the ‘ether’ you refer to), and in that it was successful. Trivial as it may be, I am using this example purely because it is the most recent of the fallacies and abuses of what might otherwise be valid evidence (for whichever side). Try to use reasoning which is slightly less suspect.

    Oh, and lay off the ether – you may begin to see sense.

    Comment by Dialethia — May 30, 2007 @ 1:36 pm | Reply

  774. You want to know what hell is? Living in a world where faith informs more people than science. I feel bad for your children who will be just as brainwashed as you. The most insidious line in the Bible is where Jesus says to the Apostles, “It is to such as these that the the Kingdom of Heaven belongs,” referring to children. That’s right, get ’em while they’re young, before they have a chance to think for themselves. You want to know what holds back the progress of society? Religion.

    Comment by Anti-Christ — May 30, 2007 @ 4:25 pm | Reply

  775. I think Sisyphus and his kind are quite genuine in what they’re preaching here. Mostly because I’ve actually met people like him. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to all of you… since this is America after all. An alarming 70% of Americans believe that Evolution, if true, must have been guided by a higher being. And of these, 40% of Americans outrightly reject the theory of Evolution i.e. creationists. At least, these are the statistics that a prof. from the Biology dept told me. I didn’t try to find a reliable online poll… but it’s still an alarming number. Thank God I’m not American!

    Waitaminute… did I just thank God? Crap! Damn English and it’s cursed popular phrases!

    Comment by Cyriac — May 30, 2007 @ 4:43 pm | Reply

  776. Comment by Dialethia: “Sisyphus, your stated opinion on interplanetary travel… and use of the Michelson-Morley experiment to support your initial hypothesis are clearly at odds.”

    Looks like the crown is starting to slip. Having trouble keeping your story straight, eh Sisyphus? (See my comment #714)

    I guess the Emperor has no new clothes…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — May 30, 2007 @ 5:19 pm | Reply

  777. Oh, great. Yet another bead-wearing, patchouli-drenched Socialist shows up to tout the ridiculous lies of Michelson and Morley. Terrific. We hadn’t heard about *those* before. That changes everything.

    Comment by DPS — May 30, 2007 @ 5:21 pm | Reply

  778. Comment 778: Oh, great. Yet another bead-wearing, patchouli-drenched Socialist shows up to tout the ridiculous lies of Michelson and Morley. Terrific. We hadn’t heard about *those* before. That changes everything.

    >But the experiment is true. If you want to verify for yourself, repeat the experiment. And it’s not good to judge people before you know them. And it’s not good to adopt a sarcastic tone on the internet, as people don’t know whether or not you’re serious.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 30, 2007 @ 8:03 pm | Reply

  779. I would venture to guess that there is nothing that anyone could say that would or could convince you that your position is false.

    Comment by Thomas — May 30, 2007 @ 9:05 pm | Reply

  780. First of all if you are actually serious you far too stupid and ignorant of reality to lead a nation.

    Second, to witness the earth moving through the cosmos, watch the position of the stars nightly. The stars do not stay in the same location as they would if the earth was stationary with the universe revolving around it. This was evident to Copernicus and actual scholars who use evidence rather than tradition to dictate reality. Their observations created the mathematics that allow scientists to send men to the moon and put satellites in space.

    Most importantly you should really reexamine your life because you ignore reality in favor of believing the writing of people who didn’t understand anything about the natural world. If it were possible to go back in time and show these same people something as simple as a plastic bag, they would drop to their knees in disbelief that God could create such a wonderful object. Reality is that humans created plastic bags just as they created the idea of God. This was because they could not explain the universe with the amount of evidence available. You believe in an all knowing being of pure love that allows unmeasurable suffering and injustice in the world. A being that no one has ever seen, and exists in a different context on every corner of the earth. Coincidently though, the Christian American version is the correct version of this being. Think about it.

    Comment by Intelligent human — May 30, 2007 @ 9:08 pm | Reply

  781. “>But the experiment is true. If you want to verify for yourself, repeat the experiment.”

    OK. I’ll just put this block of marble I happen to have right here into this old pool of mercury I have sitting around … hey! I could have sworn I had a pool of mercury right here like two seconds ago.

    This is clearly a scam perpetrated by Big Marble and/or Big Mercury. They’re not going to sucker me, though.

    “And it’s not good to judge people before you know them. And it’s not good to adopt a sarcastic tone on the internet, as people don’t know whether or not you’re serious.”

    Are you being sarcastic?

    Comment by DPS — May 30, 2007 @ 10:25 pm | Reply

  782. If we could find the body of Jesus (assuming he’s real and he has a corpse), we could wrap his corpse in copper wire and put a large magnet perpendicular to the wire. Then if we give Sisyphus all the bandwidth he could ever want, we could generate enough electricity through the rolling over of Jesus in his grave to provide lighting, heat, and other electrical benefits for all of Africa (and then some). Seriously.

    It’s kind of funny we’ve used logic and reason to solve countless problems, creating unimaginable technologies (medicine, computers) and exploring the very fabric of the universe (quantums, astrophysics), and yet we cant figure out how to use logic and reason to move a-lump-on-a-log.

    Comment by Iri — May 30, 2007 @ 11:45 pm | Reply

  783. I’m still waiting for your explanation of why a Focault pendulum behaves the way it does if the Earth is not rotating. And no, “God makes it do that,” is not an adequate explanation.

    Comment by kilolani — May 31, 2007 @ 1:19 am | Reply

  784. “The Earth is immobile, and probably flat and disc-shaped, with the edge at Antarctica and the center at the North Pole. Beyond that, I’m unwilling to conclude anything about the Universe. Einstein was more wrong than right, though, and that’s putting it diplomatically.”

    Wouldn’t that make crossing the Antarctic impossible?

    Those darn fraudster travel agents are charging three grand for “holidays crossing the Antarctic” Obviously it’s in some sort of studio hoax perpetrated by us heliofraudster, Einstein lovin’, Copernican, vegan, Atheist, Heathen Satanists.

    Yes, that was sarcasm.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 31, 2007 @ 2:33 am | Reply

  785. You know, it’s sad to think you feel that 10k devote Christians who are astrologists who would argue with you about the Earth not revolving around the Sun are atheists. You do realize that 80% of the “irrational, atheist American-haters” you’ve labeled in your triade here are actually God-faring people? That they believe in God and read the Bible and go to Church on Sunday?

    Sad, really. I’m hoping your blog is a joke, because it’s too insane to be someone’s real belief.

    Come outside of the hole, Sis, and join the rest of the real people. Christ will still love you if you do.

    Comment by mcclaud — May 31, 2007 @ 2:48 am | Reply

  786. Sorry, correct “astrologists” with “astronomers and physicists.” Astrologists are fortune tellers that use the stars. We’re talking about real scientists.

    I got so caught up in your irrational name calling and pseudo-science that I used the wrong word.

    Comment by mcclaud — May 31, 2007 @ 3:01 am | Reply

  787. I had to get into this – it’s just appalling. Like McClaud pointed out above, most good Christian folk believe that the earth revolves around the sun, because, well, we’re not mentally retarded.

    I’d ask the atheists and non-Christians to not judge the lot of us based off idiots like the author of this blog.

    Comment by Ahab — May 31, 2007 @ 6:10 am | Reply

  788. […] Die Erde kreist um meinen … Veröffentlicht in von connaisseur am 31. Mai 2007 Kopf (natürlich) […]

    Pingback by Die Erde kreist um meinen ... « Mensaverbindung Fergenhansia — May 31, 2007 @ 7:44 am | Reply

  789. “I’m still waiting for your explanation of why a Focault pendulum behaves the way it does if the Earth is not rotating. And no, “God makes it do that,” is not an adequate explanation.”

    The Moon may influence the results.

    “Wouldn’t that make crossing the Antarctic impossible?”

    Yes, unless you wanted to traverse Hell on the return trip.

    “Those darn fraudster travel agents are charging three grand for “holidays crossing the Antarctic” Obviously it’s in some sort of studio hoax perpetrated by us heliofraudster, Einstein lovin’, Copernican, vegan, Atheist, Heathen Satanists.”

    They don’t offer these tours, for exactly the reason I’ve given.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 8:07 am | Reply

  790. Except that crossing the antarctic has been done several times. You can even do it yourself if you want. Seriously, look into it.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 31, 2007 @ 9:00 am | Reply

  791. “Except that crossing the antarctic has been done several times. You can even do it yourself if you want. Seriously, look into it.”

    I’m sure they fly along the edge all the time; but don’t expect me to trust the military officials, scientists, and small groups of easily-silence observers who traverse that part of the planet. Those guys all have an agenda, and I’m not falling for it.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 9:05 am | Reply

  792. Well, you’re obviously the sort of person who likes to see things for themself. Why not go there and check it out. Then you’ll be able to report back first hand on the edge of the world thing. I mean if you’d actually seen it yourself who could silence you?

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 31, 2007 @ 9:16 am | Reply

  793. “The Earth is immobile, and probably flat and disc-shaped, with the edge at Antarctica and the center at the North Pole”

    Woow, I have waited for something like this, realy :))))))
    I personally know a man who has been on Antarctica and crossed south pole, I must ask him how he did it and didn’t fall from the edge of world.

    Man, the world you’re describing exists only in your mind. It is really, really small world. Take look around, reality is much bigger and much more interesting than your seek imaginations.

    Comment by :) :) — May 31, 2007 @ 9:17 am | Reply

  794. “Well, you’re obviously the sort of person who likes to see things for themself. Why not go there and check it out. Then you’ll be able to report back first hand on the edge of the world thing. I mean if you’d actually seen it yourself who could silence you?”

    I can’t afford to go down there, and even if I could, I’d just freeze to death once I got there. If the government sends me, they’ll just torture me into silence about what I really saw later. I apologize, but in my opinion no one witness is likely to be reliable until we get tons and tons of people over there.

    “I personally know a man who has been on Antarctica and crossed south pole, I must ask him how he did it and didn’t fall from the edge of world.”

    If he’s not being paid by the government to lie to you, and he’s being honest, he’ll have to tell you that he walked along the edge. I assume it’s a visible distinction between snow and edge, but I’m not sure what it looks like. If he knows, I’d be eager to ask him about it.

    “Man, the world you’re describing exists only in your mind. It is really, really small world. Take look around, reality is much bigger and much more interesting than your seek imaginations.”

    Say “no” to drugs.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 9:23 am | Reply

  795. Sisyphus, what is the circumference of the flat disk shaped Earth? I mean approximately. I was just wondering how long it would take someone to walk compared with, oh I don’t know, walking across an ice covered continent.

    Now if you really can’t afford it I’m sure we could have a whip round for boat or plane fare. We might even stretch to a nice warm coat…and a map.

    Comment by hoverfrog — May 31, 2007 @ 9:35 am | Reply

  796. NASA dudes have this covered up for years man, don’t trust the government, no way!! Do it and see it 4 yourself, ya hear? The only way. Why else the “malfunction” of Hubble telescope, huh? Think about it…

    Surfing’s the source, save your life, swear to God.

    Forget Brownback, Sisyphus for President! You rock man!!

    Comment by The Silver Surfer — May 31, 2007 @ 9:53 am | Reply

  797. The original Geocentrism, the one that Heliocentrism displaced, included not only the idea of the Sun revolving around the Earth, but also all of the planets, and the stars set in a sphere at a fixed distance from the Earth. There is no appeal to equivalent frames of reference that can rescue such a Geocentrism. Venus and Mercury just do not go around the Earth, no matter what frame of reference you adopt, and the stars are at radically different distances, and move relative to one another.

    “E pur si muove!”

    Comment by David Conrad — May 31, 2007 @ 12:07 pm | Reply

  798. This one’s for all of you… especially you Sisyphus…
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344

    Get a frikkin’ perspective!

    Comment by Cyriac — May 31, 2007 @ 4:05 pm | Reply

  799. “Sisyphus, what is the circumference of the flat disk shaped Earth? I mean approximately. I was just wondering how long it would take someone to walk compared with, oh I don’t know, walking across an ice covered continent.”

    I don’t know. About a zillion miles, I guess.

    “Now if you really can’t afford it I’m sure we could have a whip round for boat or plane fare. We might even stretch to a nice warm coat…and a map.”

    Well, if it’s your treat, I’ll check it out! Thanks!

    “Forget Brownback, Sisyphus for President! You rock man!!”

    Thank you! Maybe the Brownback Presidency will offer me a Cabinet post, and that can be my launchpad into politics. Stranger things have happened…

    “The original Geocentrism, the one that Heliocentrism displaced, included not only the idea of the Sun revolving around the Earth, but also all of the planets, and the stars set in a sphere at a fixed distance from the Earth. There is no appeal to equivalent frames of reference that can rescue such a Geocentrism. Venus and Mercury just do not go around the Earth, no matter what frame of reference you adopt, and the stars are at radically different distances, and move relative to one another.”

    Waves in the ether could distort the astronomical data. Ether is water, and it fills the area between Earth and the Sun; a few ripples could easily warp your precious results.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 4:16 pm | Reply

  800. Thanks for the blasphemous video, Cyriac!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

  801. “Finally Beth agrees that children should not be taught helioleftism!!! I love it when we make progress like this! I makes all this commenting worthwhile… Woohoo!!! Go, Beth! Go, Beth!”

    Wow… A little sarcasm *does* go a long way. Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

    It’s been fun guys. I skip along now to watch the sunset, the glorious result of the Earth doing it’s thang around the sun. Cheerio!

    Comment by Beth — May 31, 2007 @ 5:07 pm | Reply

  802. [self-spellcheck] Apologies: that “it’s” should be “its”. [/self-spellcheck]

    Comment by Beth — May 31, 2007 @ 5:08 pm | Reply

  803. “It’s been fun guys. I skip along now to watch the sunset, the glorious result of the Earth doing it’s thang around the sun. Cheerio!”

    The Sun goes around the Earth. If it didn’t, when our elliptical orbit neared it we’d all be roasted alive.

    Sunsets are pretty. It’s too rainy here to get one. I’m jealous!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 5:10 pm | Reply

  804. The second “it’s,” that is.

    Comment by Beth — May 31, 2007 @ 5:10 pm | Reply

  805. I will certainly never vote for Brownback.

    Comment by Scott — May 31, 2007 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  806. 804: The Sun goes around the Earth. If it didn’t, when our elliptical orbit neared it we’d all be roasted alive.
    >Our Earth’s orbit is not THAT eccentric (see you algebra textbook for a definition of an ellipse). However, you would be correct, although being “roasted alive” is quite a hyperbole for “having a bit more sunshine”.

    Comment by lietk12 — May 31, 2007 @ 8:03 pm | Reply

  807. I miss Beth. I feel like she was just starting to come around.

    May I do a memorial boggle in her name?

    *boggle*

    Wow. I see why she did that all the time. If you’re there, Beth, I’m sorry! I understand now. Come back.

    As for lietk12, I still think he’s pretty eccentric. I do not think he should be roasted alive, however. Not yet, anyway. I think he might still wake up and smell the aether.

    I don’t know who Scott is, and personally I hope he burns in H-E-L-L. That’s up to the good Lord, of course. I’ll just drop a slip in the suggestion box, if you know what I mean!

    Comment by DPS — May 31, 2007 @ 11:02 pm | Reply

  808. You’re doin’ a heckuva job, Brownie!

    Comment by Flying Spaghetti Monster — June 1, 2007 @ 2:19 am | Reply

  809. I love the fact you don’t back up your argument with any proof aside from a few quotes from the bible. Remmeber this has been mistranslated over a couple of thousand years, and there are many different versions of it in existance even today. Also, i enjoyed your point about anti-Americanism – very clever – add that in an no one can shout at you, as it’s then anti-American. Nice. Though, to be fair, if God does exist, i’m sure he doesn’t care where you’re from – isn’t that the point, to kind of love everyone and all get along? I mean, obviously there’s the hate gays and bomb the shit out of anyone that disagrees with the big boys, but apart from that it’s all about niceness isn’t it? Whatever happend there.

    Anyway, to conclude my point.An interesting, if irrelevant (and, of course, totally and factually incorrect) article, so tell me, as a senator, shouldn’t you be doing something more productive with your time? Like helping the poor people of Kansas? Or is that anti-American? Certainly seems that way.

    Comment by Alex — June 1, 2007 @ 3:00 am | Reply

  810. Comment by Sisyphus: Sunsets are pretty. It’s too rainy here to get one. I’m jealous!

    How can you tell it’s rainy from your padded cell?

    Yo dude, how do keep a blog goin’ from a padded cell? you could write a book on it, sell to ebay man! Yeah.

    Comment by The Silver Surfer — June 1, 2007 @ 4:13 am | Reply

  811. If you could only know how incredibly insane you actually are the world would be a much better place and death wouldn’t matter.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 1, 2007 @ 5:14 am | Reply

  812. “However, you would be correct, although being “roasted alive” is quite a hyperbole for “having a bit more sunshine”.”

    Well, that’s an optimistic way of describing planetary destruction.

    “Anyway, to conclude my point.An interesting, if irrelevant (and, of course, totally and factually incorrect) article, so tell me, as a senator, shouldn’t you be doing something more productive with your time? Like helping the poor people of Kansas? Or is that anti-American? Certainly seems that way.”

    I’m not Brownback, Alex. I’m a Brownbacker. Big difference. Rest assured, if I’m ever a Senator, I won’t have time to blog.

    “How can you tell it’s rainy from your padded cell?”

    Big talk, from a comic book character.

    “If you could only know how incredibly insane you actually are the world would be a much better place and death wouldn’t matter.”

    What do I call this? Frightening? Insane? Nihilistic? Suicidal? Tyler, you need professional help.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 5:27 am | Reply

  813. I’m Sam Brownback, and I approve this blog.

    Comment by Sam Brownback — June 1, 2007 @ 5:40 am | Reply

  814. Ok, so if earth is fixed, then why does it not have continual sunlight in one part of the world and perpetual dark in the another? And no, I don’t mean 6 months at the poles. I mean, unblinking sunlight burning at a part of the surface and freezing night at another.
    Have you ever been committed for insanity? If so, why aren’t you taking medication?
    If you are just seriously religious, why don’t you stop speaking in tongues and actually learn the language you’re trying to think in.

    Here’s a challenge, go to antartica, go to the south pole. Get out a compass.
    Even better, go to Mt. Everest. Look at the curve of the earth.
    Or how about, try to shine light on a large ball. Does it appear anything like how the light spreads across the moon?

    Comment by Andrew McPherson — June 1, 2007 @ 6:17 am | Reply

  815. Aha, you’re not him, OK, apols. That makes a whole lot more sense why you have so much time on your hands to misuse. I’m annoyed i didn’t pick that up earlier though…

    Comment by Alex — June 1, 2007 @ 6:32 am | Reply

  816. Funny.

    Comment by littleandy — June 1, 2007 @ 6:59 am | Reply

  817. >> “If you could only know how incredibly insane you actually are the world would be a much better place and death wouldn’t matter.”

    >> What do I call this? Frightening? Insane? Nihilistic? Suicidal? Tyler, you need professional help.

    Wasn’t me Sisyphus, just somebody baiting I guess. Can you check IP address or the email address for that entry? Thanks.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 1, 2007 @ 7:03 am | Reply

  818. “I miss Beth.”

    Aw, and just a few days ago you wanted to ban me. Such fickle beings we are, us humans…

    “I feel like she was just starting to come around.”

    Nope, not gonna come around. I’m just as set in my ways as you are.

    “May I do a memorial boggle in her name?… *boggle*… Wow. I see why she did that all the time. If you’re there, Beth, I’m sorry! I understand now. Come back.”

    Aw, are you still stuck on that issue? You really should get something done about that. 😉 You can be something of a jerk, you know. But then again, I gather that, in truth, you relish in this, and so I’m not even really insulting you by saying so. If I were the type of person who cared about “winning,” this might bother me. Good thing for both our sakes I am not that sort of person.

    That being said, you were kind enough to actually address a few of my questions. I don’t buy your answers, but at least you answered, and for that I thank you. Cheers, and good day to you.

    Sisyphus, however, has yet to explain why he feels I’m a self-righteous tree-hugger. If you’re going to call names, Sisyphus, you need to back it up, or you just look frantic. Show me examples of where I was both self-righteous and a tree-hugger. And what the hey, if you have Biblical verses to back those up too, knock yourself out.

    Comment by Beth — June 1, 2007 @ 8:23 am | Reply

  819. What I Think About Evolution
    by Sam Brownback

    In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

    The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

    The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

    People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

    The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

    There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

    The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

    Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

    Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.

    The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

    While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

    Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.
    Sam Brownback.

    Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

    Comment by Senator Sam Brownback — June 1, 2007 @ 9:24 am | Reply

  820. Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas… and a douchebag!!

    Comment by The Silver Surfer — June 1, 2007 @ 9:29 am | Reply

  821. Feel free to comment on my NY Times article: http://brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm

    Or any other method that is convenient to you: http://brownback.senate.gov/english/contactme/index.htm

    Thanks for the support. Vote Brownback!

    Comment by Senator Sam Brownback — June 1, 2007 @ 9:38 am | Reply

  822. If making a nonsense post about killing science (and human intelligence at all) is enough to get me 817 comments, well… I might take his side. Just be sure to comment me!

    Comment by Snipe — June 1, 2007 @ 10:08 am | Reply

  823. First, forgive me for tempting my beloved Jerry with my m—–a, it was what caused him to stray. Second forgive Jerry for swallowing thy s–d.
    And this year, I will vote to Bareback Brownback…yummy.

    [Edited for family-friendliness- this sort of smut is intolerable, sir!]

    Comment by Jerry Falwells G-y Lover — June 1, 2007 @ 11:19 am | Reply

  824. “Ok, so if earth is fixed, then why does it not have continual sunlight in one part of the world and perpetual dark in the another?”

    Probably, the Sun is smaller and closer than some people think it is.

    “Have you ever been committed for insanity?”

    Why no, I haven’t.

    “If you are just seriously religious, why don’t you stop speaking in tongues and actually learn the language you’re trying to think in.”

    I’m not sure what you mean, here.

    “Here’s a challenge, go to antartica, go to the south pole. Get out a compass.”

    That’s a challenge, indeed, since there is no such place.

    “Even better, go to Mt. Everest. Look at the curve of the earth.”

    I don’t think I’ll see it. If I did, it could be easily explained by lack of oxygen, distortions in air/weather, etc.

    “Or how about, try to shine light on a large ball. Does it appear anything like how the light spreads across the moon?”

    You assume your answer is correct before you propose this analogy.

    “Can you check IP address or the email address for that entry? Thanks.”

    Okay. Sorry. Thought it was you. That person needs some medical help, though. They sound very depressed.

    “Sisyphus, however, has yet to explain why he feels I’m a self-righteous tree-hugger. If you’re going to call names, Sisyphus, you need to back it up, or you just look frantic. Show me examples of where I was both self-righteous and a tree-hugger. And what the hey, if you have Biblical verses to back those up too, knock yourself out.”

    Well, for starters, you oppose the colonization and the resultant deforestation of these United States. That’s the typical treefrog position. I don’t need a Bible to prove that, all we have to do is attend a left-wing protest march.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  825. Hi Senator Brownback! Thanks for coming by. Please ignore the liberal whack-os. I just know you’re doing to do great in the primaries and then beat whatever atheist Defeatocrat runs in the general. Everybody I know is excited and has a really good feeling. Are you ever going to come to California? Parts of it aren’t so bad. Anyway, you should come give a speech. I think it would be neat to meet you, and sometimes I think about what that would be like, if I could meet you and we could just hang out. You seem pretty ‘cool’ and I think it would be a lot of fun.

    Anyway, I think you should write more columns. I also think you should campaign with Kirk Cameron, maybe on a bus, or at least in a big van. And if you don’t have an official campaign blogger yet, I don’t think you need to look any further than Sisyphus.

    In any case, please come back and visit B4B again!!!

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  826. Please visit again, Senator Brownback!

    This has, indeed, been an honor! (I think that’s really him. I checked the IP and everything!)

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

  827. There are different levels of stupidity and idiocy, this is the top. Nice job!

    Comment by Luca — June 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm | Reply

  828. WE LOVE YOUR BBROWNACKL!!! IM GOOING TO VOTE FOR YOYU!!!

    VOTE BROWNBACK!!! VOTE BROWNABCKL!! VOTE BROWNACBK!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — June 1, 2007 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  829. […] life) Right, so I go from not posting in a few, to posting 3 in one day. I stumbled across this blog, and, well, here are some choice […]

    Pingback by Words fail me « obscure views — June 1, 2007 @ 1:25 pm | Reply

  830. Wow, talk about helping the cause…ugh

    Comment by Xytrex — June 1, 2007 @ 1:44 pm | Reply

  831. 825: I don’t think I’ll see it. If I did, it could be easily explained by lack of oxygen, distortions in air/weather, etc.
    >Or insanity.

    Well, for starters, you oppose the colonization and the resultant deforestation of these United States. That’s the typical treefrog position.
    >You’re racist. Well, for starters, you seem to oppose any person who disagrees with you, including Native Americans who deserved the land that they acquired peacefully. That’s the typical bigoted position.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 1, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  832. Thanks for the libelous ad hominems, lietk12! I suppose it’s “racist” to oppose incidents like the Massacre at Zwaanendael, the destruction of Roanoke, and the mass murder of English women and children in King Phillip’s War.

    Go on, say it. Get your views out in the open, so that everyone can see how much of a fringe moonbat you are.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 1, 2007 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  833. One of the prerequisites of blind faith is blindness. We can’t both be blind and Understanding at the same time. For once Understanding sets in, we’re not blind anymore.

    Comment by Sue Ann Edwards — June 1, 2007 @ 5:07 pm | Reply

  834. “you oppose the colonization and the resultant deforestation of these United States.”

    I’m against genocide, and the form of colonialism which took place in the Americas included genocide. Never at any point have I said one thing about deforestation. That, good sir, is you making stuff up. I asked for examples, not fabrications. Try again.

    Comment by Beth — June 1, 2007 @ 6:54 pm | Reply

  835. Sue Ann Edwards:

    Marijuana use is both illegal and immoral.

    Beth:

    Do you wish North America weren’t so deforested?

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  836. Compared to some other countries the US doesn’t seem that deforested, but I could be wrong: I grew up in a rather rural area and was surrounded by trees all the time. Lovely, they are. Deforestation, though, is not an American issue; it’s a global issue. I think if we cut down every tree in the world it would be borrible and nothing on the planet would be any better for it. But there are admittedly other issues higher on my priority list. Like unjust wars and genocides and starving children and such. My guess is it’s difficult for people to enjoy nature when their minds are focused on whether or not they’ll be able to provide for their children, or whether or not their children will even live to see another day.

    Comment by Beth — June 1, 2007 @ 8:24 pm | Reply

  837. 833: Thanks for the libelous ad hominems, lietk12!
    >Ah. You don’t see the absurd reasoning in my second comment. No point trying to explain it to you. And my first comment is just stating a fact.

    I suppose it’s “racist” to oppose incidents like the Massacre at Zwaanendael, the destruction of Roanoke, and the mass murder of English women and children in King Phillip’s War.
    >I suppose you would burn me at the stake if I defended Joan of Arc. After all, she was a heretic and a “witch”. No doubt many more innocent people would have been killed. And then the fourth Crusade. The Crusaders forced a false emperors on the Byzantines. The Byzantines rebelled, and the Crusaders pillaged them, slaughtered many, trampled on the churches, and looted the buildings. No, I presume it’s okay for those things to happen.

    836: Marijuana use is both illegal and immoral.
    >Are you anti-philosophy? If so, why aren’t you against Aristotle (after all, “heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects”. Just try it with a lead ball and a hollow wood ball of the same volume and surface area.)?

    Comment by lietk12 — June 1, 2007 @ 8:33 pm | Reply

  838. Correction to the comment on 836: I oppose any use of drugs, but your non sequitur is very crude.
    Sort of like a child calling someone else a “girl” because that person doesn’t want to do something.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 1, 2007 @ 8:35 pm | Reply

  839. Oh, and by the way, not that I think my last post warrants tree-hugger status, and not that being a tree-hugger would even be a bad thing (How is that supposed to be an insult, anyway? But first things first:), but Sisyphus does not get to use that post as evidence, seeing as called me a tree-hugger before I made that post.

    Comment by Beth — June 1, 2007 @ 9:07 pm | Reply

  840. Beth:

    Ah, Beth. I am afraid that the horse of your confession to tree-huggery has already left the barn of your coyness. Your true feelings are now printed above for all to see, and they confirm all of our suspicions. But don’t worry. Just brush the bark off of your blouse and hop on Senator Brownback’s victory train.

    Comment by DPS — June 1, 2007 @ 10:02 pm | Reply

  841. “Ah, Beth. I am afraid that the horse of your confession to tree-huggery has already left the barn of your coyness. Your true feelings are now printed above for all to see, and they confirm all of our suspicions.”

    As I said, I would prefer prior evidence, as that is the single only evidence that even comes close to identifying me as a tree-hugger, and he called me one before I posted that, rendering his “insult” as-yet unjustified.

    “Just brush the bark off of your blouse and hop on Senator Brownback’s victory train.”

    No.

    Comment by Beth — June 1, 2007 @ 10:23 pm | Reply

  842. […] best post is definitely “Heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine.” That’s right; all that crap those science teachers have been shoveling you about the Earth […]

    Pingback by If this ain't satire, it sure should be. « globalizati — June 2, 2007 @ 12:09 am | Reply

  843. This video is hilarious. Bender (from Futurama) bumps into God while floating through the universe…

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8455549328884828318&q=bender+meets+god&hl=en

    To think that God has only human beings to worry about, is insanely arrogant. Frikkin’ humans. Get over yourself!

    Once a friend of mine and I, had a heated debate on Creationism/Evolution. This guy was a very devout Muslim (they also follow Genesis) and the argument got quite ugly. He accused me of being arrogant to know more than God. To assume that God took no part in Man’s creation was plain blasphemy. But since this dude was still a good friend, I managed to see it from his point of view… or at least his psyche.

    I tried a step by step approach before making a point. For example, we both agreed on human-like fossil remains that archaeologists dig up. We both agreed on “carbon dating” which is a very straightforward method of calculating the age of a fossil. We both agreed that there were hundreds of people from different backgrounds who cross-checked the results and published papers, reports, and journals on their experiments. The more people are involved, the less likely that the results can be manipulated. This means that someone like Sisyphus (except with more initiative) would challenge all these results and go about trying to disprove it themselves. That’s pretty much how science works… The more the merrier.

    Anyway, when I tried to tell my friend that all the human-like fossils showed a gradual change over time from ape to human… his reason just blanked out and he became overly defensive. He simply told me to read the Quran… it explains everything. Unlike what most of you think, the Quran is an extension of the old and new testaments. It even mentions Jesus as being a great person during his time.

    But at that moment, when this dude realized that reason was failing him, he simply switched on his Faith. I guess Ignorance is Bliss. Denying him that simple bliss would have been inconsiderate on my part. So I just said – “To each their own!”. So we left the argument there and went out for a beer. He had lemonade.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 2, 2007 @ 3:26 am | Reply

  844. Strongly held believes, rational or otherwise, are an imperative of evolution (see Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief by Lewis Wolpert). It seams clear that nobody is going to change Sisyphus’s beliefs. After all, believers have been burnt and eaten by beasts throughout history without changing their belief. Is this worth all this attention?

    Comment by iwik — June 2, 2007 @ 5:15 am | Reply

  845. “Ah, Beth. I am afraid that the horse of your confession to tree-huggery has already left the barn of your coyness. Your true feelings are now printed above for all to see, and they confirm all of our suspicions. But don’t worry. Just brush the bark off of your blouse and hop on Senator Brownback’s victory train.”

    Exactly. Having come out of the closet and justified my hunches, Beth does not get to invoke some sort of Debate Society rules to shroud her tree-huggery. Nor does she get to change the subject to genocide, starvation, etc., nor launch further ad hominems against me. I mean, she can do those things, of course, but none of them change the fact that she’s confessed to tree-hugging. 🙂

    “No.”

    Why not? Brownback’s campaign is an excellent place for reformed liberals. I used to be a Democrat myself, you know.

    “Once a friend of mine and I, had a heated debate on Creationism/Evolution. This guy was a very devout Muslim (they also follow Genesis) and the argument got quite ugly. He accused me of being arrogant to know more than God. To assume that God took no part in Man’s creation was plain blasphemy. But since this dude was still a good friend, I managed to see it from his point of view… or at least his psyche.”

    I would’ve told him that Allah is a moon god, the Kaabah is a pagan shrine, and he needn’t concern himself about the book of Genesis, as it is only relevant to the Judeo-Christian religions, not pagan ones. Still, it was nice of him to defend it, I suppose.

    “Anyway, when I tried to tell my friend that all the human-like fossils showed a gradual change over time from ape to human… his reason just blanked out and he became overly defensive. He simply told me to read the Quran… it explains everything. Unlike what most of you think, the Quran is an extension of the old and new testaments. It even mentions Jesus as being a great person during his time.”

    I’m sure the Wiccans mention him, too. Color me unimpressed. Anyway, fossils are rocks. Some of them may be real, some not. Some were probably planted by Satan to trick the rubes.

    “But at that moment, when this dude realized that reason was failing him, he simply switched on his Faith.”

    If his faith had been the True one, he would’ve won the argument as I’m winning this one.

    “I guess Ignorance is Bliss.”

    Why didn’t you try to convert him to Christianity? His soul is at stake, here!

    “Denying him that simple bliss would have been inconsiderate on my part. So I just said – “To each their own!”. So we left the argument there and went out for a beer. He had lemonade.”

    I still think he needs to embrace the Truth of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. On a side note, in his religion hard lemonade should still be haram.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 2, 2007 @ 5:27 am | Reply

  846. 846: I would’ve told him that Allah is a moon god, the Kaabah is a pagan shrine, and he needn’t concern himself about the book of Genesis, as it is only relevant to the Judeo-Christian religions, not pagan ones. Still, it was nice of him to defend it, I suppose.
    >Allah is NOT a moon god, unless the Christian god is also a moon god. The Kaabah WAS a pagan shrine, but was converted by the Muslims to a monotheistic one. Islam IS Judeo-Christian, as it DOES believe that Jesus and Abraham WERE prophets, but that Mohammed, not Jesus was the last one. You’re misusing the word “pagan”, as Islam DOES NOT have multiple gods.

    If his faith had been the True one, he would’ve won the argument as I’m winning this one.
    >Then his faith IS the True one. He “won” it like you’re “winning” it.

    Why didn’t you try to convert him to Christianity? His soul is at stake, here!
    >Ignorance is bliss for everyone.

    On a side note, in his religion hard lemonade should still be haram.
    >It is. But Cyriac didn’t say anything about hard lemonade. Stop adding, distorting, and removing facts from comments to make your own.

    >If the previous comments have seemed sarcastic, that’s because I was and am in a bad mood.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 2, 2007 @ 8:02 am | Reply

  847. Muslims seem like awful people. How can they blow themselves up and kill children? I think the best thing to do is to convert them all to Christianity right away. Convert them, or kill them.

    The world would be a much happier place if everyone were Christian!

    Comment by Marcia P. — June 2, 2007 @ 9:02 am | Reply

  848. Comment by Marcia P: “Convert them, or kill them.”

    And what about the 5th Commandment? Thou shalt not kill.

    Comment by Marcia P: “The world would be a much happier place if everyone were Christian!”

    And a whole lot dumber!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 2, 2007 @ 11:14 am | Reply

  849. 848: Muslims seem like awful people.
    >Actually, not all Muslims are evil. Saladin, who led the Muslims against the crusaders, captured many crusaders in the battle of the Horns of Hattin. Every soldier was either killed or sold into slavery (which has a Christian equivalent in America’s history). However, he gave gifts to all widows, orphans, and ensured the safety of fleeing principles. That’s what I call kindness in war (the Muslims had to defend their land, or risk the ensuing slaughter of Muslims and Jews from the crusaders). Osama bin Laden, etc. are just a group of evil fanatics who distort Islam’s principles to gain power and kill people in the name of God. Almost all religions have someone who distorts the true faith to gain power/kill/etc. in the name of God. The fanatics are irreverent, but they are the ones who make the news. When have you heard about a Muslim/Christian/Jew doing a simple act of kindness in the news? How many times have you read about the killing committed by people who are not well known? I have friends who are Muslim, and they actually have respect for people of other religions, unlike some people. We must strive to be the embodiment of benevolence and kindness that defines us, not hating, inhumane beings that can take over our families, nations, and even continents.

    Convert them, or kill them.
    >While it may seem reasonable to you, what happens after you kill them? What if a child converts but his parents don’t? Is he now an orphan? Will two friends be split apart by their decisions? What happened to the Christian principle of salvation of others? Do we want to repeat the holocaust? Is it humane to make thousands more innocent children suffer in the gas chambers of Hitler? Are human LIVES not worth keeping? Finally, the ones that don’t convert will be remembered as martyrs, as with the early Christians in the Roman times. Islam will surely be carried out in secret. And the ones that do convert will be hated, remembered as traitors who converted to a false faith (sort of like some parts of Christianity). The extremists and fanatics maybe can be offered the choice, but it is NOT right to massacre all the innocent Muslims. Don’t you understand that these are REAL, LIVING, HUMANS? How would you feel if people of your faith were offered to be experimented on or die? You proposition is just as misguided as the one I just described. Our descendants will remember us as the people who repeated the Holocaust and will live in either more shame or more hatred than today if we commit this crime against humanity. All humans have something in common, and it is to be cherished, not destroyed, oppressed, or thrown away because of our differences. WE CANNOT REPEAT THE HOLOCAUST!

    Comment by lietk12 — June 2, 2007 @ 11:39 am | Reply

  850. marcia p. is as “nuts” as i am. a christian who thinks killing is ok?

    “Why didn’t you try to convert him to Christianity? His soul is at stake, here!”

    sisyphus…how would you feel if someone tried to sit and convert you to their religion? oh!! i forgot. yours and only yours is the right one. right…

    Comment by sarah — June 2, 2007 @ 11:44 am | Reply

  851. “I think the best thing to do is to convert them all to Christianity right away. Convert them, or kill them.”

    There are over a billion of them, Marcia. Not only is this very unpleasant and very unChristian, it’s impossible. God will sort us all out in the end. His will, not ours, be done.

    “Saladin, who led the Muslims against the crusaders, captured many crusaders in the battle of the Horns of Hattin. Every soldier was either killed or sold into slavery”

    And you’re DEFENDING this behavior?

    “WE CANNOT REPEAT THE HOLOCAUST!”

    Agreed.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 2, 2007 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  852. OH MY DOG! this is the worst load of b******* i’ve ever read. “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.” NO WAY! “covariant” doesnt mean that! Absolutly not! no way! no! And STOP saying that relativity states that physical laws are the same in all reference frames. Relativity DOESN’T SAY THIS. Anyway, Galilei showed (4 hundred years ago) the geocentrism can’t explain Venus’ phases. If after 4 hundred years still someone can’t understand this… then fuck off.

    Comment by Jeeezuz form Italy — June 2, 2007 @ 2:20 pm | Reply

  853. ‘“covariant” doesnt mean that!’

    Oh, great. Now the Italians are trying to tell us what English words mean.

    Comment by DPS — June 2, 2007 @ 5:16 pm | Reply

  854. “Anyway, Galilei showed (4 hundred years ago) the geocentrism can’t explain Venus’ phases.”

    Ripples in the water that comprises the ether distort the way those phases appear.

    “If after 4 hundred years still someone can’t understand this… then f-ck off.”

    Thanks for sharing, “Jeezuz”!

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 2, 2007 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  855. “Oh, great. Now the Italians are trying to tell us what English words mean.”

    That’s very presumptuous, considering how they’d all be speaking German if America and Britain hadn’t saved them. Our thanks is that they try to teach us English? This saddens me.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 2, 2007 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

  856. 852: And you’re DEFENDING this behavior?
    >No. I’m just stating a fact about a battle to contrast his behavior towards pilgrims, orphans, and widows. I still don’t like war.

    856: That’s very presumptuous, considering how they’d all be speaking German if America and Britain hadn’t saved them. Our thanks is that they try to teach us English? This saddens me.
    >Ad hominem. Why don’t you address the REAL issue of the fact that you misused the word “covariant”? HMMMMM…?

    Comment by lietk12 — June 2, 2007 @ 7:40 pm | Reply

  857. How in the world did the definition of ‘Covariance’ lead to the World War?

    Plus, on a side note – if the Japanese never attacked Pearl Harbor, then America wouldn’t have given a rat’s ass about Europe… and the Italians would still be talking German right now. But that’s only the explanation for you small minded folk. Try and see the big picture here…

    From an American strategist’s point of view, Europe would be less of a threat to America’s superpower status if it wasn’t united… not to mention – ruled by Fascists. Why in the world do you think Europe formed the European Union in 1993?… immediately after the USSR collapsed. Because ever superpower needs a counterbalance… lest it gets carried away. And we all know how the US got carried away over the past decade. At this point, terrorism is the least of America’s problems. It now has India and China challenging its status as Economic superpower. And China alone challenging its status as military superpower.

    I’m not even American and I still give a shit.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 2, 2007 @ 7:47 pm | Reply

  858. […] Hilarity […]

    Pingback by Salt on Everything » Blog Archive » Hehehe… — June 2, 2007 @ 8:50 pm | Reply

  859. “Muslims seem like awful people.” You are a stupid prejudiced bitch. Fuck off

    Comment by fdh — June 3, 2007 @ 2:53 am | Reply

  860. I’m a Spaniard and I can’t understand most of the things american politicians are doing nowadays. Arguing against heliocentrism is just as stupid as barring darwinism from schools just to satisfice ultracatholic people, denying science evidence.

    I really hope all american people reject politicians like this and look at the future. Mass media is controlling all. We can see it from Europe and we are all surprised. Religion and science is compatible! Is not necessary to manipulate science to fit religion.

    Comment by spaniard — June 3, 2007 @ 8:00 am | Reply

  861. Ok. If you can’t get over the fact that an Italian (and we don’t even know if this is true) is talking about English, this is coming from an American…
    You have misused the word covariance. Covariance says that any law of physics takes the same mathematical form in all coordinate systems. However, a coordinate system is not necessarily the same as a frame of reference. The coordinate system describes the way one observes motion within each reference frame. It says nothing about two different reference frames being on the same “rightness”.

    Oh, and why are you using Einstein’s relativity (“covariance”) in one part and then saying it’s “obviously” false (“everybody knows it’s claptrap”) in another part?

    Comment by lietk12 — June 3, 2007 @ 9:59 am | Reply

  862. the only thing more stupid than christianity–christians!

    Comment by tyler nietzsche — June 3, 2007 @ 11:38 am | Reply

  863. Ever heard of cosmic microwave background? Oh wait, you’re as thick as pigshit.

    Comment by Albert Einstein — June 3, 2007 @ 1:31 pm | Reply

  864. From the Office of Senator Sam Brownback:

    Dear loyal supporters,

    I must thank you all for your kind support and words, however I feel it is my duty to inform you that it is my belief that heliocentrism is the correct viewpoint on how we exist in God’s wonderful universe.

    Unlike evolution, which has yet to be proven, I have discussed the idea of heliocentrism with my Senate colleague, John Glenn (D-Ohio), who, as you will no doubt know, was the first American to orbit the Earth aboard Friendship 7 on February 20, 1962.

    Senator Glenn’s career as a NASA astronaut, his time in the Senate and life as a true American patriot leave me in no doubt that his view on the Earth orbiting our Sun is true and correct. As he has seen this glorious sight with his own eyes, I must agree with him on this point and humbly bow to his superior knowledge.

    At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question about our lives in God’s own universe. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. It is with this faith that I trust my colleague, Senator Glenn, on this subject.

    Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart. NASA is a proud American agency, helping us seek the answers we require in order to survive and learn. Let us, my fellow Americans, use this knowledge to move forward, and not remain in the past with the geocentric model.

    Those aspects of astronomy compatible with this heliocentric truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as a creationist fundamentalist Protestant viewpoint, as well as literary treatments within alternate history of science fiction posing as science.

    Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

    Sam Brownback
    303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
    WASHINGTON DC 20510
    (202) 224-6521

    Comment by Senator Sam Brownback — June 3, 2007 @ 7:47 pm | Reply

  865. I don’t believe that was him. I’ll never believe that was him. He would never say that. You liberals make me sick. Impersonating the Senator?!?!? Oh, special torments await you in H-E-double hockeysticks.

    When Senator Brownback is President Brownback, he’s going to hunt you people down and have you paddled in public. Paddled HARD.

    Comment by DPS — June 3, 2007 @ 7:59 pm | Reply

  866. From the Office of Senator Sam Brownback:

    My fellow Americans,

    As chairman of the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee, I can only submit my previous opinions and standings on this subject:

    http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=222992&

    http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=206715&

    http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=217015&

    If my opinions offend, it is certainly not my intention. Let us join together, to push forward for a victorious campaign in 2008.

    Many thanks for your loyal support. Vote Brownback!

    Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

    Sam Brownback
    303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
    WASHINGTON DC 20510
    (202) 224-6521

    Comment by Senator Sam Brownback — June 3, 2007 @ 8:30 pm | Reply

  867. “Those aspects of astronomy compatible with this heliocentric truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as a creationist fundamentalist Protestant viewpoint, as well as literary treatments within alternate history of science fiction posing as science.”

    Actually, I won’t be sure what this impostor was trying to say until this paragraph is rewritten in English.

    But I wonder if the impostor isn’t notorious ‘astronaut’, liar, Freemason, sodomite, and Communist John Glenn himself, who has participated in NASA frauds continuously over several decades. In fact, I am almost sure of it.

    Comment by DPS — June 3, 2007 @ 10:56 pm | Reply

  868. I don’t understand the doubt about the authenticity of the Brownback post?

    Points he makes are all consistent with Sen. Brownback’s public comments.

    For example “Unlike evolution, which has yet to be proven…”. Sen. Brownback was a supporter of the creationist majority at the time in the Kansas State Board of Education, which rejected evolution and deemphasized it (twice) in its science standards. (Fortunately reason has prevailed at least temporarily, and evolution will be properly represented in Kansas science as well supported scientific knowledge, as will the heliocentric theories of planetary motion. But no thanks to Sen. Brownback.)

    The odd comment about “firmly rejected as a creationist fundamentalist Protestant viewpoint” are also consistent with Sen. Brownback’s recent converstion to Catholocism. (These issues can be readily confirmed by searching for news items on each.)

    I do find, however, that Sen. Brownback’s longstanding criticism of the science of evolution to be quite inconsistent with his newfound religios position. (And I certainly believe misrepresenting the state of science.) The theory of heliocentrism has most certainly not been “proven”, rather is is overwelmingly supported by the evidence–just as have the fundamental theories of evolution. There are disputes about details planetary motion, just as about details withing evolutionary theory. We keep changing the number of planets in our solar system, for example, and can’t explain the rather perfect rings of Saturn completely. Neither is a dispute of the fundamental correctness or longstanding consistency with massive observation of either “theory”. Also I emphasize “theory” because each is a theory, and explanation of the facts of observation.

    Comment by Gordon — June 4, 2007 @ 12:43 am | Reply

  869. PS, appologies for typographical errors, there is no facility for correction of comments.

    Comment by Gordon — June 4, 2007 @ 12:46 am | Reply

  870. “I wonder if the impostor isn’t notorious ‘astronaut’, liar, Freemason, sodomite, and Communist John Glenn”

    Wow. Does that guy have a lot of free time or what? I thought Glenn was an American hero? Oh well, what do I know about the lunatic fringe.

    The whole universe is in motion. The Earth moves, as does the sun and as does Antares. Science is usually good and almost always more correct then any book written by a bunch of ancient Jews thousands of years ago. And if Sen Brownback is really a Holocaust denier he had better not visit Europe; you can be jailed for that.

    Comment by Bruce — June 4, 2007 @ 3:25 am | Reply

  871. DPS and Sisyphus,

    Let me help you out of your dilemma… There is no real way to tell whether that earlier email was genuinely from the office of Sen. Brownback. You could send an email to his office to confirm it for yourself. But I don’t really care – I’ll leave that to you.

    Anyway, if it makes you both feel any better – Sam Brownback is probably retracting from the geocentric model because in the end, it all comes down to how many votes he can get… and the fact remains – a huge majority of Americans think the idea of Geocentricism is absurd. So, maybe deep inside, he still believes in the Geocentric model, but he won’t admit it until he gets the presidency and then he can implement whatever he wants.

    You see how nice I am? Even though I’m agnostic, I’d hate to deny you your false sense of security. You may now continue to live in your blissful ignorance. Who’s yo daddy? Kooochikoochikoo…

    Comment by Cyriac — June 4, 2007 @ 3:40 am | Reply

  872. Sisyphus, you’ve accomplished something amazing here. I see it as one of three things:
    a) you’re serious, but insane
    b) you’re serious, but tragically deluded and inexcusably pig-headed about common reality
    c) you’re pulling a remarkably long, involved prank and having a load of laughs at those who think you’re serious.

    I vote for c). ROTFLMAO!!

    Comment by Silverhill — June 4, 2007 @ 3:46 am | Reply

  873. I’m not American. So I’m viewing your stupid arguments from the outside, arguments that rather amusingly remind me of a grade school debate in the playground.

    I’ll say one thing. Your all so concerned about America going to hell in terms of power and respect in world affairs. Even if you don’t admit it this, it’s plainly obvious to the rest of the world.

    I’ll tell you why. (Perhaps the bible doesn’t have this inside it so, because you guys like to be told things so much because you can’t figure them out for yourselves I’ll tell you.)

    It’s because your morons, buffoons, egg-heads or worse. Religious fundamentalist twits who are no better than the terrorists your so afraid of, who’s views are not dissimilar to your own caveman heliocentric paranoid idiot views.
    That article above sounded deceptively rational, but when one digs below the very shallow surface its nothing more than a large child with a medium sized vocabulary shouting of his infantile fear of his smallness and insecurity about living in a large unpredictable violent universe.
    It’s because you’ve allowed a bunch of bible bashing creeps dictate ‘truth’ to you. Since when was the bible ‘scientific’ at all? Its a religious text probably written by people with mental problems as serious as your own. Stop keeping the rest of the world in the dark ages. Be insecure by yourselves and let rational people live with scientific progress. Sure the current ideas might not be right, but thats not the point, science is a developing thing, ideas are always discarded and built upon. The bible was discarded hundreds of years ago by anyone with a brain, and thats where it should stay, discarded.

    I like America, as if we want China or some other crap place ruling the world. C’mon guys, get your act together and grow up.

    Comment by A. P Murday — June 4, 2007 @ 4:13 am | Reply

  874. “But I wonder if the impostor isn’t notorious ‘astronaut’, liar, Freemason, sodomite, and Communist John Glenn himself, who has participated in NASA frauds continuously over several decades. In fact, I am almost sure of it.”

    There may be a good reason for keeping NASA around, though. They serve as a handy conduit for funding the military without those treefrogs in Congress getting wind of it.
    Sam Brownback (if that’s who that really is) wouldn’t play to the NASA lobby without a good reason.

    “I don’t understand the doubt about the authenticity of the Brownback post?

    Points he makes are all consistent with Sen. Brownback’s public comments.”

    It could be him. But the IP address is different than the other “Sam Brownback”, so one of them is an imposter. We just have to figure out which.

    “PS, appologies for typographical errors, there is no facility for correction of comments.”

    I know, that annoys me too. Sorry.

    “The whole universe is in motion.”

    Why do you hate America?

    “The Earth moves, as does the sun and as does Antares.”

    Why do you hate Jesus?

    “Science is usually good and almost always more correct then any book written by a bunch of ancient Jews thousands of years ago.”

    Why do you hate the Jews?

    “And if Sen Brownback is really a Holocaust denier he had better not visit Europe; you can be jailed for that.”

    Why do you assume that he does? YOU’RE the one who just denigrated their religion.

    “Anyway, if it makes you both feel any better – Sam Brownback is probably retracting from the geocentric model because in the end, it all comes down to how many votes he can get… and the fact remains – a huge majority of Americans think the idea of Geocentricism is absurd. So, maybe deep inside, he still believes in the Geocentric model, but he won’t admit it until he gets the presidency and then he can implement whatever he wants.”

    This could be; but if so, it’s a grave political miscalculation. Americans respect leadership that isn’t afraid to discuss the serious issues. Caving to the Helioleftists on one issue is as good as caving to them on every issue. In my opinion, Senator Brownback just wants to keep NASA going so he can finance our defense with it. I certainly hope that’s the case.

    “I vote for c). ROTFLMAO!!”

    You forgot d): I’m right, everyone knows I’m right, but most people don’t have the guts to take on the Helioleftist treefrogs and admit it!

    “I’m not American. So I’m viewing your stupid arguments from the outside, arguments that rather amusingly remind me of a grade school debate in the playground.”

    If those Democrats would shut up and learn to stop hating our nation and our children, it wouldn’t have to be this way!

    “It’s because your morons, buffoons, egg-heads or worse. Religious fundamentalist twits who are no better than the terrorists your so afraid of, who’s views are not dissimilar to your own caveman heliocentric paranoid idiot views.”

    So you hate America too, I see.

    “I like America, as if we want China or some other crap place ruling the world. C’mon guys, get your act together and grow up.”

    You don’t like America, you like the Western United States of France. That includes California, New York and New England, but it doesn’t include the real America.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 4, 2007 @ 5:02 am | Reply

  875. From the Office of Senator Sam Brownback:

    My fellow Americans,

    In this day of rampant internet use and misuse, I can understand any confusion and initial scepticism about my comments here. However, let me be clear on this issue: NASA has long been a true and patriotic American agency, their astronauts true American heroes, I approve their methods and scientific findings. Their scientific methods are tried and tested and do not infringe on my Roman Catholic faith.

    Pope Benedict XIV allowed heliocentric works from 1757 onwards based on Isaac Newton’s work. Pope Pius VII in 1822 approved a decree to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome. The current holy father, Pope Benedict XVI, holds this view on heliocentrism based on the current findings and as the head of the Catholic Church, and Sovereign of the Vatican City State, I bow to his view on the matter:

    “From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason…It has always defined men, all men without distinction, as creatures and images of God, proclaiming for them…the same dignity. In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith.”

    In 2004, I applauded President Bush’s signing of legislation allowing the commercial space industry to confidently invest its resources in future suborbital space travel. I worked hard to ensure the legislation passed Congress before the Senate adjourned for the year. This kind of legislation can only help our country to progress from a technology viewpoint in the future.

    This new law (HR 5382) gave a needed boost to the commercial space industry. For too long the commercial space sector has been hampered by unnecessary uncertainties. This enabled investors and operators to confidently make the investments needed to help Americans experience the dream and thrill of flying into space. Commercial space flight, a multi-billion dollar industry that could eventually rival our aviation industry, is getting off the ground.

    The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, HR 5382, placed the budding commercial space launch industry on sound footing by setting up a supportive regulatory construct under the Federal Aviation Administration. Most importantly, the Act gave strong support to investors and operators of passenger-carrying suborbital vehicles such as those being developed following Burt Rutan’s win of the $10 million Ansari X-Prize.

    The era of government-dominated space flight is coming to a close. Passage of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act marks the beginning of America’s expansion into the solar system. The next step is private sector flights to support the International Space Station. Private space endeavors will then play the leading role in space exploration.

    As chairman Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, I have held several hearings on the promise of private sector space endeavors. I have also held hearings, including a field hearing in Houston, on U.S. space exploration, the space shuttle, the International Space Station, lunar and Martian exploration.

    I have long championed for both more space travel funding and reform of the existing NASA system, and recently signed the Americans for Space Science Appropriations Bill to ensure more funding for research and development. Much of our recent economic prosperity is directly attributable to the investment in new technologies by recent Congresses. I believe in America’s space program. Americans spend roughly $157 billion each year in tax preparation, to ensure they do not run afoul of the Internal Revenue Service. Can we not use a significantly smaller figure through NASA to ensure our children have a grasp on the Solar System and God’s universe around us?

    Please feel free to comment on any issues you may have on my official blog:
    http://www.sambrownback.goingon.com/

    Many thanks for your loyal support. Vote Brownback!

    Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

    Sam Brownback
    303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
    WASHINGTON DC 20510
    (202) 224-6521

    Comment by Senator Sam Brownback — June 4, 2007 @ 6:46 am | Reply

  876. The MAN has spoken! I swear it wasn’t me.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 4, 2007 @ 6:50 am | Reply

  877. Perhaps we would be better of with China.

    Comment by A P Murday — June 4, 2007 @ 6:51 am | Reply

  878. 866:I don’t believe that was him. I’ll never believe that was him. He would never say that. You liberals make me sick. Impersonating the Senator?!?!? Oh, special torments await you in H-E-double hockeysticks.

    When Senator Brownback is President Brownback, he’s going to hunt you people down and have you paddled in public. Paddled HARD.
    >Going into denial?

    868: “Those aspects of astronomy compatible with this heliocentric truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as a creationist fundamentalist Protestant viewpoint, as well as literary treatments within alternate history of science fiction posing as science.”

    Actually, I won’t be sure what this impostor was trying to say until this paragraph is rewritten in English.
    >In other words, The writer believes that heliocentrism is true, the main article is false, and the main article is fundamentalist.

    874:That article above sounded deceptively rational, but when one digs below the very shallow surface its nothing more than a large child with a medium sized vocabulary shouting of his infantile fear of his smallness and insecurity about living in a large unpredictable violent universe.
    >Didn’t sound rational to me.

    875:“The whole universe is in motion.”

    Why do you hate America?

    “The Earth moves, as does the sun and as does Antares.”

    Why do you hate Jesus?

    “Science is usually good and almost always more correct then any book written by a bunch of ancient Jews thousands of years ago.”

    Why do you hate the Jews?

    “And if Sen Brownback is really a Holocaust denier he had better not visit Europe; you can be jailed for that.”

    Why do you assume that he does? YOU’RE the one who just denigrated their religion.
    >Why do you keep on making ad hominem style fallicies of many quesions (Plurium Interrogationum)? Address the real questions here!

    “I vote for c). ROTFLMAO!!”

    You forgot d): I’m right, everyone knows I’m right, but most people don’t have the guts to take on the Helioleftist treefrogs and admit it!
    >No, it’s e): a). and b).

    “I’m not American. So I’m viewing your stupid arguments from the outside, arguments that rather amusingly remind me of a grade school debate in the playground.”

    If those Democrats would shut up and learn to stop hating our nation and our children, it wouldn’t have to be this way!
    >Prove it that they hate our nation and our children.

    “It’s because your morons, buffoons, egg-heads or worse. Religious fundamentalist twits who are no better than the terrorists your so afraid of, who’s views are not dissimilar to your own caveman heliocentric paranoid idiot views.”

    So you hate America too, I see.
    >You’re assuming that all Americans are “morons, buffoons, egg-heads or worse” and that everyone is like you. WELL WAKE UP!

    “I like America, as if we want China or some other crap place ruling the world. C’mon guys, get your act together and grow up.”

    You don’t like America, you like the Western United States of France. That includes California, New York and New England, but it doesn’t include the real America.
    >You need to learn Geography

    877: The MAN has spoken! I swear it wasn’t me.
    >Sisyphus: Have you tried WHOIS on the IP addresses on the two Mr. Brownbacks?

    Comment by lietk12 — June 4, 2007 @ 7:50 am | Reply

  879. From the Office of Senator Sam Brownback:

    My fellow Americans,

    The second Republican Presidental Debate is LIVE from New Hampshire hosted by Saint Anselm College Sponsored by CNN, WMUR-TV and the New Hampshire Union Leader.

    Follow it live on CNN TV Tuesday, June 5, 7 p.m. ET moderated by Wolf Blitzer.

    Please feel free to comment on any issues you may have on my official blog:
    http://www.sambrownback.goingon.com/

    Many thanks for your loyal support. Vote Brownback!

    Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

    Sam Brownback
    303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
    WASHINGTON DC 20510
    (202) 224-6521

    Comment by Senator Sam Brownback — June 4, 2007 @ 8:28 am | Reply

  880. “>Sisyphus: Have you tried WHOIS on the IP addresses on the two Mr. Brownbacks?”

    I’ll go double-check.

    “Perhaps we would be better of with China.”

    Why do you hate religion and the free market?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 4, 2007 @ 9:42 am | Reply

  881. ARIN WHOIS says he’s writing from Amsterdam. I think that means this isn’t really Sam Brownback.

    Nice try, Dutch moonbats!

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 4, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Reply

  882. Might be a dynamic/roving IP address for security purposes?

    Comment by Hall of Fame — June 4, 2007 @ 10:20 am | Reply

  883. “Might be a dynamic/roving IP address for security purposes?”

    Maybe, but my money’s still on spoof at this point. Someone out to discredit Brownback by taking extreme pro-NASA positions. Sowing dissent in the ranks.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 4, 2007 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  884. Dude, just ring his D.C. office, he gave the number in the post…

    My money is on them hijacking your space dude, using it for their means, not yours! Like the debate tomorrow, lay off the CNN adverts, Fox Rules!!

    Comment by Hall of Fame — June 4, 2007 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  885. http://www.rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=Blogs_4_Brownback
    (an overview of the best B4B moments on rationalwiki)

    Comment by Skeptic — June 4, 2007 @ 10:59 am | Reply

  886. If this Brownback guy was ever the “chairman of Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space” (very dubious IMHO), can anyone actually see him believing in geocentrism?

    He’d be laughed out of congress, NASA, and every classroom in North America!!

    Just my $0.02

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 4, 2007 @ 11:05 am | Reply

  887. Can you imagine if this guy is a hoax after the embarrassingly sycophantic, skin-crawling, gush-fest from DPS: (Comment #826)

    “Hi Senator Brownback! Thanks for coming by. I just know you’re doing to do great in the primaries and then beat whatever atheist Defeatocrat runs in the general. Are you ever going to come to California?

    I think it would be neat to meet you, and sometimes I think about what that would be like, if I could meet you and we could just hang out. You seem pretty ‘cool’ and I think it would be a lot of fun.

    Anyway, I think you should write more columns. I also think you should campaign with Kirk Cameron, maybe on a bus, or at least in a big van. And if you don’t have an official campaign blogger yet, I don’t think you need to look any further than Sisyphus.”

    Pass the sick bag, PLEASE!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 4, 2007 @ 11:20 am | Reply

  888. “ARIN WHOIS says he’s writing from Amsterdam. I think that means this isn’t really Sam Brownback.”

    “Might be a dynamic/roving IP address for security purposes?”

    “Maybe, but my money’s still on spoof at this point. Someone out to discredit Brownback by taking extreme pro-NASA positions. Sowing dissent in the ranks.”

    Dude, what would an IP address based in the states or even actually based in D.C. actually prove?

    Comment by Hall of Fame — June 4, 2007 @ 11:41 am | Reply

  889. Proof?

    Proof is a librul/sodomite-loving/treefrog/moonbat/atheist/anti-American/Darwinist/Islamofascist concept!

    The Bible teaches us to make something up and present it as fact, it’s called a dogma, you anti-American treefrog!

    Sure, go present your “proof” to that Darwinist fraud Newton in hell!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 4, 2007 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

  890. “Brownback is former chairman of the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. While chairman of the subcommittee he held numerous hearings including a field hearing in Houston, on U.S. space exploration, the space shuttle, the International Space Station, lunar and Martian exploration.”
    http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=239080&

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 30, 2007: “How will they get there? Are they going to paddle through the ether? Get real. For all we know, Mars is a tiny dot located a couple thousand miles from here. It’s beyond airplane reach, but beyond that I’m unwilling to conclude anything about it.”

    So, Brownback believes in lunar and Martian exploration, yet Siysphus reckons we can’t get there because of “the ether”. Hmmm, is Brownback aware you’re discrediting his career work while chairman of the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee??

    Best not to let the truth get the in way of a hoax blog/mindless ramblings/ignorance/insanity, eh Siysphus?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 4, 2007 @ 12:52 pm | Reply

  891. “Pass the sick bag, PLEASE!!”

    Don’t be jealous, Tyler Durden. If you would relent in your hatred of God, I might be willing to consider hanging out with you, too.

    Comment by DPS — June 4, 2007 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  892. […] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (tags: atheism politics humor religion) […]

    Pingback by Prof Ron’s Test Area » links for 2007-06-04 — June 4, 2007 @ 1:08 pm | Reply

  893. “If you would relent in your hatred of God”

    How can one hate something that one does not believe to exist?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 4, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  894. Exactly. You hate God, it is not possible to hate things which do not exist, ergo God exists.

    Comment by DPS — June 4, 2007 @ 1:18 pm | Reply

  895. Check out: http://www.conservapedia.com/Earth (read the whole thing), it seems even Andrew Schlafly doesn’t believe in a flat Earth!

    P.S. I really HATE the flying spaghetti monster!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 4, 2007 @ 1:27 pm | Reply

  896. DPS, try reading a statement thoroughly first, BEFORE replying to it:

    “How can one hate something that one does not believe to exist?”
    If I don’t *believe* it to exist, I cannot hate it.

    “…it is not possible to hate things which do not exist, ergo God exists”
    It is your *assumption* God exists… your statement above fails on that premise. QED.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 4, 2007 @ 1:42 pm | Reply

  897. Surely…oh surely this is a joke. Heliocentricism is most certainly not an atheist doctrine and the Scripture that you quoted most certainly does not back such a claim. It breaks my heart that you throw out the name of God and Jesus Christ in the midst of your malice filled rant and portray an inaccurate picture of Him to those who are reading this. The ideas that Christians are oblivious and ignorant and filled with stupidity (and hate) are proven true when those who claim to know Christ proclaim such non-sensicle claims and use Jesus to boost their political platform.

    Comment by undergroundreformation — June 4, 2007 @ 2:11 pm | Reply

  898. 894: Exactly. You hate God, it is not possible to hate things which do not exist, ergo God exists.
    >Fallacy of false premise. He didn’t say anything about hating God (if He exists), only that he denied if such a God exists.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 4, 2007 @ 2:32 pm | Reply

  899. Skeptic- Thank you for the link. It’s flattering, but at the same time, wikipedia is an extremely biased source of information. If you want to learn bypass the leftist filter, you have to go to Conservapedia.

    “If this Brownback guy was ever the “chairman of Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space” (very dubious IMHO), can anyone actually see him believing in geocentrism?”

    Yes.

    “Just my $0.02”

    That’s not even enough money for you to pick up the phone and call someone who cares.

    “Dude, what would an IP address based in the states or even actually based in D.C. actually prove?”

    That he was posting from here. I don’t trust foreign IPs. For all I know, Al Qaeda has an operative in Amsterdam, trying to discredit the strongest candidate in the field for the American Presidency. If so, he’s succeeded here today. We’ll catch him later, though.

    “So, Brownback believes in lunar and Martian exploration, yet Siysphus reckons we can’t get there because of “the ether”. Hmmm, is Brownback aware you’re discrediting his career work while chairman of the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee??”

    What a politician believes, and what a politician has to put up with to get elected past Helioleftists like you, are two very different things.

    “How can one hate something that one does not believe to exist?”

    Shunning is the worst form of hatred, Tyler.

    “Fallacy of false premise. He didn’t say anything about hating God (if He exists), only that he denied if such a God exists.”

    That denial is a shunning. Shunning is hatred.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 4, 2007 @ 3:26 pm | Reply

  900. Absolutely amazing post.
    I have no doubt most Christians in the world
    will think you are a complete crackpot.

    Comment by robd — June 4, 2007 @ 3:42 pm | Reply

  901. “Skeptic- Thank you for the link. It’s flattering, but at the same time, wikipedia is an extremely biased source of information. If you want to learn bypass the leftist filter, you have to go to Conservapedia.”

    Well, it kinda looks to me like wikipedia and conservapedia agree on the shape of the Earth…

    Comment by Skeptic — June 4, 2007 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

  902. “That he was posting from here. I don’t trust foreign IPs. For all I know, Al Qaeda has an operative in Amsterdam, trying to discredit the strongest candidate in the field for the American Presidency. If so, he’s succeeded here today. We’ll catch him later, though.”

    Al qaeda operative? How about a prankster?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 4, 2007 @ 4:47 pm | Reply

  903. (playing along with it some more, for the entertainment value)

    Sisyphus responded to lietk12’s statement: “[Tyler Durden] denied if such a God exists.”
    with
    “That denial is a shunning. Shunning is hatred.”

    No. Get your grammar straight. “Shun” is a transitive verb, requiring therefore an object. Absence of object = absence of shunning.

    Sisyphus also said: “Get real. For all we know, Mars is a tiny dot located a couple thousand miles from here. It’s beyond airplane reach, but beyond that I’m unwilling to conclude anything about it.”

    “Get real”, you advise? Maybe as real as radar, which shows how far away Mars is? (minimum: 59,546,471 km [37,000,242 mi, in benighted units]; maximum: 401,326,431 km [249,372,683 mi, in benighted units])

    You’re not just unwilling to “conclude” — you’re unwilling to *think*. As such, you should be shunned.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 4, 2007 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  904. “Dude, what would an IP address based in the states or even actually based in D.C. actually prove?”
    “That he was posting from here.”

    *Who* was posting from here? What if a prankster from D.C. wrote the Brownback entry?

    And if the prankster’s IP address does show the location as D.C. – How does that prove it was Brownback?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 5, 2007 @ 5:59 am | Reply

  905. Thanks for the haiku, robd!

    “Al qaeda operative? How about a prankster?”

    Doing the work of Al Qaeda, maybe.

    “No. Get your grammar straight. “Shun” is a transitive verb, requiring therefore an object.”

    That proves God exists!

    “Get real”, you advise? Maybe as real as radar, which shows how far away Mars is?”

    Radar, like radiocarbon dating, becomes highly inaccurate at a certain interval.

    “*Who* was posting from here? What if a prankster from D.C. wrote the Brownback entry?”

    True, a prankster could post from D.C. My point is that a D.C. IP address would make authenticity likelier.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 5, 2007 @ 10:32 am | Reply

  906. Tyler, you can’t use logic. They’re caught up in their fervour.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 5, 2007 @ 10:35 am | Reply

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

    Additionally, no one (not you either) has provided evidence that the sun is moving. You mentioned “it’s valid to describe motion from any reference frame.” If you were speaking the truth when you claimed that, then you’re whole argument just flew out the window. Either it is always valid to use relative motion or it is never valid. You can’t say that the sun (or the universe) is moving relative to the Earth to provide “support” for your geocentric theory and then not allow others to say that the earth is moving relative to the sun. I think that most astrophysicists would say that everything in the universe is in motion…that is why picking a frame of reference is necessary. The difficulty lies in the fact that for both geocentrism and heliocentrism the frame of reference is not arbitrary.

    Comment by John — June 5, 2007 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  908. Okay…I am going to keep reading all the posts here because they are hilarious…but EVERYONE please pay attention to this. There is absolutely no point in arguing with Sisyphus. No matter what you say, he is going to be able to find something from somewhere in the Bible (and may or may not have to take it out of context) to fall back on. When a person is that stuck in dogma, nothing short of their god slapping some sense in to them is going to change their mind. So if you are theists, pray that god opens Sisyphus’ eyes and if you are not theists, move on to better expenditures of your time. I have watched some of the most brilliant scientists try to debate literalists (like Sisyphus) with absolutely no success. Even Christians that are not literalists (which, by the way, most Christians are not) can’t argue with people like this.

    Comment by John — June 5, 2007 @ 11:07 am | Reply

  909. Sisyphus,

    Your rebuttal of Science Avenger was not even a rebuttal. You did give a very bizarre argument as to how bats were birds but then you said that “Your other absurdities don’t sound (sic) vry absurd at all, they sound fairly reasonable” Now I am being serious…do you think that if sheep look at spots while they mate that they will have spotted offspring…and don’t pull the “translation” card on me…I read Hebrew and Greek.

    Oh and say hi to Jerry Falwell when you see him in Hell

    Comment by John — June 5, 2007 @ 11:19 am | Reply

  910. Sisyphus,

    The moon does not rotate around the earth…it revolves around the earth, though it also rotates on its axis

    Comment by John — June 5, 2007 @ 11:25 am | Reply

  911. “Additionally, no one (not you either) has provided evidence that the sun is moving”

    Do you have eyes? Every day, it rises in the East and sets in the West. That’s called “movement”, the transfer of self from one spot to another.

    “You can’t say that the sun (or the universe) is moving relative to the Earth to provide “support” for your geocentric theory and then not allow others to say that the earth is moving relative to the sun.”

    It corroborates Biblical evidence. The Bible confirms that Earth is stable, everything else moving in relation to us.

    “Now I am being serious…do you think that if sheep look at spots while they mate that they will have spotted offspring…and don’t pull the “translation” card on me…I read Hebrew and Greek.”

    Yes. I most certainly do. Why do you repeat the question? I thought I’d made that clear earlier.

    “Oh and say hi to Jerry Falwell when you see him in Hell”

    Why do you hate Christianity?

    “The moon does not rotate around the earth…it revolves around the earth, though it also rotates on its axis”

    We only see one face of it. How do we know the Moon isn’t flat? We know it moves in the sky; beyond that, we know nothing. I think it moves around the Earth, but I certainly can’t prove it. And neither can anyone else.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 5, 2007 @ 12:33 pm | Reply

  912. 912: Do you have eyes? Every day, it rises in the East and sets in the West. That’s called “movement”, the transfer of self from one spot to another.
    >By your way of thinking (call it mock empiricism), if my shadow grows and shrinks over a course of time, I’m also growing and shrinking.

    Why do you hate Christianity?
    >How would he hate it if he uses a concept from it (i.e. Hell)

    We only see one face of it. How do we know the Moon isn’t flat?
    >Yes. We don’t see air’s composition. How do we know the air exists?

    Comment by lietk12 — June 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm | Reply

  913. This “air” you speak of, what is it?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 5, 2007 @ 4:57 pm | Reply

  914. 914: This “air” you speak of, what is it?
    >[begin sarcastic mode] Oh, it’s only an illusion. In fact, Von Guericke’s experiment of drawing the air from a two-halved vessel and trying to make two horses pull it apart is false. After all, “Nature abhors a vacuum”. I think that we’re actually in a sea of water. In fact, his experiment is pure blasphemy. His idea that the pull of the vacuum is actually caused by the surrounding fluids should not be considered. [end sarcastic mode]

    Comment by lietk12 — June 5, 2007 @ 7:41 pm | Reply

  915. quoting me: “No. Get your grammar straight. “Shun” is a transitive verb, requiring therefore an object.”

    quoting Sisyphus: “That proves God exists!”

    BZZZT! Wrong! “Denying the existence of” is not the same action as “shunning”.

    ====================

    quoting Sisyphus: “Radar, like radiocarbon dating, becomes highly inaccurate at a certain interval.”

    >ding!

    Comment by Silverhill — June 5, 2007 @ 9:30 pm | Reply

  916. Trying to get back on subject…

    I am quite disturbed by Sen. Brownback’s comments and what he has done in regard to some important science issues that relate to this. He has worked to weaken the science standards around the country with support for the so-called “Santorum amendment” to the NCLB (education act). Fortunately that was relegated to report language, but it still is used like a hammer to weaken science standards across the country by various creationist groups.

    I think that the relationship to his purported acceptance of the science of physics of planetary motion should be compared to his rejection of the main tenets of evolution. When Copernicus proposed that a simpler model could be understood by considering that the planets revolved around the sun, including the Earth, we got a much more easily understood explanation for the relative motions of the planets to the Earth.

    So where is God’s hand in this explanation of planetary motion? Indeed as the topic starter suggests, is this not an “atheistic theory” posing as science? Clearly Sen. Brownback does not think so, whether or not these posts here have actually come from his office. That would be in conflict with his current religious taking, which demands use of reason in observation of the physical world and would not reject those who understand the physical world as not able to join the Christian religion.

    So I find Sen. Brownback’s work against the teaching of evolution to be thoroughly inconsistent with his acceptance of the physics of planetary motion. Where has the scientific method, or degree of support for the theories of evolution been less sound that of the theories of planetary motion? The basic theory of common decent is supported with such a great body of evidence that it staggers the imagination that people reject it in the modern world.

    Sen. Brownback has allowed himself to be manipulated by those with a combined religious and political aspiration, to insert their particular religious view into science education. (I speak not just of his recent editorial, which I hold in a copy of my local paper as well, but of several of his actions. Like his support for the once creationist majority in the Kansas State Board of Education that deemphasized evolution and many other important scientific teachings which seemed to contradict some aspects of someone’s view of biblical authority.)

    If a man has cancer, is that a matter of a physical cause (like carcinogenic chemicals, smoking), or is that an “act of God”? Whether or not it is an act of God, it is a matter for study of the physical world. Planetary motion is a matter for study of the physical world. Evolution, common descent, and its mechanisms are matters for study of the physical world.

    When Sen. Brownback rejects basic tenets of the well supported theory of evolution, but accepts planetary motion theories, he displays a profound lack of understanding of science. How would this affect his executive action as a President of the most powerful nation of the world?

    Would he act like Pres. Regan, and appoint to the cabinet post of environmental protection a person who believed the world would end soon and does not need environmental protection? Will he deny all the mounting evidence of need for policy change to reduce chances of radically negative climate change? Without a reasonable understanding of science, how can we depend upon such a person’s governance?

    Comment by Gordon — June 6, 2007 @ 12:25 am | Reply

  917. Addendum note to my post above:

    “The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — my self included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.”

    Why does Sen. Brownback not reject theories of planetary motion that dismiss the possibility of divine causality? The profound misunderstanding of science is that the theory of evolution is about the physical mechanisms in this world. To expect that physical mechanisms are missing in our biological history, while being present in planetary motion and planetary motion history, is a failure of rationality!

    Would Christians accept a science presentation in public schools that included “praise be to Allah” as part of the description? No more should we accept a particular Christian sect’s notion be inserted in science education demanding God’s action be included in biological history mechanism. Science is not excluding such mechanism, it just is not about the subject of discussing divine intervention which cannot be found with regularity to study scientifically. To demand that insertion is as radical as to demand “praise be to Allah” in scientific explanations.

    (I intend no disrespect to either Christianity or Islam. I just don’t think they can be injected into science. My example phrase was intended to jar the Christian sensibility and reinforce the need for freedom of religion in governmental affairs, and is not intended to disrespect or even claim understanding of or any desire for such inclusion on part of members of the Islamic religion.)

    Comment by Gordon — June 6, 2007 @ 12:55 am | Reply

  918. The person who wrote this article is retarded. Why are you argueing the fact about the earth being fixed. Who cares? I believe in God regardless of whether we move or not. And your point about us feeling the movement is crap. Have you never been in a gravity simulater ride? Our reference point determines what we feel. Your reference point is being an idiot. You are making the people who believe in God look like idiots. Jesus doesn’t care if the earth moves or not, why should you? By the way, it does.

    Comment by Kos — June 6, 2007 @ 1:25 am | Reply

  919. By the by, science proves the existence of God, if you haven’t noticed. It seems your faith is weak because of your assertions that the Earth is fixed. I think God could make an Earth that moves around the sun. So, stop being weak and embarressing Jesus, who you say you are familiar with. Being strong and take scientific evidence as further proof of the wonder of God.

    Comment by Kos — June 6, 2007 @ 1:30 am | Reply

  920. “It corroborates Biblical evidence.”

    If there was *ever* a definition of an oxymoron that rang true, this is it: “Biblical evidence”

    Last time I checked, conjecture, superstition and hearsay were not actually types of evidence!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 6, 2007 @ 4:25 am | Reply

  921. “And your point about us feeling the movement is crap. Have you never been in a gravity simulater ride?”

    Hmmm. I forgot about that point. But try to use something that Sisyphus can relate to. For example – a ride in a car. When you’re in a car, you can only feel movement when it is accelerating or slowing down. When you’re moving at a constant speed, you feel absolutely nothing. You can only tell that you’re moving by looking out the window and seeing things go by. Pretty much the same thing with the sun – we see it going by every day.

    But I guess that possibility never crossed the minds of the guys who wrote Psalm 93:1 or Chronicles 16:30. It would only be natural for them to assume the simplest possibility – lack of information breeds propaganda. The American media is a perfect example for that. You all better thank Tim Berners-Lee for the internet… and not to mention Google for indexing the whole thing.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 6, 2007 @ 5:15 am | Reply

  922. “By the by, science proves the existence of God”

    Whaaa? When did that happen? We’ve never been able to prove/disprove the existence of a deity. But as far as Physics has delved into this question… we’ve only been able to prove the POSSIBILITY that a deity might exist OR might have existed. The question still remains open to this day.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 6, 2007 @ 5:20 am | Reply

  923. Comment by Kos: “By the by, science proves the existence of God”
    I’d be really interested in reading that particular peer-reviewed paper/study. Any actual references to back that claim up, Kos?

    Science doesn’t claim to “prove” anything. Science is a study: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of certain phenomena.

    A mathematical proof, for example, can be true or false, however, a scientific theory which makes statements about nature in an inductive way, is always open to falsification, if any *new* evidence is presented. This is why science is a progressive method (i.e. always updating) as opposed to scripture, which is stuck with its dogma, and never changes regardless of what is shown to be otherwise.

    Science can no more “prove” nor “disprove” the existence of “God”. All we can do is look at the evidence at hand…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 6, 2007 @ 5:23 am | Reply

  924. “By your way of thinking (call it mock empiricism), if my shadow grows and shrinks over a course of time, I’m also growing and shrinking.”

    Spiritually, maybe you are.

    “How would he hate it if he uses a concept from it (i.e. Hell)”

    That proves he believes in it, but doesn’t like it.

    “Yes. We don’t see air’s composition. How do we know the air exists?”

    We feel wind.

    “So where is God’s hand in this explanation of planetary motion? Indeed as the topic starter suggests, is this not an “atheistic theory” posing as science?”

    Precisely.

    “Would Christians accept a science presentation in public schools that included “praise be to Allah” as part of the description?”

    No. This is why I don’t choose to live in Saudi Arabia.

    “No more should we accept a particular Christian sect’s notion be inserted in science education demanding God’s action be included in biological history mechanism.”

    Then don’t live in a Christian country.

    Kos- I hate you, and your blog.

    Durden- We already knew you were an atheist.

    Cyriac- A car is not a planet. Two very different things.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 6, 2007 @ 5:25 am | Reply

  925. Cyriac – a ride in a car. When you’re in a car, you can only feel movement when it is accelerating or slowing down. When you’re moving at a constant speed, you feel absolutely nothing. You can only tell that you’re moving by looking out the window and seeing things go by. Pretty much the same thing with the sun – we see it going by every day.

    Sisyphus – A car is not a planet. Two very different things.

    Cyriac – But, they both exist in the same reality i.e. same laws of nature (stated by God?). So it’s definitely worth speculation – that the reason we don’t feel that the earth is rotating is one of two possibilities – either it’s stationary or moving at a constant speed. And all the evidence we have gathered to date points to the latter.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 6, 2007 @ 5:42 am | Reply

  926. Sisyphus,

    Here’s my problem with the guys who wrote those Psalms and Chronicles that you quote in your post. They were only human! And humans make mistakes. I’m glad you gave them the benefit of the doubt… because with the information they had during their time, they couldn’t have known any better. But, that’s like agreeing with your Grandfather that the women during his time were much prettier than those in our generation. No frikkin’ way Grandpa! (I’m kidding of course)

    Comment by Cyriac — June 6, 2007 @ 5:50 am | Reply

  927. Comment by Sisyphus: “Durden- We already knew you were an atheist.”

    And your point is?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 6, 2007 @ 6:29 am | Reply

  928. GOP debaters keep distance from Bush:

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/05/nh.gop.debate/index.html

    “An average of the latest national polls shows Giuliani leading the race, with about 30 percent support, followed by McCain at 22 percent, Fred Thompson at 12 percent and Romney at 10 percent. The rest of the announced candidates each came in at 2 percent or less.”

    So much for the “Resist Rudy McRomney” campaign!!

    Sisyphus, arrange the following words into a meaningful sentence: “Flogging” “A” “Dead” “Horse”

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 6, 2007 @ 6:58 am | Reply

  929. Many thanks for your kind words and support following the second GOP debate last night in Manchester, NH.

    Once again the subject of faith vs. reason was addressed to the panel. As I have stated on my website and in print media, one of the problems we have with our society today is that we’ve put faith and science at odds with each other. They aren’t at odds with each other. If they are, check your faith, or check your science.

    I believe we are created in the image of God for a particular purpose, and I believe that with all my heart. I am fully convinced there’s a God of the universe that loves us very much and was involved in the process. How he did it, I don’t know.

    This issue of faith vs. reason may crop up in future debates, or in legislation while I remain in the Senate, I will ensure my belief in God stands me in good stead on this important subject.

    Feel free to comment on any issue(s) you may have at: http://brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm
    I will endeavor to reply or address any issue raised.

    Thanks for the support. Vote Brownback!

    Comment by Senator Sam Brownback — June 6, 2007 @ 8:38 am | Reply

  930. Cyriac @ 927:

    “Here’s my problem with the guys who wrote those Psalms and Chronicles that you quote in your post. They were only human! And humans make mistakes.”

    Not when they’re inspired by the One True God, they don’t.

    Senator Sam Brownback @ 930:

    Hi Senator Brownback!!! You did great at the debates last night. We really enjoy it when you stop by here, although sometimes people pretend to be you and spread terrible lies about you. You should look into it. I hope you punish them when you are president.

    Comment by DPS — June 6, 2007 @ 10:13 am | Reply

  931. Comment by Cyriac: “Here’s my problem with the guys who wrote those Psalms and Chronicles that you quote in your post. They were only human! And humans make mistakes.”

    Comment by DPS: “Not when they’re inspired by the One True God, they don’t.”

    Ahem, would this be the same “One True God” that inspired Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2 which erroneously states that Pi equals 3.0 when in fact Pi equals 3.14159 (recurring), something even the ancient Egyptians knew.

    Wow, I guess he *does* move in mysterious ways. I reckon that was a deliberate mistake, just to test us? Keep us on our toes, yeah? Or maybe they simply misheard this “One True God”, he should’ve spoken up or engraved them on a stone tablet for all to see!!

    Well, least we have science to depend on, this “One True God” fella sounds very unreliable – just look at the book of Genesis for starters!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 6, 2007 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  932. Comment by DPS: “Hi Senator Brownback!!!”

    And DPS, if you think that’s really Brownback, you’re even more deluded than I thought! Why would he even be here? He’s a US Senator, running for President, probably a very busy man.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 6, 2007 @ 10:39 am | Reply

  933. 931: Not when they’re inspired by the One True God, they don’t.
    >Prove it that Allah is not a true god. Don’t use a fallacy or cite your religion.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 6, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  934. Me – “Here’s my problem with the guys who wrote those Psalms and Chronicles that you quote in your post. They were only human! And humans make mistakes.”

    DPS – “Not when they’re inspired by the One True God, they don’t.”

    Dude! You HAVE to be kidding me. Please tell me you’re kidding. If you’re not, I’ll have to conclude that the only way to reason with your kind is mass genocide! I’m beginning to understand what was going on through Hitler’s mind.

    Comment by Cyriac Kandoth — June 6, 2007 @ 10:48 am | Reply

  935. Sisyphus,

    Your comment on #925 “Kos- I hate you, and your blog.” is a markedly un-Christian thing to say. Jesus never hated anyone…Even in the story of Jesus cleansing the Temple, when he is irate at the behavior of the merchants and money-changers, he does not “hate” them (i.e. the accounts we have in Greek do not use any language as harsh as hate). When he was hanging on the cross, (which, for Christians, is the most important part of the Bible…Genesis is not the most important, in fact,not to detract from Judaism, but the entire Hebrew Scriptures, what Christians sometimes call the Old Testament is of only secondary importance to the Gospels, but it seems to favor quite heavily in all of your arguments Sisyphus…perhaps you are actually Jewish, since you do seem to emphasize Biblical law over the compassion of Jesus)anyway, back to the cross, even then Jesus didn’t hate anyone…he asked God to forgive them.

    Comment by John — June 6, 2007 @ 10:51 am | Reply

  936. Sisyphus, on #88 you wrote:

    “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.”

    You are the antithesis of skeptical. Since I don’t want to dig out all of my old philosophy textbooks here is some Wikipedia for you.

    In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to

    1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
    2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
    3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

    In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about

    1. the limitations of knowledge,
    2. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
    3. the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
    4. a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment,
    5. a lack of confidence in positive motives for human conduct or positive outcomes for human enterprises, that is, cynicism and pessimism

    From what I have read on your blog, you do not think that moral values are relative or subjective, nor do you obtain knowledge through systematic doubt and testing. If you did, you couldn’t believe in god.

    Comment by John — June 6, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  937. “I’m beginning to understand what was going on through Hitler’s mind.”

    Me and my big mouth… But, screw this. I’m outta here. I really believed that the internet was the solution for information starved people like Sisyphus and DPS. My only hope is that their kind grows extinct while the rest of us move forward in reality. If it’s any consolation, maybe their kids will turn out normal.

    Comment by Cyriac Kandoth — June 6, 2007 @ 11:09 am | Reply

  938. “They were only human! And humans make mistakes.”

    The Lord is an infallible editor.

    “Sisyphus, arrange the following words into a meaningful sentence: “Flogging” “A” “Dead” “Horse”

    A horse, flogging dead.

    “Well, least we have science to depend on, this “One True God” fella sounds very unreliable – just look at the book of Genesis for starters!!”

    Go worship at the idol of your false, dead god, Darwin. Our Lord is the One True God.

    “Prove it that Allah is not a true god. Don’t use a fallacy or cite your religion.”

    He lives in the Kaaba with the moon god idols. Also, he contradicts the Scriptures.

    “Me and my big mouth… But, screw this. I’m outta here. I really believed that the internet was the solution for information starved people like Sisyphus and DPS. My only hope is that their kind grows extinct while the rest of us move forward in reality. If it’s any consolation, maybe their kids will turn out normal.”

    Why do you hate Christianity?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 6, 2007 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

  939. “Why do you hate Christianity?”

    I don’t hate Christianity. I’m just perplexed by your interpretation of it.

    Comment by Cyriac Kandoth — June 6, 2007 @ 12:38 pm | Reply

  940. (My previous post got truncated somehow. continuing…)

    quoting Sisyphus: “Radar, like radiocarbon dating, becomes highly inaccurate at a certain interval.”

    *ding!* You’ve scored another 100% on the bullshit meter.
    Electromagnetic radiation travels arbitrarily far, and at unaltered speed, unless it hits something that absorbs or reflects it–such as a planet. We measure the time of travel, and thereby the distance, to Mars, and the distance is large. Millions of miles.

    (concerning human transcription of divinely inspired words, Sisyphus said:)
    “The Lord is an infallible editor.”

    *ding!* “Printers’ errors inevitably escaped detection in some editions. Perhaps the most famous faulty edition is the so-called “Wicked Bible”, a 1631 printing of the King James version (Herbert #444) in which Exod. 20:14 read: “Thou shalt commit adultery.””

    “Our Lord is the One True God.”

    So says *every* adherent of a monotheistic religion. But some of their claims contradict, therefore at least some are wrong. Perhaps including yours. Who, truly–reliably and objectively–is to say?

    “[Allah] He lives in the Kaaba with the moon god idols. Also, he contradicts the Scriptures.”

    *ding!* Allah, if such a being exists, does not live in any Earthly structure. Nor are there idols of other gods associated with Allah, for the prime shahadah (tenet) of Islam declares that there is no God but Allah.
    …Also, the Islamic Scriptures contradict (some of) the Christian ones. Therefore the Christian ones are invalid, because contradiction is sufficient to prove that (as you seem to think).

    Have you ever read Saxe’s poem, “The Blind Men and the Elephant”? I strongly recommend its message to you. It’s an allegory of the difficulties caused by differing faiths; it concludes with:
    “Though each was partly in the right,
    And all were in the wrong!”

    Comment by Silverhill — June 6, 2007 @ 5:25 pm | Reply

  941. Silverhill @ 941:

    “(My previous post got truncated somehow. continuing…)”

    Actually, there’s a boringness limit to comments. Clearly you exceeded it.

    Comment by DPS — June 6, 2007 @ 7:07 pm | Reply

  942. You’re not as amusing as Sisyphus, DPS. Try harder.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 6, 2007 @ 7:50 pm | Reply

  943. i was just wondering why you have to stand behind the beliefs of a religion…instead of standing behind your own that you have found by living this life? life is too short to not think for yourself.

    p.s. i, tragically for you, believe in god…and GASP! jesus. just not as fanatically as some of you. i am sure you think i will burn in hell. instead of believing that somehow, behind it all…i am actually a decent, kind, loving mother, who teaches kindness and love to her kids…just like jesus taught. but no, i dont teach them every word of the bible, i teach the basic philosophy of love and sisyphus, you should try it sometime.

    Comment by sarah — June 6, 2007 @ 8:29 pm | Reply

  944. “Then don’t live in a Christian country.”

    Remember that the original European and English emigrants moved here in part due to discrimination of one Christian sect over another. These founders created the doctrine of separation of religion and government precisely to avoid having their particular Christian beliefs trodden on by another group calling itself Christian. Having accpeted the need for separation of religion and government, religion has flourished in the United States, unlike many areas of Europe where religion plays a greater role in government.

    The founding fathers wisely chose to make sure that the United States was not dominated by a particular religion. This is not a “Christian” country.

    (PS, how many of you would you have a Catholic country? I firmly blieve that Brownback would not support making it such, I’m making no such suggestion. But that is the point of separation of religion and government, most readers will have their own religion and they differ among themselves.)

    Comment by Gordon — June 6, 2007 @ 9:04 pm | Reply

  945. (Oh, I see so many typographical errors, should be “immigrant”, “accepted”, “believe,” etc. Sorry.)

    Comment by Gordon — June 6, 2007 @ 9:16 pm | Reply

  946. Comment 942: Silverhill @ 941:

    “(My previous post got truncated somehow. continuing…)”

    Actually, there’s a boringness limit to comments. Clearly you exceeded it.

    > You know i’m still searching for a response to silverhill’s argument here. Too boring for you was it? You participate this whole time and when someone makes an intelligent argument u say it’s “boring.” That’s like reading a book just for its pictures. I think you just don’t have an argument because you can’t think of any rebuttal. But who cares. Rational thought is an atheist doctrine anyway.(No offence to sane christians)

    Well done Silverhill you’ve won

    Comment by I'm sure not all christians are this stupid — June 7, 2007 @ 3:25 am | Reply

  947. From what I’ve read here it is Satan that causes typos. I can only conclude that you must be a very wicked individual Gordon. Very wicked indeed. 😉

    In all seriousness though I think that the separation of church and state is a very important issue. Yet people like Sisyphus and groups who support Creationist theories refuse to keep religious teachings out of the statute books and try to force them on children too young to know any better.

    I know of a biology teacher who is also a creationist. He has no problem teaching the syllabus according to the government guidelines but will explain (but only if asked) that he doesn’t agree with certain parts of it. Certainly there are gaps in our scientific knowledge and alternate theories for the origin and evolution of species. These may be valid. Without exploring each theory it is impossible to understand the nature of anything. Many theories will be rejected as unworkable as we come to understand the world better.

    I am certain that the Flat Earth theory is unworkable, that the 6000 year old Earth is unworkable and that evolution provides many of the answers to the development of animals (including humans) but not every answer. By blinding yourself with Creationist doctrine you fail to see the world as it is. By failing to consider other options you fail to learn anything and therefore fail yourself.

    I see no dichotomy with believing in a god and accepting science. Religion isn’t for me but I can see how many people need it and therefore accept it’s influence on human thinking. Denying the proof of science and claiming that the Bible is perfect is just foolhardy. It begs the question: Perfect for what?

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 7, 2007 @ 3:50 am | Reply

  948. “Electromagnetic radiation travels arbitrarily far, and at unaltered speed, unless it hits something that absorbs or reflects it–such as a planet. We measure the time of travel, and thereby the distance, to Mars, and the distance is large. Millions of miles.”

    NASA fed you this gibberish.

    “Printers’ errors inevitably escaped detection in some editions. Perhaps the most famous faulty edition is the so-called “Wicked Bible”, a 1631 printing of the King James version (Herbert #444) in which Exod. 20:14 read: “Thou shalt commit adultery.””

    They caught the error, didn’t they? There you go.

    “Allah, if such a being exists, does not live in any Earthly structure. Nor are there idols of other gods associated with Allah, for the prime shahadah (tenet) of Islam declares that there is no God but Allah”

    They bow down to the Kaaba because it’s a shrine of the moon god. Here is a link to follow for more information:

    http://www.chick.com/search/SearchResults.asp

    “i was just wondering why you have to stand behind the beliefs of a religion…instead of standing behind your own that you have found by living this life? life is too short to not think for yourself.”

    I found the Bible, and I intend to live by it.

    “The founding fathers wisely chose to make sure that the United States was not dominated by a particular religion. This is not a “Christian” country.”

    Yes they did. Liberal Supreme Court Justices have veered this country away from their original vision.

    “PS, how many of you would you have a Catholic country? I firmly blieve that Brownback would not support making it such, I’m making no such suggestion.”

    Slander. Of course he wants it! So do I, so do all decent Catholics!

    “I am certain that the Flat Earth theory is unworkable, that the 6000 year old Earth is unworkable and that evolution provides many of the answers to the development of animals (including humans) but not every answer.”

    Sounds like you have faith, to me. Too bad you’ve ensconsed it in the wrong receptacle.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 7, 2007 @ 5:22 am | Reply

  949. If you can say that the Earth does not move because “I can’t feel it”, then by the same logic, God doesn’t exist because I can’t see, smell, touch, taste or hear him.

    I do hope this blog is satire, for humanities sake

    Comment by The Llama — June 7, 2007 @ 5:43 am | Reply

  950. If you mean “faith” as in confidence rather than religion then you’d be right.

    Blind faith is the very worst kind of belief.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 7, 2007 @ 5:54 am | Reply

  951. hoverfrog, you wrote – “I know of a biology teacher who is also a creationist.”

    You just reminded me of this video of Ms. Garrison of SouthPark teaching evolution…

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5706290476789961307

    Frikkin’ hilarious…

    Comment by Cyriac — June 7, 2007 @ 10:53 am | Reply

  952. […] Hello?  McFly?  This is absolutely the second most ridiculous thing I’ve read today.  (Here’s the first.) (Haaretz) Senior Fatah officials in the Gaza Strip have asked Israel to allow them to receive […]

    Pingback by Fatah asks Israel to allow Egyptian arms in…to fight Hamas « Careful Thought II — June 7, 2007 @ 10:59 am | Reply

  953. “If you can say that the Earth does not move because “I can’t feel it”, then by the same logic, God doesn’t exist because I can’t see, smell, touch, taste or hear him.”

    God is everywhere. You feel Him all the time.

    “I do hope this blog is satire, for humanities sake”

    Nope.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 7, 2007 @ 1:40 pm | Reply

  954. “God is everywhere. You feel Him all the time.”

    I don’t, unless God chooses to manifest himself as that itch on my back…

    Comment by Skeptic — June 7, 2007 @ 1:50 pm | Reply

  955. ** “The founding fathers wisely chose to make sure that the United States was not dominated by a particular religion. This is not a “Christian” country.”

    Yes they did. Liberal Supreme Court Justices have veered this country away from their original vision.

    “PS, how many of you would you have a Catholic country? I firmly blieve that Brownback would not support making it such, I’m making no such suggestion.”

    Slander. Of course he wants it! So do I, so do all decent Catholics! **

    I see you don’t quote he part of my point that tells how many came to America. They came due to opression of their Christian religion by another Christian religion. That is why the founding fathers instituted separation of religion and government, to avoid a single state religion opressing others.

    But I’m very glad to see you make the point that some would have the US be a “Catholic” state. Since at most 28% of Americans are Catholic, that leaves about 72 percent who would object to the US being a Catholic state.

    Most who read this will realize the importance of separation of religion and government, when confronted with the realization that a state that is not religiously nutral will probably discriminate at a significant level against their particular religion (Christian or not).

    Comment by Gordon — June 7, 2007 @ 2:14 pm | Reply

  956. When I stated that science proves the existence of God a while ago, I was stating that as a Christian who is also a biologist. People who believe in God do not have to not-believe in science to stay true to their faith, but it is easier for them when they do, because their thinking is not challenged. Science has NOT actually proven the existence of God, but a Christian should use science to strengthen their beliefs instead of using their beliefs to try to destroy science. Clearer now?

    Comment by Kos — June 7, 2007 @ 6:19 pm | Reply

  957. “Why do you hate Christianity?”

    I don’t hate Christianity. I’m just perplexed by your interpretation of it.

    Comment by Cyriac Kandoth — June 6, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

    —-Thats hysterical.

    Comment by Kos — June 7, 2007 @ 6:28 pm | Reply

  958. Sisyphus: Don’t ever breed.

    Comment by Mat — June 7, 2007 @ 7:41 pm | Reply

  959. “NASA fed you this gibberish.”

    Radar studies of the Solar System began before NASA existed. I could set up a radar unit and a radio telescope and perform this demonstration myself–it’s that straightforward.

    (concerning printers’ errors)
    “They caught the error, didn’t they? There you go.”

    But, according to (what appears to be) your interpretation, God (the “perfect editor”) should have intervened to prevent the printing errors from ever happening. He didn’t. Why?

    “Here is a link to follow for more information:
    http://www.chick.com/search/SearchResults.asp

    If you are one of the fools who take seriously the multiply bigoted, anti-social effluvia of Jack Chick, you’re not worth bothering with.

    “Sounds like you have faith, to me. Too bad you’ve ensconsed it in the wrong receptacle.”

    Too bad you have your *head* in the wrong receptacle!

    Comment by Silverhill — June 7, 2007 @ 11:29 pm | Reply

  960. “NASA fed you this gibberish.”

    Radar studies of the Solar System began before NASA existed. I could set up a radar unit and a radio telescope and perform this demonstration myself–it’s that straightforward.

    (concerning printers’ errors)
    “They caught the error, didn’t they? There you go.”

    But, according to (what appears to be) your interpretation, God (the “perfect editor”) should have intervened to prevent the printing errors from ever happening. He didn’t. Why?

    “Here is a link to follow for more information:
    http://www.chick.com/search/SearchResults.asp

    If you are one of the fools who take seriously the multiply bigoted, anti-social effluvia of Jack Chick, you’re not worth bothering with. (Chick is rather far from a worthy exponent of Christianity, if you somehow haven’t noticed.)

    “Sounds like you have faith, to me. Too bad you’ve ensconsed it in the wrong receptacle.”

    Too bad you have your *head* in the wrong receptacle!

    Comment by Silverhill — June 7, 2007 @ 11:30 pm | Reply

  961. “I don’t, unless God chooses to manifest himself as that itch on my back…”

    That’s probably a warning smite. You’d do well to pay heed to it.

    “But I’m very glad to see you make the point that some would have the US be a “Catholic” state. Since at most 28% of Americans are Catholic, that leaves about 72 percent who would object to the US being a Catholic state. ”

    You haven’t given it a chance yet! I’m a convert. I know what it’s like not to feel the Lord’s comforting embrace. Come on in, folks! There’s room for all.

    “Sisyphus: Don’t ever breed.”

    Too late, “Mat”, my androgynously-named non-friend.

    “Radar studies of the Solar System began before NASA existed. I could set up a radar unit and a radio telescope and perform this demonstration myself–it’s that straightforward.”

    You’re every bit as unreliable as NASA.

    “Too bad you have your *head* in the wrong receptacle!”

    A baseball cap?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 8, 2007 @ 5:46 am | Reply

  962. Cyriac that link was well worth the effort. South Park is still funny. Not as funny as some of the stuff I’ve read here but still funny.

    Sisyphus I have to ask: if the bible is 100% free from error how do you explain the many contradictions within it. Just Google “Biblical contractictions” for a list…unless google is the work of Satan or something. I’m sure you know of a proper right wing creationist nonsense search engine if it is.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 8, 2007 @ 5:56 am | Reply

  963. “Sisyphus I have to ask: if the bible is 100% free from error how do you explain the many contradictions within it. Just Google “Biblical contractictions” for a list…unless google is the work of Satan or something. I’m sure you know of a proper right wing creationist nonsense search engine if it is.”

    Google is pure evil. I’ve written posts on the subject before. Do NOT use Google, Hoverfrog. I beg you, for the love of God, refrain from Googling!

    BTW, how long do you think it would take to read through all these comments?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 8, 2007 @ 9:10 am | Reply

  964. hoverfrog @ 963:

    “if the bible is 100% free from error how do you explain the many contradictions within it.”

    Read upthread. This false contention has already been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner. Have you forgotten already?

    Comment by DPS — June 8, 2007 @ 9:17 am | Reply

  965. This is from the “hitchhikers guide to the galaxy” by Douglas Adams when Arthur comes across a Babel fish – a magical creature that allows you to understand any language spoken to you.
    ____________________

    Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:

    “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

    “But,” say Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”

    “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t though of that” and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

    –THGTG
    _____________________

    Maybe our little friends Siphyllus and co. should lighten up a bit and enjoy life for what it is. Just as you have a NEED to believe, I’m sure you are aware (if not previously then certainly now) that others do not need this safety net or reasurance. There should be no cause for uneeded and unwanted answers for those that are quite sure and quite satisfied of their own beliefs be it other religious faiths, or lack there of.

    Comment by Pognig — June 8, 2007 @ 9:21 am | Reply

  966. I haven’t read anything about the evil of Google. Or possibly I’ve forgotten. Is there some part of the search algorithm that promotes wickedness, naughtiness and not-niceness that I should be aware of?

    I’ve read the comments here but nothing that satisfies me that the existence of biblical contradictions have been explained. Could you refer me to the comment number or just summarize it again please.

    That’d be ace. 😉

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 8, 2007 @ 9:23 am | Reply

  967. Sisyphus; I commend you. This is by far the most entertaining thing I’ve ever read on the internet. I love how you Americans show yourselves time and time again to be completely shit for brains. But this is a new low. You would think that after a few hundred years of advancement from copernicus’ time that we would try our best to not slip back into the clearly wrong, self centered belief that the earth is the center of the universe. You’re denying almost all scientific evidence that we’ve gathered since the dawn of civilisation and to what purpose I can’t deduce. I honestly don’t see how your incessant ramblings are going to boost votes for Brownback or better your pathetic christian, consumer driven government. Skimming through the thousands of comments following your ridiculous blog, apart from making me want to hit something, has made me realise how lucky I am to be on the other side of the world from America, so far removed from the idiocy I see here.

    Thankyou again.

    Comment by roflmao — June 8, 2007 @ 9:23 am | Reply

  968. Oh come on, this guy just SCREAMS troll! :/

    I cant believe anyone thinks this is a real opinion. Even the fundies are not this dumb.

    Comment by Dana — June 8, 2007 @ 10:19 am | Reply

  969. Haven’t we heard enough from these Helioleftists by now? I think it’s time for someone to do something about all the problems, and atheism is a pretty big one.

    Comment by Marcia P. — June 8, 2007 @ 10:27 am | Reply

  970. […] centuries and one of the most famous flare-ups centered around this Italian guy named Galileo. As Blogs for Sam Brownback tells us everybody knows the earth can’t possibly be moving in space which is exactly why […]

    Pingback by Kooks put the “con” in conservative « Illinois Reason — June 8, 2007 @ 1:37 pm | Reply

  971. “You’re every bit as unreliable as NASA.”

    Ah yes, the “ad hominem” fallacy. Or maybe it’s just libel?

    “Too bad you have your *head* in the wrong receptacle!”

    “A baseball cap?”

    Nope, a bit lower than that.

    Sisyphus, here’s a genuine challenge for you, one that Marshall Hall (maintainer of the Fixed Earth website mentioned previously) refused to attempt despite having a passionate interest in the subject, and despite being specifically invited to do so:

    Show us the mathematics.
    Show us, in the plain, unambiguous language of mathematics, the support for your position. If you can’t handle the math yourself, point us to a good website with an adequate exposition. (No fair trying to use anything with an accompanying religious bias, of course. Only simple physics is fair game.)

    …And speaking of bias, do you realize that Jack Chick (whom you appear to support) is bigoted against Catholics too?

    Comment by Silverhill — June 8, 2007 @ 4:49 pm | Reply

  972. Sorry, hoverfrog, you’re right. The relevant post is “Science: The New Inquisition.” I’d start reading around comment 80.

    Comment by DPS — June 8, 2007 @ 5:42 pm | Reply

  973. Ah yes, that was when I started asking for people to disprove the existence of Santa and the tooth fairy. Nobody did this to my satisfaction I might add. Evidence for Santa is much more prevalent than evidence for god. Ask any 7 year old if the tooth fairy is real.

    There are some people who never grow out of their delusions that the tooth fairy, Santa and god exist. I suppose the human race needs to evolve and mature for this to be the case for everyone.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 8, 2007 @ 6:11 pm | Reply

  974. Everyone, please leave the zealot alone. Your abuse of Sisyphus is cruel. Pity him or her. He is powerless and a fool (if not the greatest comedian in the world). He is a Christian with his heart hardened by fear and hate for leftists and muslims. Pity him. Jesus loved. God is love. One day, when Jesus has come, he will teach Sisyphus some science. Until then, he is deaf and blind like Saul. Pity him and leave him alone.

    Comment by Zeolots Anonymous — June 8, 2007 @ 6:16 pm | Reply

  975. 970: Haven’t we heard enough from these Helioleftists by now? I think it’s time for someone to do something about all the problems, and atheism is a pretty big one.
    >Please read the responses to your previous comment.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 9, 2007 @ 7:08 am | Reply

  976. “Maybe our little friends Siphyllus and co. should lighten up a bit and enjoy life for what it is.”

    Drugs are illegal as well as immoral.

    “Show us, in the plain, unambiguous language of mathematics, the support for your position. If you can’t handle the math yourself, point us to a good website with an adequate exposition. (No fair trying to use anything with an accompanying religious bias, of course. Only simple physics is fair game.)”

    http://www.fixedearth.com

    “Ah yes, that was when I started asking for people to disprove the existence of Santa and the tooth fairy. Nobody did this to my satisfaction I might add. Evidence for Santa is much more prevalent than evidence for god. Ask any 7 year old if the tooth fairy is real.”

    If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not real.

    “One day, when Jesus has come, he will teach Sisyphus some science. Until then, he is deaf and blind like Saul. Pity him and leave him alone.”

    God is with me, now and forever.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 9, 2007 @ 9:55 am | Reply

  977. Almost 1000 comments. I hate you even more ¬¬

    Comment by Snipe — June 9, 2007 @ 7:06 pm | Reply

  978. Don’t blame me, Snipe. I posted a perfectly reasonable analysis of Helioleftism. You liberals then decided to jump all over me about it. Yet, not one of you has disproven a single thing I posted, despite your constant reliance on the laughable pseudosciences, your Copernicanism, and your reliance on irrelevant tangents like Foucault’s Pendulum.

    We could get a thousand more comments, and I still don’t think anyone could disprove that the Earth lies stationary in accordance with True science and with Scripture. For such is the way of things.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 9, 2007 @ 7:12 pm | Reply

  979. 977: If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not real.
    >First prove the Bible is true, WITHOUT USING CIRCULAR REASONING (that includes DPS’ “proof” using the definition of God and the Bible.)

    Comment by lietk12 — June 9, 2007 @ 7:53 pm | Reply

  980. Circular Reasoning Explained…

    Since the Bible is true, then God must exist. And since God exists (and doesn’t lie), his words in the Bible must be true. Since the Bible is true, then God must exist. If God exists, his words must be true. Since his words are true, the Bible is true. Since the Bible is true, then God must exist. And since God exists…

    DEAR GOD! When does it end?!

    Comment by Cyriac — June 9, 2007 @ 11:29 pm | Reply

  981. Silverhill: “(No fair trying to use anything with an accompanying religious bias, of course. Only simple physics is fair game.)”

    Sisyphus: http://www.fixedearth.com

    You’re not following instructions. The FixedEarth website (which I have already examined, TYVM [Thank You Very Much]) is highly religiously biased, as you know full well, so it does not meet my criterion.
    Try again, but really *think* first. (Remember that I said that Marshall Hall refuses to provide the mathematics. He *asserts* much but *demonstrates* little or nothing; I suspect that the reason is that he can’t, not just that he won’t.)

    “If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not real.”

    Computers are not in the Bible, so you’re not using one to create this blog. Mechanically printed Bibles (much less the new, online versions) are not in the Bible, so they’re not real.
    *You’re* not in the Bible, so *you’re* not real.
    (Get real!)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 10, 2007 @ 1:44 am | Reply

  982. 3 in 4 people from Turkey are Creationists (the Quran version of Creationism)
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070608-101352-1773r.htm

    Hmmm… After all, they’re only human. Funny thing – my graduate advisor is from Turkey. But he’s a die-hard proponent of evolution, as is pretty much everyone in grad school. But not just that, my thesis is based on Genetics.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 10, 2007 @ 3:03 am | Reply

  983. You argue the point about as well as it can be; unfortunately, you don’t understand the maths.

    Yes, it IS perfectly valid to assume the earth is not moving. This is part of relativity (“pure claptrap” apparently). All frames of reference are equally valid.

    It is also perfectly valid to assume it is moving, and some other point in the entire universe is stationary. So it proves neither – they are both a function of perspective.

    The bible isn’t proof of anything, and you try and use science and fail.

    Comment by Mike — June 10, 2007 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  984. 1) True, they haven’t proven it stationary either. And if we assume it to be moving, then we get a sensible, simple system that explains the motion of all the planets and the rest of the universe, without needing to invent new forces. They cancel out when we assume the earth orbits the sun.

    2) No. You dismiss maths that doesn’t agree with your viewpoint. Wrong, maths is absolute. It is all a matter of logic. Physics makes certain assumptions, and then applies the maths. It then tests to see if the assumptions were true. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests (but does not prove) that the earth is moving.

    3) You just take a dig at science on this one, no attempt at an argument.

    4) Same as 3), just worse. “Everyone reading this knows the bible is a load of claptrap” Oh see I just disproved the entire bible on on that point, by calling it claptrap.

    5) They prove it rotates. (We do agree the earth is round, right?)

    6) What? You just pulled every physics experiment you could think of out of your ass?

    Mickelson-Morley results prove that the earth does not move relative to the speed of light. Hence relativity.

    Sure, theoretical physics is exactly that. Only a theory, a model that explains the way the earth works. As more evidence comes to light and people develop more models and theories, and fit them together, the more certain we become that the models are accurate and that the theories are correct.

    There are certainly problems with current top end physics, that some really clever people are trying to work out. It is however, difficult to fit all these models together – like doing a jigsaw with only a few of the pieces, and trying to work out what the picture is.

    So in conclusion, your argument is that physics does not have all the answers, yet, and is therefore wrong.

    Comment by Mike — June 10, 2007 @ 9:19 am | Reply

  985. Is Mike a person, or a random word generator?

    If you want us to believe that you are a person, Mike, please post a seven word sentence (articles count) about a cow.

    Comment by DPS — June 10, 2007 @ 3:50 pm | Reply

  986. “What? You just pulled every physics experiment you could think of out of your ass?

    Mickelson-Morley results prove that the earth does not move relative to the speed of light. Hence relativity.”

    Exactly: you can’t believe in relativity AND ether, so either accept relativity is true, there is no ether and science is right.
    Or reject relativity, accept the ether and never use relativity in any of your arguments.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 10, 2007 @ 5:36 pm | Reply

  987. I am an atheist, and reading through this I see enough people who are taking this seriously.

    Don’t lie about candidates beliefs. There are plenty of REAL THINGS that make them unelectable. I’d prefer my candidate to win fair and square. I’m tired of any dishonest in politics, it’s screwing us all.

    Comment by Richard Wicks — June 10, 2007 @ 9:13 pm | Reply

  988. I am an atheist, and reading through this I see enough people who are taking this seriously.

    Don’t lie about any candidates beliefs. There are plenty of REAL THINGS that make them unelectable. I’d prefer my candidate to win fair and square. I’m tired of any dishonesty in politics, it’s screwing us all.

    Comment by Richard Wicks — June 10, 2007 @ 9:14 pm | Reply

  989. “you can’t believe in relativity AND ether”

    Yeah, they said we couldn’t believe in a triune godhead, either. And yet, here we are. 🙂

    Comment by DPS — June 10, 2007 @ 10:09 pm | Reply

  990. If you want us to believe that you are a person, Mike, please post a seven word sentence (articles count) about a cow.

    Oh..go on then.

    All cows are stationary; we orbit them.

    Comment by Mike — June 11, 2007 @ 12:45 am | Reply

  991. “If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not real.”

    err…are you stupid?

    seriously…are you?

    I mean come on…how can someone like you actually have an opinion that counts if your so biased?

    Comment by Thomas — June 11, 2007 @ 4:11 am | Reply

  992. Comment by Sisyphus: “Yet, not one of you has disproven a single thing I posted, despite your constant reliance on the laughable pseudosciences, your Copernicanism, and your reliance on irrelevant tangents like Foucault’s Pendulum.”

    Yes we have, you simply refuse to listen.

    (Of course, to keep this hoax blog going, you CANNOT change your view; otherwise the game is up!)

    You’re a fundamentalist. Nothing we say here will change your mind because you’re not open to any change in your beliefs. The bible never changes. Scripture never changes. Your dogma never changes. So, why would you change?

    Are you actually “looking” for proof of heliocentrism from this forum? You seem so stuck in your belief system (i.e. If it’s not in the bible, you don’t believe it) why even open this up for discussion? Oh, I forgot, the “silent majority” agree with you!

    Science is malleable, progressive and open-minded, thus cannot be fundamental. This is at odds with your belief system so the two are incompatible and mutually exclusive. By this rationale, nothing will change your mind – and when I say nothing, I mean nothing, including the remote possibilty of “god” revealing to you in a blaze of glory and glorious revelation that the Earth revolves around the sun – simply because this revelation would contradict your dogma.

    Looks like you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 11, 2007 @ 4:54 am | Reply

  993. “Computers are not in the Bible, so you’re not using one to create this blog. Mechanically printed Bibles (much less the new, online versions) are not in the Bible, so they’re not real.
    *You’re* not in the Bible, so *you’re* not real.”

    Exhibit A of dishonest leftist thought.

    “Sure, theoretical physics is exactly that. Only a theory, a model that explains the way the earth works. As more evidence comes to light and people develop more models and theories, and fit them together, the more certain we become that the models are accurate and that the theories are correct.”

    The theories are wild guesses, the “evidence” is fraudulent or mistaken data acquired from experiments gone awry. So much for your vaunted Copernicus!

    “Or reject relativity, accept the ether and never use relativity in any of your arguments.”

    Ether exists. The Earth does not move. Mathematically, it may sometimes be convenient to argue otherwise; but mathematics doesn’t account for the watery womb in which our planet gestates as it awaits the Second Coming of the Lord.

    “Yeah, they said we couldn’t believe in a triune godhead, either. And yet, here we are.”

    Exactly. I think it’s hilarious that these leftards presume to tell us what we can and can’t believe in. If they had their way, we’d all bow down to Marx and Mohammed. I’ve never seen anyone as intolerant as a secular humanist.

    “All cows are stationary; we orbit them.”

    That does count. It has seven words. Mike is a real person. He’s insane, but he’s a real person.

    “Are you actually “looking” for proof of heliocentrism from this forum? You seem so stuck in your belief system (i.e. If it’s not in the bible, you don’t believe it) why even open this up for discussion?”

    So that everyone can see how extremist and dishonest you “tolerant” liberal types really are.

    “Oh, I forgot, the “silent majority” agree with you!”

    Yes, they do. In fact, if you go to other threads, you’ll see the vocal majority often agree with me, also.

    “Looks like you’ve painted yourself into a corner.”

    I don’t even know what this means. I haven’t been painting, and if I did I’d be sure to paint myself into the doorway, so that I could escape the fumes and the wetness and go outside when I was finished. What are you talking about?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 5:30 am | Reply

  994. Maybe it was excessive paint fumes that caused this in the first place.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 11, 2007 @ 6:10 am | Reply

  995. Comment by Tyler Durden: “Looks like you’ve painted yourself into a corner.”

    Comment by Sisyphus: “I don’t even know what this means.”

    Wow!! If I have to explain what this simple idiom to you, what hope of explaining complex astronomical or scientific ideas. Whoever said ignorance was bliss obviously never read this blog from Sisyphus!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 11, 2007 @ 6:58 am | Reply

  996. @DPS
    From Sysi’s blog:

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

    and

    “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.”

    Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 11, 2007 @ 8:05 am | Reply

  997. The whole contradiction issue has been cleared up. Although these statements and many statements in the bible that seemingly contradict one another do appear there is no actual contradiction. Or so it has been explained.

    This even though the world is a flat sheet with four corners suspended from heaven AND a round disk held up by pillars it is still one and the same thing despite having no evidence to support either hypothesis. Not to mention the evidence that directly contradicts these strange theories. Attempt to point out the errors and you become a helioleftistsatanistfruitloop and can miraculously no longer be heard.

    Thus the world is flat, has four corners while being round, and is surrounded by aqueous ether. The planets aren’t real, space travel is impossible and is actually a huge multi-governmental conspiracy since the 1960s and the moon is made of cheese. The sun is pulled across the sky by angels who are also responsible for painting the sky that lovely blue colour you see on a clear day. Clouds are solid and capable of supporting vast heavenly cities where the spirits of all the dead reside alongside more than 5000 saints, thousands of angels, seraphim and assorted heavenly helpers.

    It must be true, it says so in that old book.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 11, 2007 @ 8:19 am | Reply

  998. Comment by Skeptic: “Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?”

    Ah, Skeptic, you need to understand that Sisyphus is making this all up as he goes along (just like the authors of the bible) so he does not need to adhere to logic, reasoning, common sense and most importantly – The Truth! (just like the authors of the bible!)

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 11, 2007 @ 8:54 am | Reply

  999. Sorry but I just have to steal the 1000th comment.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 11, 2007 @ 9:09 am | Reply

  1000. I had comment #666 and #999, just waiting for DPS to claim I’m the antipodean lucifer!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 11, 2007 @ 9:16 am | Reply

  1001. “Maybe it was excessive paint fumes that caused this in the first place.”

    Easily one of the strangest posts in this entire thread.

    “Wow!! If I have to explain what this simple idiom to you, what hope of explaining complex astronomical or scientific ideas. Whoever said ignorance was bliss obviously never read this blog from Sisyphus!!”

    I’ve heard about people getting “high” from inhaling paint fumes. If that’s what you’ve been up to, Tyler, it explains a lot.

    “Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?”

    I’m just not seeing any contradiction, Skeptic. Maybe if you thought about God’s Will more and your own flawed, feeble, failed frames of reference less, things would begin to make a bit more sense to you.

    “Ah, Skeptic, you need to understand that Sisyphus is making this all up as he goes along (just like the authors of the bible) so he does not need to adhere to logic, reasoning, common sense and most importantly – The Truth! (just like the authors of the bible!)”

    I do nothing but what Our Father in Heaven commands of me.

    “Sorry but I just have to steal the 1000th comment.”

    Straight to Hell for that one, hoverfrog.

    “I had comment #666 and #999, just waiting for DPS to claim I’m the antipodean lucifer!!”

    Looks like you’ve already beaten him to it.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 10:02 am | Reply

  1002. “I do nothing but what Our Father in Heaven commands of me.”

    Ah yes, the old “I was only doing my duty” defense. I’ve heard that one before. Wasn’t that used in some famous trial once before?

    So much for free-will, thinking for oneself and the ability to see and live in the real world. Keep painting yourself into corners Sisyphus…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 11, 2007 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  1003. Sadly I’m not destined for hell, heaven, spagetti land or any other made up place for theft of the 1000th comment. In fact, I imagine that I’ll get away scot free with this most heinous crime.

    On the subject of sins that send you straight to the fiery pits of gehenna though. If I did commit a crime such as theft of a candy cane from an infant would my punishment be any worse than someone who murdered hundred or thousands of people? As I’ve always understood it the ten commandments all work as one so breaking one results in being punished for all.

    Nothing like matching the punishment to the crime is there?

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 11, 2007 @ 10:28 am | Reply

  1004. “Ah yes, the old “I was only doing my duty” defense. I’ve heard that one before. Wasn’t that used in some famous trial once before?”

    The Nazis, Communists, and other servants of Satan employed it, but since they served an Evil One, it was no use to them.

    “So much for free-will, thinking for oneself and the ability to see and live in the real world. Keep painting yourself into corners Sisyphus…”

    Why this obsession with painting things? Are you Andy Warhol or something? Or one of his drugged-out homosexual Hippie acolytes? Why do you keep talking about paint? This thread is about Heliocentrism, not degenerate artwork.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 10:30 am | Reply

  1005. Comment by Tyler: “So much for free-will, thinking for oneself and the ability to see and live in the real world. Keep painting yourself into corners Sisyphus…”

    Comment by Sisyphus: “Why this obsession with painting things? Are you Andy Warhol or something? Or one of his drugged-out homosexual Hippie acolytes? Why do you keep talking about paint?”

    I really don’t have the time for this, can somebody please explain to Sisyphus what the term “Painting yourself into a corner” means. And please, use words and phrases he can understand, no references to Google or Wikipedia…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 11, 2007 @ 10:41 am | Reply

  1006. “I really don’t have the time for this, can somebody please explain to Sisyphus what the term “Painting yourself into a corner” means. And please, use words and phrases he can understand, no references to Google or Wikipedia…”

    I looked up “paint” on Conservapedia, but no one has put up an entry yet.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  1007. […] blog entry is one of the funniest things I have read in long time. Too bad it’s so tragic at the same […]

    Pingback by The Green Atheist » Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine — June 11, 2007 @ 1:11 pm | Reply

  1008. 986: Is Mike a person, or a random word generator?

    If you want us to believe that you are a person, Mike, please post a seven word sentence (articles count) about a cow.
    >Ad hominem. Please focus on the DISCUSSION!

    994: The theories are wild guesses, the “evidence” is fraudulent or mistaken data acquired from experiments gone awry.
    >PROVE IT.

    1005: Why this obsession with painting things? Are you Andy Warhol or something? Or one of his drugged-out homosexual Hippie acolytes? Why do you keep talking about paint? This thread is about Heliocentrism, not degenerate artwork.
    >”Fallacy” of demagogy. Stop going off on tangents.

    1006: I really don’t have the time for this, can somebody please explain to Sisyphus what the term “Painting yourself into a corner” means.
    >It means to “dig a hole to bury yourself under”.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 11, 2007 @ 4:38 pm | Reply

  1009. “PROVE IT.”

    DIS-PROVE IT, science junkie.

    ”Fallacy” of demagogy. Stop going off on tangents.”

    This would mean a lot more if I even knew what we were talking about in the first place.

    “It means to “dig a hole to bury yourself under.”

    How is that even possible? Do you dig a hole, and then shovel the dirt into your mouth as you dig? Or is it kind of like you crawl into a tunnel and knock out the supports holding the tunnel up, burying yourself alive? Help me out here. I keep imagining a man trying to eat his shovel blade, or smother himself with a glass of dirt, or something.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 11, 2007 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  1010. Dear United States of America,

    Please elect these idiots and destroy your scientific infrastructure.

    We’d quite like to rule the planet instead of you.

    Love,

    Everyone In China

    Comment by frizzled — June 11, 2007 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  1011. “If brownback wins the presidency, I will accept the jesus christ as the one and almighty god and my savior, and accept creationism and heliocentrism and anything else that the bible says is true.”

    Like you would have any choice to believe otherwise… I suspect that is, well, was, the entire point.

    But seriously, does anyone actually track response rates to blogs? At over 1000, this one must at least be getting close to the top-10 list. I can’t believe I’ve read all the way to the bottom (okay, to be completely honest, I started skimming in the 900’s). I wonder how big an integer WordPress uses to track comments… think this blog will hit the bit-limit? Will the world come crashing down at comment 1024? Is this the end as we know it? Okay, so I’m not really being that serious 😉

    Keep it up… It’s not like I have anything better to do.

    David…

    Comment by Dave — June 11, 2007 @ 9:57 pm | Reply

  1012. “How is that even possible? Do you dig a hole, and then shovel the dirt into your mouth as you dig? Or is it kind of like you crawl into a tunnel and knock out the supports holding the tunnel up, burying yourself alive? Help me out here. I keep imagining a man trying to eat his shovel blade, or smother himself with a glass of dirt, or something.”

    “I don’t even know what this means. I haven’t been painting, and if I did I’d be sure to paint myself into the doorway, so that I could escape the fumes and the wetness and go outside when I was finished. What are you talking about?”

    I love these two posts from Sisyphus. He has once again demonstrated his complete inaptitude for abstract thought. He takes everything completely literally… even when it’s not in the bible.

    To me this would suggest that the reason he takes everything in the bible as fact is not because it is God’s word but rather because he has some kind of mental issue which prevents him from seeing the shades of grey. It’s all black and white for ol’ Sisyphus.

    Now Sisyphus if i tell you you’re trying to get blood out of a stone, what comes to mind??

    Comment by Oh dear... — June 12, 2007 @ 3:11 am | Reply

  1013. sorry typo- “Ineptitude”

    Comment by Oh dear... — June 12, 2007 @ 3:14 am | Reply

  1014. Comment by Oh dear… “Now Sisyphus if i tell you you’re trying to get blood out of a stone, what comes to mind??”

    This one might just send him over the edge!! (Maybe there’s an appendix of idioms at the back of the bible to help him out? 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 12, 2007 @ 4:32 am | Reply

  1015. You could have a lot of fun with idioms here. His gene pool doesn’t have a deep end so he wouldn’t understand them. You’d have to watch out for biblical ones in case they snuck in by accident. Wasn’t “You can lead a camel to water, but you can’t make it drink” biblical? Sort of like you can lead an idiot to science but you can’t make him read.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 4:40 am | Reply

  1016. “Now Sisyphus if i tell you you’re trying to get blood out of a stone, what comes to mind??”

    That you’re insane. How do you bleed a stone? I mean, I’ve heard that some stones absorb water, so maybe if you put them in a river of blood for a while they might be able to ooze some out for you. But that’s a sick thought. It’s crazy, in fact. Like you.

    Anyway, even if you could kill rocks, why would you? What did they ever do to you?

    “You could have a lot of fun with idioms here. His gene pool doesn’t have a deep end so he wouldn’t understand them. You’d have to watch out for biblical ones in case they snuck in by accident. Wasn’t “You can lead a camel to water, but you can’t make it drink” biblical? Sort of like you can lead an idiot to science but you can’t make him read.”

    Whatever, treefrog.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 12, 2007 @ 4:47 am | Reply

  1017. This is a parody, right? hahahahahaha. Very, very funny.

    Comment by David Konigsberg — June 12, 2007 @ 4:52 am | Reply

  1018. I forgot, you don’t believe in a “gene pool” do you?

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 4:58 am | Reply

  1019. Comment by Sisyphus: “How do you bleed a stone? I mean, I’ve heard that some stones absorb water, so maybe if you put them in a river of blood for a while they might be able to ooze some out for you. But that’s a sick thought. It’s crazy, in fact. Like you.
    Anyway, even if you could kill rocks, why would you? What did they ever do to you?”

    Yep! Over the edge. Way over the edge. Congrats Oh dear…

    Of course, he could be feigning ignorance, but then, doesn’t one of those pesky commandments say something along the lines of “Thou Shalt Not Lie”.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 12, 2007 @ 5:04 am | Reply

  1020. […] Blogs 4 Brownback, a website that is supposedly authored by a supporter of Senator Brownback’s bid for the presidency, is drawing criticism for a series of inflammatory blog posts. The author of the blog, who goes by the username of Sisyphus, claims to not believe in heliocentrism, evolution, or abortion.   Of course Sissyphus doesn’t support that non-Biblical, purely heretical nonsense because he is a Christian – just like Senator Sam Brownback.  […]

    Pingback by Liberal Media attacks Brownback and Conservative Bloggers « Baptists For Brownback 2008 — June 12, 2007 @ 5:13 am | Reply

  1021. >>“Computers are not in the Bible, so you’re not using one to create this blog. Mechanically printed Bibles (much less the new, online versions) are not in the Bible, so they’re not real.
    *You’re* not in the Bible, so *you’re* not real.”>“Ah yes, the old “I was only doing my duty” defense. I’ve heard that one before. Wasn’t that used in some famous trial once before?”>“PROVE IT.”

    Comment by Silverhill — June 12, 2007 @ 5:24 am | Reply

  1022. “one of those pesky commandments say something along the lines of ‘Thou Shalt Not Lie’.” There is an issue with translation here, of course. “Thou Shalt Not Lie” could be “Thou shalt not bear false witness” which means something entirely different. It’d have to otherwise how would a man get through life. You can’t avoid questions like “Does my bum look big in this?” forever without a little lie or two.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 5:31 am | Reply

  1023. On the subject of lies wouldn’t this commandment also include self deception such as convincing yourself falsely that the world is flat or that your children are the smartest, most beautiful children ever born. Clearly the world is not flat and my children are the best and not yours.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 5:35 am | Reply

  1024. …stupid WordPress software appears to regard a left-angle-bracket as a statement terminator…oh well, I’ll re-type it…

    ==================
    —“Computers are not in the Bible, so you’re not using one to create this blog. Mechanically printed Bibles (much less the new, online versions) are not in the Bible, so they’re not real.
    *You’re* not in the Bible, so *you’re* not real.”—

    “Exhibit A of dishonest leftist thought.”

    Eh? No dishonesty here. Computers, printed Bibles, and you are all definitely not mentioned in the Bible. This is easily verifiable, even by you.

    ====================================
    “The theories are wild guesses…”

    *DING!* (another 100% score on the bullshit meter)
    Go re-read the definitions, so that you can join us in knowing the difference between the well-developed idea called a “theory” and the undeveloped idea called a “wild guess”.

    ================================
    “Mike is a real person. He’s insane, but he’s a real person.”

    The pot is calling the kettle black again.

    ================================
    “So that everyone can see how extremist and dishonest you “tolerant” liberal types really are.”

    Two logical fallacies for the price of one, ladies and gentlemen! “Tu quoque” followed by “ad hominem”, within a single sentence!

    =============================
    Skeptic: “Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?”

    Sisyphus: “I’m just not seeing any contradiction, Skeptic.”

    “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

    ==============================
    “I do nothing but what Our Father in Heaven commands of me.”

    *DING!* I have trouble believing that your Heavenly Father commands you to look like an idiot.

    =============================
    —“Ah yes, the old “I was only doing my duty” defense. I’ve heard that one before. Wasn’t that used in some famous trial once before?”—

    “The Nazis, Communists, and other servants of Satan employed it…”

    Lt. William Calley. Viet Nam. 1968. My Lai massacre. (Google it.)

    ===========================
    —“PROVE IT.”—

    “DIS-PROVE IT, science junkie.”

    *DING!* You’ve made the claim [geocentrism]; YOURS is the burden of proof, religion junkie.
    Go for it. Show us the mathematics. (“Put up or shut up.”)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 12, 2007 @ 5:38 am | Reply

  1025. “You can’t avoid questions like “Does my bum look big in this?” forever without a little lie or two.”
    No need to lie when that question crops up as there’s only ever one answer: “No!” 🙂

    It’s a wonder Sisyphus can carry on a conversation considering he has his foot in his mouth most of the time!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 12, 2007 @ 6:38 am | Reply

  1026. Comment by sisyphus:

    “Now Sisyphus if i tell you you’re trying to get blood out of a stone, what comes to mind??”

    That you’re insane. How do you bleed a stone? I mean, I’ve heard that some stones absorb water, so maybe if you put them in a river of blood for a while they might be able to ooze some out for you. But that’s a sick thought. It’s crazy, in fact. Like you.

    >who else loves the way he just proves my point in my previous post? Hilarious. Let me break it down for you sisyphus. The idea is that it’s impossible to get blood out of a stone. it is a futile labour. Like what you are doing. Like pushing a rock tirelessly up a mountain only to have it fall back down as your namesake did.

    Comment by Oh dear... — June 12, 2007 @ 7:40 am | Reply

  1027. ‘“You can’t avoid questions like “Does my bum look big in this?” forever without a little lie or two.”
    No need to lie when that question crops up as there’s only ever one answer: “No!” :-)’

    Sisyphus, you might want to ban Tyler Durden for admiring hoverfrog’s ‘bum.’ This is not the kind of thing you want going on on your website, I think. hoverfrog didn’t do anything wrong, though.

    Comment by DPS — June 12, 2007 @ 8:39 am | Reply

  1028. 1028: Sisyphus, you might want to ban Tyler Durden for admiring hoverfrog’s ‘bum.’ This is not the kind of thing you want going on on your website, I think. hoverfrog didn’t do anything wrong, though.
    >Ad hominem.

    1011: Dear United States of America,

    Please elect these idiots and destroy your scientific infrastructure.

    We’d quite like to rule the planet instead of you.

    Love,

    Everyone In China

    Comment by frizzled — June 11, 2007 @
    >Nope. I won’t tolerate another “Cultural” Revolution or a Giant Leap “Forward”. Though I suspect this is a parody. And no, it’s not everyone in China. It’s just the Communists who also happen to torture anyone who goes against them.

    1010: “PROVE IT.”

    DIS-PROVE IT, science junkie.
    >You have the burden of proof, as you made the accusation. But here’s something to think about: theories MUST be supported by evidence, so they are not WILD GUESSES. And how would you know the evidence is fraudulent? Is your test based on whether or not the ideas or data agree with your dogma? If you want to make claims, YOU, NOT your opponent, have to support it. So don’t be lazy.

    “It means to “dig a hole to bury yourself under.”

    How is that even possible? Do you dig a hole, and then shovel the dirt into your mouth as you dig? Or is it kind of like you crawl into a tunnel and knock out the supports holding the tunnel up, burying yourself alive? Help me out here. I keep imagining a man trying to eat his shovel blade, or smother himself with a glass of dirt, or something.
    >It’s digging to bury yourself alive. Or think of it as “shooting your foot” or walking into enemy fire on purpose.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 12, 2007 @ 9:12 am | Reply

  1029. Anyone is free to admire my bum if they so choose. If I say so myself I have a particularly attractive derriere and if people wish to admire it then I would be performing a great disservice in preventing them. I’m sure the bible has something to say about behinds. I’m not sure what but I’ll bet an expert like Sysiphus will be able to tell me.

    Maybe

    Get thee behind me Satan

    or

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours arse

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 9:35 am | Reply

  1030. “The pot is calling the kettle black again.”

    Pots can’t speak, stupid moonbat.

    “Like pushing a rock tirelessly up a mountain only to have it fall back down as your namesake did.”

    At least I don’t hurt the rock. I’ll leave the sadism of that to people like you leftists.

    “Sisyphus, you might want to ban Tyler Durden for admiring hoverfrog’s ‘bum.’ This is not the kind of thing you want going on on your website, I think. hoverfrog didn’t do anything wrong, though.”

    It’s a little insensitive to the homeless, but I think I’ll let it stand. It helps underscore how little the Democrats really think of the homeless in this country.

    “It’s digging to bury yourself alive. Or think of it as “shooting your foot” or walking into enemy fire on purpose.”

    Shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty stupid thing to do. Thanks.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 12, 2007 @ 9:54 am | Reply

  1031. This is… a very interesting read.

    First, I’d like to say that I understand Sysiphus’s reasoning… for the most part.
    He definitely argues well…

    I believe that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and that (most) opinions should be respected.

    However, I do not support opinions that state that specific people, usually catagorized by race, nationality, or even religion, do not have the “Right” to exist.

    This is all about that fact that Heliocentrism is incorrect. That the bible states that the Earth does not move. That we should embrace the Lord and go back to the Old Ways.

    Keep in mind that the Bible says a lot of things, some of which do not make sense, and there are various issues with translations of translations of translations.

    What I mean to say is that:

    1) Sysiphus, you might have misunderstood the Bible.
    2) Those that wrote it in the Bible misunderstood the Lord.
    3) That truly, this is a ridiculous subject to focus on, and that in it’s defense you have not stayed true to the most important things that He wanted to be put in the Bible, which are:

    1 – I am the Lord thy God
    2 – Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
    3 – Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
    4 – Honor thy Mother and Father
    5 – Thou shalt not murder
    6 – Thou shalt not commit adultery
    7 – Thou shalt not steal
    8 – Thou shalt not bear false witness
    9 – Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife
    10 – Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.

    9 and 10 refer to “Respecting Thy Neighbor”, which, depending on the translation, etc. is on of the 10 Commandments.

    Like it or not, those of other faiths are your neighbors, and they deserve the right to exist and to have their own opinions, just as the Lord states.

    The Lord does not command that we convert or destroy all who oppose us, in fact, he commands that we respect them.

    And no, he is not referring to just Christians as neighbors.

    Comment by matt — June 12, 2007 @ 10:01 am | Reply

  1032. This is dumb. We see the stars revolving around the earth, right? If it weren’t the earth to revolv on its axis but the stars to actually revolv around us, then the farthest ones would have a speed many times that of light, which is the fastest speed possible.

    Besides, Guglielmini showed in 18th century that if u drop something from a hundred meters or so then it is going to deviate a few millimeters from the perpendicular to the ground.

    Last but not least, we see that all the other planets rotate around the sun. Why should earth be different?

    Comment by dandus — June 12, 2007 @ 10:09 am | Reply

  1033. I’m not so sure about that Matt. Look at the books of Joshua and Judges. There’s plenty of wholesale slaughter in god’s name going on there. Also some gang rape and dismemberment.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 12, 2007 @ 10:25 am | Reply

  1034. 7/10 Could be an epic troll is it wasn’t just some wordpress weblog entry. Execution is pretty good, but the baiting could have been improved (I’m surprised geocentrism got as many comments as it did) by using a less easily contested (if only because of popular opinion) position. A bit of a gamble, but linking it to a presidential campaign seems to have put the odds more in your favor. Bravo.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 12, 2007 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  1035. That’s from the OT, before God became a Buddhist.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 12, 2007 @ 10:42 am | Reply

  1036. “I’m not so sure about that Matt. Look at the books of Joshua and Judges. There’s plenty of wholesale slaughter in god’s name going on there. Also some gang rape and dismemberment.”

    The Canaanites had it coming. They still do.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 12, 2007 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  1037. This amuses me on a very deep and fundamental level.

    I’d say Sisyphus has his head in the sand, but I guess he’s broken through to the mantle at this point.

    Unless that doesn’t exist either?

    Comment by Felonious — June 12, 2007 @ 12:20 pm | Reply

  1038. matt said: “First, I’d like to say that I understand Sysiphus’s reasoning…for the most part.” He definitely argues well…”

    Sorry, you’re wrong there. Sisyphus frequently distorts [the sense of] what was posted, or even lies about it when he doesn’t just ignore it or otherwise try to duck the issue.
    Also, some of his points sound as if they were made under the influence of some interesting mushrooms. (Still provided, of course, that all this is not just an elaborate parody. As I wrote, I’m still reserving judgment on that; but I’m willing to play along, at least for the entertainment value.)

    Sisyphus said: “The Canaanites had it coming. They still do.”

    *DING!* God (the God of Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus, you know) said:
    (as seen in Zechariah 8:16-17)
    16 “These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other, and render true and sound judgment in your courts;
    17 do not plot evil against your neighbor, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this,” declares the LORD.

    and in the New Testament also:
    (Mark 12:28-31)
    28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
    29″The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
    30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
    31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

    Comment by Silverhill — June 12, 2007 @ 1:29 pm | Reply

  1039. GOD HATES PEOPLE WHO HATE GOPD ATHEISTS BELOGN IN GITKO WIOTH THE REST OF TEH SUCM!!!

    VOPTE BROWNABCK! VOTE BROWNBACK!!! VOTE BROWNABCK!!!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — June 12, 2007 @ 2:07 pm | Reply

  1040. Um…Galileo confessed only under pain of torture…and even after the Confession he did indeed add, to his Friends, ‘But still, I have Proven that the Earth moves.’

    Comment by Salieri — June 12, 2007 @ 5:06 pm | Reply

  1041. DPS: “Sisyphus, you might want to ban Tyler Durden for admiring hoverfrog’s ‘bum.’ This is not the kind of thing you want going on on your website, I think. hoverfrog didn’t do anything wrong, though.”

    Sisyphus: “It’s a little insensitive to the homeless, but I think I’ll let it stand. It helps underscore how little the Democrats really think of the homeless in this country.”

    Huh??

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 12, 2007 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

  1042. Um…Galileo confessed only under pain of torture…and even after the Confession he did indeed add, to his Friends, ‘But still, I have Proven that the Earth moves.’”

    How would you know what he whispered to his friends? Were you there? Even if you were, how could you tell what he whispered?

    If Galileo was tortured, it was by his own sinful thoughts and his self-doubt. The man took it upon himself to topple the glorious edifice of Christianity; he got what he deserved when he was placed on house arrest. Actually, when you consider the extent of his crimes, the Church was beyond merciful. Those guards at his house were more to keep irate Christians out than to keep Galileo in.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 12, 2007 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  1043. As a student of physics, I am face-palming as hard as I can.

    As a rational human being, I think this one of the most brilliant God-fearing troll technique ever conceived under the Heavens.

    But any way you slice it, I lol.

    And that, my friends, is the meaning of all this.

    Comment by On The Limits of Anonymity (And other absurdities) — June 12, 2007 @ 6:28 pm | Reply

  1044. “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”

    …identify that writer!

    Comment by Silverhill — June 12, 2007 @ 6:49 pm | Reply

  1045. Why is it that you idiots take any scientific progress as the work of satan trying to topple Christianity? Hell, you idiots denounced the existence of zero or vaccuums! Give it up! You’re wrong on every single count!

    Comment by Why do you bother? — June 12, 2007 @ 7:00 pm | Reply

  1046. this has simply made may day .. it takes much to keep my attention at 3:00am (central european time here), but this is just hilarious [:

    AND .. it shows that there indeed ARE discussions on the internet, where most of the posts are made by literate people who tend to present facts and form opinions in a logical way .. thats quite a rare thing nowadays ..

    i just hope this is a spoof, otherwise i’d have to be very VERY disturbed by the fact that people like Sisyphus indeed live among us

    good night everyone

    Comment by shalafi — June 12, 2007 @ 7:13 pm | Reply

  1047. “The Canaanites had it coming. They still do.”

    Ok Sisyphus… now it’s personal! The Canaanites were Zealots, but they were still my ancestors. Sure, they “had it coming”… but why in the world would you go and say – “they still do”? Did you just assume that there are none of us left to read your blog? And that you can simply make things up to support your points? You better gimme a good explanation man… because this might just get ugly.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 12, 2007 @ 8:07 pm | Reply

  1048. 1044: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”
    >Galileo. If God had not wanted man to challenge Him, he would not have endowed His creation with the capacity to think and analyze, in other words. The limiting factor comes from the greed for power of other humans.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 12, 2007 @ 8:28 pm | Reply

  1049. Original post: 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.
    >Actually, your luminiferous aether does not exist to scientists, so Earth cannot hurtle through “ether”. And this passage reeks of ad hominems. And where is your physical evidence? And how do you promise something that you can’t carry out?

    Comment by lietk12 — June 12, 2007 @ 9:28 pm | Reply

  1050. ‘“The Canaanites had it coming. They still do.”

    Ok Sisyphus… now it’s personal! The Canaanites were Zealots, but they were still my ancestors. Sure, they “had it coming”… but why in the world would you go and say – “they still do”? Did you just assume that there are none of us left to read your blog? And that you can simply make things up to support your points? You better gimme a good explanation man… because this might just get ugly.’

    Well, after that ridiculous little hissy fit, I can think of at least one Canaanite who has it coming.

    Comment by DPS — June 12, 2007 @ 10:56 pm | Reply

  1051. Moving or not moving, spinning or not spinning, isn’t it all a matter of perspective, somewhat? I mean: moving, relative to what?

    I think this whole thing is being made very personal – and in an ugly way – instead of being scientific. Which makes it a lot less informative, and mostly just inflammatory.

    I mean, basically calling the other person stupid or crazy..or a heretic..is hardly a scientific defense, is it?

    Not that I know much about this myself – thought I might learn something…but I just totally got snowed under with all the tit-for-tat bit.

    Comment by shilohautumn — June 12, 2007 @ 10:57 pm | Reply

  1052. wow…..so glad you posted this. And you’re right, by the way.

    Comment by loljesus — June 12, 2007 @ 11:04 pm | Reply

  1053. Moving or not moving, spinning or not spinning, isn’t it all a matter of perspective, somewhat? I mean: moving, relative to what?

    If one was able to step back, way, waaaaaaay back, to some spot immensely far, far off into space, beyond the edge of the galaxy, perhaps, and have a look back toward earth, what would it look like? Assuming you could see it, and that you were stationary yourself, and knew you were stationary, if it was possible to know. And does stationary even sortof lose it’s meaning if you’re far enough off from any other anything. Isn’t the word ‘stationary’ relative – to other objects, I mean? And ‘moving’, relative? They only have meaning within time and space, and, for that matter, MEASURABLE time and space, don’t they?

    Well, at any rate, it would be cool to see – the universe, I mean.

    Comment by shilohautumn — June 12, 2007 @ 11:11 pm | Reply

  1054. wow, so please tell me this is fake. you can’t really be serious. um did we not cover this in second grade? but ok to give ya the benefit of the doubt unicorns may still rome this earth too, right, just like the center of the universe is earth.

    Comment by wendi — June 12, 2007 @ 11:33 pm | Reply

  1055. Why Does the Sun Shine Lyrics
    Artist: They Might Be Giants (Buy They Might Be Giants CDs)
    Album: Severe Tire Damage – Greatest Hits

    The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
    A gigantic nuclear furnace
    Where hydrogen is built into helium
    At a temperature of millions of degrees

    Yo ho, it’s hot, the sun is not
    A place where we could live
    But here on Earth there’d be no life
    Without the light it gives

    We need its light
    We need its heat
    We need its energy
    Without the sun, without a doubt
    There’d be no you and me

    The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
    A gigantic nuclear furnace
    Where hydrogen is built into helium
    At a temperature of millions of degrees

    The sun is hot

    It is so hot that everything on it is a gas: iron, copper, aluminum, and many others.

    The sun is large

    If the sun were hollow, a million Earths could fit inside. And yet, the sun is only a middle-sized star.

    continued below…

    advertisement

    The sun is far away

    About 93 million miles away, and that’s why it looks so small.

    And even when it’s out of sight
    The sun shines night and day

    The sun gives heat
    The sun gives light
    The sunlight that we see
    The sunlight comes from our own sun’s
    Atomic energy

    Scientists have found that the sun is a huge atom-smashing machine. The heat and light of the sun come from the nuclear reactions of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and helium.*

    The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
    A gigantic nuclear furnace
    Where hydrogen is built into helium
    At a temperature of millions of degrees

    Comment by wendi — June 12, 2007 @ 11:38 pm | Reply

  1056. Quite the agent provocateur. I find it hilarious that people have so little perspective that they take everything at face value. I heard this theory of gravity is catching on, blasphemy! It’s angels pushing down on our stuff that keeps it from floating away. Everybody knows that!

    Comment by Patrik Moen — June 13, 2007 @ 4:19 am | Reply

  1057. “As a student of physics, I am face-palming as hard as I can.”

    I really don’t think you needed to share that with us. Your mother would probably slap you if she heard you talking like that, you know.

    “Ok Sisyphus… now it’s personal! The Canaanites were Zealots, but they were still my ancestors.”

    No, they weren’t.

    “Sure, they “had it coming”… but why in the world would you go and say – “they still do”?”

    Any of them still running around- Gideonites’ descendents, perhaps- still have it coming.

    “Did you just assume that there are none of us left to read your blog?”

    Pretty much, yes.

    “And that you can simply make things up to support your points?”

    No, I’m citing the Bible.

    “You better gimme a good explanation man… because this might just get ugly.”

    God said the Canaanites needed to go. Most of them went, but Joshua screwed up by letting the Gideonites live. God told him off for that one. It’s a mistake the modern Israelis don’t intend to repeat. But I’m pretty sure the Macedonians killed off the Gideonites anyway. In any event, I very sincerely doubt your ancestors were Canaanites. If they were, you would’ve been killed by now.

    “I mean, basically calling the other person stupid or crazy..or a heretic..is hardly a scientific defense, is it?”

    Spoken like a true atheist.

    “wow…..so glad you posted this. And you’re right, by the way.”

    Thank you!

    “wow, so please tell me this is fake. you can’t really be serious. um did we not cover this in second grade? but ok to give ya the benefit of the doubt unicorns may still rome this earth too, right, just like the center of the universe is earth.”

    As far as I know, Rome has no unicorns. I think whomever told you otherwise was being insincere.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 5:20 am | Reply

  1058. @Comments 1058 & 1051

    Hmmm. I guess this whole blog isn’t a prank after all. If it was, Sisyphus would have dropped the whole thing about Canaanites immediately. My worst fear is confirmed… and it’s kinda depressing. The guy is as fundamentalist as a fundamentalist Christian can get. But, I should say he’s a clever debater. Even though his reasoning is severely flawed, he can still hold his own without real-world evidence. DPS, on the other hand, is a little more malleable. Most of his arguments are on the defensive. So, with a little effort, he would play to anyone’s tune – if they proved that they were on his side. Good luck to the rest of you… I’d suggest giving up on these two.

    And comment 1048, is what we Science folk like to call – a psychiatric probe. It takes much more to get me riled up, than a poke at my ancestors from 2000 years ago. History is for the nostalgic, and I hog the future. I barely give it any weight, but it is true that I am mostly Canaanite. Here’s a write-up compiled by some of the historians in our community.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knanaya#History

    Comment by Cyriac — June 13, 2007 @ 6:43 am | Reply

  1059. @Comments 1058 & 1051

    Hmmm. I guess this whole blog isn’t a prank after all. If it was, Sisyphus would have dropped the whole thing about Canaanites immediately. My worst fear is confirmed… and it’s kinda depressing. The guy is as fundamentalist as a fundamentalist Christian can get. But, I should say he’s a clever debater. Even though his reasoning is severely flawed, he can still hold his own without real-world evidence. DPS, on the other hand, is a little more malleable. Most of his arguments are on the defensive. With a little effort, he would play to anyone’s tune – if they proved that they were on his side. Good luck to the rest of you… I’d suggest giving up on these two.

    And comment 1048, is what we Science folk like to call – a psychiatric probe. It takes much more to get me riled up, than a poke at my ancestors from 2000 years ago! History is for the nostalgic, and I only hog the future. I barely give it any weight, but it is true that I am mostly Canaanite. Here’s a write-up compiled by some of the historians in our community.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knanaya#History

    Comment by Cyriac — June 13, 2007 @ 6:49 am | Reply

  1060. @Comments 1058 and 1051

    Hmmm. I guess this whole blog isn’t a prank after all. If it was, Sisyphus would have dropped the whole thing about Canaanites immediately. My worst fear is confirmed… and it’s kinda depressing. The guy is as fundamentalist as a fundamentalist Christian can get. But, I should say he’s a clever debater. Even though his reasoning is severely flawed, he can still hold his own without real-world evidence. DPS, on the other hand, is a little more malleable. Most of his arguments are on the defensive. With a little effort, he would play to anyone’s tune – if they proved that they were on his side. Good luck to the rest of you… I’d suggest giving up on these two.

    And comment 1048, is what we Science folk like to call – a psychiatric probe. It takes much more to get me riled up, than a poke at my ancestors from 2000 years ago! History is for the nostalgic, and I only hog the future. I barely give it any weight, but it is true that I am mostly Canaanite. Here’s a write-up compiled by some of the historians in our community.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knanaya#History

    Comment by Cyriac — June 13, 2007 @ 6:52 am | Reply

  1061. This is the 5th time I’m trying to submit this comment. Are you trying to block me? Or did you just turn on comment filtering?

    reply@Comments 1058 & 1051

    Hmmm. I guess this whole blog isn’t a prank after all. If it was, Sisyphus would have dropped the whole thing about Canaanites immediately. My worst fear is confirmed… and it’s kinda depressing. The guy is as fundamentalist as a fundamentalist Christian can get. But, I should say he’s a clever debater. Even though his reasoning is severely flawed, he can still hold his own without real-world evidence. DPS, on the other hand, is a little more malleable. Most of his arguments are on the defensive. With a little effort, he would play to anyone’s tune – if they proved that they were on his side. Good luck to the rest of you… I’d suggest giving up on these two.

    And comment 1048, is what we Science folk like to call – a psychiatric probe. It takes much more to get me riled up, than a poke at my ancestors from 2000 years ago! History is for the nostalgic, and I only hog the future. I barely give it any weight, but it is true that I am mostly Canaanite. Here’s a write-up compiled by some of the historians in our community.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knanaya#History

    Comment by Kandoth — June 13, 2007 @ 7:10 am | Reply

  1062. Sorry Sys, but, “Woamn with a unicorn” is in the Galleria Borghese, and Lady and a unicorn” is in the Pallazio Farnese, both in Rome.

    Incidentally, Do you agrre that the Pope is infallable. (According to Catholic dogma, before he ascended, Jesus passed authority to the apostle Peter (later Saint Peter) as the earthly head of his church: the first Pope.) “Whatever you hold to be true on earth I will hold true in heaven.” To this day the Pope is supposed to have the divine power of infallability.” You agree?

    Comment by fourbrick — June 13, 2007 @ 7:13 am | Reply

  1063. Hey come on… no fair. You can’t block me out just because of that comment. I told you – it was a psychiatric probe. Lemme back in.

    ~Cyriac

    Comment by ckhw2 — June 13, 2007 @ 7:23 am | Reply

  1064. […] seems I’ve been blocked from Sisyphus’ blog. It was fun while it lasted. I guess my last comment got him worried that I was about to mess up […]

    Pingback by Sisyphus and I « a misplaced neuron… — June 13, 2007 @ 8:10 am | Reply

  1065. Lets not also forget that according to the bible PI is equal to 3. http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/god-said-pi-3-stand-by-your-beliefs-dammit/

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 13, 2007 @ 8:17 am | Reply

  1066. Well, everything has pretty much been said already, stating one viewpoint or the other.

    I’ve believed in many things in my life, and as a maturing person, discarded and adopted truths as I’ve been introduced to them. But one thing I’ve always firmly believed in, without a doubt – respecting other’s viewpoints. We all have them, we don’t all agree with those of others, it’s the way of the world (rotating or not).

    This, Sis, is where you fail. People have stated countless of times the inaccuracies in your documentations, and wether I agree or disagree with those people is beside the point. You are entitled to your beliefs. But as a firm believer, in Christianity no less, you should know to respect the viewpoints of others.

    Claiming that other people are fools just because their views differ from your own is as unprofessional as can be, and it leads people to stop taking you seriously, thus rendering all your arguments void. When you fail to find a counter-argument, you resort to stale and childish remarks such as “Spoken like a true Atheist”.

    My belief? That fanatism, no matter what belief is behind it, is -always- bad. Always. It builds a wall around one-self and curse all who stand outside it.

    And I don’t force you to believe that this is true. Regard this as a hint, something to concider.

    KarenB

    Comment by KarenB — June 13, 2007 @ 9:45 am | Reply

  1067. “To this day the Pope is supposed to have the divine power of infallability.”

    Only when speaking ex cathedra, that is. And it’s not a ‘power,’ it’s a property. And it’s spelled “infallibility.” Also, it’s the “Palazzo Farnese.” And we call a female person a “woman.” And the unicorns in those paintings are … wait for it … in paintings. Do you really expect anyone to listen to you, much less respond to you, when you go around writing deranged, illiterate things like this?

    Comment by DPS — June 13, 2007 @ 10:16 am | Reply

  1068. “This is the 5th time I’m trying to submit this comment. Are you trying to block me? Or did you just turn on comment filtering?”

    Sorry. The spam filter got them all. I’ve been away for a few hours, and just got back.

    A technical problem. My apologies.

    To this day the Pope is supposed to have the divine power of infallability.” You agree?”

    Yes, but what the Pope says in public and what the Pope knows to be true in private are often different things.

    “Claiming that other people are fools just because their views differ from your own is as unprofessional as can be, and it leads people to stop taking you seriously, thus rendering all your arguments void. When you fail to find a counter-argument, you resort to stale and childish remarks such as “Spoken like a true Atheist.”

    Spoken like a true Atheist.

    Anyway, last time I checked I’m not a professional religious therapist. So there’s no need for me to be “professional.” This blog isn’t being run for profit.

    “Only when speaking ex cathedra, that is. And it’s not a ‘power,’ it’s a property. And it’s spelled “infallibility.” Also, it’s the “Palazzo Farnese.” And we call a female person a “woman.” And the unicorns in those paintings are … wait for it … in paintings. Do you really expect anyone to listen to you, much less respond to you, when you go around writing deranged, illiterate things like this?”

    Exactly.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  1069. I am now quite sure that either 1. Sisyphus has done this as a hoax and has succeeded in causing a lot of people to waste their time, or 2. Sisyphus is a conservative dogmatist (this is not name-calling, just a statement) whose system of beliefs will not and can not be changed by argument. I urge everyone who has posted to stop doing so. Spend your time advancing your particular view by writing your Senators and Representative. If any of you would like to express your ideas to Sen. Brownback, you can reach him here

    http://brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm

    Sisyphus…good joke (and if it was not a joke, good luck)

    Comment by John — June 13, 2007 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  1070. 1070: Spoken like a true Atheist.
    >A person gives you a suggestion (read: doesn’t try to force ideas on you) and you attempt to slam her for voicing her ideas? Do you know how much lack of respect that shows you have for others who are different from you?

    To this day the Pope is supposed to have the divine power of infallability.” You agree?”
    Yes
    >Then explain the Great Schism between France and Rome (the one ended by the Council of Constance).

    Comment by lietk12 — June 13, 2007 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

  1071. Or why aborted fetuses don’t go into limbo anymore since 2007?
    Did God change his mind?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 13, 2007 @ 1:24 pm | Reply

  1072. Do you realise that what you’re denying has direct applications in reality? Satellites, Nuclear Power Plants, all chemical reactions like the simple soap action on fat stains, how does bread elevates, how are tumors cured. And this is just a random pick of the reality you’re living in.
    That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses.

    “If it moved, we would feel it moving.”
    Do you feel the plane moving at 500mph when you’re in it?

    So go and say to the poor ukrainian christian families who are dying of cancers, malformations due to radioactivity phenomenon from Tchernobyl catastrophy that these are all lies. And please, stop interpreting Holy Bible’s words as a naive twelve years old child would do. You’re a shame for real christian believers, and I really beg for all of us you’re a fake.

    Comment by Iggy — June 13, 2007 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

  1073. Sisyphus — brilliant. On first reading, one believes that you’re serious. It takes a while to figure out that you’re really joking, setting a trap for the unwary Brownback supporter. Of course, your rant is really intended to lose support for Brownback. Are you a covert Democrat, or possibly really a Ron Paul supporter?

    Comment by Gadfly — June 13, 2007 @ 2:14 pm | Reply

  1074. […] peut à la rigueur comprendre qu’il s’en trouve aujourd’hui pour croire la terre immobile : il suffit de croire en la divinité infaillible de la Bible pour professer des […]

    Pingback by Au hasard de la toile N°4 : Credo in reductio ad absurdum « Ivan Pavlov — June 13, 2007 @ 2:49 pm | Reply

  1075. “Or why aborted fetuses don’t go into limbo anymore since 2007?
    Did God change his mind?”

    Yes.

    “Do you realise that what you’re denying has direct applications in reality? Satellites, Nuclear Power Plants, all chemical reactions like the simple soap action on fat stains, how does bread elevates, how are tumors cured. And this is just a random pick of the reality you’re living in.”

    These things work through the Will of God. Science attempts to explain it, but it’s really more lucky guesswork than anything else.

    “So go and say to the poor ukrainian christian families who are dying of cancers, malformations due to radioactivity phenomenon from Tchernobyl catastrophy that these are all lies.”

    No, that’s really happening.

    “And please, stop interpreting Holy Bible’s words as a naive twelve years old child would do. You’re a shame for real christian believers, and I really beg for all of us you’re a fake.”

    The Kingdom of Heaven is comprised of such as those children.

    “Are you a covert Democrat, or possibly really a Ron Paul supporter?”

    Nope.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 3:30 pm | Reply

  1076. “Sorry. The spam filter got them all. I’ve been away for a few hours, and just got back.”

    Oh ok… in that case, sorry about the duplicate comments. I guess I really wanted the last word on that one.

    On another matter, doesn’t it bother you that a lot of people are not taking this blog seriously? I mean – if you truly believed in all this, it would only be natural for you to get insulted when someone thinks your blog is fake. From your point of view, you should be really upset that Science has “brainwashed” a huge majority of humans.

    So, what gives? Either you’re really cool and calm about the “World-wide Coalition of Conspiring Scientists”… or maybe you just forgot how to react when you’re “acting” the role of a Fundamentalist. Which one is it?

    Comment by kandoth — June 13, 2007 @ 3:51 pm | Reply

  1077. “Did God change his mind?”

    Yes.”

    Good, that supports my theory that God has become a lot more friendly since the book of Joshua!
    Maybe he even doesn’t approve of rape and war anymore, who knows?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 13, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  1078. Oh wow! I NOW KNOW I HAVE BEEN BELIEVING THE WRONG THINGS ALL THESE YEARS! OH LORD MAKE ME BELIEVE THIS!

    PSYC!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I Think it was resolved several hundred years ago, get with the times! The bible is false.

    Comment by Sam — June 13, 2007 @ 5:02 pm | Reply

  1079. from Psalm 15

    O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill?
    He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart.
    He does not slander with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend….

    (emphasis added for the benefit of some here)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 13, 2007 @ 5:49 pm | Reply

  1080. from Psalm 15…

    O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill?
    He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart.
    He does not slander with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend….

    (emphasis added for the benefit of some here)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 13, 2007 @ 5:54 pm | Reply

  1081. “Oh ok… in that case, sorry about the duplicate comments. I guess I really wanted the last word on that one.”

    Don’t worry, you got it. Several times over.

    “On another matter, doesn’t it bother you that a lot of people are not taking this blog seriously?”

    They aren’t? I figured most did, but when they found their positions were completely demolished by my arguments and couldn’t retort with anything substantive, they stooped to the various forms of nonsense going on around here because it was all they had left. I actively encourage such talk, because I feel that it shows the bankruptcy of ideas that many on the Left enjoy.

    “I mean – if you truly believed in all this, it would only be natural for you to get insulted when someone thinks your blog is fake.”

    I view that as a facile insult. No one really thinks this blog is fake. A truly fake blog would advertise itself as such.

    “From your point of view, you should be really upset that Science has “brainwashed” a huge majority of humans.”

    Well, it feels an uphill struggle sometimes, but you walk a million miles one step at a time.

    “So, what gives? Either you’re really cool and calm about the “World-wide Coalition of Conspiring Scientists”… or maybe you just forgot how to react when you’re “acting” the role of a Fundamentalist. Which one is it?”

    I think you and I are reading the comments around here a bit differently. I don’t think most people view this as a fake blog- I think they say that out of frustration at their own intellectual shortcomings as much as anything else. Moreover, I encourage the kind of Darwinist nonsense you often see posted around here. The more real Americans read of it, the likelier they are to reject the Left as a clique of elitist Satanists bent on destroying Christianity and America. So I would encourage as many of those sorts of comments as possible, you see.

    “Good, that supports my theory that God has become a lot more friendly since the book of Joshua!
    Maybe he even doesn’t approve of rape and war anymore, who knows?”

    Nonsense. God never changed His mind in the Bible. Post-Biblical times, when the Pope reverses himself, God permits a reversal of policy. Is that clear enough for you?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 6:12 pm | Reply

  1082. “I Think it was resolved several hundred years ago, get with the times! The bible is false.”

    Thanks for sharing, heathen.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 13, 2007 @ 6:22 pm | Reply

  1083. (from Genesis 6:6-7)

    6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

    7 The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

    (emphasis added to point up the fact that it is not true that “God never changed His mind in the Bible.”)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 13, 2007 @ 6:41 pm | Reply

  1084. Aaaaaahhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    May God have mercy upon your stupid soul… Although I’m sure you’re just kidding, nobody can be THAT ridiculous.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Comment by J — June 13, 2007 @ 8:41 pm | Reply

  1085. “He does not slander with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend….”

    Silverhill, you are a ludicrous, patronizing, God-hating twit, and you’re going to H-E-L-L. Any fair-minded reader will see that that’s not slander; it’s simply the truth.

    Comment by DPS — June 14, 2007 @ 12:05 am | Reply

  1086. ““He does not slander with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend….”

    Silverhill, you are a ludicrous, patronizing, God-hating twit, and you’re going to H-E-L-L. Any fair-minded reader will see that that’s not slander; it’s simply the truth.”

    On the contrary, Silverhill’s statement is probably the best and clearest through these thousand-something comments…

    Comment by KarenB — June 14, 2007 @ 1:52 am | Reply

  1087. “(emphasis added to point up the fact that it is not true that “God never changed His mind in the Bible.”)”

    God never changes His mind. He exists outside of time. As such, He merely elevates different aspects of His mind to the fore as He chooses throughout the course of creation. But I don’t think He changes His mind in the way you imply.

    “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 14, 2007 @ 5:36 am | Reply

  1088. Ironic that Silverhill is the only one of us who uses the Bible to support our side, and he is promptly insulted and patronized by DPS.

    Comment by Felonious — June 14, 2007 @ 6:22 am | Reply

  1089. Comment by Sisyphus:
    “God never changes His mind. He exists outside of time. As such, He merely elevates different aspects of His mind to the fore as He chooses throughout the course of creation. But I don’t think He changes His mind in the way you imply.”

    And you know all of this, how? The force? Tea leaves? Animal entrails? A burning bush? The voices in your head?

    “He exists outside of time”
    What a cop out, and how very convenient. Rules don’t apply here people, move along, nothing to see here…

    “But I don’t think…”
    Ya got that right!!

    Romans 11:33-34

    “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
    For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?”

    Guess we can call off the search! Sisyphus probably has him on speed-dial.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 14, 2007 @ 8:19 am | Reply

  1090. “On the contrary, Silverhill’s statement is probably the best and clearest through these thousand-something comments…”

    “Ironic that Silverhill is the only one of us who uses the Bible to support our side, and he is promptly insulted and patronized by DPS.”

    Does anyone else hear something? Kind of a high-pitched whining noise?

    Comment by DPS — June 14, 2007 @ 8:20 am | Reply

  1091. […] of the power of putting thoughts and assertions (no matter how asinine) up on the web is that “no [blog] is an island”; what you say is accessible to people […]

    Pingback by InWeDay 2007 « Laelaps — June 14, 2007 @ 9:06 am | Reply

  1092. Quote by DPS
    “Do you really expect anyone to listen to you, much less respond to you, when you go around writing deranged, illiterate things like this?”

    Sorry, teacher, but the mistakes were due to my limited typing skills . As far as deranged views go – for somebody, who has the beliefs you have, to make that comment beggars belief. Fortunately I do not believe any of mumbo jumbo spouted by religious zealots.

    Quote by Sysiphus
    “Yes, but what the Pope says in public and what the Pope knows to be true in private are often different things.”

    So you agree that the Pope lies, to the public?

    Comment by fourbrick — June 14, 2007 @ 9:06 am | Reply

  1093. Comment by Sysiphus:
    “Yes, but what the Pope says in public and what the Pope knows to be true in private are often different things.”

    Eh, hello? If the pope knows it to be in true “in private”, how do you know?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 14, 2007 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  1094. “Ironic that Silverhill is the only one of us who uses the Bible to support our side, and he is promptly insulted and patronized by DPS.”

    And well he should be, for using Scripture to endorse Satan.

    “What a cop out, and how very convenient. Rules don’t apply here people, move along, nothing to see here…”

    Humans are not meant to understand God, or the world. Only a moron would think otherwise. You’re not a moron, are you, Tyler?

    “So you agree that the Pope lies, to the public?”

    No, but he doesn’t cast that which is holy before dogs, nor pearls before swine. Those who have ears to listen, hear.

    “Eh, hello? If the pope knows it to be in true “in private”, how do you know?”

    See above.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 14, 2007 @ 10:59 am | Reply

  1095. I’m pretty impressed that Silverhill managed to endorse Satan using only a couple lines from Psalm 15 and Genesis, and nothing else. I usually need a paragraph or two myself.

    Comment by Felonious — June 14, 2007 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  1096. “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.”
    Someone probably already pointed this out, but it’s a particular pet peeve of mine: most of the founding fathers were Deists, and believed in a nonspecific god who created the universe and then abandoned it.

    Oh, and where did I learn that? A history book.

    Comment by antimatterspork — June 14, 2007 @ 12:31 pm | Reply

  1097. Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? — Epicurus

    Comment by Leviathan — June 14, 2007 @ 2:05 pm | Reply

  1098. This blog is a joke, I’m sure of it. But then again I spit out my Mountain Dew and laughed when Mitt Romney said in a national debate that Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors in 2002. Turns out he was being serious, and the Republican audience bought it–every last one of them, because no one made a peep. The “mainstream GOP” pats itself for being so rational that it will admit to the Earth revolving around the Sun, as if it will somehow gives credence to their historical stupidity on Iraq, Al Qaida, (Russians stealing weapons caches in Iraq, Saddam Hussein plotting 9/11) etc. Go to a GOP blog ridiculing Brownback and you’ll find people refusing to believe human-caused global warming. Most Republicans think that popular opinion in the world supported Iraq and that America is more popular in the world since Bush. Joke or no, this blog is great for Republicans on the web eager to prove that they won’t go for absolutely everything.

    But I’m leaning towards fake—even if Brownback supporters bought into this they would go on long rants about it on a campaign blog. “Sisyphus”? Not the most Biblical of monikers. But I’ve been suprised before.

    Comment by colatina — June 14, 2007 @ 2:14 pm | Reply

  1099. Comment from Sisyphus: “No, but he doesn’t cast that which is holy before dogs, nor pearls before swine. Those who have ears to listen, hear.”

    Plagiarizing the sermon on the mount AND Matthew 11:12 without giving due reference to either Jesus or Matthew. Classy, very classy. Have you no decency?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 14, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Reply

  1100. Tyler Durden: “What a cop out, and how very convenient. Rules don’t apply here people, move along, nothing to see here…”

    Sisyphus: “Humans are not meant to understand God, or the world. Only a moron would think otherwise. You’re not a moron, are you, Tyler?”

    Who says we can’t understand the world? Try stopping me!! Much better to live in ignorance, like you? No thanks!! As for your childish, veiled attempt at an ad hominem, yawn!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 14, 2007 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  1101. DPS: “Silverhill, you are a ludicrous, patronizing, God-hating twit, and you’re going to H-E-L-L. Any fair-minded reader will see that that’s not slander; it’s simply the truth.”

    Your screed is not slander, you ignorant person; it’s (potentially) libel. (It’s definitely untrue, regardless.) Learn the terms before bandying them about.
    Also, “fair-minded” does not seem to describe you; what do you truly know about that state?

    ==============

    Sisyphus: (1) “God never changes His mind. He exists outside of time. As such, He merely elevates different aspects of His mind to the fore as He chooses throughout the course of creation.”
    -and-
    (2) “Humans are not meant to understand God, or the world. Only a moron would think otherwise….”

    In part (1) you claim to have an understanding of God; then in part (2), by your own definition, you show yourself to be a moron for claiming such.

    ===============

    Felonious: “Ironic that Silverhill is the only one of us who uses the Bible to support our side, and he is promptly insulted and patronized by DPS.”

    DPS: “Does anyone else hear something? Kind of a high-pitched whining noise?”

    As of someone–an alleged adult, but an apparent child, with the handle of “DPS”–saying “La-la-la, I can’t hear you,” with his fingers in his ears?

    ===============

    Felonious: “Ironic that Silverhill is the only one of us who uses the Bible to support our side, and he is promptly insulted and patronized by DPS.”

    Sisyphus: “And well he should be, for using Scripture to endorse Satan.”

    I am using Scripture to rebuke hypocrites, as Jesus is said to have done in Matthew 15:7-8 —
    7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
    8 ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.’

    ================

    Concerning Satan — well, you’ll have to demonstrate his existence before you can claim that anyone endorses him (which, of course, I do not).

    Comment by Silverhill — June 14, 2007 @ 7:08 pm | Reply

  1102. “Who says we can’t understand the world? Try stopping me!!”

    Canst thou draw out Leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

    Comment by DPS — June 14, 2007 @ 10:38 pm | Reply

  1103. Me: “Doesn’t it bother you that a lot of people are not taking this blog seriously?”
    Sisyphus: “They aren’t? I figured most did, …”

    Funny you didn’t realize it yet. That kinda tells me a lot about you.

    Ok. Here’s the evidence… Your very first comment starts with someone who believes you’re imitating Jon Swift – a popular satirist.

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

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

    3. “Wow. I’m stunned. Are you seriously that fucking stupid?”

    6. “I thought this had to be parody”

    (At this point, anyone who reads your replies to these comments figure out that you’re actually serious. The only “comments of dis-belief” come much later from the new visitors.)

    56. “Sisyphus, Are you Stephen Colbert? Seriously.” (Colbert is a satirist himself)

    71. “Obviously a very twisted joke.”

    75. “I’m pretty sure Brownback disagrees with you Sisyphus. He doesn’t seem crazy.”

    81. “This is easily one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.”

    102. “Sisyphus, do you think you could do a post refuting gravity next?” (He was being sarcastic)

    110. “This is the greatest practical joke ever played.”

    The list goes on. There are some comments that completely agree with you, but they are clearly in the minority. My point is that – assuming that these 1000+ comments are from the average person, a huge majority of them definitely disagree with your beliefs. My question, like I asked before, is – don’t you find that extremely disconcerting? (From your point of view). Or are you just leading them on, in a very extensive practical joke?

    Comment by Cyriac — June 15, 2007 @ 12:44 am | Reply

  1104. To be honest I couldn’t believe what I was reading. In the 21st century even most Christians will accept what science has proven, and to deny what is inarguably true is just sheer stupidity. I think that you are in desperate need of reading a book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’, although you are probably either too much a coward to read it or too stubborn to accept what it says. And with regards to humans not being meant to understand the world, well, what are physicists doing every day. Each time science proves a part of Christianity to be wrong, your religion just hides in the gaps that science has not got to yet. But as science advances further, there will be nowhere left to hide.

    However, you’re truly remarkable to be able to say what you do when there is so much evidence piled againt it. As far as I can see your only proof is from an outdated fictional book, as that is what the ‘Bible’ is. And dont try and make some sarcastic comment about me being an Atheist. Religion is the only real threat to humanity today, anyone who can’t see that is blind.

    Comment by Helen — June 15, 2007 @ 5:48 am | Reply

  1105. Comment by Cyriac: “My question, like I asked before, is – don’t you find that extremely disconcerting? (From your point of view)”

    Don’t you find it embarrassing? (From your point of view)

    Serious question Sisyphus: what *is* your goal with this blog? You are so fundamentalist in your beliefs that you’re obviously not going to change your mind whatever is posted here. So nobody here will succeed in doing that. I would also guess that if the pope tried, he would fail. You seem to think you have the ear of god, what if god himself informed you of your mistake?

    Or is there a prize from WordPress with regard to the most comments? Are you looking to win something hence the dogmatic approach to a fairly obvious scenario.

    To be fair, it is funny reading some of the inane replies to some of the most basic understandings we have today. And by your own rationale, you know all the answers as they are all contained within the bible, true? So, why the need for a blog? Reassurance? That seems to be in the minority here. Education? It’s not dealing with the reality we know to exist so, no educational value there. Practice? Are you looking to sharpen your debating skills for a high-school debate? Boredom? Too much free time?

    Why not just read the bible on a street corner to passers-by?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 15, 2007 @ 6:02 am | Reply

  1106. “Why not just read the bible on a street corner to passers-by?”
    Why suggest this? Street corner preachers have to be the most annoying type of person in existence.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 15, 2007 @ 6:05 am | Reply

  1107. This is ridiculous. If this is the behaviour of a US Presidential candidate’s support base, what little faith I have in your ‘democracy’ is fast waning.

    Comment by Ugmotique — June 15, 2007 @ 6:13 am | Reply

  1108. “Why suggest this? Street corner preachers have to be the most annoying type of person in existence.”

    Keeps them off the internet, TV, radio etc. 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 15, 2007 @ 7:00 am | Reply

  1109. “Why suggest this? Street corner preachers have to be the most annoying type of person in existence.”

    Keeps them off the internet, radio, TV etc. 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 15, 2007 @ 7:34 am | Reply

  1110. Good point and I suppose it exposes them as a lunatic fringe as well which may erode support for such unusual views.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 15, 2007 @ 7:34 am | Reply

  1111. “— Epicurus”

    Quotes by pagans prove nothing. They are, by definition, damned for their lack of faith.

    “Who says we can’t understand the world? Try stopping me!!”

    Hubris, the pride that cometh before the fall.

    “My question, like I asked before, is – don’t you find that extremely disconcerting? (From your point of view). Or are you just leading them on, in a very extensive practical joke?”

    As I’ve said repeatedly, I want as many moonbat comments here as possible. It helps decent Americans that much more to realize how unhinged you are.

    “This is ridiculous. If this is the behaviour of a US Presidential candidate’s support base, what little faith I have in your ‘democracy’ is fast waning.”

    Enjoy secularism and Islamism, fool.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 15, 2007 @ 8:17 am | Reply

  1112. And what if C.S. Lewis said both the Epicurean quote and also his ‘trilemma’ about Christ, rather than a “pagan”?

    He was a Christian, so you should be able to respond appropriately this time.

    And a funny thing about pagans, we still celebrate their holidays. Have you ever painted an Easter egg?

    Comment by Felonious — June 15, 2007 @ 11:20 am | Reply

  1113. my, my sisyphus, tell us about your childhood. Whatever happened to you to make you such a mean, bitter, close minded, ignorant font of ill wisdom? were you molested by your minister? your father? Fell off the turnip truck? Please share!

    Comment by Leviathan — June 15, 2007 @ 3:24 pm | Reply

  1114. Me: “Don’t you find it extremely disconcerting that hardly anyone believes you? (From your point of view). Or are you just leading them on, in this very extensive practical joke?”

    Sisyphus: As I’ve said repeatedly, I want as many moonbat comments here as possible. It helps decent Americans that much more to realize how unhinged you are.

    Yeah, I agree. And you’ve managed to do that very well. But, that’s what led me to that question which you’re still avoiding…

    You’re clearly in a minority that is laughed and mocked at by almost everyone here. Doesn’t that upset you? Because if it doesn’t, then you’re hiding something. I don’t see any other motivation for all this fundamentalism.

    I really don’t care about the political implications. I’m only trying to figure you out. So far, I’ve rounded you down to three possibilities ranked in order –

    1. If you’re as fundamentalist as you seem, then you’re one of a kind. A very rare kind. (Most likely the case)
    2. You’re being funded to hold your own in this blog, despite whatever you really believe in.
    3. This is a very extensive practical joke and your patience is amazingly unlimited. (Least likely, but still possible)

    Just think of me as the large looming person in a white overcoat, looking down at you as you scurry around in a maze trying to find the cheese.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 15, 2007 @ 3:43 pm | Reply

  1115. [Sisyphus wrote, concerning Epicurus] — “Quotes by pagans prove nothing. They are, by definition, damned for their lack of faith.”

    *DING!* (still another maxed-out bullshit meter)
    Epicurus died in 270 BC, about 300 years before it was possible to be a Christian and thereby be given salvation.
    If by “pagan” you mean “non-Christian”, then even folks such as…hmmm…Adam & Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Isaiah, et al. are all damned.
    If you meant something else, please clarify your position.
    (And while you’re clarifying things, go ahead with presenting the mathematics that has been repeatedly requested of you.)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 15, 2007 @ 3:48 pm | Reply

  1116. “Whatever happened to you to make you such a mean, bitter, close minded, ignorant font of ill wisdom?”

    I think it was when his community left their shacks in the deep woods, dragging their clubs along the ground, clothed in bear skins. That was the first time they came across fire, and the fear it instilled in them has not left in all these twenty years since – their minds were sealed shut by the blaze of light (no, you may NOT turn this beautiful word to any use associated with your zombie worshiping death cult, sisyphus), never to allow an individual thought to cross their path again. It is sad to loose humans with such potential to this so called “religion”, but if we are to have freedom, some must be put in front of us to show us how lucky we are.

    The laws of nature demand that the beauty of our freedom and will is balanced by the stench of their corruption and the chains of their unthinking belief.

    We should not pity, rather feel grateful to them for the sacrifice they make to allow us such luxuries as thought, understanding, freewill and choice.

    Liberated, we stand before them as shining examples of what they can never be, and to deny them the crutch that their weakened minds require would be cruel punishment indeed.

    Comment by cb — June 15, 2007 @ 3:56 pm | Reply

  1117. Comment 1067 by KarenB:

    “I’ve believed in many things in my life, and as a maturing person, discarded and adopted truths as I’ve been introduced to them. But one thing I’ve always firmly believed in, without a doubt – respecting other’s viewpoints. We all have them, we don’t all agree with those of others, it’s the way of the world (rotating or not).

    This, Sis, is where you fail. People have stated countless of times the inaccuracies in your documentations, and whether I agree or disagree with those people is beside the point. You are entitled to your beliefs. But as a firm believer in Christianity, no less, you should know to respect the viewpoints of others.

    Claiming that other people are fools just because their views differ from your own is as unprofessional as can be, and it leads people to stop taking you seriously, thus rendering all your arguments void. When you fail to find a counter-argument, you resort to stale and childish remarks such as “Spoken like a true Atheist”.

    My belief? That fanaticism, no matter what belief is behind it, is -always- bad. Always. It builds a wall around one-self and curses all those who stand outside it.

    And I don’t force you to believe that this is true. Regard this as a hint, something to consider.”

    – KarenB

    Oooh… Karen’s deep! Is it just me, or does any one else find that a real turn-on?

    Comment by Cyriac — June 15, 2007 @ 4:51 pm | Reply

  1118. This guy has got some problems. There is absolutely no way in hell that I would vote for Brownback…

    Does sissyfuss (sic) realize that he’s using modern technology here on this blog? What a hypocrit.

    Comment by captainobvious — June 15, 2007 @ 4:55 pm | Reply

  1119. This is fantastic! I can honestly say this blog “moved my world”! Or at the very least shaken it a bit with a shit load of laughter! Jesus of Nazareth was a fag jew, just like me! The only difference is, I am not going to create a fucking fundamental church that stops at nothing to get their religion into power and mind controls people. No, Thank You Lord! I will stay a fucking atheist and will enjoy every minute of this life! Jesus, suck my balls!

    Comment by Max T — June 15, 2007 @ 5:45 pm | Reply

  1120. 1095: Humans are not meant to understand God, or the world. Only a moron would think otherwise. You’re not a moron, are you, Tyler?
    >False dichotomy: either you’re a moron and and think otherwise, or you don’t understand the world or God.

    1105: Religion is the only real threat to humanity today, anyone who can’t see that is blind.
    >I must disagree. Religion does do good things. It’s the bad side of human nature that holds us back.

    1112: “— Epicurus”

    Quotes by pagans prove nothing. They are, by definition, damned for their lack of faith.
    >Didn’t you say something about this blog being family-oriented? Oh, and there is NO definition of a pagan resembling your angry outburst. Make sure you know what a term means before you use it.

    “Who says we can’t understand the world? Try stopping me!!”

    Hubris, the pride that cometh before the fall.
    >You haven’t answered his question.

    “My question, like I asked before, is – don’t you find that extremely disconcerting? (From your point of view). Or are you just leading them on, in a very extensive practical joke?”

    As I’ve said repeatedly, I want as many moonbat comments here as possible. It helps decent Americans that much more to realize how unhinged you are.
    >”Decent” meaning extremist Christians who are in the minority and advocate such actions as mass murder of Jewish people (no, not the Holocaust, I mean the Crusades).

    “This is ridiculous. If this is the behaviour of a US Presidential candidate’s support base, what little faith I have in your ‘democracy’ is fast waning.”

    Enjoy secularism and Islamism, fool.
    >You’re getting defensive. By the way, one can’t enjoy secularism and Islamism because secularist people respect ALL religions, while Islamism IS a religion. One can be Muslim (No, not “Islamist”) and have respect for other people, unlike some zealots who spew extremely rude comments.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 15, 2007 @ 6:29 pm | Reply

  1121. please say you haven’t any offspring

    Comment by swahealey — June 15, 2007 @ 7:19 pm | Reply

  1122. “And a funny thing about pagans, we still celebrate their holidays. Have you ever painted an Easter egg?”

    What’s your point?

    “my, my sisyphus, tell us about your childhood. Whatever happened to you to make you such a mean, bitter, close minded, ignorant font of ill wisdom? were you molested by your minister? your father? Fell off the turnip truck? Please share!”

    No, no, no, no, and no.

    “Oooh… Karen’s deep! Is it just me, or does any one else find that a real turn-on?”

    So ask her to marry you if you like her so much. You have my blessing, if you’re a Christian and a gentleman about it.

    Max T- take your meds.

    “please say you haven’t any offspring”

    You haven’t any offspring.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 15, 2007 @ 7:31 pm | Reply

  1123. Aww… Come on dude… you’re still avoiding my question. Help me out here… I’m on the verge of a psychological breakthrough! Let me simplify it for you by putting it in multiple choice format –

    How much does it bother you that you’re clearly in a minority that is laughed and mocked at by almost everyone here?

    A. “I’m definitely not in a minority! There are very few comments here that disagree with me.”
    B. “I’m not bothered at all. As long as I’m in the minority that goes to heaven.”
    C. “It bothers me a little that there are so many people who reject the Lord’s word. I don’t care what they think.”
    D. “It’s just insane that there are so many people who reject the Lord’s word. They are surely damned to eternal hell.”
    E. (Your own answer)

    Comment by Cyriac — June 15, 2007 @ 8:19 pm | Reply

  1124. To quote The Malleus Maleficarum, written by Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger and approved by pope Innocentius VIII in AD 1484, “For sometimes persons do not know, they do not wish to know, and they have no intention of knowing. For such persons there is no excuse, but they are altogether to be condemned. And of these the Psalmist speaks: He would not understand in order that he might do good.” While I find the text as a whole entirely execrable, this one line not only makes sense but also seems to fit perfectly here…

    Comment by Mikael — June 15, 2007 @ 9:55 pm | Reply

  1125. Cyriac: “Oooh… Karen’s deep! Is it just me, or does any one else find that a real turn-on?”

    Sisyphus: “So ask her to marry you if you like her so much. You have my blessing, if you’re a Christian and a gentleman about it.”

    So only Christians can have your blessing if they want to marry? Marriage in other faiths is un-blessable?

    Comment by Silverhill — June 15, 2007 @ 11:05 pm | Reply

  1126. Cyriac,

    If you remove the morons and sinners from the tally, the vast majority agree with Sisyphus. Why should Sisyphus be embarrassed that a bunch of mouthbreathers, hippies, and aromatherapists like you disagree with him?

    Comment by DPS — June 15, 2007 @ 11:21 pm | Reply

  1127. True… “removing” dissenters is a very old and oft-proven way of reaching agreement.

    Comment by Mikael — June 16, 2007 @ 12:16 am | Reply

  1128. that’s right, throw away the years of labor of all thos scientists.
    By the way, Sis said that “who are we to understand the world?” or something like that, then you must know that ignorance is an ally of darkness and sin and all that creppy stuff you christians fear despite of having God “your side”. Now let me tell you that the Church has used ignorance[ and there fore fear] throughout the history to keep their followers with their heads down begging for a salvation. And what’s a moonbat anyway?

    Comment by mikaudes — June 16, 2007 @ 12:46 am | Reply

  1129. i have two possible responses to this. the first is if this is simply satire or a joke. the other one scares the hell out of me.

    if it’s a joke: well done sisypus! this was a hilarious read! you’ve completely suckered these people into thinking you’re serious.

    as for if you’re truly serious about this… wow. dear god i pity you. your stupidity is appalling in it’s extremeness. it’s hard to understand how someone could so thoroughly disagree with such an easily understood idea. though i’m an atheist, you’re pity state of ignorance has almost driven me to pray to whatever god or gods that may or may not exist, that they would grant you a few more braincells.

    as for the equatorial bulge from rotation, this can be easily demonstrated with a simple water balloon. fill it, and set it upon a flat surface. give it a good spin, and you will see that the sphere of the balloon flattens on the top and stretches horizontally. that’s it. since the earth is simply a solid crust over a liquid mantle and core, this is easy to understand.

    thank you for giving me something to rant about. it made my day.

    Comment by Jon — June 16, 2007 @ 1:49 am | Reply

  1130. […] an earlier post in which I categorically disproved the time-honored distortion of Heliocentrism, astute readers informed me of the Scriptural evidence that the world is, in fact, not round. […]

    Pingback by The World is Flat « Blogs 4 Brownback — June 16, 2007 @ 5:21 am | Reply

  1131. Beware Sisyphus!

    The computer you’re using right now is made with SCIENCE!
    Flee when you still can, or you’ll get contaminated.

    Comment by Dalriada — June 16, 2007 @ 6:24 am | Reply

  1132. Well, Sisyphus, every time you paint an Easter egg you are celebrate a fertility god, and every time you put up a Christmas tree in your house you celebrate a “renewal of life” god.

    Oh, and please answer Silverhill’s question concerning Epicurus and all of the old Biblical figures. To paraphrase, is Epicurus was a “pagan”, why not Noah, Abraham or Moses? They’d be damned just as poor old Epicurus is.

    Comment by Felonious — June 16, 2007 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  1133. The old adage ‘If you can’t dazzle them with dexterity, baffle them with bullshit!’ sprung to mind when I read your theory Sisyphus. (Bravo for attempting the former while shovelling the latter.)

    You are clearly well educated and educated enough to know better, so I can only assume that your motivation in posting such nonsense is to keep those stupid enough to believe you perpetually in the same state, dumb and malleable.
    In that respect, and since you appear to do nothing to take humanity and society forward, I really can’t see you as anything better than a parasite.

    Comment by wooster — June 16, 2007 @ 11:41 am | Reply

  1134. “If you remove the morons and sinners from the tally, the vast majority agree with Sisyphus. Why should Sisyphus be embarrassed that a bunch of mouthbreathers, hippies, and aromatherapists like you disagree with him?”

    Exactly.

    “To paraphrase, is Epicurus was a “pagan”, why not Noah, Abraham or Moses? They’d be damned just as poor old Epicurus is.”

    They worshipped God. Epicurus didn’t. Big difference.

    “In that respect, and since you appear to do nothing to take humanity and society forward, I really can’t see you as anything better than a parasite.”

    Big talk, from someone who supports welfare and foreign aid.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 16, 2007 @ 5:52 pm | Reply

  1135. Y’know what? Fine, believe what the bible says, do whatever “God” expects of you, and look down upon our scientifically “atheist” ways.
    But while you’re at it, stop using a scientifically created medium to get your point across, alright?
    Go back to stone tablets and word of mouth, just don’t pervert our creations to the destruction of our beliefs.

    Comment by Fox — June 16, 2007 @ 6:19 pm | Reply

  1136. “But while you’re at it, stop using a scientifically created medium to get your point across, alright?
    Go back to stone tablets and word of mouth, just don’t pervert our creations to the destruction of our beliefs.”

    No technology is possible without Divine inspiration from the Lord.

    Without His help, we wouldn’t even exist, much less carve our learning onto stone tablets.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 16, 2007 @ 6:58 pm | Reply

  1137. 1135: Big talk, from someone who supports welfare and foreign aid.
    >Ad hominem.

    1136: Go back to stone tablets and word of mouth, just don’t pervert our creations to the destruction of our beliefs.
    >No, since God didn’t want us to think (according to Sisyphus), we shouldn’t have done anything in the first place.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 16, 2007 @ 7:17 pm | Reply

  1138. 1136: Go back to stone tablets and word of mouth, just don’t pervert our creations to the destruction of our beliefs.
    >And I tolerate Christianity/religion. I just don’t tolerate extremists of fanatics (in the pure sense) of any sort. I DON’T want people forcing their beliefs on one another (so if you want your children homeschooled, fine), especially at the penalty of death (as Marcia P. suggested killing all Muslims or making them convert). I HATE hate.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 16, 2007 @ 7:19 pm | Reply

  1139. Still waiting for the answers to a (growing) number of questions, Sisyphus. Do you have the chops (or the guts) to answer them (in a reasoned, adult fashion, of course)?

    Comment by Silverhill — June 16, 2007 @ 9:53 pm | Reply

  1140. DPS and Sisyphus: “If you remove the morons and sinners from the tally, the vast majority agree with Sisyphus. Why should Sisyphus be embarrassed that a bunch of mouthbreathers, hippies, and aromatherapists like you disagree with him?”

    There you go again – avoiding my question. I’m not trying to embarrass you. I’m just confused why it doesn’t bother you that the “morons, sinners, mouthbreathers, hippies, and aromatherapists” are in the majority – a HUGE majority.

    Surely, your motivation for writing this blog was to educate more people in your beliefs (or was it?). When you see all this resistance to your beliefs, you would either think –

    1. Why don’t these people realize that I am right?
    2. Is it possible that I am wrong?

    By not answering my earlier question, you just ruled out both these possibilities. You’re not the least bit worried that most people do not follow the Bible to every last detail. And that forces me to conclude that you are either –

    1. Being paid to write this blog to undermine Brownback, or
    2. In denial.

    All I’m asking of you is to leave a heartfelt comment about the things that worry you the most about the human race today. I tried to make it simple on you by giving you simple multiple choices. But you thought I was trying to embarrass you. C’mon dude… This is a blog. You’re supposed to just open up.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 16, 2007 @ 9:57 pm | Reply

  1141. “There you go again – avoiding my question. I’m not trying to embarrass you. I’m just confused why it doesn’t bother you that the “morons, sinners, mouthbreathers, hippies, and aromatherapists” are in the majority – a HUGE majority.”

    Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Matthew 5:11)

    “You’re supposed to just open up.”

    Whatever. *You* open up, you big girl.

    Comment by DPS — June 16, 2007 @ 10:37 pm | Reply

  1142. Me: “You’re supposed to just open up.”

    DPS: “Whatever. *You* open up, you big girl.”

    C’mon DPS… at this point, you’re not even TRYING to offend me. You can do better than that.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 16, 2007 @ 10:54 pm | Reply

  1143. This is the dumbest shit ever. Please, run this guy for president, so he can lose horribly.

    Btw, Galileo recanted under threat of torture and death. That doesn’t mean he was wrong. In fact, Heliocentrism is in fact wrong, the sun is not the center of the universe. There is no “center,” as far as can be determined. But the Earth does revolve around the Sun, as many planets revolve around many stars in our galaxy.

    Tell you what, why don’t you guys take some of the millions of dollars in donations you people collect from the fools who believe this baloney and send up your own Voyager probe? See for yourself.

    Comment by Hawanja — June 17, 2007 @ 12:49 am | Reply

  1144. 1135: “In that respect, and since you appear to do nothing to take humanity and society forward, I really can’t see you as anything better than a parasite.”

    Big talk, from someone who supports welfare and foreign aid.

    >>Why am I not surprised to see you assume I was talking about something so crass as money?
    Careful Sisyphus, your true lord is starting to show.

    Comment by wooster — June 17, 2007 @ 2:31 am | Reply

  1145. Brownback Mountin’ is a freak of nature!
    An evolution denier Spud was aware from his shameful display at that first debate but to also deny the fact that the earth moves around the sun? Because of a literalist interpretation of the Bible? Wotta Larf! Is the earth round or flat in Browneye’s worldview? Luff the fact that Sissyface notes that Galileo backed away from his position at the end. Spud to freakin’ Sissyface: If Galileo didn’t recant they woulda killed him Einstein.

    “And yet it moves”

    At Galileo’s trial one of the lawyerly fellas sed words to the effect that to “deny that the sun revolves around the earth is like denying that Jesus was born from a Virgin”

    Gotta luff irony.

    A few centuries of it does tend to get a little tedious.

    Be Well.

    Comment by dethspud — June 17, 2007 @ 3:52 am | Reply

  1146. ‘C’mon DPS… at this point, you’re not even TRYING to offend me. You can do better than that.’

    You’re right, I’m not trying to offend you. I am here to support God, Jesus, America, Christians, and Senator Brownback. If I offend you in the process, that is entirely incidental. Since you hate all of the things I support, however, you might be offended quite a lot.

    But I certainly don’t aim to offend. I love you, Cyriac. Despite your sick, sinful, nauseating ways you are one of God’s creatures, and He commands me to love you.

    Comment by DPS — June 17, 2007 @ 9:53 am | Reply

  1147. Hmmm, I wonder, are atheists, homosexuals, communists and Muslims also God’s creatures? Cause that would mean you’d have to love them…

    Just wondering…

    Comment by Skeptic — June 17, 2007 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  1148. Hey, wait a minute, that’s the essence of Christianity, isn’t it? And a lot of people have been trying to tell you that here for months.

    DPS, I’m glad you finally understand!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 17, 2007 @ 10:24 am | Reply

  1149. “Hmmm, I wonder, are atheists, homosexuals, communists and Muslims also God’s creatures? Cause that would mean you’d have to love them…”

    Of course I love you, Skeptic. I hate your sin, however.

    Comment by DPS — June 17, 2007 @ 1:03 pm | Reply

  1150. Thanks, but I’m none of the above.

    Question: when you drop the nukes, do you just want to kill the sins or the people? Cause nukes don’t really discriminate between the two, you know.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 17, 2007 @ 1:28 pm | Reply

  1151. “Thanks, but I’m none of the above.”

    But I still love you.

    “Question: when you drop the nukes, do you just want to kill the sins or the people? Cause nukes don’t really discriminate between the two, you know.”

    Well, if you are aware of some sort of a device that could kill sin without killing people, that would be fine. Until then, however, we can only use the bombs we have. And we should use our nuclear weapons in as humane a way as possible, of course.

    Comment by DPS — June 17, 2007 @ 4:08 pm | Reply

  1152. “Just remember that you’re standing, on a planet that’s evolving. And revolving at 900 miles an hour.

    That’s orbiting at 19 miles a second (so it’s reconned), a sun that is the source of all our power.

    The sun (and you and me) and all the stars that you can see, are moving at a million miles a day.

    On the outer spiral arm, at 40 thousand miles an hour, the galaxy we call the Milky Way.”

    Comment by Baywolfe — June 17, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Reply

  1153. “Nuclear weapons” and “Humane” do not belong in the same sentance.

    You’re a Christian, correct? Then turn the other cheek. Any other response than that means you’re going against your own scriptures.

    Comment by Hawanja — June 17, 2007 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  1154. “You’re a Christian, correct? Then turn the other cheek. Any other response than that means you’re going against your own scriptures.”

    Excuse me, but have you actually read the Bible? God loves conquest and military victory.

    Comment by DPS — June 17, 2007 @ 7:49 pm | Reply

  1155. 1152: Well, if you are aware of some sort of a device that could kill sin without killing people, that would be fine. Until then, however, we can only use the bombs we have. And we should use our nuclear weapons in as humane a way as possible, of course.
    >No doubt Osama bin Laden (or any other extremist) thinks that, too.

    1154: God loves conquest and military victory.
    >Quote the Bible for that (and make sure it’s LITERAL, as you like it)

    Comment by lietk12 — June 17, 2007 @ 9:08 pm | Reply

  1156. “1154: God loves conquest and military victory.
    >Quote the Bible for that (and make sure it’s LITERAL, as you like it)”

    The entire Book of Joshua would be an excellent place to start. Consult Deut. 20 to see whether the conquest of Canaan was carried out in accord with God’s wishes.

    Especially this bit:

    “16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

    17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee”

    Now, tell me God doesn’t love conquest and military victory!

    Comment by DPS — June 17, 2007 @ 10:07 pm | Reply

  1157. >>Quote the Bible for that (and make sure it’s LITERAL, as you like it)
    Actually [and I’m not supporting DPS] the Bible talks about many Jews that conquered their enemies. You should also know that God loves to destroy the civilization every now and then to keep things fresh, also likes his followers to have many wives [Just check the oldest version of the Bible you have and read Genesis]. Oh, also, he loves to create differences between his sons so they stop working toghether and disperse and create the many nations, which at their time would create many wars, instead of working for the same purpose like in the beginning.
    Yep, that’s what god loooves.

    Comment by mikaudes — June 17, 2007 @ 11:22 pm | Reply

  1158. Hi. Maybe I’m opening up a whole other can of worms here but, what I got from reading your post was your side of an argument and why you feel you are right. I guess I don’t understand though, do you tolerate people with opinions different than yours? Do you believe the people in America should all be Christians (i.e., no Jews, no Catholics, no Mormons, etc.?) Do you believe American values are not supportive of diversity?

    The esteemed Supreme Court Justices (although maybe you don’t like them either) have earned an onerous task of interpreting the US Constitution – and the nine of them have trouble agreeing. There are loose constructionists and strict constructionists – and even among the members of one side – there are disagreements. How is it that you believe something so much larger – the Bible – could be interpreted the same way by all people – even if they were all Christians? How did you come to be given the responsibility of interpreting the Bible – and in what ways are your reasons different from someone who also feels he is given the same right?

    Your feelings, beliefs, opinions – they are just that – yours. You start to sound like a schoolyard bully – name calling and such. People who don’t agree with you are moonbats and witch doctors? You may as well scream, “I don’t like you! You’re stupid!” The bully on the schoolyard gets some followers – mostly people too afraid to think for themselves – and you’ll get yours. I know you don’t understand this – I feel like I’m telling this to a KKK member – but I feel so sad for your children.

    Comment by debra hoffman — June 17, 2007 @ 11:36 pm | Reply

  1159. Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree… yeah, makes perfect sense.

    Comment by Anonymous — June 18, 2007 @ 12:01 am | Reply

  1160. Thanks for your inspiring post.
    However, with brownback down low in poll numbers
    I’m curious as to where he will be meeting with your group to drink the koolaid if he doesn’t get in.

    Comment by Danny — June 18, 2007 @ 12:29 am | Reply

  1161. With regard to recent press reports about WordPress hosting a blog entitled “Blogs 4 Brownback”.

    WordPress has received some worrying comments with regard to this blog through our admin site. The “Blogs 4 Brownback” site is a parody. Please do not forward any comments with regard to racist language, personal abuse or civil action suits to WordPress as we are not responsible for the content on the blog, merely as a host for the site.

    Please use the “Blogs 4 Brownback” blog as it was intented: for entertainment purposes only.

    Thank you,
    The WordPress Team.

    Comment by WordPress Admin — June 18, 2007 @ 4:41 am | Reply

  1162. “the Bible talks about many Jews that conquered their enemies. You should also know that God loves to destroy the civilization every now and then to keep things fresh, also likes his followers to have many wives [Just check the oldest version of the Bible you have and read Genesis]. Oh, also, he loves to create differences between his sons so they stop working toghether and disperse and create the many nations, which at their time would create many wars, instead of working for the same purpose like in the beginning.
    Yep, that’s what god loooves.”

    Civilizations that turn away from God wind up destroyed.

    “Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree… yeah, makes perfect sense.”

    Why do you hate God?

    “Thanks for your inspiring post.
    However, with brownback down low in poll numbers
    I’m curious as to where he will be meeting with your group to drink the koolaid if he doesn’t get in.”

    Moonbat polls give moonbat numbers.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 18, 2007 @ 5:15 am | Reply

  1163. The WordPress Team: “WordPress has received some worrying comments with regard to this blog through our admin site. The “Blogs 4 Brownback” site is a parody.”

    Hmm… It still takes a very convoluted person to keep a practical joke like this going and going, unless they’re being paid to do so. After all – the most satisfying part of any practical joke is when you admit it. The saddest part is that it attracts the REAL believers.

    Anyways, if this blog is a parody, then kudos to you Sisyphus. I dunno if you were being paid for this, but I sure as hell confirmed (through all my previous psychiatric probes) that you don’t care the least bit for what you preach here.

    Comment by Cyriac — June 18, 2007 @ 7:08 am | Reply

  1164. […] science. In an earlier post in which I categorically disproved the time-honored distortion of Heliocentrism, astute readers informed me of the Scriptural evidence that the world is, in fact, not round. […]

    Pingback by UnSpecified Chatter » Blog Archive » Help Me Out … Can This Be Real? — June 18, 2007 @ 7:56 am | Reply

  1165. Sisyphus,
    Just in case you are still checking this blog I thought I would post this thought that I had over the weekend. If I have interpreted your previous arguments correctly, it appears that you are Catholic. What do you have to say about the decision of the Vatican to affirm the Theory of Evolution by the Mechanism of Natural Selection as a valid scientific theory? It happened in 2005.

    Pope gives blessing to evolution theory – Pope John Paul II
    National Catholic Reporter, Nov 8, 1996 by Nicholas A. Kenney

    Pope John Paul II said “new knowledge” led him to officially announce the Vatican’s acceptance of evolutionary theory as “more than a hypothesis.” The declaration grew out of mounting evidence for evolution in a variety of scientific disciplines.

    “More than ‘the theory’ of evolution, it is appropriate to speak of ‘the theories’ of evolution,” said John Paul II in a statement Oct. 22 to the plenary session of the pontifical Academy of Sciences.

    Such findings coincide with “an explosion of thought in theology concerning the environment and eco-evolutionary questions of faith,” said Catholic University theology professor Daniel Cowdin, in explaining why such a declaration would be made at this time.

    “There is no established way to reconcile evolution and creationism, but most theologians no longer see the Book of Genesis as a scientific account – they are theological accounts. God is still the why of creation. But evolution is a possible how of creation.”

    It is only recently, said University of Portland theology professor Thomas Hosinski, that “theology has turned toward the natural world.” Theologians traditionally leave it to the scientists to examine nature. The new theological focus on environment and morality, he said, has caused theologians to grapple with evolution in order to understand the natural world. “The pope is promoting a dialogue between religious and scientific experts,” Hosinski said.

    Not all Christians hate Science.
    QED

    Comment by John — June 18, 2007 @ 11:16 am | Reply

  1166. For me as a european, this guy fits to my way of thinking:
    What means to be an american.

    We here in Germany think:
    You full of such relegius strangebrains,
    which still think president Bush is the best President we ever had
    (because off, praying every minute, LOL)

    Mister there in America, please start thinking bevore riding such an bullshit
    See the world and pray for god that all relegions find together as brothers and sister, no matter if you are black or white, jewish or Moslem.

    And always feel ashame,because america has set the first step for the next
    world war.

    Comment by Boris from Berlin Schöneberg — June 18, 2007 @ 1:03 pm | Reply

  1167. Wow, this shit lasted a month. Well Sisyphus, whatever your real purposes are, you just made sure that all of Brownback’s followers appear to be loonies, so well done if that’s what you wanted. Still, you have a long way to tolerance, because if people like you held the power, well, let’s not imagine it. Oh, and reading your posts… well, you remind of the following:
    Thank you for smoking
    The X-laws from Shaman King
    And the QT robot from I, Robot

    Do some research and you’ll find out why!!

    Comment by mikaudes — June 18, 2007 @ 1:57 pm | Reply

  1168. “Pope gives blessing to evolution theory – Pope John Paul II
    National Catholic Reporter, Nov 8, 1996 by Nicholas A. Kenney”

    Those are public statements made under pressure. I’m quite confident they’ve been privately disavowed, which is what really counts. In his heart of hearts, the Pope knows the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that Darwin was a professional liar.

    “Wow, this shit lasted a month.”

    This thread will live forever.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 18, 2007 @ 3:56 pm | Reply

  1169. “This thread will live forever.”

    Not if The Rapture doesn’t get you first!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 18, 2007 @ 5:27 pm | Reply

  1170. I’ve seen horrors… horrors that you’ve seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that… but you have no right to judge me. It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face… and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn’t see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember… I… I… I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn’t know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized… like I was shot… like I was shot with a diamond… a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God… the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men… trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love… but they had the strength… the strength… to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral… and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling… without passion… without judgment… without judgment. Because it’s judgment that defeats us.

    Comment by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz — June 18, 2007 @ 5:54 pm | Reply

  1171. Okay – it just occurred to me that perhaps this whole rant by Sisyphus is part of a PhD thesis or something. Could be very interesting actually – makes me damn proud of my fellow Americans who have responded – in anger, in shock, in comedic relief (pointing out what a nut Sisyphus is) and proud of those who have tried to reason with him (maybe the guy doesn’t even believe his own words – or maybe I’m just naive enough to believe it impossible for a real person like Sisyphus exists). Thanks everyone – all your responses are what it is to be American.

    Comment by d hoffman — June 18, 2007 @ 6:34 pm | Reply

  1172. “if The Rapture doesn’t get you first!”

    Even then, God’s saints will continue to blog, and to comment.

    Comment by DPS — June 18, 2007 @ 6:37 pm | Reply

  1173. “Even then, God’s saints will continue to blog, and to comment.”

    I’m sure God’s saints have better things to do with their time than listen to this crap.

    Comment by George — June 18, 2007 @ 10:01 pm | Reply

  1174. Hawanja: “You’re a Christian, correct? Then turn the other cheek. Any other response than that means you’re going against your own scriptures.”

    DPS: “Excuse me, but have you actually read the Bible? God loves conquest and military victory.”

    Excuse ME, but have you actually read the New Testament? Such as Matthew 5:39 or Luke 6:29?

    Comment by Silverhill — June 18, 2007 @ 10:20 pm | Reply

  1175. “Even then, God’s saints will continue to blog, and to comment.”

    Why? It makes no sense (Yes, yes, I know that whole “Rapture” makes no sense either) as no Christians will be here to read the blog. Do these “saints” have email addresses yet? Can they touch-type or will they use The Force?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 19, 2007 @ 3:43 am | Reply

  1176. What a bunch of fucking monkeys. Oh, wait, that would imply evolution…
    What a bunch of fucking morons. There. That’s better.

    Who ever said the Universe revolves around the sun? I thought the only thing revolving around the sun was the solar system. Not even the galaxy, let a lone the entire Universe.

    And I guess since it’s written in scriptures (by men) it’s got to be true. There’s just no way around that logic, is there? What about this:

    “What a bunch of fucking monkeys” WWTDD, 13, 24B.

    Comment by WWTDD — June 19, 2007 @ 5:18 am | Reply

  1177. Comment by d hoffman: “Thanks everyone – all your responses are what it is to be American.”

    Loud, obese and geographically challenged??

    d hoffman, sorry to point out the oh so obvious dude, but this blog is actually hosted on something called the World Wide Web (aka “The Internet”, aka “The Web”, aka “Online”). Not everyone here is American. (Hands up who here is not American, thanks!) The clue is in that first “W” which stands for “World”. Are ya getting my point?

    If not, go rent “Team America: World Police” and you soon will…

    Don’t get me wrong dude, I enjoy visiting The States, lived there for a while, however, sometimes ye guys (Americans) think you are the centre of the entire universe! (Which I know is impossible btw, it’s just a figure of speech 🙂 )

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 19, 2007 @ 5:45 am | Reply

  1178. *puts hand up*
    Not American. although I’d really like to point out that it’s really “North American” and the population of South American nations tend to get lumped in by default.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 19, 2007 @ 7:22 am | Reply

  1179. Palestine – a Bridgehead of the god Shiva

    Huxley observed: “The question of questions for mankind — the problem which underlies all others, and is more deeply interesting than any other — is the ascertainment of the place which man occupies in Nature, and of his relations to the Universe of things.”
    On 25 May 1977 I delivered at the Polish Oriental Society a lecture about Geocentric Astronomy of the Book of Job –“He stretched out the North over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7) – A heliocentric diagram from the period before Joshua’s conquest unearthed in Israel confirms that the ancient Jews knew the heliocentric system elaborated later by Pythagoras, but rejected it (The Babylonian epic Enuma Elish mentions that the sun god Marduk established the orbit of the earth around the sun). The Biblical Secretaries of God knew about the relativity of the sunlight and therefore could not accept the heliocentric sun as the Light of the World and a Visible God. My article “At the Sources of the Copernican Heliocentrism” was printed in the “Urania” 1/1981/LII, monthly of the Polish Association of the Friends of Astronomy. I pointed out in that paper that Copernicus did not prove immobility of the sun scientifically i.e. mathematically; rather he embraced the philosophical dogma that the sun being a god must rest (cp. Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover): “Moreover, the state of immobility is being considered more noble and more divine than the state of mutability and instability, which for that reason should be ascribed rather to the earth than to the universe (i.e. fixed stars and the sun) (De revol. I, 8 Polish edition of 1976, p. 18)
    My question: Do you believe, like Copernicus, that the sun is a god? Can you remove this religious belief from his book without destroying the logic of the Renaissance religious revolution as reflected in The Revolutions?
    Joscelyn Godwin, professor of music at Colgate University and th author of over fifteen highly-regarded books on music, harmony and the Western esoteric traditions wrote in The Pagan Dream of the Renaissance: “During the Renaissance, a profound transformation occurred in Western culture, fueled in large part by the rediscovery of the mythological, pagan imagination. While the Greek gods and goddesses had never been entirely eclipsed during the ‘Dark Ages’, with the Renaissance their presence once again became a powerful force in Western civilization.” J. Godwin explains how the European imagination was seduced by the pagan gods, and how people of wealth and leisure began to decorate their villas and places with images of them, write stories about them, and even produce music and dramatic pageants about them. In its deepest and most vibrant form, we discover how the pagan dream of the Renaissance represented nostalgia for a classical world untroubled by sin and in no need of redemption.
    Aldous Huxley in his book Ends and Means, 1946, p. 70 explains enthusiastic reception of evolutionism as follows: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning…The liberation we desired was.;..from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
    Here is the key passage from The revoluitions in Latin original: “In medio vero omnium residet Sol. Quis enim in hoc pulcherimo templo lampadam hanc in aio vel meliori loco poneret, quam unde totum simul possit illuminare. Siquidem non inepte quidam lucernam mundi, alii mentem, alii rectorem vocant. Trismegistus visibilem Deum, Sophoclis Electra intuente omnia. Ita profecto tanquam in solio regali Sol residens circum agentem gubernat Astrorum familiam.”
    “Vishnu in the form of the Solar active energy, neither ever rises nor sets, and is at once, the sevenfold Sun and distinct from it,” says Vishnu Purana (Book II., Chap. 1 1).
    Shiva in his symbol linga is referred to as as fixed or immovable (dhruva). Shiva is worshiped in the form of the linga, in the center of the temple, or inner shrine. The cave temple of Elephanta (6th century) and the rock-cut temple of Ellura (8th century) are perfect examples.
    A passage in the Serpent Mantra, in the Aytareya-Brahmana, speaks of the earth as the Sarpa Rajni, the Queen of the Serpents, and “the mother of all that moves.”
    T. Campanella, the early defender of Galileo wrote in his book Apologia pro Galileo: “Aristotle testifies, that Pythagoras, who located the place of punishment in the center of the earth and made fire the cause of motion, described the earth as mobile and animate. So Ovid believes in “Metamorphoses”, Origin in his commentary on Ezechiel, and Plato. It is essential, if hell be in the center of the earth, for earth to be hot within, and, according to Gregory and others cited in the argument of St. Thomas, to be mobile. The interpretation of Galileo does not oppose the belief of St. Gregory, but rather that of Aristotle.”
    On November 19, 1898 F. Bilek, a 19th century Czech artist published in Polish magazine Życie (Life), II, 44, p. 579 a cartoon mocking the Copernican heliolatry; Earth goddess Gaia, a great planetary organism circling around the sun god.
    The Aryan Laws over the World and Copernicus’s Astrorum familia
    Here is an example of how the term ‘Aryan’ is used in the Rigveda:
    The Gods generated the Divine Word (Logos, Brahman), the cow, the horse, the plants, the trees, the Earth, the mountains and the Waters. Raising the Sun in Heaven, the bountiful Gods released the Aryan Laws over the world. Rigveda, X, 65.11 – translation, Rajaram & Frawley (1997:63). Logos (Jesus) Christ, as St. Paul understood it, released the Aryan (Heliocentric) Laws over the world and abolished the geocentric Laws of the Hebrew (Semitic) Torah.
    According o Hindu definition there are thirteen emotions called Rasas. They are Sringara, also called Adi or the original sex rasa which lies at the very root of creation Accordingly, to this day, Shiva is worshiped in the image of his organ of procreation, often alone, and frequently conjoined with the corresponding female organ, which is sculpted to receive Siva’s seed. This representation of Shiva is known as the lingam. The word lingam literally means a ‘sign’ or distinguishing mark. Thu says the Linga Purana: “The distinctive sign by which one can recognize the nature of something is called lingam.” Primarily, the glowing, flaming linga was a pillar of fire, connecting heaven and earth.
    In Vedic hyms, Rudra (an epithet for Shiva) is identified with Agni, who in these sacred texts is deified as the carrier of the sacrificial offerings to the gods for whom they are intended. Hence, Agni is the mediator between men and gods, and acts as a metaphysical bridge between the two, just like the cosmic linga. A pertinent observation here is that every creative process is accompanied by the generation of heat. Indeed the sexual act is nothing but the offering of the seed of life into the sacred fire of love. Hence, Agni, the God of Fire, is eminently suited as a metaphoric emblem of the tejas (creative heat) of Shiva. In his aniconic form Shiva is visualized as the cosmic pillar. Yet this pillar also evokes his phallus. As an abstract shape, the pillar ymbolizes a purely conceptual reality that cannot be sensed in material terms. Visually however, the shape of the sylindrical pillar with a rounded top resembles that of the phallus. Also when the time came for Shiva to reveal himself to both Brahma and Vishnu, he did so in the form of a linga. Hence the linga is an object of the greatest sanctity, more sacred than any anthropomorphic image of Shiva. Not surprisingly thus, the innermost sanctuary of all Shiva temples is reserved for the linga, while the outer precincts of the sacred architecture may whow him in his human form. Indeed, though his iconic images abound, no such image ever occupies the center of attention in a Shiva temple, this honor being reserved exclusivly for his linga. Most commonly, in the sanctuaries where it is worshiped, the lingam is represented surounded by the female organ of generation, the yoni. The yoni grasps the lingam, and indeed it is only when the phallus, the giver of semen, is surrounded by the yoni that procreation can take place. From the relation of linga and yoni, the whole aorld arises. Everything therefore bears the signature of the linga and the yoni. Each individual linga that enters a womb and procreates is a harbinger of divinity, and engaging in a sacred act.
    For a long time, the pundits have wondered why it was necessary to decorate a place of worship with sexual material, but if one observes the materialistic (Loukika) tyhoughts of Hinduism, there is nothing unnatural about them The Indian scriptures argue that to attain moksha, and to dedicate oneself to dharma and adhyatma, one should first experience sexual fulfillment. This was also the mantra of Dr. Kinsey. Let me remind here that J.G.R Furlong in his book Rivers of Life (London 1883) coined the term “phalo-solar worshippers” denoting the inhabitants of the Anglo-Indian areas.
    A few years ago, Father George Coyne, head of the vatican Observatory Research Group suggested that we might view stars as God’s sperm. Every sperm has the potential to produce life, he said, but most of them never realize that goal. Like sperm, “each star is fired with a propensity for life, but there is no reason to think any of them have achieved this.” Well, the so-called sperm gnostics joined sperm with the Holy Logos. In this Shivaite Christianity sanctuaries are renamed sexuaries.
    J.J. O’Connor and E.F. Robertson in their article Nicolaus Copernicus on website translated this passage as follows: “At the middle of all things lies the sun. As the location of this luminary in the cosmos, that most beautiful temple, would there be any other place or any better place than the centre, from which it can light up everything at the same time? Hence the sun is not inappropriately called by some the lamp of the universe, by others its mind, and by others its ruler.”
    Copernicus’s reference to Trismegistus’ calling the sun ‘Visible God’ and Electra’s title of the sun ‘All Seeing Being’ are lost in this translation. They also censored Copernicus’s belief in ancient cosmogony according to which sun god fathered the stars which he expressed mentioning “the family of stars.” It was Sophocles, mentioned by Copernicus, who called the sun “He who engenders the gods” and “Father of All Things.”
    And here is the true German translation of this passage: “In der Mitte aller (Planeten) aber hat die Sonne ihren Platz. Wer möchte wohl in diesem schönsten Tempel diese Leuchte an einem andern oder bessern Orte aufstellen als an dem, woher sie alles zugleich beleuchten kann! Ist es doch nicht unklug, dass einige sie die Leuchte der Welt, andere ihre Vernunft, andere ihren Lenker nennen. Trismegistus nennt sie den sichtbaren Gott, des Sophokles Elektra die alles Schauende. So herrscht fürwahr die Sonne, gleichsam auf königlichem Throne sitzend, über die sie umkreisende Familie der Sterne.” (De revolutionibus I, 10.)
    And here is the best American translation of this verse:
    “In the center of all rests the Sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this from which it can illuminate everything at the same time? As a matter of fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others, the mind, and still others, the Leader of the World. Trismegistus calls it ‘visible God’; Sophocles’ Electra, ‘that which gazes upon all things.’ And so the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around.”
    In response of Nov. 22, 1989 to a letter by Marshall Hall, Lee Ranne of United States Department of Commerce, writing on behalf of Charles E. Liddick, Chief, Scheduling Branch Office of Scientific Operations stated that the “present movement of Geosynchronous Satellites #5 are planned and executed on the basis of fixed earth.” Because, as a courageous author observed centuries ago, heliocentrism is “PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.”
    Two years later Marshall Hall published book The Earth Is Not Moving. over 400 years of deception exposed. the bible told the truth all along. In June, 1994 Second Edition of the book had been printed. You will find facsimiles of both letters on p. 261 of the book. See attached document.

    Phallic Architecture of Al-Aqa Mosque Foreshadowed the Rise of Western Heliocentrism

    The Muslims embraced three important components of Hindu religion: its mathematics, phallic architecture, and polygyny. The Moslem religion allows a man to have as many as four wives, and the Hindu religions sets no limit on the number of wives a man may have.
    “When the ancient Hellenic culture was in decline, it found support in the Roman government. Rome defended the upper class against proletarian outbursts, and in defense of the Hellenes, Rome crushed the Jews and other Easterners, who challenged Hellenism in Cyprus, Egypt, Syria, and Cyrenaica. Likewise Rome occasionally persecuted the Christians. (Enc. Americana, entry Hellenism)
    In the Moslem Empire, there was an unusual tolerance for strange Gnostic sects. Why? Because they rejected the Hebrew Bible, viewing it as a work of deception. They stated that it had been written by a race of thieves and deceivers, and was inspired by the worship of the false god, a demiurge, Jehovah (Cp. John 8:44). It was ecumenism in hatred.
    The Above mentioned T. Campanella stressed: “If the Fathers are correct when they say the firmament stand unmoved, the stars stand with it. When the Master of the “Sentences,” St. Chrysostom, and other fathers declare, in harmony with Catholic faith that the firmament is unmoved, it is necessary that they state the same of the stars much more vigorously. Since the stars are immobile it follows that the earth is carried about as a ship, and that stars appear to be moved just as from a ship an island or a tower on the shore seems in motion.”
    These early Church Fathers found their best allies in Arabs philosophers who hated the Hebrew religion with the same intensity as the imperial Romans.
    Heliocentric astronomy of Copernicus did not succeed the geocentered astronomy of Ptolemy because Copernicus’s system corresponded to experience and Ptolemy’s didn’t. With sufficient epicycles Ptolemy’s system could be made to correspond to our observations. The Copernican heliocentrism had won for political reasons. The fight against the religious heritage of the Hebrew Bible was what united the Roman Catholics and the Muslims. Very early we observe the growing alienation of the Roman Church from the Old Testament and Hebrew roots because of the Hellenization and universalization of the Christian message. On the other side, for the millions of Muslims Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian, but the first Muslim. He was believed to have founded the Kaaba in Mecca as the central sanctuary of the one God, and in this way he became the ancestor of the Arabs. On this political premise, the 12th-century Arab philosopher Averroës based his criticism of the Ptolemaic system and of the Biblical geocentrism for that matter: “Therefore new research work is necessary in order to find the “true” astronomy, which can be derived from the true principles of physics. As a matter of fact, today there is no astronomy at all, and what we call astronomy is in agreement with our computations but not with the physical reality.” Popular myth saw Averroës as a vile atheist (like Al-Shariati).
    Thomas Aquinas’s judgment of the Ptolemaic system sounds as a paraphrase of Averroës’s criticism: “The assumptions made by the astronomers are not necessarily true. Although these hypotheses seem to be in agreement with the observed phenomena we must not claim that they are true. Perhaps one could explain the observed motion of the celestial bodies in a different way which has not been discovered up to this time.” Copernicus’s only motive in his research was his conviction that there was no established doctrine and, not a spirit of opposition against the established doctrine. That explains the fact that he joined to his book the letter he had received from Cardinal Schőnberg some years before and that he dedicated his work to Pope Paul III. Card. Schőnberg urged him to publish his book: “Thus, learned Sir, I hope that I will not be deemed a nuisance when I urgently request you to communicate your discovery to the learned world.” Tiedman Giese, Bishop of Kulm also insisted for a long time on publication. Copernicus’s brother Andreas was a high-ranking curialist… John Paul II knew what he was doing when he “rehabilitated” Galileo who, like Muhammad, believed in “7 hanging paradises” and 72 virgins awaiting him…
    It is not without interest to remark that the Arab physicians, who enjoyed a merited celebrity in the middle ages — Averroes among others — constantly spoke of the Hindu physicians, and regarded them as the initiators of the Greeks and themselves. One of them the Hindu Bramaheupto affirmed that the starry sphere was immovable, and that the daily rising and setting of stars confirms the motion of the earth upon its axis. His heliocentrism was embraced by the Greek philosopher Aristarch of Samos, born 267 B.C. Together with heliocentric mathematics the Hindu astronomers developed zero and the decimal number system, the differential, integral, and infinitesimal calculi. The Arabs adopted these inventions and used them in their architecture, as exemplified by the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which was supposed to exterminate from human memory the mathematics used by the Biblical architects of the Solomon Temple together with this teaching of the Koran.

    Disappointed when the Jews did not acknowledge his leadership, Mohammed turned against them and invoked Hanifism, the supposedly uncorrupted religion of Abraham, against them (According to one tradition, in this “uncorrupted religion” Abraham went through with the sacrifice of his son). He also ascribed to Abraham many of the elements of Arab paganism that he took over into Islam. From this time on, Mohammed no longer regarded Islam as a form of revelation ranking with Judaism and Christianity; he proclaimed it to be the one and only true religion.
    We have to consider the dialogue between God and Abraham within the context of the ancient Near East. Abraham lived in a world of idolatrous child offerings, where fathers demonstrated fealty to Molech by placing their children on the blood-thirsty sun god Molech’s fiery altar (Tragically, this cruel form of idolatry has returned with a vengeance to the present-day Middle East, with Palestinian parents, teachers and preachers encouraging children to blow themselves up, along with innocent Israeli mothers and babies)
    “Don’t sacrifice your children on the altar fires to the god Molech.” (Leviticus 18:21)
    “The Europeans killed and were killed for democracy, liberty and respect for various cultures, and you the backward desert dwellers prefer the rule of Sharia. Namely, you advocate sacrificing human beings like lambs at the altar.” (Guy Bechor, British report on Muslim attitude to democracy alarming, Ynetnews.com 21:09 , 02.01.07)
    Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes.
    The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel …
    — Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of
    its Executive Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977
    Dr. Rantisi, Hamas’s dead leader used to argue that Allah – many times wrongly translated as ‘God’ – is not the God of the Bible, nor the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Allah is another deity, one who drinks blood as water, who loves jihad and terror, and promises virgins in his so-called paradise to those who kill Jews – the more the better. Accordingly, we learn from a Palestinian poststamp that the true god of Palestine is Baal-Zephon who was a principal mighty one of Ugait or Ras Shamra, and of the Canaanite people who lived in that area of Syria. Israel was given a choice; they could follow Yahweh to their permanent freedom in the Promised land or they could return to enslavement in Egypt with its idol worship, wherein the idolatry of Baal-Zephon was popular.
    Ball was also known as the sun idol, Baal-Hannan. He had received the name Hannan, or the “grace”. That is exactly what the Pauline Christians teach, that the manner of spiritual life is all grace. “The law has been done away with the Christ’s death; now, do anything you please” is the teaching of Pauline churchianity.
    “The adoration of the sun was one of the earliest and most natural forms of religious expression. Complex modern theologies are merely involvement’s and amplifications of this simple … belief. The primitive mind, recognizing the beneficent power of the solar orb, adored it as the proxy of the Supreme Deity … Among all the nations of antiquity, altars, mounds, and temples were dedicated to the worship of the orb of day … The Tower of Babel … was probably an astronomical observatory … The sun, as supreme among the celestial bodies to the astronomers of antiquity, was assigned to the highest of the gods and became symbolic of the supreme authority of the Creator Himself … Yellow is his color and his power is without end … The sun thus became a Bull in Taurus and was worshipped as such by the Egyptians under the name of Apis, and by the Assyrians as Bel, Baal, or Bul (John Bull! –rp). In Leo, the sun became a Lion-slayer, Hercules, and an Archer in Sagittarius. In Pices the Fishes, he was a fish — Dagon, or Vishnu, the fish-god of the Philistines and Hindoos.” [“The Secret Teachings of All Ages”, by Manly P. Hall, 33° Freemason, p. XLIX] The bull Nandi is Shiva in his animal form as well as the mount upon which the Great God rides. The sexually potent bull is an expression of Shiva’s cosmic creative energy. This image evolved from a prehistoric representation (Shiva Pasupati) in which the god was a horned fertility deity; his worship was central in the ancient Mohenjo Daro civilization of the Indus valley. And this ancient, primitive religion is expressed in the phallic architecture of the Dome of the Rock which is modeled on the architecture of the innumerable Indian shrines of linga and yoni.
    The problem of political significance is that not all Arabs share the religion expressed in the architecture of the Dome of the Rock:
    A FATWA OF DISASSOCIATION FROM THOSE WHO HONOR BAAL
    Question: Since the Palestinian National Authority has recently printed and circulated a postage stamp that shows an image of Baal, and since we know that Baal is an idol and a false god that is written about and against in the Quran (as-Saffat 37:125-126), we are wondering whether it is permissible to use the related stamp. Answer: Abiding by Monotheism and rejecting the worship of idols and false gods is the central point in the message of all the Prophets and the Mesengers who were sent by Allah the Most High. Allah says in the Glorious Qur’an what means, “And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, proclaiming ‘Worship Allah and shun false gods.’ Of the people were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably established. So travel through the earth and see what was the end of the deniers.” (an-Naml 16:36) Baal is expressly mentioned in the Qur’an as one of the false gods which were worshiped by the pagans of old, and against whose worship preached the Prophet Elias, peace be union him. (…) The Majlis al-Ulema of the Italian Muslim Association
    http://amislam.com/history.htm islam.inst@flashnet.it
    “The situation in the Gaza Strip, and especially in the city of Gaza, is scary. Murders are committed by the dozen, using every [conceivable] weapon… The murder machine, fueled by every conceivable type of hatred, is hurtling in every direction, all the time, everywhere… in the mosques… in the schools… [There are] executions… Leaders are attacked, and their families humiliated… Children and innocent civilians are being murdered…” Talal Okal, columnist for the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Ayyam, May 17, 2007.
    To view this Inquiry and Analysis in HTML, visit:
    http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA35907
    According to Carl Matrisciana’s Gods of the New Age (1985), the Shivites are “recognizable by the three horizontal lines painted on their forehead. These disciples of the god Shiva consider madness – one of Shiva’s attributes (cp. theo-called Nordic berserkergang) – to be one of the highest levels of spirituality! Many Hindus believe insanity to be a form of god-consciousness.
    In an article posted May 16, 2007 by the Palestine Press Agency, a certain Sheikh Shaker Al-Hiran labels Hamas as Khawarij(1) and sanctifies killing its members. The article responded to the recent cycle of bloodshed between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip, placing the blame on Hamas and accusing Hamas of acting against a legitimate ruler. The Saudi daily Al-Watan published it on its front page on May 22, 2007.
    To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit:
    http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD159507 .

    The Renaissance of Lithuania’s Paganism
    National revival Just when traditional forms of the native religion were being eradicated in the country, a new awakening was beginning in urban intellectual circles. Interest in pagan rituals was growing among a small set of academics at Vilnius University, headed by Simanas Daukantas. Interest in a return to traditional forms of worship was helped at the end of the century by a growing national revival movement, which took issue with the still very Polonized church. Says Trinkunas – “Lithuanian cultural activists began to think that pagans have more native features”. Folk art
    The relatively new Christian strata is intermingled with the more ancient elements of the Lithuanian imagination. Memories of an ancestral past continue to surface in the symbols and styles of Lithuanian folk art. ornamental carvings on distaffs, dowery chests, laundry heaters, furniture and gables, as well as on painted Easter eggs often portray the segmented stars, concentric circles, rosettes, and sun symbols which are impregnated with pagan import.
    Folk songs retain fragments of prayers to Zemyna, the Earth Mother:
    “Dear Zemyna ,
    protect us,
    Bless our tillages
    Bless the forests, the fields,
    Leas pastures and slopes.” The ritual of hugging “Mother Earth” introduced by Pope John Paul II strengthened this revival of Lithuania’s paganism.

    To view this article to to: http://www.vinland.org/heathen/pagancee/lithpag.html.
    Aryan Savior for Palestine
    Peter Lefhebber in his website article Jesus of Nazareth and Maitreya the Christ wrote:
    “Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ are not one and the same person…In fact the title Christ does not refer to an individual at all. Its the name of a function in the Hierarchy of Masters of Wisdom, that group of advanced beings who guide the evolution of humanity from behind the scenes. Whoever stands at the head of this Hierarchy automatically becomes the World Teacher, known in the East as the Bodhisattva, during the term of his office.
    The Master Jesus has been incarnate in a Syrian body for about 640 years. He is described in Initiation, Human and Solar by Alice A. Bailey (published by Lucis Publishing Co.) as follows: He is rather a martial figure, a disciplinarian and a man of iron rule and will. He is tall and spare with rather a long thin face, black hair, pale complexion, and piercing blue eyes. In the Hierarchy he is described as the Great Leader, the General and the Wise Executive. No one is so closely in touch with the people who stand for all that is best in the Christian teachings and no-one is so well aware of the needs of the present moment.
    During most of this time he has lived mainly in Palestine. Since 1984 however, he has lived in Rom. The intention is that he will try to raise the Christian churches out of their state of crystallization and rivalry and if invited to do so, to lead a newly united church. By doing so he hopes to resolve the many contradictions and misunderstandings which have arisen during the course of the centuries about this historic role and the teachings which he then disseminated as a vehicle for Maitreya. (www.share-international.org/archives/AgelessWisdom/aw_pl-JnM.htm)
    Please, note the coincidence, in 1984 in his address to the diplomats accredited at the Vatican pope John Paul II postulated creation of an independent Palestinian state.
    The New Agers who, among innumerable Hindu deirties, also worship Shiva claim Jerusalem as one of their “holy sites” where “masters” can be found, which explains world pressure to delegetimize this city as Israel’s capital and the seat of Judaism.
    Dr. Roman Pytel, Poles for Israel, 06/02/07

    Comment by Roman Pytel — June 19, 2007 @ 7:26 am | Reply

  1180. “Not if The Rapture doesn’t get you first!”

    Good point. But even then, you people would keep it alive by arguing amongst yourselves, until I came back.

    “Why? It makes no sense (Yes, yes, I know that whole “Rapture” makes no sense either) as no Christians will be here to read the blog. Do these “saints” have email addresses yet? Can they touch-type or will they use The Force?”

    Electrons are really angels, Tyler. The Lord and His servants are always with us.

    “Who ever said the Universe revolves around the sun? I thought the only thing revolving around the sun was the solar system. Not even the galaxy, let a lone the entire Universe.”

    You said it. Just now. Moron.

    “My question: Do you believe, like Copernicus, that the sun is a god? Can you remove this religious belief from his book without destroying the logic of the Renaissance religious revolution as reflected in The Revolutions?”

    That’s an excellent question, Roman. Let’s see how the moonbats worm their way out of THAT one!

    By the way, I think you’ve written one of the most useful, cogent, and intelligent comments in this entire thread. I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but the overall trend of your analysis is complete and utter genius. With your permission, I’ll quote it in its entirety in a separate post.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 19, 2007 @ 7:47 am | Reply

  1181. 1). Roman Pytel just blew my mind.

    2). @ Skeptic:

    “Excuse ME, but have you actually read the New Testament? Such as Matthew 5:39 or Luke 6:29?”

    Matt. 5:39″ “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

    No one is talking about “resisting” evil. We’re talking about *crushing* evil, which is very different. And yes, if someone smites me on my right cheek, I turn my left cheek to him. If someone smites my left cheek, though, or anywhere else, I knock the guy out.

    Luke 6:29 is basically the same, except it covers coat-stealing as well.

    Now, have *you* read Matthew 26:53, about Jesus’ awesome army of butt-kicking angels?

    Comment by DPS — June 19, 2007 @ 9:42 am | Reply

  1182. Comment by Sisyphus: “Good point. But even then, you people would keep it alive by arguing amongst yourselves, until I came back.”

    Why argue amongst ourselves? We’d all be too busy having a good time, until you came back.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 19, 2007 @ 9:44 am | Reply

  1183. “Why argue amongst ourselves? We’d all be too busy having a good time, until you came back.”

    You’d all be at the tender mercies of Al Qaeda; you’d be arguing amongst yourselves as to whose fault it was.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 19, 2007 @ 9:47 am | Reply

  1184. “You’d all be at the tender mercies of Al Qaeda; you’d be arguing amongst yourselves as to whose fault it was.”

    Yeah, well, that’s just it.
    After reading your blogs I don’t know which would be worse, your Brownback theocracy, or Al Qaeade…

    Comment by Skeptic — June 19, 2007 @ 9:52 am | Reply

  1185. The tender mercies of Al Qaeda be damned to hell. My victims were rich and poor… young and old… strong and weak. I caused millions of accidents… I fathered lies, twisted the truth, and for what gain? All lost. I stripped men of pride, my promises in vain… While men burned at the stake I danced with the flames… heartless, heartless, heartless, a heart of darkness. I brought poverty, sickness and death… a worthless handshake, to many and all who greeted me. We were more violent than violence, more deadly than death, we destroyed more men than all the nation’s wars… relentless, unpredictable, waiting for their last breath… they died. Oh pain, I am your servant, come take me.

    We fought them, and won. We fought them, and lost. Show me where Lord, my soul, is to rest… We were more evil than violence… more violent than death… more deadly than man… I’m evil I am, evil we were. My only kingdom corrupt with dissent, my son lost to it all. Your sins erupt by my intent, I wallow in sin. I took what they loved, and left only tears, Lord help me and save me… Imprison souls, their hopes were my games, stripped of pride, my promise in vain… The horror… the horror of it all…

    Comment by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz — June 19, 2007 @ 10:25 am | Reply

  1186. Can you explain how Heliocentrism supports anti-Americanism? I was lost on that point. The rest is golden though.

    Comment by Alex — June 19, 2007 @ 12:32 pm | Reply

  1187. Can you explain how Heliocentrism encourages anti-Americanism? I was lost on that point. The rest is golden though.

    Comment by Alex — June 19, 2007 @ 12:32 pm | Reply

  1188. Colonel Kurtz,

    Perhaps you should consider joining a Bible study group?

    Comment by DPS — June 19, 2007 @ 1:26 pm | Reply

  1189. DPS: “And yes, if someone smites me on my right cheek, I turn my left cheek to him. If someone smites my left cheek, though, or anywhere else, I knock the guy out.”

    Hypocrite.
    ==================
    “Now, have *you* read Matthew 26:53, about Jesus’ awesome army of butt-kicking angels?”

    That He chose NOT to use, in order that Good be advanced?

    Comment by Silverhill — June 19, 2007 @ 1:38 pm | Reply

  1190. ‘“Now, have *you* read Matthew 26:53, about Jesus’ awesome army of butt-kicking angels?”

    That He chose NOT to use, in order that Good be advanced?’

    It is clearly implied that He *might* have used them, if it had not been His duty to fulfill scripture by being arrested and killed. Go check.

    Comment by DPS — June 19, 2007 @ 3:32 pm | Reply

  1191. if it had not been His duty to fulfill scripture by being arrested and killed. Go check.

    Comment by DPS — June 19, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

    There are “ifs” to God, he knows everything that will happen, wouldn’t you think that specially his plan to save humanity. Good thing I used to be catholic, at least I can use your own ideas against you, although this is just beacoming a battle of arguing.

    Can you explain how Heliocentrism encourages anti-Americanism? I was lost on that point. The rest is golden though.

    Comment by Alex — June 19, 2007

    Simple, it goes against the North American idea of being the most important thing in the creation. BTW, nice name [same as mine].

    Sis, I want to know more about you, are you a priest? A family guy? What drove to write this?

    Oh and you know that “pagan” theory of the Big Bang? Well, it was proposed by the Church, at first science rejected it because it was thought impossible to create matter out of scrap. Keep that in mind.

    Comment by mikaudes — June 19, 2007 @ 6:03 pm | Reply

  1192. DPS: “It is clearly implied that He *might* have used them, if it had not been His duty to fulfill scripture by being arrested and killed. Go check.”

    I’ve already checked, don’t worry; I know what it said.
    You are the one who appears to be not heeding what the Scriptures said. Remember that bit about the “second greatest commanfdment” — the one that you and Sisyphus are largely ignoring?

    Comment by Silverhill — June 19, 2007 @ 6:13 pm | Reply

  1193. @ Silverhill

    “DPS: “And yes, if someone smites me on my right cheek, I turn my left cheek to him. If someone smites my left cheek, though, or anywhere else, I knock the guy out.”

    Hypocrite.”

    Why am I a hypocrite? Because I follow Jesus’ instructions?

    Comment by DPS — June 19, 2007 @ 8:32 pm | Reply

  1194. DPS: “Why am I a hypocrite? Because I follow Jesus’ instructions?”

    Jesus’s instructions were not: “Tolerate bad behavior for a while but then feel free to punch the guy out.” Remember the “seventy times seven” recommendation for forgiveness (also enunciated by Jesus)?

    Comment by Silverhill — June 19, 2007 @ 9:00 pm | Reply

  1195. No. For a Bible study group for me… cannot work. And please no judgment on me. Heard it all before… What do you mean, I don’t believe in God? I talk to him every day… what do you mean, I don’t support your system? I go to court when I have to… what do you mean, I can’t get to work on time? I got nothing better to do… what do you mean, I don’t pay my bills? Why do you think I’m broke?

    If there’s a new way… I’ll be the first in line. But, it better work this time… What do you mean, I hurt your feelings? I didn’t know you had any feelings. What do you mean, I ain’t kind? I’m just not your kind… what do you mean, I couldn’t be President of the United States of America? Tell me something, it’s still “We the people”, right?

    Comment by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz — June 20, 2007 @ 3:44 am | Reply

  1196. 1181: “Why? It makes no sense (Yes, yes, I know that whole “Rapture” makes no sense either) as no Christians will be here to read the blog. Do these “saints” have email addresses yet? Can they touch-type or will they use The Force?”

    Electrons are really angels, Tyler. The Lord and His servants are always with us.
    >Why was Hitler elected?

    “Who ever said the Universe revolves around the sun? I thought the only thing revolving around the sun was the solar system. Not even the galaxy, let a lone the entire Universe.”

    You said it. Just now. Moron.
    >You said it in your main article: “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.” If you quote it, you agree with it. And it was not abandoned in the 1900s. “Moron”.

    “My question: Do you believe, like Copernicus, that the sun is a god? Can you remove this religious belief from his book without destroying the logic of the Renaissance religious revolution as reflected in The Revolutions?”

    That’s an excellent question, Roman. Let’s see how the moonbats worm their way out of THAT one!
    >Yes, we can remove the religious belief w/o destroying the logic. Science, unlike religion, is not based on dogma.

    1184: “Why argue amongst ourselves? We’d all be too busy having a good time, until you came back.”

    You’d all be at the tender mercies of Al Qaeda; you’d be arguing amongst yourselves as to whose fault it was.
    >Appeal to fear. And if all extremists were gone, that wouldn’t happen.

    1192: Oh and you know that “pagan” theory of the Big Bang? Well, it was proposed by the Church, at first science rejected it because it was thought impossible to create matter out of scrap. Keep that in mind.
    >Because we don’t know enough about the start of the Big Bang, it is possible some Creator started it. However, any explanation you can think of is plausible. And yes, it was proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest.

    1194: Tell me something, it’s still “We the people”, right?
    >*Some* people think it should be changed to “We the Christian people” or that the Constitution is false.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 20, 2007 @ 12:41 pm | Reply

  1197. DPS: “Why am I a hypocrite? Because I follow Jesus’ instructions?”

    Jesus’s instructions were not: “Endure bad behavior for a bit, but then feel free to punch the guy out.” Do you remember that advice about forgiveness: “seventy times seven”? (Another concept enunciated by Jesus, along with that “second greatest commandment” that you and Sisyphus find it so easy to ignore.)

    And you’re still not answering various important questions that have been put to you. You’re certainly not making a good case for yourselves!

    Comment by Silverhill — June 20, 2007 @ 12:52 pm | Reply

  1198. @Silverhill:

    Jesus’ instructions clearly apply only to striking on the *right* cheek.

    “And you’re still not answering various important questions that have been put to you.”

    I’m sure that if you browse this and other threads, you will find answers to those questions. However, if you are too lazy to do this, you could try posting your questions, and maybe someone will answer them for you again.

    Comment by DPS — June 20, 2007 @ 1:13 pm | Reply

  1199. Loved the article, keep up the good work! I can show this to young and old alike as an example of what fundementalist “reasoning” is capable of, and by doing so save some of them from a life of worshiping an invisible man in the sky. Pure awesomeness!

    Comment by Isaac — June 20, 2007 @ 5:58 pm | Reply

  1200. DPS: “I’m sure that if you browse this and other threads, you will find answers to those questions. However, if you are too lazy to do this, you could try posting your questions, and maybe someone will answer them for you again.”

    You’re not as funny as Sisyphus, you know. He, I’m still sure, is joking with us; you, I’m not so sure about.

    I have no need to browse other threads for material that belongs in this one.
    I also have no need to browse this thread again — the asked-for responses are not there to be found.
    It’s therefore stupid of you to say that the questions might be answered “again” when they haven’t been answered once here.

    Try harder; whether you intend comedy or seriousness, you’re still failing.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 20, 2007 @ 6:10 pm | Reply

  1201. “I have no need to browse other threads for material that belongs in this one.
    I also have no need to browse this thread again — the asked-for responses are not there to be found.”

    Well, then, I suppose you’re going to have to ask your questions again and hope someone feels like answering them. I’m certainly not going to comb a 1200 comment thread trying to guess which matters you feel have not been dealt with in a satisfactory fashion. If you want someone to cater to you every whim, you might wish to explore the possibility of hiring a butler.

    “You’re not as funny as Sisyphus, you know. He, I’m still sure, is joking with us”

    Why do you want answers from someone you think is pulling your leg?

    “Try harder; whether you intend comedy or seriousness, you’re still failing.”

    I wear your scorn as a badge of honor, heathen.

    Comment by DPS — June 20, 2007 @ 8:45 pm | Reply

  1202. Though it is true that all motion is relative. It is not true that all positions are relative, unless the geometry of the universe is extremely deformed. This is not the case as recent survey of the microwave background has indicated that the universe is roughly euclidean in topology. As such if you plot our current position in known space you can see that we are not at the center of the known universe. The unknown is clearly His domain, but I would like to believe that He that created this world would not purposefully deceive us for in our understanding of it we gain further appreciation of His glory as well as perspective for just how special we are amongst His creations.

    It is also not true that you can’t tell what is moving as we know that acceleration is the solution to the so called twin paradox, it also solves this problem in that the Earth is accelerating about the sun following a geodesic in space and time.

    Furthermore I wish we could listen to the teachings of our Lord and love our neighbor. There is no reason He would want us to bring so much senseless hate to bear against our fellow man.

    Comment by Sad Scientist — June 20, 2007 @ 10:35 pm | Reply

  1203. DPS: “I’m certainly not going to comb a 1200 comment thread trying to guess which matters you feel have not been dealt with in a satisfactory fashion.”

    Matters such as: your very un-Christian attitude, frequently displayed when you heap contumely upon people without justification?
    Do you remember now? (You ought not to have to search the thread for such vile behavior; just look into your heart–and then ask your God for help in casting out that “demon” of intolerance.)

    Matters such as: the supporting mathematics for the claims made by you and others?
    Do you remember now? (You ought to keep track of what is, after all, part of the very foundation of your argument.)

    Do you wonder why you have such trouble remembering such important things?
    =================

    “Why do you want answers from someone you think is pulling your leg?”

    If it’s just a comedy, I want him to act his role properly; otherwise, he’s not pulling his weight.
    –or–
    I want him to actually support his statements here, if he happens to be somehow serious.
    ====================

    “I wear your scorn as a badge of honor, heathen.”

    Very neighborly of you. (Not! — Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan.)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 20, 2007 @ 10:45 pm | Reply

  1204. DPS: “I’m certainly not going to comb a 1200 comment thread trying to guess which matters you feel have not been dealt with in a satisfactory fashion.”

    Matters such as: your very un-Christian attitude, frequently displayed when you heap contumely upon people without justification for so doing.
    Do you remember now? (You ought not to have to search the thread for such vile behavior; just look into your heart–and then ask your God for help in casting out that “demon” of intolerance.)

    Matters such as: the supporting mathematics for the claims made by you and others.
    Do you remember now? (You ought to keep track of what is, after all, part of the very foundation of your argument.)

    Do you wonder why you have such trouble remembering such important things?
    =================

    “Why do you want answers from someone you think is pulling your leg?”

    If it’s just a comedy, I want him to act his role properly; otherwise, he’s not pulling his weight.
    –or–
    I want him to actually support his statements here, if he happens to be somehow serious. (He who makes a claim has the burden of proof. As I have also already said; remember?)
    ====================

    “I wear your scorn as a badge of honor, heathen.”

    Very neighborly of you. (Not! — Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan.)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 21, 2007 @ 12:23 am | Reply

  1205. This thread will never end.

    “Can you explain how Heliocentrism supports anti-Americanism? I was lost on that point. The rest is golden though.”

    It weakens our childrens’ faith in God, rendering them susceptible to the odious teachings of Darwin and Karl Marx. It saps their faith in God and country, and emboldens our enemies in the process.

    “Sis, I want to know more about you, are you a priest? A family guy? What drove to write this?”

    I have a family. Helioleftism makes me worry for their future.

    “Oh and you know that “pagan” theory of the Big Bang? Well, it was proposed by the Church, at first science rejected it because it was thought impossible to create matter out of scrap. Keep that in mind.”

    Hell has a few Popes in it too, you know. Keep that in mind.

    “If there’s a new way… I’ll be the first in line. But, it better work this time… What do you mean, I hurt your feelings? I didn’t know you had any feelings. What do you mean, I ain’t kind? I’m just not your kind… what do you mean, I couldn’t be President of the United States of America? Tell me something, it’s still “We the people”, right?”

    I think you’d have some trouble rallying voters. Overt serial killers have difficulty getting nominated. Then again, the Democrats did elect Clinton, and according to some websites I’ve seen he’s personally responsible for at least 20 deaths. What’s your political affiliation?

    “Well, then, I suppose you’re going to have to ask your questions again and hope someone feels like answering them. I’m certainly not going to comb a 1200 comment thread trying to guess which matters you feel have not been dealt with in a satisfactory fashion. If you want someone to cater to you every whim, you might wish to explore the possibility of hiring a butler.”

    What ARE his questions, DPS? I’m hopelessly lost.

    “Matters such as: your very un-Christian attitude, frequently displayed when you heap contumely upon people without justification?
    Do you remember now?”

    No. As far as I can tell, DPS is behaving in a very Christian fashion.

    “Matters such as: the supporting mathematics for the claims made by you and others?
    Do you remember now?”

    The Bible is the main support for Truth; mathematics is a tangent, a sideshow. It can be used either way. It is, in a word, irrelevant.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 21, 2007 @ 5:12 am | Reply

  1206. Republican, of course. But… in my hour of need, Ha, nobody there. And though I reached out… they wouldn’t lend a hand… through the darkest hour, Grace did not shine on me… felt so cold, very cold. No one cares for me!!

    Did they ever think I’d get lonely? Did they ever think that I needed love? Did they ever think to stop thinking? They’re the only one that I’m thinking of killing!!

    They’ll never know how hard I tried… to find my space and satisfy all too… things will be better when I’m dead and gone… don’t try to understand, knowing you I’m probably wrong… but oh, how I lived my life for you… still you’d turn away. Now as I die for you, my flesh still crawls as I breathe their name. Pain. All these years I thought I was wrong, now I know it was you!! Raise your head, raise your face, your eyes, now raise your hands and tell me, tell me brother – tell me who you think you are, who?

    I walked, I walked alone into the promised land… there’s a better place for me, but it’s far, far away. Everlasting life for me in a perfect world. But I gotta die first… Please God send me on my way!! Time has a way of taking time. Loneliness is not only felt by fools… alone I call to ease the pain… yearning to be held by you, alone, so alone, I’m lost. Consumed by the pain. The pain, the pain, the pain. Won’t you hold me again. You just laughed, ha, ha, bitch!! My whole life is work built on the past… but the time has come when all things shall pass… this good thing passed away.

    Comment by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz — June 21, 2007 @ 5:55 am | Reply

  1207. Brownback Examines Threat of Near Earth Objects
    Wednesday, April 7, 2004

    http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=220288

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today made the following statement as he chaired a hearing on the threat from space posed by Near Earth Objects, or asteroids.

    “Most people have watched Hollywood movies about asteroids, or more correctly ‘Near-Earth Objects’—NEOs for short—striking the earth. Yet few know what’s real and what’s not. Fewer still know what your government is doing about this threat, or not doing for that matter.

    Asteroid 2004FH, approximately 100 feet wide, passed within about 25,000 miles of the Earth on March 18, 2004. This is equivalent to riding in an airliner and seeing a small plane suddenly pass a few hundred feet off the wing – a pretty scary occurrence! Had this asteroid hit the earth – as a somewhat bigger one did in 1908 – it would have released over a megaton of energy. This is the explosive yield of a large nuclear weapon. Yet we had only a few days warning of Asteroid 2004FH. Other, similar objects just missed us in the past few years and we didn’t even see them until they were past.

    Scientists tell us that a big asteroid—ten miles in diameter—destroyed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Asteroids are the small bits left over from the formation of the solar system billions of years ago. If we look up at the moon we can see the results of billions of years of bombardment in its shattered face. The earth suffered similar hits but most have healed due to Earth’s weather and geological processes. Small asteroids hit the earth every year; about thirty struck the upper atmosphere last year. They each release as much energy as a small atomic bomb. Fortunately the atmosphere protects us from these little asteroids. But ones such the March 18th object could devastate a large city. Experts tell us that we run about the same risk of dying in an airline crash as we do dying from an asteroid strike. This is serious and warrants serious attention by our government.

    The President’s new space exploration vision mandates that we focus our attention on the opportunities inherent in moving human presence into the solar system. But it also raises the question as to potential threats out there. Panels of experts have met over the past few years. All tell us that the threat of NEO impact is real. At the smallest scale those that strike us several times a month could be confused in a crisis as a nuclear attack. Asteroids the size of the one a few weeks ago hit earth several times a century. We could and should have the ability to detect these objects before they hit and do something about it.

    Today we are meeting to consider whether Congress should pass legislation to do something about this threat from space. We will hear from program managers within NASA and the National Science Foundation on what is being done now and what is planned. We will hear from the experts in our scientific community on what they recommend we do to find the threatening objects before they hit. We will hear from space development experts on how we could build spacecraft quickly and cheaply to meet threatening objects deep in space to find out about them and divert them as necessary. Finally we will hear from former and current astronauts how these objects might fit into the President’s exciting new space exploration vision – both as targets for scientific exploration and commercial use, as well as how to divert the threatening ones.”

    Wow. Doesn’t Brownback know there’s nothing to worry about… surely the Sun revolving around the Earth would actually protect us from Near Earth Objects? Sisyphus, why is Brownback so ignorant of your teachings?? This guy is running for President, he needs to know this important information before he makes a fool of himself on the next televised debate…

    Can you imagine when he’s asked live on TV whether he believes the Sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa… oh, the embarrassment!!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — June 21, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  1208. Silverhill @ 1205

    You haven’t really asked many questions, but I’ll answer the ones you have.

    “Matters such as: your very un-Christian attitude, frequently displayed when you heap contumely upon people without justification? Do you remember now? (You ought not to have to search the thread for such vile behavior; just look into your heart–and then ask your God for help in casting out that “demon” of intolerance.)”

    What is your question? Is it whether I remember displaying an “unChristian attitude?”

    Answer: no.

    “Matters such as: the supporting mathematics for the claims made by you and others?
    Do you remember now? (You ought to keep track of what is, after all, part of the very foundation of your argument.)”

    This is extremely vague. I do not remember any mathematical arguments that were not refuted decisively by Sisyphus or commenters. Perhaps you should be more specific, or you should order your butler to be more specific for you.

    “Do you wonder why you have such trouble remembering such important things?”

    I think you’re the one with the memory problem, since you can’t think of any specific questions that have not been dealt with. I don’t think you want answers at all. I think you just want to complain, and that you’re afraid if you ask your questions again, and we answer them again, you won’t be able to complain any more.

    Comment by DPS — June 21, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  1209. Sisyphus: “What ARE his questions, DPS? I’m hopelessly lost.”

    That’s a good description! …But you can get over being lost by allowing yourself to get an education. Grab an encyclopedia, say, and start reading. An open mind is a prerequisite, of course; make sure you bring one.
    ============

    “As far as I can tell, DPS is behaving in a very Christian fashion.”

    ROTFL! True Christians would not behave in such a contemptuous (or contemptible) way. I know this from my association with many true Christians, whose exemplary behavior puts to shame such as yours and DPS’s.
    ==============

    “The Bible is the main support for Truth;”

    If you want to unduly limit your perception of this wonderful world, that is.
    And if you want to embrace outright error, such as the notion that bats are birds or that rabbits are ruminants.

    “mathematics is a tangent, a sideshow.”

    Mathematics underpins all that we truly know—those things that can be verified by anyone, regardless of religious or political persuasion. Therefore it is central; fundamental; not “tangential”.
    (As Robert Heinlein put it, with respect to what could be described as “philosophy vs. physics”, “The Universe has a way of not caring what you believe.”)

    ===========
    ===========

    Now, DPS, I believe you wanted some help from my “butler”, to assist your faulty (or was it just “lazy”?) memory. My “butler” is the Find function built into my—and your—Web browser. A few minutes’ work was all that was required; you’re welcome (he said, in anticipation of DPS’s properly rendered thanks for the effort).

    You wanted evidence of your ungracious (to put it in the kindest way) behavior.
    Well, here is some of that evidence, with my responses interpolated….

    (to 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…”

    And you know this how? And you are justified in mentioning it (even if it were true) why?
    —-

    (to hoverfrog, who said “I suppose a children’s TV show puppet is the work of Satan as well?”)

    “Teletubbies.

    I rest my case.”

    Er…soft & cuddly beings incorporating TV screens, for the amusement of small children, are the work of Satan?
    And you know this how?
    —-

    (to Bryan Burns)

    “Shh. Shh. Calm your anger. There’s no need for heated words.”

    Take your own advice.
    —-

    (also to Bryan burns)

    “Please don’t do anything rash. If you look carefully, you’ll see that selling your daughter into slavery is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL.”

    Not to mention ENTIRELY ILLEGAL (in most parts of the world, that is).
    —–

    (to David)

    “given the unimpeachable testimony and literal truth of Holy Scripture”

    And you know this how? (Who told you, and with what authority? The Bible itself doesn’t count for that, of course, because it relies on itself for its authority. Circular reasoning is invalid, you know.)
    —-

    (to David)

    “Do you deny that God could incoronate a fox-king if He so chose?”

    “Incoronate”? That’s not a verb. Try “coronate”, perhaps, or the more common “crown”. (You chided another poster on spelling and vocabulary at one point; you’d better check your mirror to see if there’s anyone else needing correction.)
    —-

    (to lietk12)

    “How on God’s sweet, flat earth”

    Walk across a plain beyond which are mountains, with clear air all around them. The peaks come into view before the bases do. This is impossible on a flat Earth.
    —-

    (re: Sarah)

    “Sarah is a pottymouth, or possessed, or both. Keep an eye on her.”

    And you know this—the alleged possession—how?
    —–

    “the liberals want to turn us all into homosexuals”

    Not possible, even if such were desirable (which it is not).
    —-

    (to Beth)

    “[children will] pick up that kind of dreck in the soda fountains and (God forbid!) billiards halls all by themselves.”

    And “billiards” begins with “B”, which rhymes with “T”, which stands for Trouble! (with apologies to Meredith Willson)
    —-

    “God and his infallible Word are infallible. Because they are infallible, I know that Christianity is true and perfect, and that other faiths are evils lies.”

    And you know this how? What non-self-referential authority have you on this?
    —-

    (to Cafe dog)

    “Well, your science textbooks are the word of witches, homosexuals, and radical heliofascists.”

    And you know this how? I know the authors of several science textbooks; none is a witch or a homosexual. (None is a radical heliofascist, either, since there is no such thing.)
    —-

    “I think it’s good that they used enhanced interrogation techniques to extract from Galileo his true belief that the Earth is fixed in place. That’s what we rightly do to terrorists, and the links between atheism and heliocentrism on the one hand and terrorism on the other are well known.”

    “Enhanced interrogation techniques” = “torture”. Don’t mince words. A forced confession is worthless, as is well known in jurisprudence.

    Most terrorism that I know of is religion-based; none of it is atheism- or heliocentrism-based. Stop lying.
    —-

    “I wish commenters here had to pass a drug test before they were permitted to press ‘submit’.”

    Including yourself, of course. You wouldn’t want to be unfair, or to appear hypocritical.
    —-

    “the ridiculous lies of Michelson and Morley”

    The “independently confirmed experiments”, you mean.
    —-

    “I don’t know who Scott is, and personally I hope he burns in H-E-L-L.”

    Christian charity at its finest, folks!
    —-

    (to Sue Ann Edwards)

    “Marijuana use is both illegal and immoral.”

    Illegal in some places, yes; “immoral” depends on the culture also. Places where the paper industry didn’t feel threatened by hemp didn’t push for legal bans or wrap themselves in the cloak of Morality as a cover for it.
    —-

    “Oh, special torments await you in H-E-double hockeysticks.”

    Oh, special ridicule awaits those who dance around the word “hell” as if it were dangerous even to mention.
    —-

    “notorious ‘astronaut’, liar, Freemason, sodomite, and Communist John Glenn himself, who has participated in NASA frauds continuously over several decades.”

    Again with the (potentially) libelous statements? “Astronaut” needs no quotes there; he really was one. “Freemason” is not an inherently bad thing to be, just as “Christian” is not. “Sodomite”—if you can prove this, you can avoid a lawsuit for libel. “Communist” also does not fit the Senator; he was elected as a Democrat.

    “Do you really expect anyone to listen to you, much less respond to you, when you go around writing deranged, illiterate things like this?”

    Check that mirror again.
    —-

    “Silverhill, you are a ludicrous, patronizing, God-hating twit, and you’re going to H-E-L-L.”

    Your lies and (possible) libels are well known already. Do you truly enjoy posting them? (If so, you need some anger-management training. And a reality check. And a swat with the Mighty Cluebat.)
    —-

    Felonious said: “Ironic that Silverhill is the only one of us who uses the Bible to support our side, and he is promptly insulted and patronized by DPS.”

    DPS said: “Does anyone else hear something? Kind of a high-pitched whining noise?”

    Yes, we hear you whining about imagined persecution, DPS. Get over it. *
    —-

    (to Cyriac)

    “Despite your sick, sinful, nauseating ways you are one of God’s creatures, and He commands me to love you.”

    And you express your love in such warm, wholesome ways, too! That’s certainly better than using, again, with no justification, terms such as “sick”, “sinful”, or “nauseating” to describe one of the neighbors whom you are commanded to love (or at least to tolerate).

    ———–
    * visit http://www.get-a-life.com

    Comment by Silverhill — June 21, 2007 @ 4:48 pm | Reply

  1210. DPS: “I do not remember any mathematical arguments that were not refuted decisively by Sisyphus or commenters.”

    Then your memory is indeed faulty, since Sisyphus (and others) presented no refutation, despite repeated invitations. (I asked for neutral sources—free of religious bias—and Sisyphus mentioned only the Fixed Earth website. He then ignored my response that that website is heavily religiously biased. You score no points there, friend.)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 21, 2007 @ 4:55 pm | Reply

  1211. 1207: The Bible is the main support for Truth; mathematics is a tangent, a sideshow. It can be used either way. It is, in a word, irrelevant.
    >Support this from the Bible which you idolize (after all, it says “Right cheek”, not left cheek).

    1209: This is extremely vague. I do not remember any mathematical arguments that were not refuted decisively by Sisyphus or commenters. Perhaps you should be more specific, or you should order your butler to be more specific for you.
    >He wants YOU to back up YOUR arguments (since you have made the claim) with a mathematical equation. And you have NOT refuted any mathematical arguments. There is not a single equation on this thread.

    I think you’re the one with the memory problem, since you can’t think of any specific questions that have not been dealt with.
    >Avoiding the question.

    Comment by lietk12 — June 21, 2007 @ 5:42 pm | Reply

  1212. My first idea was to ridicule Brownout, like Pauley Shore.

    Then I thought, “You know, that’s really immature to make fun of a national figure like that on a special myth concocted in his favor – Why don’t you just grow up!”.

    So after much plunging, I came up with something I believe is honorable and bereft of all the mean-hearted teasing this intellectual usually receives.

    I thought that about a six foot high jelly doughnut, which represents the spoon-fed naiveté and Diane Sawyer-esque candy-assed gloss over that we, as a country, tend to force-feed an ever-grateful body politic that still thinks it’s cool to do the Fonze “thumb-up” thingy. By filling the large doughnut with plastic vacuum-molded life-sized replicas of baby arms and legs and heads, the disenfranchised parade crowd would perhaps contemplate the other-worldly, alien-like gradual osmosis of the skeptical side of the duality of the mind and the true revelation of the “real” you behind the voice in your head that everybody just assumes is the true self, pardon the contradiction. Obviously, by now, you’re guffawing into your grape nuts, acknowledging my ignorance of the laws of physics, for it does not take a half scoop of fresh brain to realize that after a while, the effects of gravity and the tendency of objects with higher density suspended in a colloidal material matrix would mean that the plastic replicas would eventually start a premature breakdown of the glutens in the already jelly weakened cell walls of the doughnut and gradually break down the electron shells to the degree that arms, heads, and legs would begin to slowly extend, as if they were being shitted, from the bottom, although the appearance would suggest that “they” are holding on to the confectionary mother ship with a passion, grasping dough-like the terra-firma of their doomed existence, as we all must.

    Comment by Carl Gordon — June 21, 2007 @ 7:04 pm | Reply

  1213. When you fly on an airplane, can you feel it moving? Sure, during takeoff. But once you’re in the air, you can’t feel it. Where is your empirical data there? Or maybe it’s not moving at all. Which is it?

    Comment by tclark88 — June 21, 2007 @ 8:15 pm | Reply

  1214. DPS: “I do not remember any mathematical arguments that were not refuted decisively by Sisyphus or commenters.”

    Then your memory is indeed faulty, since Sisyphus (and others) presented no refutation, despite repeated invitations. (I asked for neutral sources—free of religious bias—and Sisyphus mentioned only the Fixed Earth website. He then ignored my response that that website is heavily religiously biased. You score no points there, friend.)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 22, 2007 @ 1:26 am | Reply

  1215. Sisyphus: “What ARE his questions, DPS? I’m hopelessly lost.”

    That’s a good description! …But you can get over being lost by allowing yourself to get an education. Grab an encyclopedia, say, and start reading. An open mind is a prerequisite, of course; make sure you bring one.
    ============

    “As far as I can tell, DPS is behaving in a very Christian fashion.”

    ROTFL! True Christians would not behave in such a contemptuous (or contemptible) way. I know this from my association with many true Christians, whose exemplary behavior puts to shame such as yours and DPS’s.
    ==============

    “The Bible is the main support for Truth;”

    If you want to unduly limit your perception of this wonderful world, that is.
    And if you want to embrace outright error, such as the notions that bats are birds or that rabbits are ruminants.

    “mathematics is a tangent, a sideshow.”

    Mathematics underpins all that we truly know—those things that can be verified by anyone, regardless of religious or political persuasion. Therefore it is central; fundamental; not “tangential”.
    (As Robert Heinlein put it, with respect to what could be described as “philosophy vs. physics”, “The Universe has a way of not caring what you believe.”)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 22, 2007 @ 1:29 am | Reply

  1216. Now, DPS, I believe you wanted some help from my “butler”, to assist your faulty (or was it just “lazy”?) memory. My “butler” is the Find function built into my Web browser. (Yours has one too.) A few minutes’ work was all that was required; you’re welcome (he said, in anticipation of DPS’s properly rendered thanks for the gift of the effort).

    You wanted evidence of your ungracious (to put it in the kindest way) behavior.
    Well, here is some of that evidence, with my responses interpolated. Many more examples are available; just ask—nicely, of course. (If I feel generous again, I might even volunteer them.)
    ===========================
    (to 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…”

    And you know this how? And you are justified in mentioning it (even if it were true) why?
    —-

    (to hoverfrog, who said “I suppose a children’s TV show puppet is the work of Satan as well?”)

    “Teletubbies.

    I rest my case.”

    Er…soft & cuddly beings incorporating TV screens, for the amusement of small children, are the work of Satan?
    And you know this how?
    —-

    (to Bryan Burns)

    “Shh. Shh. Calm your anger. There’s no need for heated words.”

    Take your own advice.
    —-

    (also to Bryan burns)

    “Please don’t do anything rash. If you look carefully, you’ll see that selling your daughter into slavery is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL.”

    Not to mention ENTIRELY ILLEGAL (in most parts of the world, that is).
    —–

    (to David)

    “the unimpeachable testimony and literal truth of Holy Scripture”

    And you know this how? (Who told you, and with what authority? The Bible itself doesn’t count for that, of course, because it relies on itself for its authority. Circular reasoning is invalid, you know.)
    —-

    (to David)

    “Do you deny that God could incoronate a fox-king if He so chose?”

    “Incoronate”? That’s not a verb. Try “coronate”, perhaps, or the more common “crown”. (You chided another poster on spelling and vocabulary at one point; you’d better check your mirror to see if there’s anyone else needing correction.)
    —-

    (to lietk12)

    “How on God’s sweet, flat earth”

    Walk across a plain beyond which are mountains, with clear air all around them. The peaks come into view before the bases do. This is impossible on a flat Earth.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 22, 2007 @ 1:38 am | Reply

  1217. They need a new sign at the Customs checkpoint at the airports:

    Welcome to America

    Cuban Cigars and Science not allowed beyond this point

    Comment by John — June 22, 2007 @ 4:54 am | Reply

  1218. Silverhill @ 1217:

    1). I appreciate your interest in my ideas and activities.

    2). About “incoronate”: oops! You’re right. It’s not a verb. An Italian verb (‘incoronare’) slipped into my English. That’s been happening a lot lately. Perdonami!

    3). I don’t really see how any of your examples are “ungracious” or “unChristian.” The remark about “body image insecurities” was a gentle joke, precisely because I obviously have no idea what the guy looks like. He enjoyed the joke, if you look at his response. As for the other statements of mine you cite, you may think that some of them are wrong or silly, but none is insulting. I suggest that you continue searching for and compiling examples of my ungraciousness.

    4). Regarding mathematical matters: if I remember correctly, you offered only sources that have a well-known anti-religious bias. I reject them.

    Comment by DPS — June 22, 2007 @ 8:55 am | Reply

  1219. isn’t it afwully convenient to dismiss good counter arguments with just the statement that “God acts in mysterious ways” and “everything happens for a reason?” if science made a claim like that, you would say that it’s unfounded and illogical. so how come you get a free pass to basically shoot down any opposing argument with no logical or factual backup? you can’t lose with the all-powerful “everything happens for a reason,” but where would we be if everyone just accepted that “everything happens for a reason?” we would be living in huts in a forest without any of the technologies that we have today. it’s a little hypocritical to state that mathematics can make assumptions for convenience, and then to use arguments like that?

    Comment by longcat — June 22, 2007 @ 11:40 am | Reply

  1220. False Science Gods

    Here’s someone who doesn’t “believe” that the Earth moves through space. https://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/ According to him, everthing you need to know is in the scriptures. If…

    Trackback by Musings — June 22, 2007 @ 12:10 pm | Reply

  1221. Actually the scientific evolution of knowledge was the following :

    1) the earth is standing still, current understanding of physics, you can’t deny it’s standing still … but read on
    2) copernicus and a few others made the earth go around the sun. Fine, but they couldn’t explain why we don’t feel the force of that, nor could they explain why it went around the sun, nor could they explain why people don’t fall off on the bottom (in fact I have found an article once where they claimed people did fall off on the other side)
    3) newton gave the formula to predict that the earth does indeed fly around the sun, however, he measured the force that should have been there, and came up empty handed, he could not find the force such a non-linear movement should be generating.
    4) newton made another important contribution : he stated that there is NO DIFFERENCE between standing still and moving in a straight line. You cannot tell in any way, with any measurement tool, the difference between some object moving or you moving. This is called the non-existence of ether argument
    5) einstein made the following contribution in special relativity theory : he states that you cannot, in any way, tell the difference between gravitational attraction and standing still. Despite the fact that everybody here thinks that the earth is moving, you will measure the same light speed in any direction. Think about it, this is VERY illogical if the earth were in fact moving. If you throw a ball off a moving train in 2 directions, you will measure different speeds each time. Why don’t we measure different speeds for light particles leaving earth in different directions ? Because the earth is not moving.

    The earth is standing still on a fixed point in warped, 4-dimensional space. So is the sun. But despite both objects not moving, we perceive the light coming from different directions at different times. This is *very* counter-intuitive but it is the truth.

    I am, obviously, not making any claim on the correctness of the bible in this regard. Whether the bible is correct is just a matter of faith. I do believe it is correct, although I place *much* more emphasis on the new testament than this guy probably does. But current scientific understanding is that indeed the earth is standing still. Please keep in mind that everybody here has been taught newtonian physics, that merely state that the earth is moving very very slowly.

    And planets can have much weirder orbits and still be standing still. Mercurius, for example, makes a corkscrew shaped motion around the sun. Newton could not possibly explain this. It is flying an actual corkscrew around the sun, and yet it doesn’t get pulled to shreds. If you don’t find that odd, please ask a pilot to take you in a corkscrew maneuver. (Best skip lunch before you do) Trust me, you’ll respect fighter pilots a lot more after that. It’s great fun too.

    Comment by T — June 22, 2007 @ 1:04 pm | Reply

  1222. DPS: “An Italian verb (’incoronare’) slipped into my English. That’s been happening a lot lately. Perdonami!”

    Li scuso. 🙂
    =================

    “Regarding mathematical matters: if I remember correctly, you offered only sources that have a well-known anti-religious bias. I reject them.”

    Actually, I have offered no specific sources; I have merely mentioned the existence of various science textbooks as examples of non-religious expositions. The books used in my training as a scientist, and the book that I am writing for the furtherance of physics training, have no mention of religion, positively or negatively. They are neutral, as they should be.

    Remember: I do not have the burden of proof, since Sisyphus et al. made the claim being discussed here. We’re still waiting for a fair presentation of support for the claim.
    =================

    “I suggest that you continue searching for and compiling examples of my ungraciousness.”

    Ungraciousness (and foolishness) can be found; here’s a summary of the deliberately insulting terms you’ve used in describing or responding to people here.

    possessed
    witches, homosexuals
    ridiculous lies
    I hope he burns in H-E-L-L
    notorious, liar, sodomite, Communist, fraud
    deranged, illiterate
    ludicrous, patronizing, God-hating, twit
    whining noise
    sick, sinful, nauseating
    —-
    Christians are commanded to tolerate (at least) and love (at best) their fellow humans. The terms just listed do not reflect tolerance or love—rather, the opposite. Therefore they are at least ungracious, and at worst unChristian. QED.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 22, 2007 @ 1:24 pm | Reply

  1223. This thread has to be one of the longest things on the entire Internet.

    “Republican, of course. But… in my hour of need, Ha, nobody there. And though I reached out… they wouldn’t lend a hand… through the darkest hour, Grace did not shine on me… felt so cold, very cold. No one cares for me!!”

    RINOs are like that. But they don’t count. Real Republicans would’ve helped you, Colonel.

    “And planets can have much weirder orbits and still be standing still. Mercurius, for example, makes a corkscrew shaped motion around the sun. Newton could not possibly explain this. It is flying an actual corkscrew around the sun, and yet it doesn’t get pulled to shreds. If you don’t find that odd, please ask a pilot to take you in a corkscrew maneuver. (Best skip lunch before you do) Trust me, you’ll respect fighter pilots a lot more after that. It’s great fun too.”

    It sounds pretty interesting.

    “Christians are commanded to tolerate (at least) and love (at best) their fellow humans. The terms just listed do not reflect tolerance or love—rather, the opposite. Therefore they are at least ungracious, and at worst unChristian. QED.”

    Sometimes tolerance requires you to be intolerant of sinfulness and evil. Sometimes love of the evildoer requires you to hate the evil he does, and make him stop doing it, by killing him if necessary, for his own ultimate moral good. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 22, 2007 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  1224. @ Silverback

    “possessed
    witches, homosexuals
    ridiculous lies
    I hope he burns in H-E-L-L
    notorious, liar, sodomite, Communist, fraud
    deranged, illiterate
    ludicrous, patronizing, God-hating, twit
    whining noise
    sick, sinful, nauseating”

    How are these unChristian, when the fact of the matter is that all of these are true and accurate statements or description? I am commanded by God not to bear false witness. It would be a sin for me to refer to a “deranged, illiterate” person as “sane and literate.” You may be eager to go to H-E-L-L, but I have no intention of following you there.

    Now, can you find any instances of me making a false critical statement about someone? That would definitely be unChristian.

    Also, now that you have looked at many of my comments, do you have a favorite? What are your Top 5 DPS comments?

    Comment by DPS — June 22, 2007 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

  1225. How appallingly, tragically, fatally, willfully ignorant.

    I just found this Brownback site and … WOW.

    THIS is “America’s Shame,” people.

    Brownback, I would love to pound back a couple of beers with you at the local pub and have a little heart-to-heart.

    If not, dude, please. Find a nice quiet cave where you can’t spread your poisonous ignorance.

    Dear, dear, dear.

    Comment by AdvRider — June 22, 2007 @ 8:44 pm | Reply

  1226. DPS: “Silverback”

    No, “Silverhill”. A silverback is a gorilla.

    “possessed
    witches, homosexuals
    ridiculous lies
    I hope he burns in H-E-L-L
    notorious, liar, sodomite, Communist, fraud
    deranged, illiterate
    ludicrous, patronizing, God-hating, twit
    whining noise
    sick, sinful, nauseating”

    “How are these unChristian, when the fact of the matter is that all of these are true and accurate statements or description?”

    You are making claims with each of these—claims which appear to be merely your opinion, since you do not (and, I say, cannot) support them indisputably. Therefore they cannot be accepted as facts merely on your say-so. They instead smack of libel; they are therefore unworthy of a Christian, even if they are not in fact libelous.
    =========

    “Now, can you find any instances of me making a false critical statement about someone? That would definitely be unChristian.”

    Your claims, as mentioned above, seem to be false in most of the cases, by my reading (and that of some others here), and shall be so regarded unless and until you produce evidence to the contrary.
    In some of the cases the claims actually are false, and you thereby stand convicted by your own words.
    ==========

    “Also, now that you have looked at many of my comments, do you have a favorite? What are your Top 5 DPS comments?”

    What a bizarre notion. I would be unable to have a favorite attack, insult, slur, (seemingly) deliberate distortion, misconstruing, etc.
    I could offer a few, if you truly believe in the notion of “do unto others as you would have them to unto you” (yet another piece of advice found in the Bible, among many other places).

    Concerning Biblical advice, an excellent place to look is the Book of Proverbs. Chapter 19 has some worthwhile pieces; I recommend that you study them, and take them to heart.
    ======
    1 Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a fool whose lips are perverse.

    2 It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.

    5 A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not go free.

    20 Listen to advice and accept instruction, and in the end you will be wise.

    27 Stop listening to instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 23, 2007 @ 12:09 am | Reply

  1227. T: “Why don’t we measure different speeds for light particles leaving earth in different directions ? Because the earth is not moving.”

    No, it’s because the speed of light is constant for all observers, as has been demonstrated many times. This is the real counterintuitive aspect of relativity physics.
    ======

    “The earth is standing still on a fixed point in warped, 4-dimensional space. So is the sun.”

    No, or else they would have collided long ago. Massive bodies mutually attract, and if released from rest move along the line of centers-of-mass.
    ======

    “[Mercury] is flying an actual corkscrew around the sun, and yet it doesn’t get pulled to shreds.”

    No, Mercury is not describing a (3-dimensional) helix. I think you’re referring to the precession of its orbital axis, which takes place within its orbital plane—but that happens to all the planets, not just Mercury.
    What attracted scientists’ attention to the motion of Mercury was that the precession was faster than the calculated amount using Newtonian physics. General relativity came to the rescue; its extension of the Newtonian equations allowed a more exact calculation that matched nicely with reality.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 23, 2007 @ 12:24 am | Reply

  1228. Sisyphus: “Sometimes love of the evildoer requires you to hate the evil he does, and make him stop doing it, by killing him if necessary, for his own ultimate moral good. I can’t make it any clearer than that.”

    So you feel qualified to judge what is needed for someone’s own moral good? Isn’t that kind of judgment supposed to be reserved for God?

    Comment by Silverhill — June 23, 2007 @ 12:26 am | Reply

  1229. No massive bodies DON’T attrackt. That is the theory of relativity. Space itself expands and contracts and takes these bodies with it. (if not please explain why mercury does not have a elliptical but a corkscrew orbit)

    You’re stuck in a newtonian model, and you’ve adjusted for light being bent by gravity. But you neglected to bend gravity itself as well.

    Comment by T — June 23, 2007 @ 5:12 am | Reply

  1230. “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.”

    So the earth dosen’t move because you don’t feel it moving?

    Imagine that while you were sleeping you were blindfolded and placed into a car that accelerated to 65 mph and stayed at 65 mph on the freeway. When you awoke you were asked if the car was moving by say the driver or a second passenger.

    By your logic, the car is not moving because you can’t feel the acceleration on your body.
    Yet if you take the blindfold off you will see from the environment moving about you that the car is indeed moving.

    You don’t feel motion except in times of acceleration or deacceleration. And the Earth is moving at a fixed speed. So you don’t feel the force of acceleration or deacceleration. We can’t see that the Earth is moving around the Sun because our view of our solar system is so narrow. Much like being blindfolded in the car.

    BTW. Nobody tell this guy that the Earth is really round.

    Comment by Willhelm — June 23, 2007 @ 5:15 am | Reply

  1231. “No massive bodies DON’T attrackt. That is the theory of relativity. Space itself expands and contracts and takes these bodies with it. (if not please explain why mercury does not have a elliptical but a corkscrew orbit)

    You’re stuck in a newtonian model, and you’ve adjusted for light being bent by gravity. But you neglected to bend gravity itself as well.”

    Massive bodies do attract. Drop a ball and it falls to the ground. Both the ball and the earth have mass. Yet the ball lying on the ground will not rise up without another outside force acting upon it.

    Mercury dosen’t have a corkscrew orbit. Maybe your misinterpreting it’s eliptical orbit into a corkscrew because it dosen’t rotate around the Sun at 0 degrees but rather at 7 degrees.

    Comment by Willhelm — June 23, 2007 @ 5:30 am | Reply

  1232. The “Sons of God” of Heliocentrism

    G. Bruno’s Cena de le Ceneri (Ash Wednesday Supper) is the ‘tetralogue’ or four-sided dialogue between Smitho, a serious and enquiring English gentleman, Prudenzio, a classicist pedant, Frulla, a rude servant, and Teofilo, the narrator. Teofilo is alter ego of Bruno, who does not here appear in his own person. The Supper refers to a meal in Fulke Greville’s lodgings at Whitehall during which the Copernican theory will be discussed. In the tetralogue Teofilo puts the dispute of new truth and old error, meaning the Old Testament into the context of a world which needs to be rescued from the vice, conflict, blind controversy and slaughter which are caused by everybody’s persistence in traditional wisdom. He presents Bruno as its saviour, if it will listen to him (In Galileo’s The Dialogue the cause of heliocentrism is presented by the protagonist named Salviati, a name alluding to his salvific mission. His opponent, defending geocentrism is named Simplicio or a simpleton).

    Romans 8:19 assures us that there are more sons of God waiting in line: “All creation is yearning, longing to see the manifestation of the sons of God.” (The whole creation is on tiptoe to see the wonderful sight of the sons of God coming into their own). That’s why Bruno believed in plurality of the worlds?

    Obviously, Paul’s teaching was inspired by the Buddhist dogma that Buddha multiplies himself and that all Buddhas (Sakyamuni) are consubstantiated (homoousios) with the essential body (God, the Father). Dipankara, the first of the 24 Buddhas traditionally held to have preceded Gautama, is depicted with a flame rising from his shoulders.

    Jewish Jesus vs Aryanized Paul

    “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Mt 24:24 KJV)

    When Jesus said that false Christs would come to lead people astray ; he did not mean there would be lunatics thinking they were he, but rather that messianic figures and movements demanding ultimate allegiance would deceive people into following idols. During the celebration commemorating 500th anniversary of birth of Copernicus, in Fromborg (Poland) an icon of Copernicus was displayed evoking features of Jesus Christ of the Shroud of Turin. The Polish caption is even more revealing of the intentions of the organizers of this celebration, which was also attended by the then Card. K. Wojtyla. It reads: “Truly, this divine masterpiece of the Greatest and Best Being is immense.”

    The triangle bridging the caption and the icon is the Pythagorean triangle whose sum of the powers has been appointed as the origin of the generation of the cosmic elements. Similar triangle is worn on God’s head on the front page of the Vulgate published in Rome, 1592. And finally, the Polish saying about Copernicus honoring him as a “man who stopped the sun and moved the earth” fully justifies Jesus’ warning. Similar mythological transformation appears in a painting of the descent from the cross in the church of Rennes-les-Bains, where the crown of thorns has been given the appearance of a gigantic spider.

    The spider belongs to the mythological lore of the Brahmins who assert, that the world arose from the infinite spider, who spun the whole complicated mass from his bowels, and annihilates afterwards the whole or any part of it, by absorbing it again, and resolving it into his own essence.

    The basic, evolutionary dogma of this mythology proclaims, The worm of today is the god of tomorrow. And again Tim 4:3 warns: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will heap to themselves teachers to suit their likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

    In Dante’s De monarchia the “divine predestination of the Roman people as the world ruling power is derived not from interpretation of the Hebrew prophets or from the appointment of Peter but from the genealogical tree of Aeneas and Creusa! Race and not religion is the decisive factor for Dante. Campanella, a monk, an early apologist of Galileo observed: “Love is foremost in attending to the change of the race; men and women are so joined together, that they bring forth the best offspring.” And Galileo himself proclaimed, Strength Causes Love! Sisyphus, don’t even think about competing with a Goliath or any other body builder!
    Roman Pytel

    Comment by Roman Pytel — June 23, 2007 @ 7:10 am | Reply

  1233. Gravity = the bending of space

    The rubber sheet analogy:

    Place a bowling-ball on a flat rubber sheet, you will see a bending of the sheet, now throw in a smaller ball along the edge of the curvature of the sheet, you will see that, given the right initial velocity, the smaller ball will describe an orbit around the bowling-ball.

    This is exactly how the gravitational pull of the Sun on the Earth works, with the difference that the Earth encounters negligible friction and thus will not (or very, very slowly) start falling towards the Sun.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 8:24 am | Reply

  1234. I once saw a commerical for Bounty paper towels that did the same thing but it didn’t make me want to run over to and then jump off the side of the earth. Your scientific may be popular in the liberal circles, Skeptic, but they are not sound. Turn to the doctrine found in the Bible if the truth is what you are really looking for. Until then you can stick with your science and comics books for your “facts”.

    Comment by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett — June 23, 2007 @ 8:33 am | Reply

  1235. “Place a bowling-ball on a flat rubber sheet, you will see a bending of the sheet, now throw in a smaller ball along the edge of the curvature of the sheet, you will see that, given the right initial velocity, the smaller ball will describe an orbit around the bowling-ball.”

    I think Skeptic has finally lost his mind.

    Comment by DPS — June 23, 2007 @ 9:54 am | Reply

  1236. You f*cking idiots are really missing some elementary particles in your brain!

    Just try it, dot the experiment, that’s called science!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 10:53 am | Reply

  1237. Could any of you please show me the verse that talks about gravitation.

    If it’s not in there then none of you braindead f*cks know what the truth is, now do you?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 10:55 am | Reply

  1238. “I think Skeptic has finally lost his mind.”

    That happened a long, long time ago, DPS, and it didn’t take much. It is a known fact that liberals have much smaller brains than Republicans so it was bound to happen eventually.

    Comment by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett — June 23, 2007 @ 11:18 am | Reply

  1239. “That happened a long, long time ago, DPS, and it didn’t take much. It is a known fact that liberals have much smaller brains than Republicans so it was bound to happen eventually.”

    Blame the liberals. It’s all their fault. Liberals are always evil. Republicans are always good.

    No you twit. Politicians on both sides are evil. What you are doing is imprinting your social entrenching you got from religion to everything else around you.

    What it basically encompasses is that if they aren’t with you they are against you. And to be with you. They must think exactly in step with you.

    Comment by Willhelm — June 23, 2007 @ 1:28 pm | Reply

  1240. “You f*cking idiots are really missing some elementary particles in your brain!”

    “If it’s not in there then none of you braindead f*cks know what the truth is, now do you?”

    That’s not very civil, Skeptic. How are we supposed to carry on a serious discussion when all you do is hurl profanity?

    You can always tell when the leftards are losing an argument: that’s when they break out the four-letter words.

    Comment by DPS — June 23, 2007 @ 5:13 pm | Reply

  1241. When this:

    “Place a bowling-ball on a flat rubber sheet, you will see a bending of the sheet, now throw in a smaller ball along the edge of the curvature of the sheet, you will see that, given the right initial velocity, the smaller ball will describe an orbit around the bowling-ball.”

    is answered with this:

    “I think Skeptic has finally lost his mind.”

    and this:

    “That happened a long, long time ago, DPS, and it didn’t take much. It is a known fact that liberals have much smaller brains than Republicans so it was bound to happen eventually.”

    That leaves me to conclude that you are incapable of placing a bowling-ball on a flexible (doesn’t have to be rubber) sheet.
    Assuming you are not an amputee and you are not paralyzed, I would have to conclude that a mental handicap prohibits you from carrying out this simple experiment.

    Hence the “braindead” (1)

    Furthermore, when this:

    “Could any of you please show me the verse that talks about gravitation.”

    Goes unanswered.

    I have to conclude that you do not even have scripture to support your claims, which means you are deliberately portraying a lie as fact.

    Since lying is bad, you are a bad person, therefore I have the right to call you a “f*ck” (2)

    Combining (1) and (2) I get “braindead f*ck”.

    I hope this cleared out any misunderstandings you had about my reasoning for calling you a “braindead f*ck”.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 5:50 pm | Reply

  1242. “That leaves me to conclude that you are incapable of placing a bowling-ball on a flexible (doesn’t have to be rubber) sheet.
    Assuming you are not an amputee and you are not paralyzed, I would have to conclude that a mental handicap prohibits you from carrying out this simple experiment.”

    I’m sure it would be possible. I’m surprised that someone would think that one could learn something from this very strange activity, however. This is why I speculated about a possible loss of sanity.

    Even if I wished to perform this pointless ritual, however, I could not. I do not own a bowling ball. Bowling is one of the Devil’s games, like cards and pool and foosball.

    “Could any of you please show me the verse that talks about gravitation.”

    Hardly anyone in the Bible floats in the air. This is God’s way of telling us that gravity exists.

    Comment by DPS — June 23, 2007 @ 7:23 pm | Reply

  1243. “I’m sure it would be possible. I’m surprised that someone would think that one could learn something from this very strange activity”

    You could always read Einstein’s work and reproduce his experiments, but I just wanted to save you some time.

    “Hardly anyone in the Bible floats in the air. This is God’s way of telling us that gravity exists.”

    And it leaves the how and why open for research…

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  1244. “So you feel qualified to judge what is needed for someone’s own moral good? Isn’t that kind of judgment supposed to be reserved for God?”

    God clearly hates non-believers. The Bible is quite clear on that point.

    “The basic, evolutionary dogma of this mythology proclaims, The worm of today is the god of tomorrow. And again Tim 4:3 warns: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will heap to themselves teachers to suit their likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”

    That’s a good point. The other religions and cults are the false prophets Jesus warned us of.

    “And Galileo himself proclaimed, Strength Causes Love! Sisyphus, don’t even think about competing with a Goliath or any other body builder!”

    Thank you for the tip. Luckily for me, I haven’t lifted weights in years.

    You really are an insightful person, Roman. Thank you for commenting here. I wish these liberals would read your posts. They might learn something from them. I certainly get a lot out of them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 23, 2007 @ 8:03 pm | Reply

  1245. “And it leaves the how and why open for research…”

    God’s will be done. There. I finished your research for you, and it was all in Scripture.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 23, 2007 @ 8:06 pm | Reply

  1246. Willhelm: “BTW. Nobody tell this guy that the Earth is really round.”

    Too late, Willhelm. He’s been told that—complete with proof—but he ignores it as he does anything that is inconvenient for his side, or that would require him to really think, with a fair and open mind.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 23, 2007 @ 8:17 pm | Reply

  1247. “If it moved, we would feel it moving.”

    are you KIDDING?!

    if it accelerated or decelerated, THEN, we would feel it move.

    Comment by jon david — June 23, 2007 @ 8:47 pm | Reply

  1248. Silverhill,

    Please stop flirting with Willhelm. This is not the appropriate forum for that sort of thing.

    Comment by DPS — June 24, 2007 @ 1:57 am | Reply

  1249. @ Silverhill:

    For some reason, your post @ 1210 was much shorter the first time I looked at is. I did not see quite so many quotations of me. Wow!

    You never cease to amaze me, Silverhill. Although you are a disgusting Communist pagan, this blog would be much poorer without you. We spread our message by refuting you. You should try going to some other threads. You would enjoy being squashed by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett. She eats pagans for breakfast.

    Comment by DPS — June 24, 2007 @ 2:19 am | Reply

  1250. DPS, you’re not ready for stand-up comedy yet; “don’t give up your day job”, as they say. Keep practicing, though; your silliness is indeed increasing.

    For instance, you’re now saying that some of your supporters are cannibals (such as Mrs. Gaines-Crockett). Now I’m amazed!

    (BTW, calling me a pagan is yet another error on your part. You really need to consider your words more carefully before posting them.)

    Comment by Silverhill — June 24, 2007 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  1251. “your silliness is indeed increasing.”

    Either that, or you’re possessed. Given what I’ve seen so far, I’m leaning towards the latter.

    “For instance, you’re now saying that some of your supporters are cannibals (such as Mrs. Gaines-Crockett). Now I’m amazed!”

    How are we supposed to have any kind of serious discussion if you interpret what you read only in the most literal sense possible?

    “(BTW, calling me a pagan is yet another error on your part. You really need to consider your words more carefully before posting them.)”

    I don’t know what you *think* you are, but you’re really a pagan. I can smell them a mile away.

    Comment by DPS — June 25, 2007 @ 12:50 am | Reply

  1252. “RINOs are like that. But they don’t count. Real Republicans would’ve helped you, Colonel.”

    They take great pride in never having lived up to anything… Lie, steal, cheat, and kill, real bad guys! Their daddys are winos, and their mommy quite insane… From altar boy to sewer rat, they don’t give a damn… their sisters are junkies, get “it” anyway they can… brothers probably a gay singer in a stud leather band… their girlfriend’s with herpes to go with the hep and AIDS! There ain’t one person they know they haven’t ripped off yet!!

    Look deep in the mirror, look deep into its eyes… Their face is replaced, a creature to despise… But I know what you’re made of, it ain’t much I’m afraid… I know they’ll be lying until their dying day!!

    Make up your stories, but truth’s so hard to say… Brain is numb and your tongue will surely did you grave… Your mind is sickly from Alzheimer’s disease… and decadence and debauchery killed your memories

    They’re liars… everyone can see! Liars, it’s all they’ll ever be. Liars, it’s what they mean to me. Liars!

    Start trouble, spread pain… Piss and venom in your veins… Talk nasty, breathe fire… Smell rotten you’re liar.. Sweat liquor, breathe snot.. Eat garbage, spit blood… Diseased, health hazard… Scum bag, filthy bastard… Grease face, teeth decay… Hair matted, drunk all day… Abscessed, sunken veins… Rot gut, scrambled brain… Steal money, crash cars… Rob jewelry, die in bars
    Rot in hell, it’s time you know… To your master, off you go!!

    They’re liars… everyone can see! Liars, it’s all they’ll ever be. Liars, it’s what they mean to me. Liars!

    I decree mega death unto them all.

    Comment by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz — June 25, 2007 @ 6:57 am | Reply

  1253. 1205: I want him to actually support his statements here, if he happens to be somehow serious. (He who makes a claim has the burden of proof. As I have also already said; remember?)
    >Sisyphus has yet to use mathematics to back up his claims.

    1235: I once saw a commerical for Bounty paper towels that did the same thing but it didn’t make me want to run over to and then jump off the side of the earth.
    >???
    Your scientific may be popular in the liberal circles, Skeptic, but they are not sound. Turn to the doctrine found in the Bible if the truth is what you are really looking for. Until then you can stick with your science and comics books for your “facts”.
    >1. You have yet to prove the truth of the Bible without circular reasoning. Do you know why religion is called a “faith”?
    2. Comic books are not used for “facts”, as you say.

    1239: That happened a long, long time ago, DPS, and it didn’t take much. It is a known fact that liberals have much smaller brains than Republicans so it was bound to happen eventually.
    >Actually, the convolution of the brain is more related than brain size.

    1241: You can always tell when the leftards are losing an argument: that’s when they break out the four-letter words.
    >”H-E-L-L” is also a four-letter word.

    1250: You would enjoy being squashed by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett. She eats pagans for breakfast.
    >”Stopo flirting with” Mrs. Gaines-Crockett. Your comment 1249 is really immature.

    1251: How are we supposed to have any kind of serious discussion if you interpret what you read only in the most literal sense possible?
    >How are we supposed if you interpret the Bible in only the most literal sense possible?

    1252: I don’t know what you *think* you are, but you’re really a pagan.
    >Atheist != pagan

    Comment by lietk12 — June 27, 2007 @ 11:20 am | Reply

  1254. Ah, I see some of my favorite people in here. In fact, that wonderous person that labeled me a “feminazi” is hangin’ around here somewhere. (BTW, I responded to that. Do hope you enjoy one more read.)
    For those that believe we would “feel” it if the Earth was moving. We won’t. Now, there was complaining before because I am a bit thorough in my postings–get over it. Because the Earth moves at a constant rate we don’t notice it. We are born into it. We are used to it. If it decided to suddenly jerk one way or the other we would all be hurting. But it doesn’t; it is “fixed” (ha, like in the Bible) on a set path. Now when I say “used” to it think of it like this. You walk around like normal. Strap weights to your ankles. It’s a little harder to walk now isn’t it? Do that for a while and once more it’s nothing different. (Now, before you shut yourself into your narrow little hole in the ground follow my to my parallel here.) That’s how it is with the Earth moving. Because it doesn’t shift we don’t have to constantly adjust. Instead we are already set and never feel it. If it was to change we would have to adjust just like the person who tossed some weights to their ankles. Understand? Or do I need to find another illistration?
    And all this “liberal” name calling is a wee bit annoying and a show of ignorance. Should I explain all the characteristics of a “liberal?” It’s not just gay marriage, and yay abortion. Those things are bad. Think about the economics and certain government policy. Do you guys acknowledge economics? You know–that’s the thing like the market…and the principals that determine how much you pay in taxes, on products at the store, and the “value” of the dollar in foreign exchange. You know…basic stuff like that. If anyone is interested I will explain because there are some things that are great about liberals and others that are great about conservatives when it comes to the political realm. Conservatives have the “moral” side of things down while the liberals have the best way to structure the responsibilities of the government. Between that structure and the laws that could be passed and the Constitution with all it’s wondrous value (I love knowing my rights) we could have a government that functions rather well. There’s just this little problem. I call it “political racism.” What does that mean? Well, I’m going to keep it short. I’ll explain it later…But I must ask…Crockett, Sisyphus, whoever else has read my other postings in whatever that other blog was…Do we agree now that the Bible was NOT written in English (originally)? I would like to know if at least that was established. Oh, and men are responsible for their own thoughts. Did we get that as well?

    Comment by La Mona — June 27, 2007 @ 11:29 am | Reply

  1255. Newton, an Apostle of the god Shiva

    The most widely used textbook on college campuses for the past 30 years has been Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” and its thesis – that facts derive their meaning from the paradigms that set them in place – has shifted attention from scientific facts to scientific paradigms. As there are no neutral standards by which to judge these paradigms, Kuhn’s thesis (if unnuanced) leads to a relativism among paradigms that places Hottentot Science on a par with Newton’s. Kuhn himself phrased his thesis carefully enough to parry such relativism, but even taken at its best, it provides no way that science could get to the bottom of things. (Huston Smith, Why Religion Matters, p. 16)

    Wlliam Gilbert, physician to Queen Elizabeth I and James I while explaining the behavior of the compass needle in his book De magnete used the phrase “magnetic coition” (The name of the Slavic sun-god Kupala is derived from Latin copulatio) rather than magnetic attraction, “because magnetic movements do not result from attraction of one body alone, but from coming together of two bodies harmoniously (not the drawing of one by the other). Inspired by Fracastoro’s “De Contagione et Contagiosis Morbis et Curatione (On Contagion and Contagious Diseases and their Cure) of 1546 Gilbert believed that all heavenly bodies are endowed with magnetism.

    The most popular medieval encyclopedia which diffused philosophical heliocentrism through the curricula of the Latin trivia and quadrivia and which is mentioned in Copernicus’s preface was entitled Satyricon sive de nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (Satyricon or about the Wedding of Philology and Mercury).

    Kepler was to use this idea to explain the motion of the planets. He was well aware of the fact that the Latin term sidus, star is derived from Gr. Sideros, iron. Similarly the Provencal aran, iran, airan – iron – is etymologically connected with the Greek aryan meaning both “lodestone” and “rising sun”. The English term siderite means magnetic iron or lodestone. (Cp. Galileo’s “Sidereus Nuncius” ). Let me remind here that in an Assyrian love spell from ancient Iraq, iron filings placed on a woman’s genitals were supposed to attract her to a man who had similarly anointed himself with a mixture of powdered lodestone and oil. The sexual ingredient of Gilbert’s “magnetic coition” was set by Newton into his Third Law which sees forces as acting between two bodies, not as one body exerting a force on the other. He spoke of action and reaction, which he declared to be equal and opposite. Here Newton differs from Copernicus whose sun in Th. Digges’s translation is “like the king in the middest of al who reigneth and geeveth lawes of motion to ye rest.”

    The idea of star magnetism or gravity is better understandable in the context of meteorites that from time immemorial were used for the manufacture of iron tools. The ancient people knew of the precious metal’s celestial origin for in many languages the name for it contains a reference to the sky (Gr. Meteoron, things in the air, lifted up, in air). Coming from gods, as it was believed, they were venerated in temples. One of the best known instances is that of the Ephesians; they were worshippers not of the goddess Diana and the “image which fell down from Jupiter,” as the unfortunate translation of Acts 19:35 runs in the authorized English version, but of Diana and of the “thing that fell from the sky.” Similarly, in Delphi besides Apollo a holy stone was the object of adoration. The “iron shield” which fell in Rome under the reign of Numa Pompilius was put in the perpetual custody of a college of 12 priests. The ‘black stone’ of the Kaba is no doubt, a stone meteorite with its strange black crust. In the ruins of an ancient Mexican temple an iron meteorite was unearthed, carefully wrapped in mummy cloths. A shower of stones which fell from the sky in 1803 at l’Aigle, not far from Paris, finally convinced the Paris Academy and the rest of the scientific world of the reality of the fall of meteorites.

    Astrology was attacked by Aristotelians and other rationalists, down to Newton’s day, for its now accepted assertion that the planets had an “influence” upon terrestrial events. Since time immemorial astrology went hand in hand with the theory of emanationism, philosophical and theological theory that saw all of creation as an unwilled, necessary and spontaneous outflow of contingent beings of descending perfection, from an infinite, unchanged primary substance. In conformity with this theory Kepler wrote about “species immateriata” which flows out of the sun, inundates all the planets, including the earth, and sets them in whirling motion. Newton, like Kepler, was influenced by the same Hermetic tradition. He felt that the apparent attraction of tiny bits of paper to a piece of glass that has been rubbed with cloth results from an ethereal effluvium that streams out of the glass and carries the bits of paper back with it. This mechanical philosophy explained apparent attractions away by means of invisible ethereal mechanisms. The ancient heliocentrist, Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten had himself portrayed sitting in the sun’s rays ending in hands. For him these rays ending in hands had the same meaning as ethereal effluvium had for Newton. Akhenaten’s god was symbolized by a circle with many hands (Cp. Shiva with 6 hands).

    Kepler’s angelus rector conducting each planet, and the species immateriata by which celestial bodies were carried in their courses became in Newton’s third letter to Bentley, the “agent which causes gravity”, and in his personal working – God. In his paper De aere et aethere Newton identified gravity with the spiritual body of Jesus Christ.

    But wait, there is more. In the Pipes of Pan, a proposed Scholium to the Principia Mathematica of 1687 Newton rewrote the myth of Pythagoras claiming that the inverse-square law of gravitation had been known to the earliest sages. The same law had been discovered, Newton wrote, between a string’s length and its tension for a given musical pitch, before it was applied to the heavens where it was observed by Shiva Nataraja, Apollo Musagetes and all other solar deities.

    Newton’s dilemma behind the inverse square law of gravitation is understandable in the context of the myth of Shiva. With drum and dance, he represents the world’s perpetual unfolding or evolution. The drum in Hindu myth is an agency of cosmic creation, and dancing is one of the many aspects of Shiva’s essence. Dance produced rhythm and that rhythm, Newton thought, must have been observed in his ‘scientific” law of gravitation. Similarly, the formulation “cube roots of squares” used in Opticks was known from Kepler’s Third Law, deduced again in Principia, to show the average distance of a planet from the sun is proportional to a cube root of the square of the planet’s period of revolution. In his Harmony of the World (1619) Kepler calculated from the greatest and the slowest speed of each planet the “divine” musical scales of the planets.

    Newton’s Pipes of Pan will return in Darwin’s ritual because heliocentrism and evolutionism always went hand in hand. In music the Greeks distinguished: rhythms, mutations, and melopoeia. According to Douland to a Musitian (1609) “Mutation is the putting of one concord for another in the same key. According to The New Age Dictionary. A Guide to Planetary Family Consciousness. Ed. By Alex Jack. (Japan Publications, Inc. 1990), Charles Darwin was “evolutionist who played a bassoon for his plants.” The New Age Magic of Findhorn describes plenty of such mutations inspiring concerts. One of them is 40-pound cabbages, which reminds of the Soviet biologist Michurin who allegedly got a mutation of 10-pound apples. Problem was that the branches were breaking…

    A Newtonian Sexuary

    In explaining human disease, if everything else failed, one could always appeal to the influence of the stars on the elements, which accounts for the fact that a knowledge of astrology was still needed to qualify in medicine as late as the second half of the 18th century. Paracelsus used magnets to concentrate in his patients what he believed to be a cosmic fluid with healing properties. A certain Dr. Graham constructed a large “Celestial Bed” and equipped it with 1500 pounds of “artificial and compound magnets” that “revivified slackening sexual vigor”. This Newtonian “viagra’ was dispensed by a blacksmith’s daughter named Ami Lyon, a provocatively dressed (like Copernicus’s Muse) hostess in Dr. Graham’s Temple of Health. Billed as “Vestina the Rosy Goddess of Health”, she was better known as Lady Hamilton, Adm. Nelson’s mistress. It usually cost some gentlemen 50 pounds a night.

    Dr. Graham’s French equivalent was Friedrich Anton Mesmer, a doctor who took many of his ideas from the Jesuit priest Maximillian Hell. Mesmer’s dissertation was titled “Dissertatio Physico-Medica de Planetarum Influxu”. In later years he referred to his dissertation as The Influence of the Planets on the Human Body. Mesmer uses the phrase “Universal Fluid” as the cause of gravitation and claims that it also explains magnetism, electricity, light and heat. All things are immersed in this fluid as in a cosmic sea. In their attraction and repulsion, magnets set up an ebb and flow that could be interpreted as one version of the general tidal effect of which the gravitation of the heavenly bodies was another version.

    Of the 1752 books in Newton’s library, 170 were on occult subjects, including the kabbala, Rosicrucians, and plain old-fashioned magic. In 1890, a president of the royal society, William Crookes studied the evidence for the existence of Katie King, the spirit attendant of the medium Florence Cook. He was subsequently induced into the hermetic order of the golden Dawn. The latest biography of Newton was titled Newton. The Last Sorcerer.
    Roman Pytel

    Comment by Roman Pytel — June 27, 2007 @ 4:49 pm | Reply

  1256. I’m a scientist, and I have seen with my own eyes scientists who eat babies, worship Satan, have sex with animals, teach evolution, and perform abortions. All scientists are Communists, atheists, tree-huggers, and liberals who admire both Hilary Clinton and Osama bin Laden. Speaking of Osama, did you ever notice that OSAMA sounds awfully similar to OBAMA? Also, Obama’s middle name is Hussein. I was going to vote for him until I figured that out. We have to protect America from people with non-Christian-sounding names, or the terrorists have won!

    I definitely believe in geocentrism, given what horrible people scientists are. However, there is no such thing as “conservapedia.” Sisyphyus’ use of that term shows that he is really just a prankster, unlike me.

    Comment by scientist — June 27, 2007 @ 5:16 pm | Reply

  1257. This is so simple. The Earth is moving around the Sun. Venus and Mars are too. Venus is closer to the Sun than us and Mars is farther. Ever since Kepler figured this out, we have been able to predict their movements with extreme accuracy. Many people tried to predict planet motion around a stationary Earth and failed because it’s simply not true.

    You’ll say that it’s just mathematically convenient to believe planets orbit around the Sun. That’s true. It’s also mathematically convenient to believe that one plus one always equals two. You can say that one plus one doesn’t always equal two but no one will listen to you.

    Comment by SayWhat? — June 27, 2007 @ 7:26 pm | Reply

  1258. “I’m a scientist, and I have seen with my own eyes scientists who eat babies, worship Satan, have sex with animals, teach evolution, and perform abortions. All scientists are Communists, atheists, tree-huggers, and liberals who admire both Hilary Clinton and Osama bin Laden. Speaking of Osama, did you ever notice that OSAMA sounds awfully similar to OBAMA? Also, Obama’s middle name is Hussein. I was going to vote for him until I figured that out. We have to protect America from people with non-Christian-sounding names, or the terrorists have won!”
    REally? You’re a scientist? So, that means you do all those things and support those people right? That is known as twisted logic. Not all scientist do that, not all people do that, and political groupings do not label a person as a partaker in such. Clinton–sucks eggs. Obama does not mean “OSAMA.” It’s sad that you are narrow enough to judge a book by its cover. If you decided not to vote on him that’s your call, but at least have the dignity to make an adult decision with it! Shying away at a name that was given to him LONG ago is idiotic. And what would you know of Chistian-sounding names? I must ask before I go further…Do you believe the Bible was orginally written in English? There are many many names in the Bible that belonged to Christians…that you would think sound funny. And the terrorists don’t win because you find that someone’s name rhymes with one of theirs. Welcome to language! Some words rhyme!

    Comment by La Mona — June 27, 2007 @ 8:04 pm | Reply

  1259. 1243: Hardly anyone in the Bible floats in the air. This is God’s way of telling us that gravity exists.
    >Argument from ignorance (in other words, absence of evidence means evidence of absence).
    1257: I’m a scientist, and I have seen with my own eyes scientists who eat babies, worship Satan, have sex with animals, teach evolution, and perform abortions. All scientists are Communists, atheists, tree-huggers, and liberals who admire both Hilary Clinton and Osama bin Laden. Speaking of Osama, did you ever notice that OSAMA sounds awfully similar to OBAMA? Also, Obama’s middle name is Hussein. I was going to vote for him until I figured that out. We have to protect America from people with non-Christian-sounding names, or the terrorists have won!

    I definitely believe in geocentrism, given what horrible people scientists are. However, there is no such thing as “conservapedia.” Sisyphyus’ use of that term shows that he is really just a prankster, unlike me.
    >1. Ad hominem: “I definitely believe in geocentrism, given what horrible people scientists are. ”
    2. False premises for Ad hominem: Scientists “eat babies, worship Satan, have sex with animals, teach evolution, and perform abortions”. Eating babies: disgusting. Worship Satan: Science is secular. Have ___ with animals: by definition, humans ARE animals. Of course, you mean to say “Non-human animals”. That’s just disgusting. “All scientists are Communists, atheists, tree-huggers, and liberals who admire both Hilary Clinton and Osama bin Laden”. Communists: Nope. Hitler’s scientists were not communist. Atheists: Nope. Osama bin Laden: Nope. He’s evil.
    3. Association Fallacies abound (every sentence has one)
    4. “Speaking of Osama, did you ever notice that OSAMA sounds awfully similar to OBAMA?” Did you ever notice that the words “Conservative Christian” and “Evil Extremist Fanatic” only differ by one letter? The point is that one can look for false associations wherever he/she wants to.
    5. “I’m a scientist”: Appeal to false authority
    6. “Also, Obama’s middle name is Hussein. I was going to vote for him until I figured that out.” Appeal to emotion (specifically, xenophobia). Irrelevant conclusion.
    7. “We have to protect America from people with non-Christian-sounding names, or the terrorists have won!”: Appeal to fear, appeal from ignorance, irrelevant conclusion
    8. Misleading vividness (a fallacy) abound

    1259: Do you believe the Bible was originally written in English?
    >Unfortunately, some people believe that because the US is at the center of the universe (false premise), English is the only true language, and therefore the Bible was originally written in English (false) and that Jesus only speaks English and condemns all other religions, languages, beliefs, races, and nations

    Comment by lietk12 — June 28, 2007 @ 1:18 pm | Reply

  1260. I have posted in 5 or 6 of these blogs now asking them this question after I explained the Hebrew roots and translation and roots…It was a long post needless to say. And none of them will answer me when I ask them if they admit that hte Bible was really not written in English. So I continue to probe them. THey think the U.S. is the center because they refuse to educate themselves in the area of geography…amoung many other things–like Government, Politics, and Economics! (something that would be nice to have considering this is suppose to support a political figure….) Oh well, what can one do right?

    Comment by La Mona — June 28, 2007 @ 4:16 pm | Reply

  1261. I have posted in 5 or 6 of these blogs now asking them this question after I explained the Hebrew roots and translation and more roots…It was a long post needless to say. And none of them will answer me when I ask them if they admit that hte Bible was really not written in English. So I continue to probe them. THey think the U.S. is the center because they refuse to educate themselves in the area of geography…amoung many other things–like Government, Politics, and Economics! (something that would be nice to have considering this is suppose to support a political figure….) Oh well, what can one do right?

    Comment by La Mona — June 28, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

  1262. The idea is not that the sun is the center of the universe–it’s that it’s the center of the solar system, a massive distinction you’re obviously too much of a moron to bother making.

    Oh, and it IS the center of the solar system.

    Holy crap, I swear, if you’re sincere about all this, you may be the dumbest person alive, and doing such an enormous disservice to other (presumably) more sane members of your faith.

    As for this quote:

    “I’m a scientist, and I have seen with my own eyes scientists who eat babies, worship Satan, have sex with animals, teach evolution, and perform abortions.” …Really? Where did you see all this? Who are hanging out with? Where do you live? Because I’ve yet ever see anyone eat a baby, worship Satan, or have sex with animals–and I’ve looked.

    You people are nuts.

    Comment by Mike Smith — June 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  1263. Right on! Finally someone else that understands the fact that there is a divine toothpick that holds Earth in place like an olive. The Lord would never allow us to move in a measurable course through the solar system. We are made in his likeness. So should we believe that the Kingdom of God is like some amusement ride that circulates through the universe that he created. Certainly not! The world we are given to live in, through the grace of God, is a reflection of his divine world, he has given us only a taste.

    Why would he confuse his loving followers with a whirling horror speeding through space and controlled by, what I see as pagan gods. The Lord created the Earth first, we are the chosen ones, after that he had a lot of creation stuff left on his brush so he created the thousands of other planets and solar systems to get it off his divine paintbrush. He kind of flicked it with his divine thumb and made thousands of planets and systems that could not possibly contain life. If we find out they do, they are from the Devil’s paintbrush. He must have stolen one from God’s palette and flicked his own demonic planets into God’s universe. If we find out there are aliens, we all know why. The Devil’s paintbrush created those things we don’t understand.

    Comment by Your Hawaiian Brother — June 29, 2007 @ 3:33 am | Reply

  1264. “Rot in hell, it’s time you know… To your master, off you go!!

    They’re liars… everyone can see! Liars, it’s all they’ll ever be. Liars, it’s what they mean to me. Liars!

    I decree mega death unto them all.”

    I agree. RINOs and Helioleftists are scum.

    “This is so simple. The Earth is moving around the Sun.”

    No it doesn’t.

    “Venus and Mars are too.”

    No they don’t.

    “Newton, an Apostle of the god Shiva”

    That explains a lot. Thank you, Roman. BTW, if you want posting privileges, send me an email. My address is in the “Team” thread.

    “And none of them will answer me when I ask them if they admit that hte Bible was really not written in English.”

    It was written in Hebrew. The language of the Israelis. America is Israel’s greatest Earthly ally, which is one of many reasons why God blesses our nation with peace, prosperity, and victory.

    “Oh, and it IS the center of the solar system.”

    No it isn’t, and only the kind of person who believes his grandfather fornicated with chimpanzees would put stock in such an assertion.

    “The Lord created the Earth first, we are the chosen ones, after that he had a lot of creation stuff left on his brush so he created the thousands of other planets and solar systems to get it off his divine paintbrush. He kind of flicked it with his divine thumb and made thousands of planets and systems that could not possibly contain life. If we find out they do, they are from the Devil’s paintbrush. He must have stolen one from God’s palette and flicked his own demonic planets into God’s universe. If we find out there are aliens, we all know why. The Devil’s paintbrush created those things we don’t understand.”

    Possibly. But the Bible doesn’t explicitly say so. And the only rule of thumb we have to go on is what Scripture says. If it isn’t in the Bible, or isn’t explainable by the Bible, it isn’t true.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 29, 2007 @ 5:45 am | Reply

  1265. Considering that the author of this piece is clearly petrified by mankind’s ability to learn and develop understanding through centuries of scientific endeavours, I’m actually amazed that he’s got something right:

    Yes, the Earth is indeed NOT moving … just so long as you use it as your frame of reference for eveything else.

    The only problem is that no one has ever disputed this fact, and I mean EVER. People understood this concept long before God was invented.

    Comment by SmilingGM — June 29, 2007 @ 5:50 am | Reply

  1266. Helioleftism is a tool of Satan. It really is as simple as that. I don’t know why leftists can’t understand all this.

    Comment by Marcia P. — June 29, 2007 @ 12:18 pm | Reply

  1267. Don’t forget Darwinism and other forms of “thinking”. The brain is clearly a tool of the devil as well…unless you refuse to use it.

    Comment by hoverfrog — June 29, 2007 @ 2:33 pm | Reply

  1268. “Don’t forget Darwinism and other forms of “thinking”. The brain is clearly a tool of the devil as well…unless you refuse to use it.”

    There are good thoughts and there are bad thoughts, hoverfrog. As long as you think things through responsibly, you’ll be alright.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 29, 2007 @ 3:47 pm | Reply

  1269. 1265: They’re liars… everyone can see! Liars, it’s all they’ll ever be. Liars, it’s what they mean to me. Liars!
    >Please start explaining instead of creating blanket labels. Your ad hominems are starting to get extremely trite.

    “Venus and Mars are too.”

    No they don’t.
    >Explain.

    No it isn’t, and only the kind of person who believes his grandfather fornicated with chimpanzees would put stock in such an assertion.
    >Straw man, false dichotomy

    “The Lord created the Earth first, we are the chosen ones, after that he had a lot of creation stuff left on his brush so he created the thousands of other planets and solar systems to get it off his divine paintbrush. He kind of flicked it with his divine thumb and made thousands of planets and systems that could not possibly contain life. If we find out they do, they are from the Devil’s paintbrush. He must have stolen one from God’s palette and flicked his own demonic planets into God’s universe. If we find out there are aliens, we all know why. The Devil’s paintbrush created those things we don’t understand.”

    Possibly. But the Bible doesn’t explicitly say so. And the only rule of thumb we have to go on is what Scripture says. If it isn’t in the Bible, or isn’t explainable by the Bible, it isn’t true.
    >Fallacy from ignorance.

    1266: Helioleftism is a tool of Satan. It really is as simple as that. I don’t know why leftists can’t understand all this.
    >WILL YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING? YOUR COMMENTS AREN’T HELPING THE DISCUSSION. JUST EXPLAIN YOUR BELIEFS! (sorry, my Caps Lock key was stuck).

    Comment by lietk12 — June 29, 2007 @ 4:28 pm | Reply

  1270. “WILL YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING? YOUR COMMENTS AREN’T HELPING THE DISCUSSION. JUST EXPLAIN YOUR BELIEFS! (sorry, my Caps Lock key was stuck).”

    Please reread the original post. It was all explained there. Or, if you like, you can peruse the other science threads on this blog. Many of them also address the topic. Brevity prohibits the endless repetition of such an endeavor.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 30, 2007 @ 9:05 am | Reply

  1271. Sisyphus wrote: “Please reread the original post. It was all explained there.”

    Wrong. Various things were asserted there, but nothing was truly, incontestably explained.
    e.g.:
    “Since modern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference frame, it’s unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the same.”

    It is perfectly fair to criticize the Bible version—when it is held, by the literalists, to be the only legitimate way of describing the motions of the celestial bodies. That is what is anti-scientific; you can’t support relativism and absolutism simultaneously. (Well, you can if you’re insane, mistaken, lying, or joking, but not otherwise.)

    But, Marshall Hall (of the Fixed Earth website and book) has repeatedly shown himself to be anti-scientific and unwilling to support his points with a neutral authority. Sort of like Sisyphus, DPS, et al.
    ===========

    “Brevity prohibits the endless repetition of such an endeavor.”

    Yeah, riiight.

    Comment by Silverhill — June 30, 2007 @ 10:06 pm | Reply

  1272. I forgot about this thread….

    Glad to know Sisyphus that you know where the Bible came from. (sad, you don’t know much of its contents…) So, why could we not handle this in other threads like the open Science flat-Earth bull snot? Or is it just Crockett that is that much more disillusioned? Or do you know the Hebrew roots, yet deny the complexity of that language and meaning lost in translation? I wanna know how you come up with this stuff….logically.

    Comment by La Mona — June 30, 2007 @ 10:30 pm | Reply

  1273. La Mona, tú ya sabes que Sisyphus no utiliza lógica….

    (translation for those who spurn the learning of languages other than American English—“La Mona, you already know that Sisyphus does not use logic….”)

    Comment by Silverhill — July 1, 2007 @ 8:00 pm | Reply

  1274. Se. Pienso él puede pero no lo hace porque él está contento con su ignorancia.* Qué triste….. No me gusta. Hay mucho aqui que no me gusta. Hablar de español…Tengo que estudiar.
    (I know. I think he can but doesn’t do it because he is happy/comfortable with his ignorance.* What sadness….. I don’t like it. There’s a lot here that I don’t like. Hmmmm. Speaking of Spanish…I have to study.)
    *The Bible AND Psychology could help out with that one. 🙂 I believe it went something like “…with the renewing of your mind…” There’s a starter.

    Comment by La Mona — July 1, 2007 @ 10:13 pm | Reply

  1275. Life it seems, will fade away… drifting further every day!! Getting lost within myself… nothing matters, no one else. I have lost the will to live… simply nothing more to give… nothing more for me, need the end to set me free! Things are not what they used to be, missing one inside of me… deathly lost, this can’t be real, cannot stand this hell I feel. Emptiness is filing me… to the point of agony… growing darkness, taking dawn… I was me, but now He’s gone. No one but me can save myself, but it to late… now I can’t think, think why I should even try… Yesterday seems as though it never existed. Die!

    Comment by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz — July 2, 2007 @ 9:55 am | Reply

  1276. “So, why could we not handle this in other threads like the open Science flat-Earth bull snot? Or is it just Crockett that is that much more disillusioned? Or do you know the Hebrew roots, yet deny the complexity of that language and meaning lost in translation? I wanna know how you come up with this stuff….logically.”

    What are you jabbering about?

    “(translation for those who spurn the learning of languages other than American English—”La Mona, you already know that Sisyphus does not use logic….”)”

    Stop making up languages, Silverback.

    “Life it seems, will fade away… drifting further every day!! Getting lost within myself… nothing matters, no one else. I have lost the will to live… simply nothing more to give… nothing more for me, need the end to set me free! Things are not what they used to be, missing one inside of me… deathly lost, this can’t be real, cannot stand this hell I feel. Emptiness is filing me… to the point of agony… growing darkness, taking dawn… I was me, but now He’s gone. No one but me can save myself, but it to late… now I can’t think, think why I should even try… Yesterday seems as though it never existed. Die!”

    I will pray for you, Colonel.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 3, 2007 @ 5:45 am | Reply

  1277. Sisyphus wrote: “Stop making up languages, Silverback.”

    Now, now, Sisyphus—at least do me the courtesy of using my proper nickname here. I do the same for you, refraining from altering yours into negative forms as have some others.

    Anyway…
    Je ne synthétise pas des langues.
    Ich verwende Sprachen, die bereits bestehen.
    Будут много точных выборов.
    Μόνο ένας ανόητος θα απέρριπτε όλων τους.

    (French: I do not synthesize languages.
    German: I use languages that already exist.
    Russian: There are many fine choices.
    Greek: Only a fool would reject all of them.)

    =========
    to Colonel Walter E. Kurtz (assuming that you are not also merely joking with us): Take your medicines, sir. You’ll feel a lot better.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 3, 2007 @ 1:43 pm | Reply

  1278. Ok Sisyphus….In the Open Science Thread where I first shared my views you people thought the Bible was written in English, period. (or at least the majority of ignorants did.) I speak of the Bible and the Hebrew/Greek it came from. Do you know the meanings? Did you know that some were lost in translation/English just doesn’t have a single word that means what the Hebrew/Greek did? You people just ducked and covered when I spoke of this the very first time. In fact, you said that my posts were too long. I think you were being ADD. Either way you ignored the issues.

    Anywho, to add to Silverhill’s list:
    Tú eres un bobo de un hombre. Ese en español. He’s not making up lanuages…there are so many of them. In fact, try this; type something up in Microsoft Word (anything–really) and highlight it, then right-click…a translate option will come up in a list, select a lanuage (you have to be connected to the Internet) and it will translate to that language. (some tinkering required…but those directions should get you there) I figure that should give you a list of languages that you might wish to be aware of.

    Comment by La Mona — July 3, 2007 @ 9:41 pm | Reply

  1279. It’s one of his great skills. Sysiphus can ignore whatever arguments or logic challenge his own stated point of view. It’s like a superpower. It helps to perpetuate the parody.

    Comment by hoverfrog — July 4, 2007 @ 4:40 am | Reply

  1280. You are without a doubt the most ignorant bastard I’ve ever heard of.

    Comment by JoshMani — July 4, 2007 @ 10:27 am | Reply

  1281. “(French: I do not synthesize languages.
    German: I use languages that already exist.
    Russian: There are many fine choices.
    Greek: Only a fool would reject all of them.)”

    At least speak Klingon. Then I’ll know you’re joking.

    “It’s one of his great skills. Sysiphus can ignore whatever arguments or logic challenge his own stated point of view. It’s like a superpower. It helps to perpetuate the parody.”

    It’s not a parody, hovertreefrog. How many times do I have to tell you that? JoshMani’s right about you:

    You are without a doubt the most ignorant bastard I’ve ever heard of.”

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 4, 2007 @ 2:55 pm | Reply

  1282. The Most Revealing Fact in the History of Heliocentrism

    In 1910 a German fiction writer Ernest Adler von der Planitz published a number of 5th century Coptic papyri and other ancient fragments found in a tomb at Sakkara and purchased by a certain scholar named Baron von Rabenau. The legends written down in the document entitled The Letter of Benan are an ingenious presentation, in the best folk manner, of the hidden years in the life of Jesus.
    A far-famed Egyptian astronomer named Putiphra dispatched the High Priest Ranebchru to the land of the Hebrews (he did not call it Palestine! Interestingly, there is no name Palestine in the Koran either!) to learn the meaning of the appearance of the new star, Siriu, or The Scorching One. In Betlehem he found a child born in a cave the very moment Siriu appeared in the heavens. Ranebchru promised his parents that the child will be raised under the tutelage of the great astronomer Putiphra and Pinehas rabbi of the Jewish temple in nearby On. When Putiphra died 12 years later Jesus returned to his parents in Nazareth. During his visit to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover he lectured in the temple all the learned doctors and rabbis on the principles of heliocentric astronomy and on the interstellar mysteries:

    “A learned astronomer was present in the assembly at the temple, and he arose and asked Jesus: ‘What do you know about astronomy?’ Jesus without hesitation or faltering, explained the number of spheres and the heavenly bodies, and the meaning of their numbers; he expounded on their different natures and operations; he defined their aspects, triangular, square or sextile; he interpreted their course, direct or retrograde; he gave the motion of the planets each day, and each hour of the day; and he ended with a commentary on the interstellar mysteries beyond the reach of reason. And the astronomer turned and asked: “Pray, who can that be.” But this stuff was not included in the canonical Gospels.

    Let me quote here two verses of the canonical Gospel of Mark 1:21-22 describing this event: “And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the Sabbath day he (Jesus) entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.” End of quote.

    The story contained in the Letter of Benan is amazingly reminiscent of a similar fact from the biography of Pythagoras. In about 535 B.C. Pythagoras went to Egypt. This happened a few years after the tyrant Polycrates seized control of the city of Samos. There is some evidence to suggest that Pythagoras and Polycrates were friendly at first and it is claimed that Pythagoras went to Egypt with a letter of introduction written by Polycrates. In fact Polycrates had an alliance with Egypt and there were therefore strong links between Samos and Egypt at this time. The accounts of Pythagoras’s time in Egypt suggest that he visited many of the temples and took part in many discussions with the priests. According to Porphyry, Pythagoras was refused admission to all the temples except the one at Diospolis where he was accepted into the priesthood after completing the rites necessary for admission.

    In the early 1680s, shortly before publishing the Principia, Newton began work on a treatise which he called The Philosophical Origins of Gentile Theology. This argued that Noah had founded the primordial religion – a Gentile theology – which had been free of superstition and had advocated a rational worship of one God. The only commandments were love of God and love of neighbor. Pythagoras had learned about this religion and brought it to the West. Jesus had been one of these prophets sent to call mankind back to the truth, but his pure religion had been corrupted.

    Another Greek astronomer of Samos, (like Pythagoras!) Aristarchus also worked out a heliocentric planetary scheme. As Plutarch writes, the hypothesis of Aristarchus was proved (apodeiknumi) by a certain Syrian Seleukos of Seleukia.

    Verse 51 of the Syrian version (Peshitta) of Luke 2 elaborates the incident of the Gospel of Mark so that it will be reverberating throughout the following centuries:
    “And philosopher who was there present, a skillful astronomer, asked Jesus the Lord whether he studied astronomy. And the Lord Jesus answered him and explained the number of the spheres, and of the heavenly bodies, their nature and operations, their oppositions; their aspects, triangular, square and sextile; their course, direct or retrograde; the twenty-four and sixtieth of twenty-fourths, and other things beyond the reach of reason.” Almost a verbatim copy of the Letter of Benan’s summary of Jesus’ lecture.

    Isa 38:7-8 writes: “And this shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that He hath spoken: behold, I will cause the shadow of the dial, which is gone down on the sun-dial of Ahaz, to return backward ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.”

    The ancient heliocentrists and, centuries later, Copernicus contradicted the backward movement of the sun in the Biblical geocentric system by the retrograde (backward) movements of the planets.
    There is another contradiction: in the geocentric astronomy of the Hebrew Bible the stars are moving which is stated clearly in Jg. 5:20-21:

    They fought from heaven
    The stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

    Already the Latin Vulgate negated the biblical geocentrism by having introduced into its translation of the Book of Genesis the heliocentric notion of firmamentum which was a name given by the early astronomers to the orb of the fixed stars and which, obviously, was retained by Copernicus and by the authors of the Masonic Bible i.e. the Authorized King James Version which translated Gen 1: 17 as follows:

    And God set them in the
    firmament of the heaven
    To give light upon the earth.

    The term firmament renders the Hebrew term raqi’a which in the Polish version of the Bible was translated as expanse (rozpostarcie) in order to avoid the heliocentric connotation of the Latin firmamentum.

    The Iranian, Sufi philosopher Surawardi (executed in Aleppo in 1191) made it his life’s work to link what he called the original “Oriental” religion with Islam, thus completing the project that Ibn Sina (honored by a post stamp in the Soviet Union) had proposed. He claimed that all the sages of the ancient world had preached a single doctrine. Originally it had been revealed to the baboon-shaped Hermes (whom Suhrawardi identified with the prophet known as Idris in the Koran or Enoch in the Bible); in the Greek world it had been transmitted through Plato and Pythagoras and in the Middle East through the Zoroastrian Magi. Since Aristotle, however, it had been obscured by a more narrowly intellectual an cerebral philosophy, but it had been secretly passed from one sage to another until it had finally reached Suhrawardi himself via al-Bistami and al-Hallaj. Who could deny Suhrawardi’s inspiration for Newton’s Gentile Philosophy?

    G. Bruno was not a Christian. To say that he did not believe in the divinity of Christ would be putting it too feebly: He despised and detested Jesus, and had a special contempt for the Cross and for any form of mass or the eucharist.

    The longest of Bruno’s dialogues Spaccio della bestia tionfante recounts a council among the gods, reminiscent of the Council of Trent, about reforming themselves and the heavens in order to prevent a Goetterdaemmerung impending upon them for the vices of their past conduct. The work is famous for its evocation of the ancient and true Egyptian religion, of which Judaism and Christianity are treated as corruptions; the civic religion of Rome seems to be regarded as its nearest available representative. In other words G. Bruno postulated the same religious heliorevolution as Suhrawardi did. The greatest, posthumous victory of G. Bruno was placement of the eye of Horus on 1 dollar bill.

    How Jesus’ lecture on heliocentrism and the lack of thereof in the canonical Gospel of Luke can be explained from historical perspective?

    The name Syria derived from the name of the Hindu sun god Surya mirrors adequately the long tradition of the Syrian natural religion as opposed to the historical religion of the Hebrews under personal God YHWH who liberated them from the Egyptian slavery. The Syrian sun god known also under the name of Baal appears as the most potent rival of the God of the Bible. The activity of a certain Marcion, a son of the bishop of Sinope should be contemplated in the context of this centuries-old rivalry between Baal and YHWH. Marcion devised a Christianity totally different from the religion of the earliest apostles.

    In his opinion the 12 apostles misunderstood the teachings of Christ, and, holding him to be the Messiah of the Jewish God, falsified his words from that standpoint

    Marcion developed his own version of what came to be called Christianity by declaring that Yahweh, the God of the Hebrew Bible , was the Demiurge who created the evil material world. He believed that Jesus was the good God who came to end this contamination by destroying YHWH, a self-contradictory being of limited knowledge.

    He taught that Christ assumed absolutely nothing of the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven, as an alien in the year of the Emperor Tiberius, and after the assumption of an apparent body, began his missionary activity in the synagogue of Capernaum. Marcion purported that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, was not born of Mary, was never incarnate, and only appeared in spirit during the time of his ministry.

    Though Marcion was branded a heretic by the church, his influence infiltrated the consciousness of the church so that it more and more tended to ignore the historical Jesus in favor of the cosmic Christ, or the Sun of God, one in the long row of solar saviours. As the church gradually denied its Judaic heritage in favor of the concepts of Greco-Roman philosophy (exactly, like Suhrawardi, and after him Newton in his Gentile Theology) and ideas from mystery religions, it became more and more easy to deny the Jewishness of Jesus and to look upon him as a mystic figure, the Christianity.

    “How is it that Jesus is hardly thought of as a Jew who lived his entire life in the midst of his fellow Israelis? How is it that we have so many different conceptions of Jesus, including the Nordic, Aryan Jesus with blond hair and blue eyes (or Nietzsche’s blue-eyed, blond beast), the African Jesus with black skin and hair like wool, the oriental Jesus with oriental features? And this is only among Christians. What of the Jesus who is portrayed as a first-rate medium by the consciousness philosophers, who is one of the many incarnations of God in Eastern Monism, who is another of the prophets leading up to the prophet Mohammed in Islam, who is healer of Christian Scientism, who is a Rabbi among many Jews, who is the great moral example in nominal Christianity? Everyone of every religion wants to claim Jesus for himself and to create him in their own image.” (www.restorationfoundation.org/).

    Let me remind here, that Newton turned Jesus into gravity. If we are to understand Jesus, however, we must accept the record of the Gospels that place him and his sayings in the historical and cultural milieu in which he was born, lived, died. Otherwise, you votaries of heliocentrism, are killing God with your Syro-Palestinian pseudo-science, like Marcion was trying to do. It came as no surprise to me that they put the blood-thirsty sun god Baal on Palestinian stamps. They hope, he will finish off YHWH of the Bible.

    In 1933 the Protestant Reich Church was formed under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The founding of the church was the result of work by the German Christians. It was based on Nazi ideas of creating a “positive Christianity,” namely purifying Christianity of any Jewish elements including even the Old Testament. Marcion’s dream came true.

    Marcion’s Sun of God was embraced as the Creator by the founder of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, (which still exists and has its headquarters in Beirut) Antun Sa’adeh, a Greek Orthodox Syrian who spoke German and whose vision of Greater Syria was definitely influenced by German nationalist writings.
    They greet their leaders with a Hitlerian salute; sing their Arabic anthem, “Greetings to You, Syria” to the strains of “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles”; and throng to the symbol of the red hurricane (recall the band Johnny and the Hurricanes), a swastika in circular motion.

    His anti-Biblical, Marcionite-Pauline creationism found its expression in the party’s emblem on its flag. It shows a red zoub’a (whirl, cyclone, tempest), symbolizing strength and dynamism (Remember Galileo’s slogan Strength Causes Love?), which is nothing else but a variant of swastika, which was always the solar symbol.

    Sisyphus, Force 10 or the essence of the Biblical mathematics is coming next. Let’s help Jesus carry his gigantic cross across the heliocentric world.

    Roman Pytel

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 4, 2007 @ 3:53 pm | Reply

  1283. Thank you, Roman Pytel. Interesting.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 4, 2007 @ 4:38 pm | Reply

  1284. After all that….that’s all you can say Psycheout?

    Comment by La Mona — July 4, 2007 @ 5:38 pm | Reply

  1285. Thank you, Roman. If you give me permission, I’d like to post excerpts from one or more of your comments in refutation of Heliocentrism.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 5, 2007 @ 8:54 am | Reply

  1286. Sisyphus wrote: “At least speak Klingon. Then I’ll know you’re joking.”

    Here I generously provide a bit of Klingon as a statement of your attitude:
    “DIch jIH ‘oH the HochHom ignorant loD, je yImev ghaj a man’s yajtaHghach.”

    (A translation of Proverbs 30:2 “Surely I am more stupid than any man, and I do not have the understanding of a man.”)

    ================

    Now, get back to the subject. What about the proof I provided that Earth is spheroidal, not flat?

    Comment by Silverhill — July 5, 2007 @ 9:22 am | Reply

  1287. (Sorry about the untranslated words there; the project for translating the Bible into Klingon is not complete.)

    Comment by Silverhill — July 5, 2007 @ 9:27 am | Reply

  1288. “Now, get back to the subject. What about the proof I provided that Earth is spheroidal, not flat?”

    Any such “proof” flatly contradicts Scripture. As such, it is either misinterpreted or inaccurate, or acquired for reasons of dishonesty. It’s really as simple as that. Study your Bible, Silverhill. Study it with your heart and your mind and your soul, not just the cynical part of your brain that makes you want to shoot it down. Then you’ll understand.

    I have hope for you. You are in my prayers.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 5, 2007 @ 9:31 am | Reply

  1289. Permission granted, Sisyphus.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 5, 2007 @ 10:28 am | Reply

  1290. I wanted to use this opportunity for Sam to know that I am solidly behind his quest for the presidency and concur in the evils of heliocentricity.

    Dr. James Hobson
    Director, Focus on the Feebleminded

    Comment by DR. JIM HOBSON — July 5, 2007 @ 2:21 pm | Reply

  1291. Sisyphus wrote: “Any such “proof” flatly contradicts Scripture. As such, it is either misinterpreted or inaccurate, or acquired for reasons of dishonesty.”

    What do you do when your very eyes, and those of any other whom you could consult, and even non-biased, inanimate things such as cameras, contradict Scripture? The fact that distant mountains cannot be entirely seen from level ground is indisputable. Any holy book that would claim otherwise is at best wrong, at worst lying.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 5, 2007 @ 3:59 pm | Reply

  1292. P.S. —do you know why the “3-mile limit” was established for nations’ territorial waters?
    It’s because that’s about how far you can see (and therefore shoot accurately), even over smooth water. It’s not from any deficiency in one’s eyes, though, or for lack of transparency of the air (on a good day)—it’s because Earth’s surface curves down and away from one’s line of sight.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 5, 2007 @ 4:05 pm | Reply

  1293. “Any such “proof” flatly contradicts Scripture. As such, it is either misinterpreted or inaccurate, or acquired for reasons of dishonesty.”

    How is it that trained professionals and highly educated people MUST be wrong if YOUR interpretation of scripture is contradicted? Are you so arrogant to think that your interpretation of scripture is infallible?

    Comment by mattithyahu — July 5, 2007 @ 11:43 pm | Reply

  1294. Comment by “Scientist above:
    “Speaking of Osama, did you ever notice that OSAMA sounds awfully similar to OBAMA?”

    I agree with your comment. Have you ever noticed that BUSH sounds awfully similar to TUSH?

    Comment by fourbrick — July 6, 2007 @ 5:45 am | Reply

  1295. “Permission granted, Sisyphus.”

    Thank you!

    “I wanted to use this opportunity for Sam to know that I am solidly behind his quest for the presidency and concur in the evils of heliocentricity.”

    Good to hear it, Doctor.

    “P.S. —do you know why the “3-mile limit” was established for nations’ territorial waters?
    It’s because that’s about how far you can see (and therefore shoot accurately), even over smooth water. It’s not from any deficiency in one’s eyes, though, or for lack of transparency of the air (on a good day)—it’s because Earth’s surface curves down and away from one’s line of sight”

    If the Earth curved, it would do so way, way sooner than 3 miles. You’d be lucky to see 300 yards! Thanks for the fake scientific history lesson, though!

    “How is it that trained professionals and highly educated people MUST be wrong if YOUR interpretation of scripture is contradicted? Are you so arrogant to think that your interpretation of scripture is infallible?”

    Scripture is infallible. My interpretation merely follows the dogma.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 6, 2007 @ 10:07 am | Reply

  1296. “Scripture is infallible. My interpretation merely follows the dogma.”

    Scripture may be infallible, you and your interpretation are not. If that were the case then you cannot say anything against my interpretation that the scriptures do not suggest that the world is only 6000 years old.

    Comment by mattithyahu — July 6, 2007 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

  1297. “If the Earth curved, it would do so way, way sooner than 3 miles.”

    Prove it. (You can’t, however. Eratosthenes, in the 3rd century BCE, measured Earth’s circumference by simple trigonometry and got a figure very close to 25,000 miles. This was possible because the angle of the Sun to the vertical was different in different [level] places—which is impossible on a flat Earth. You lose.)
    ==========================

    “Scripture is infallible.”

    That which is self-contradictory cannot be infallible.
    “Prove self-contradiction,” you may well ask? Here’s just one example:

    Proverbs 4:7: Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

    1st Corinthians 1:19: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
    ——–
    So God advises people to become wise, then assures them that they shall be ruined if they do.
    Again, you lose. (You advise people to study the Bible; but clearly you haven’t done so—not properly and sufficiently.)

    Comment by Silverhill — July 6, 2007 @ 1:56 pm | Reply

  1298. Also, that which contains blatant errors of fact cannot be infallible: rabbits (hares) are not ruminants, and bats are not birds.
    These points have already been brought up here, and you have given no answers thereto (not even derogatory or “non sequitur”-type answers). I suppose from this that you have no answers—that your Scripture cannot help you here. Not a good situation for you, then, is it?

    Comment by Silverhill — July 6, 2007 @ 4:29 pm | Reply

  1299. […] The B4B post mentioned in the DenPo article, “Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine“, gets my vote for ”Post of the Year” (if there is such an award).  If you […]

    Pingback by The Denver Post Labels Pro-Brownback Blog As A “Spoof” « ChenZhen’s Chamber — July 6, 2007 @ 4:42 pm | Reply

  1300. It disturbs me greatly that there exist people, such as this person, that have been so thoroughly brainwashed and confused as to reject all logic entirely, whilst still containing the slight bit of intelligence and quietness of mind that is required to operate a computer.

    I would most certainly go through the entire post and debunk all of the so called “points of argument”, but I see that it has already been done for me, numerous times. And every time, Sysiphus (an ironic name, given the person behind the alias and the culture of which the name represents), has either resorted to blatant Ad Hominem attacks, uses of the straw man, repeating useless fallacous points verbatim that are completely irrelevant, or many other evasive tactics that no decent person would call argumentation as much as tactless cowardice.

    I do not wish to argue, as implied above, there is no point. I would just like you to know, that your efforts to make people aware of the “truth”, are wasted, as I doubt you have convinced a single person. I just would like to wish you a good life in hopes that your sanity will improve over time.

    Comment by Hello, I'm an atheist — July 7, 2007 @ 2:12 am | Reply

  1301. I seriously hope this is a joke. If this has been written in all seriousness, and there are actually people out there who are stupid enough to believe this than my faith in humanity has been seriously damaged. You need to be sterilized so you dont pollute the gene pool with whatever genetic disorder allows you to espouse this trash.

    Comment by Brandon — July 7, 2007 @ 7:53 am | Reply

  1302. Sorry for this being such a late reply

    “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.”

    Have you ever heard of a Terradactyl or a Sugar Glider?
    One is a Reptile, the other a Marsupial, neither birds, both with wings.
    Despite this you seem rather educated, yet in an unfortunate religious mindset.

    Also i would like to say it was not Einstein who created reletivity, but it was Galileo who created the idea of relativity, and this was in contradiction with Faraday’s idea of the speed of light(the speed at which electromagnetic waves need to propagate for them to work) would not work with relative velocity because this speed would need to be relative to some still point(note: you could use this as one of your arguments if you accepted scientific method) which was the either. Einstein ridded of this problem of the undetectable either by creating his idea of relativity, which used Galileo’s relativity, but factored in that time was not constant and therefor light can be traveling the same speed relative to everything.

    Relativity works for your argument, if only you could see how.
    Another proof(actualy proof is a bad for this)peice of information which leads to the belief of Einstein’s relativity is the effect speed has on time, clocks which have been put on jumbo jets(which are moving more than us on the ground) are found to be slow.

    You may thing thats a bunch of crud, and i probably didn’t explain it well.
    You may also call me an America Hating Atheist, but thats not true, I’m agnostic because i don’t know this is all true, nor do i know everything you say is false, because i have come to accept(unlike you) that there are things i may not ever know. I don’t hate America so much, its more that I hate many of the people in it.

    I keep and open mind on things people tell me, and yet still question what I’m told in all cases.
    But unless you can show me some hard evidence for your beliefs(other then biblical texts, which cannot be proved nor disproved) you’re arguments will not sway how i feel about the nature of the universe.
    Until you can become slightly more agnostic i wont get the pleasure of agreeing to disagree, instead you wont question what i say, instead i am just wrong.

    Comment by Richy — July 7, 2007 @ 8:13 am | Reply

  1303. sorry, that was far too big

    Comment by Richy — July 7, 2007 @ 8:18 am | Reply

  1304. My son sent me the link to ‘heliocentrism -is-an-atheist Doctrine’ as an ‘ issue I should get behind’ after I mentioned that I did not believe in global warming. We discussed the issue of global warming and the the ‘global freezing’ scare in the 70’s. Please be aware that life is very short , and best spent away from the computer and TV – that said, I’m off to feed the chickens and finish my latest painting,
    regards,
    Barbara Smock, Hardy, Arkansas

    Comment by Barbara Smock — July 7, 2007 @ 9:34 am | Reply

  1305. It fails to take human nature into consideration. Greed, jealousy, and the prejudices and grievances pre-existing this wonderful new social order it promises are likewise disregarded.

    ahaha so funny, you say this and yet you also beleive this

    “God created man in his image”
    this is an image of man you have given, i think you can work from there

    Comment by Richy — July 7, 2007 @ 11:45 am | Reply

  1306. Oh, I am amused at you American fundamentalists. You deny yourselves the true pleasures in life, you deny the truth of real, honest, scientific FACT. You are just scared of your DEATH and the oblivion that it holds and feel that it is your task to make a misery of those who do not follow your extremist and hateful views of life. Christians are merely misled Jews. The Bible is a book. What is it that forces you to have such strong belief in something as insubstantial as spoken and written word that is thousands of years old? What makes the Bible any more true than the teachings of Islam or perhaps the most ancient of modern world religions, Hinduism?

    Aside from that, your extremist and spiteful views and oppinions and obvious dislike of any who are not like you sicken me. Your ignorance towards Europe, your ancestral lands, sickens me. To accuse Europe of harbouring terrorism is a disgusting mistruth.

    And no, I don’t deny the existance of a superior being to us, but putting my faith in a book that claims a God who demands our attention and nothing else does not appeal to me as a concrete foundation for my life.

    Comment by A European — July 7, 2007 @ 2:25 pm | Reply

  1307. Two other fun facts stated by the bible.

    1. The Earth is flat.
    2. Pi = 3

    1. The Earth is not flat. You can view pictures of it, or if you wish, you can go to an ocean, hold a ruler up to the horizon and plainly see that the Earth is very much round.

    2. Hahaha, are you joking?

    Maybe if you put a few more fallacies in your argument people might start to listen more.

    Comment by Alex — July 7, 2007 @ 6:16 pm | Reply

  1308. 1289: As such, it is either misinterpreted or inaccurate, or acquired for reasons of dishonesty.
    >False trichotomy.

    1298: If the Earth curved, it would do so way, way sooner than 3 miles. You’d be lucky to see 300 yards! Thanks for the fake scientific history lesson, though!
    >Explain the thing about 300 yards. You seem to be trying to use an appeal to ridicule.

    1308: Maybe if you put a few more fallacies in your argument people might start to listen more.
    >It’s not helping. It just creates a big mess where no one wants to sort things out so that the real ideas are revealed.

    Comment by lietk12 — July 7, 2007 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  1309. It’s things like this that make glad I’m not a Republican anymore, and ashamed that I’m a Christian.

    Comment by Tim — July 7, 2007 @ 9:45 pm | Reply

  1310. Alex wrote, with respect to the notion that the Bible implies that pi = 3: “Hahaha, are you joking?”

    1 Kings 7:23 [describing the furnishings of Solomon’s temple] He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

    The circumference would be in excess of thirty-one cubits (31.4…, you know) unless pi were magically 3 instead of 3.14159+. The only way that this passage can be “rescued” is to say that the circumference was stated only approximately. But that would mean that there was a datum in the Bible that was not exactly true. Oh wait, that should be “yet another inexact Biblical datum….”

    Comment by Silverhill — July 7, 2007 @ 11:55 pm | Reply

  1311. Why didn’t “God” simply include photographic evidence in the bible to make his point. I thought he was omnipotent? Much easier to understand and get a point across thru photography: some nice artistic black & whites, some mood lighting, works for National Geographic – as it would seem some people have trouble with owning up to the fact there’s a difference between 3 (not Pi) and 3.14159+ (Pi), thereby showing that the bible is wrong!

    I wanna see photos of Moses with the ten commandments 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 9, 2007 @ 5:59 am | Reply

  1312. Every single one of the biblical literalists in America are going to hell… and by their own definition.

    The Old Testament strictly states that one cannot wear more than one type of fibre, on pain of death. I am 100 percent sure that every person in North America at one point in time wore at least two kinds of fibres. Therefore, unless they wear only one kind of fibre and never, EVER work on the Sabbath (whatever day THAT is, by the way), these guys are all false hypocrites who simply pick and choose what to believe based on what’s convenient for them. “Homosexuality is a deadly sin? OK! Wearing two fibre types is a sin?? We-elll, we’ll just ignore that little part for now ;-)”

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 9, 2007 @ 12:51 pm | Reply

  1313. “That which is self-contradictory cannot be infallible.”

    The self-contradiction is your misinterpretation.

    “So God advises people to become wise, then assures them that they shall be ruined if they do. Again, you lose. (You advise people to study the Bible; but clearly you haven’t done so—not properly and sufficiently.)”

    There are different kinds of wisdom. The good wisdom pleases God, the bad kind displeases Him. It’s analogous to science- true science is a noble endeavour, evil science teaches children to embrace Heliocentrism, monkeys, and Karl Marx.

    “Also, that which contains blatant errors of fact cannot be infallible: rabbits (hares) are not ruminants, and bats are not birds.”

    Yes they are. The Bible says so.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 9, 2007 @ 10:13 pm | Reply

  1314. Richy and Barbara Smock both read like spoofs to me.

    “Explain the thing about 300 yards. You seem to be trying to use an appeal to ridicule.”

    Liberal judges are ridiculous, but I certainly wouldn’t appeal to them on questions of Scripture. What are you driving at?

    “It’s things like this that make glad I’m not a Republican anymore, and ashamed that I’m a Christian.”

    If you aren’t a conservative Republican anymore, then you certainly can’t be a true Christian anymore either. But take heart- you’ll come back to us one day.

    “The circumference would be in excess of thirty-one cubits (31.4…, you know) unless pi were magically 3 instead of 3.14159+. The only way that this passage can be “rescued” is to say that the circumference was stated only approximately. But that would mean that there was a datum in the Bible that was not exactly true. Oh wait, that should be “yet another inexact Biblical datum….”

    The secularists and Freudians would describe your condition as schizophrenia, but the Bible just says you have a demon. I will pray for you, friend, and in God’s good time you will one day be cured of this madness.

    “Why didn’t “God” simply include photographic evidence in the bible to make his point. I thought he was omnipotent? Much easier to understand and get a point across thru photography:”

    Knowing you moonbats, you’d say He faked the photos. No amount of proof will satisfy those of hardened heart and stiffened neck. It’s like Jesus said, “If they won’t listen to the Laws of Moses, they won’t listen even if the dead rise from the grave.”

    “The Old Testament strictly states that one cannot wear more than one type of fibre, on pain of death. I am 100 percent sure that every person in North America at one point in time wore at least two kinds of fibres. Therefore, unless they wear only one kind of fibre and never, EVER work on the Sabbath (whatever day THAT is, by the way), these guys are all false hypocrites who simply pick and choose what to believe based on what’s convenient for them.”

    Fortunately, Jesus offers us the opportunity of repentance. God has forgiven me my sins, all of them.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 9, 2007 @ 10:28 pm | Reply

  1315. me: “…rabbits (hares) are not ruminants, and bats are not birds.”

    Sisyphus: “Yes they are. The Bible says so.”

    Show us the four-chambered stomach of a rabbit, then. Show us the feathers of a bat, or its nucleated erythrocytes. Show us the evidence for your claims—and the Bible is ineligible for such showing, because no circularly asserted authority is trustable.
    Show independent, neutral support for your notions; then you, and maybe even [parts of] the Bible might be believable. Until then, you merely reaffirm the notion that you are at best a fool.
    Know ye this: the willful refusal to acknowledge simple reality is a hallmark of insanity. And you dare label others insane? Or even demonically possessed (without offering proof of the fantastic notion of demons)?
    You joke here [I believe], but do you realize that we’re laughing at you, rather than with you?
    ===============

    I again note that I have offered several simple proofs about the nature of Earth (e.g. its shape and its rotation), but … you yourself wrote: “No amount of proof will satisfy those of hardened heart and stiffened neck.”
    May I suggest that you un-harden your heart and un-stiffen your neck? There is much to learn in this complex and wonderful universe, if you will but open your mind.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 10, 2007 @ 2:41 am | Reply

  1316. Show us the four-chambered stomach of a rabbit, then. Show us the feathers of a bat, or its nucleated erythrocytes.”

    These arbitrary pseudoscientific distinctions have no bearing on the Scriptural analyses that underlie all genuine scientific knowledge. You might as well mosey into neurology school and start haranguing the professors for not incorporating phrenology into their lesson plans. That’s about how little your anti-Biblical heliocentric and zoological “sciences” are worth.

    You joke here [I believe], but do you realize that we’re laughing at you, rather than with you?”

    You have little will remaining, independent of the controlling demons. They make you laugh in the physical sense, but I know that your souls are truly in anguish. Repent, for the end is near. Demons will soon tire of their mortal playthings, but God will yet be clement to those remanding their souls into His care.

    “May I suggest that you un-harden your heart and un-stiffen your neck? There is much to learn in this complex and wonderful universe, if you will but open your mind.”

    …And let the demons in. Get thee behind me, Satan!

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 10, 2007 @ 4:56 am | Reply

  1317. […] technological wonder of the internet to find users who angrily deny the science that underlies it. Religious fundamentalists, reactionary conservatives, and mentally disturbed individuals have a particular loathing for […]

    Pingback by EPISTLE TO DIPPY « Teahouse of the Furious Buddha — July 10, 2007 @ 9:04 am | Reply

  1318. This is the sort of rigor to which biblical thought should be subjected! But I have a problem:

    You begin by mentioning the concept of inertial reference frames, which let us choose to view the Earth as a stationary fixed point in relation to the rest of the universe.

    And sure, it’s inherent to the notion of reference frames, that you can pick any point in the universe and declare it as ‘static’, and compute the movements of everything around it. But this point doesn’t necessarily need to be anywhere particular in the universe.

    And then you state with regards to the Earth’s movement:

    ” If it moved, we would feel it moving. ”

    But that’s not necessarily the case, is it? When you sit on a train in the dark it can be impossible to tell whether or not you are moving….

    Comment by mcfie — July 10, 2007 @ 10:10 am | Reply

  1319. “But that’s not necessarily the case, is it? When you sit on a train in the dark it can be impossible to tell whether or not you are moving….”

    Sure, if you’re blind, deaf, and suffering from total body paralysis.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 10, 2007 @ 1:16 pm | Reply

  1320. Let’s put it very simply for you.

    Wave your hand quickly through the air; you’ll feel a (relative) breeze.
    Now, move your hand very slowly through the air–say, at ten inches per minute. You won’t feel the breeze anymore (though there still is one) because your senses do not have that kind of resolution.

    There are real phenomena that are too subtle for human senses to grasp, including, say, the movement of energy through the wires in your computer. The fact that these phenomena are imperceptible to humans does not cause them to be unreal.

    A motion that is too slow to feel (such as that of Earth’s turning) is not unreal. If you think that human perception is the only useful measuring stick, then—well, you’d better not look at optical illusions, or you’d think that parallel lines (in a Euclidean plane) really do bend inward or outward in some cases.
    (Also, if you think that “man is the measure of all things”, you’ve got a serious hubris problem!)

    Comment by Silverhill — July 10, 2007 @ 2:24 pm | Reply

  1321. Mathematics of the Zoo-Theology

    In very early times great respect was paid to baboon; and the simple-minded Egyptian, when he heard him chattering just before the sunrise and sunset, assumed that he was in some way holding converse or was intimately connected with the sun god.

    In Phaidros Plato and Socrates declare that “He (Toth, the Egyptian baboon-shaped god of wisdom) was who invented numbers and arithmetic and geometry…” Aristotle also argued that the Egyptians had created the caste system and hence “Egypt was the cradle of mathematics because the caste of priests were given great leisure.” According to him, the priests had invented the mathematikai technai (mathematical arts), which included geometry, arithmetic and astronomy, which the Greeks were beginning to possess. These priests spent most of their time squaring circles to find out the value of the number π.

    With time, Thoth evolved into a human and under his Greek name Hermes Trismegistus wrote a book entitled Hermetica which, became the inspiration for all subsequent heliocentrists including early Church Fathers and Copernicus. Hermes became an icon in many Roman churches; one of them should be mentioned here. It was painted by Giovanni di Stefano in 1488 for the Cathedral of Siena; its stylized frame is made of swastikas, the solar symbol since time immemorial. Let me remind here that Adolf Hitler who for a period of time resided at Lambach Abbey in Austria, first saw the swastika symbol on the Abbey’s exterior decorations.

    In 1838 Charles Darwin wrote: “Origin of man now proved…He who understands baboon would do more toward metaphysics than Locke.” Heliocentrism and evolutionism converge in the baboon-shaped god Thoth.

    Palestinian history textbook teach: “Moses and his followers wandered in the desert; they were not endowed with any scientific or artistic talents and made no cultural achievements whatsoever…” Because they did not belong to the leisure class they could not have science.

    Using the words of the Psalmist, the founding fathers of the modern astronomy and their Palestinian admirers: “Set their mouth against the Heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth. And they say how God knows. And is there knowledge in the Eternal God?” (Ps. 73:9-11).

    They recognized the God of the Bible as a liar and ignoramus because He taught: “When you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon, and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing them or serving them” (Dt. 4:9)

    Behind the scholastic equivalence of light and matter which gives rise to the “world machine” (machina mundi) by plurifying itself was the concept of the philosophers who speculated that all things were composed of atoms and who said that bodies were composed of surfaces, and surfaces of lines, and lines of points, like in Galileo’s Book of Nature But since there is no reality to a mathematical point or line, except when they are being conceptualized as such the world of Euclid belongs to the same category as the world of Platonic ideas; though merely mental, they were the ultimate objects, of which the visible and tangible objects of the world were only pale shadows. And that’s exactly what the Indian yogis dismissed contemptuously as the illusory realm of maya. In the Eastern view, searching for some kind of reality, either in the physical world (prakriti) or in the rational mind (manas) is a sheer waste of time, since they are both ultimately unreal – “phantom figures” in Omar Khayyam’s heliocentric rubayat. We are such stuff as dreams are made of (Shakespeare)

    The Buddhist aims at pure consciousness with no object in sight, which is practically synonymous with sunya (this sunya is the conditio sine qua non for the Newton gravity to work), the void. The Buddha merely stressed the sole reality of nirvana, which the Germans translate as Nullpunkt.The Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu are the cornerstones of the Taoist tradition and in them we find the initial identification of Nonbeing (Big Bang’s starting point) with the source of all things.

    In other places, the preferred term is wu (in Japanese, mu), commonly translated as “Nonbeing”. Chuang Tzu, in effect, made Nonbeing an equivalent for the absolute Tao, a kind of absolute void. The principles of this nihilistic ontology are mirrored in Hindu mathematics which evolved into a mature place-value system promoting to full membership of a tenth numeral a round symbol for zero (graphic representation of point) or sunya, as the Hindus called it. Confusion about the status of this mysterious numeral persisted for centuries, and as late as the 15th century it was described as “a symbol that merely causes trouble and lack of clarity.”

    How, it was asked, could a symbol, which means “nothing”, when placed after another numeral, enhance its value tenfold? The problem finds its solution in the philosophical theory of a “coincidence of opposites”, that is identification of elements that are mutually exclusive in ordinary logic. The goal of introspection is to overcome the intellectual “opposites”; the being arises in the context of non-being; man is a walking corpse, as a Russian proverb says. The Buddhist concept was known as dhrama-dhatus pratitya-samupada, which translates as “the interdependent arising of the universe”: things are said to have “emptiness” and “fullness of emptiness” at the same time.

    According to Max Muller “the two words ‘cipher’ and ‘zero,’ are in reality but one. Cipher is the Arabic sifr, and means empty, a translation of the Sanskrit name of the nought sunya. The Arabs had their figures from Hindustan, and never claimed the discovery for themselves. In Boethius’s Geometry, composed in the sixth century, we find the Pythagorean numerals the 1 and the nought, as the first and final cipher.

    Consider James Jeans’ description of the universe of relativity as the four-dimensional surface of a cosmic sphere of which the inside is made of “empty space welded onto empty time.” The Puranas insist on the identity of Vishnu with Time and Space. And Vishnu, like Chuang Tzu’s absolute Tao, is a kind of absolute void. The Jewish Pythagoreans or kabbalists recognized numbers as prima materia. Their “Genesis” proclaimed: In the beginning nothing (zero) blew up. Amen!

    Accordingly, the modern heliocentrists believe that the world we see and experience in everyday life is simply a convenient mirage attuned to our very limited sense, an illusion conjured by our perceptions and our mind. All that is around us, which appears so substantial, is ultimately nothing but ephemeral networks of particle-waves whirling around at light speed – so called matter is mostly emptiness, void of anything except occasional dots and spots! And scattered electric charges. If all the nuclei of all atoms that make up the whole of mankind were packed together, their global aggregate would be the size of a large grain of rice. But that “grain of rice” devours daily two billion eggs, 1.6 million tons of corn, 727,000 tons of potatoes, 365,000 tons of rice, and the “favoured races” of the world enjoy 2.7 tons of caviar in Moscow’s restaurants! That’s how the heliocentric magic works!

    The Bible follows Israel’s 12 memorial stones from the temporarily dry bed of the Jordan (Josh 4:19) to a place called Gilgal and then loses track of them forever. The word ‘gilgal’ means ‘a circle of stone’, and throughout Europe and the Mideast, “circles of large stones have been found dating back a quarter million years or more, to homo erectus times.” The most famous stone circle is Stonehenge. Stonehenge well corresponds to Diodorus’s description of a “magnificent temple of Apollo” which he locates “in the center of Britain.” At that time the British had already their first homo erectus, I don’t know, if male or female, or maybe both evolved simultaneously!

    Sar (circle) is the Babylonian god of the sky. He is also Assaros or Asshur (the son of Shem), and Zero — Zero-ana, the chakkra, or wheel, boundless time. The god Aten, or the Egyptian counterpart of the Nordic Odin (Wotan) had originally represented merely the physical sun, but Amenhotep stripped that body of all the gross theological conceptions which had been linked with it ever since the Pyramid Age endowed it with a new esoteric meaning. The ancient symbols of Ra – the pyramid, the falcon, the lion and cat- he replaced by a simple CIRCLE representing the sun’s disk. Since then, as Plato observed, god was always geometrizing writing for Galileo the Book of Nature. (“Philosophy is written in that very large book that is continually opened before our eyes (I mean the universe), but which is not understood unless first one studies the language and knows the characters in which it is written. The language of that book is mathematical and the characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures.” Galileo Galilei: Pensieri, motti e sentenze; Florence, 1949) The Hindu Vishnu holds a disc or a rounded piece of gold in his hand. The Egyptian Ra wears a disc as a crown.

    The chakra (wheel) represented the sun in early Vedic ceremonies. With the wheeling planets overhead and the circumference of the horizon, the cosmos of the ancients must have seemed obviously circular. Life in the cosmos was created, and maintained, by the balance of opposing forces – male and female, day and night, heat and cold, good and evil, attraction and repulsion (coincidence of opposites ). Such ideas as this concerning the nature of the universe were summarized in the “wheel of life”. To this diagram of cosmic principles, must be added a concept which seems, almost visibly, to set the cosmic circle to revolving like a wheel. This is the idea, present in Sanskrit, Pali, and Greek, that life occurs in an endless cycle of rebirths.

    No wonder then that the Hebrews destroyed the circles of stones that stood for this solar theology also known by its Greek term anakuklesis. The phoenix-like character of matter reborn from its “ashes” was “proved” by the Soviet physicist A. Sakharov in his dogma of the “solar phoenix”, or strictly materialistic principle of the “spontaneous resurrection of energy (The Hindu term brahma means energy) such as takes place in the sun’s core.”

    Math has drawn its strength from “imaginary” or, more properly speaking, absolutely inconceivable magnitudes known as irrational numbers. Among them there is a large number of the most important quantities that constantly occur in all calculations, e.g. the square roots of most numbers, the relation of the diagonals to the side of a square, of the diameter of a circle to its circumference. There is an acute remark of Goethe’s: “He who devotes himself to nature attempts to find the squaring of the circle.” Like the above mentioned Egyptian priests. In fact, it is the religious ritual imposed on all mathematician again by the sacred books of the Hindu religion.

    In the Rig-Vedas, every male head of a family was obliged to perform, every day, certain acts of worship known as purvas. For this purpose he had to set up in his house three kinds of fire, protecting his house and the fires by placing them in altars of special design. The fires were known as Dakshina, Garhapatya and Ahavaneeya. The altars, intended to shield the fires, had to be built to design plans, which related them to each other in shape and area. For example, the problem might be to construct square altar equal in area to a given circular altar. This insoluble problem was “solved” by regarding the latter as a polygon with an “infinite” number of sides, all therefore infinitely small.

    De Morgan in his book Budget of Paradoxes (1872) suggested the term ‘morbus cyclometricus’ as being the ‘circle squaring disease.’ De Morgan tried to persuade these circlesquarers that their methods were incorrect.

    “It is almost unbelievable that a definition of π was used, at least as an excuse, for a racial attack on the eminent mathematician Edmund Landau in 1934. Landau had defined π in his textbook published in Gőttingen in that year by the, now fairly usual, method of saying that π/2 is the value of x between 1 and 2 for which cos x vanishes. This unleashed an academic dispute, which was to end in Landau’s dismissal from his chair at Gőttingen. Bierbach, an eminent number theorist who disgraced himself by his racist views, explains the reasons for Landau’s dismissal: – Thus the valiant rejection by the Gőttingen student body which a great mathematician, Edmund Landau, has experienced is due in the final analysis to the fact that the un-German style of this man in his research and teaching is unbearable to German feelings. A people who have perceived how members of another race are working to impose ideas foreign to its own must refuse teachers of an alien culture.” (A history of Pi, http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uc/~history/HistTopics/Pi_through_the_ages.html)

    A Christian sermon that has survived from the mid-fifth century called On The Trinity quotes in profusion the words of the Pagan gods. The doctrine of the trinity probably derives from sacred geometry: “the transcendental number” π is hidden within the circle, a symbol of the All and so of God.” The un-German style of Edmund Landau was that his value of π had nothing to do with the revelation of pagan gods but was rather inspired by the Biblical value of this number which is 3. (1 Kings 7: 23 and II Chronicles 4:2 )

    According to modern mathematician it is “not a very accurate value and not even very accurate in its day, for the Egyptian and Mesopotamian values of 25/8 = 3.125 and √10=3.162 have been traced to much earlier dates. Well, if you want to make a circle you simply choose the length of radius not a particular value of π, which is irrelevant. Only when one has to define a trajectory of a planet one uses a particular value of this number, which makes all cosmological speculations very imprecise (the date of equinox, which, according to Gregorian mathematics, was to fall forever on March 21 moved to March 18 these days. On this date, day and night are nearly of the same length)

    A mantra of the heliocentric astronomy proclaims: “Halley working in Newton’s program, calculated on the basis of observing a brief stretch of a comet’s path that it would return in 72-years’ time; he calculated to the minute when it would be seen again at a well-defined point of the sky. 72 years later, Halley’s comet returned exactly as Halley predicted.” Did it really? Halley predicted the return of his comet in 1758, but, according to Chinese and European records, the comet returned in March of 1759. Then the Halley’s comet returned in 1910, or 3.5 years earlier than predicted.

    Indeed, every return of this comet brought significant changes with it, for instance, in 1986, declining from all previous orbits, this comet appeared in the Southern Hemisphere. The confusion of the Soviet scientists is mirrored in an article published in the journal Astronomiya i Astrofizika (1989) whose authors argued that “the motions of Halley’s comet are chaotic” and that “the model of its motions is not determined!” In political terms it meant an earthquake. On Oct. 4, 1957 when the first sputnik was launched from the Soviet Union, the Soviet scientists assured that its speed and trajectory were calculated using Newton’s Laws, the same laws that Halley used to calculate the trajectory of his comet. The nauseating prostitution of Soviet scientists to the immoral aims of their state seems to be overcome.

    There is a different kind of thinking behind the Biblical value of π. When one cuts a circumference and straightens it one obtains a finite line segment not a segment of transcendental (infinite) length.

    In The Annotated Alice (1970), Martin Gardner suggests that Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass are games for grown-up scientists: “It is only because adult – scientists and mathematicians in particular – continue to relish the Alice books that they are assured of immortality.” If modern scientists keep the Alice books alive, they do so because Dodgson’s oscillation between symbolic logic and bizarre fictional games anticipates a central theme of modern science.

    The ‘paradox’ of circlesquaring matches Zeno’s paradox of the dichotomy as described by Aristotle: There is no motion because that which is moved must arrive at the middle of its course before it arrives at the end. In other words, in order to traverse a line segment it is necessary to reach its midpoint. To do this one must reach the ¼ point, to do this one must reach 1/8 point and so on ad infinitum. And thus, furtively, Zeno transformed a finite line segment into a transcendental i.e. infinite line. Behind Zeno’s clever trick lies the assumption that if a magnitude can be divided then it can be divided infinitely.

    Zeno’s paradoxes were his answer to the Pythagorean dogma proclaiming that extended physical bodies are composed of nonextended mathematical point (cp. the Big Bang dogma in which a point of matter is expanding into infinity, like Lenin’s electron) Zeno argued that everything in the universe is both infinitely large and has no size at all. The infinite divisibility of any physical body regardless of size means that it is composed of an infinite number of elements and thus is infinitely large. On the other hand, the body has no size at all because no number of nonextended units can produce an extended body. Influenced by Zeno’s speculations Lenin, nearly hundred years ago, said in his book Materialism and Empiriocriticism that “the electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite…”

    We have two different opinions on Zeno’s impact in history of mathematics. B.L. van der Waerden argues that the mathematical theories which were developed in the second half of the 5th century suggest that Zeno’s work had little influence. Heath, however, seems to detect a greater influence: Mathematicians, however, … realizing that Zeno’s arguments were fatal to infinitesimals (Newton infinitesimal calculus!), saw that they could avoid the difficulties connected with them by once and for all banishing the idea of the infinite, even the potentially infinite, altogether from their science; thenceforth, therefore, they made no use of magnitudes increasing or decreeing ad infinitum, but connected themselves with finite magnitudes that can be made as great or as small as we please.” Which is exactly what the Biblical authors and the above mentioned mathematician Landau did. In the Confucian geocentric lore π=3, like in the Bible.

    It took more than two thousand years in order that the learned world could understand the deeper meaning of the Biblical mathematics. In Lobachevskian hyperbolic space the circumference of a circle is larger than 2 π times the radius. Accordingly, the state of Louisiana in 1897 enacted a law setting the legal value of π at 4. In Riemannian elliptical space the circumference of a circle is always smaller than 2 π times its radius. Accordingly, a Tennessee legislator suggested the value be legally fixed at 3, exactly like in the Hebrew Bible.

    To the Pythagoreans it was the pentagonal geometry that was sacred. We may speculate that this was because the whole of this geometry was ruled by Φ, a symbol of perfection, which appears to have been honored with the status of god. Exactly, like Π is, by a multitude of mathematicians. Contrary to Newton’s speculations, Jesus did not pray, Our Π who art in Heaven… So, it came as no surprise that Brazil’s statue of Jesus made the cut for the seven, new wonders of the world and the sun god Apollo’s “magnificent temple” at Stonehenge did not.
    Roman Pytel

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 10, 2007 @ 3:18 pm | Reply

  1322. Roman Pytel wrote: “When one cuts a circumference and straightens it one obtains a finite line segment not a segment of transcendental (infinite) length.”

    You need to check the definition of “transcendental number”. It is the category of irrational numbers for which no equations can be written; they can only be expressed as the sums of infinite series.
    This is entirely different from “being infinite”, however. Transcendental numbers are just as finite as 1, 0, 1/2, etc.
    ==============

    “There is a different kind of thinking behind the Biblical value of π.”

    Yes: approximate thinking, or else erroneous thinking.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 10, 2007 @ 3:53 pm | Reply

  1323. […] The first time I landed over at blogs4brownback.wordpress.com it was to read the now infamous heliocentrism post. On the initial pass, I laughed. That is until I realized Sisyphus was serious. I truly thought it […]

    Pingback by And I Thought I Was Lunatic Fringe… « The Cloud of Unknowing — July 10, 2007 @ 7:10 pm | Reply

  1324. ABAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    ….AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Comment by Severedscythe — July 11, 2007 @ 8:29 pm | Reply

  1325. Wow. Your stupidity made me laugh, astonished, and sympathetic towards you.

    I really hope that you at least take a basic science class at a local community college. Just so you will know more about the subject matter you are attacking. I mean look it at this way, you’ll have more information to attack! I highly suggest it. 😉 Now go out there kiddo and spread that hatred! I’m sure everyone will appreciate your effort! 😀

    Comment by Non-Extremist — July 11, 2007 @ 10:08 pm | Reply

  1326. Roman Pytel wrote: “T[h]oth, the Egyptian baboon-shaped god of wisdom”

    No, Thoth usually had the head of an ibis (but he was also depicted as a dog-headed ape, when in Duat, the Egyptian underworld; he only sometimes had the shape of a baboon). Also, Thoth was not only the god of wisdom, but of magic, the measurement and regulation of events, time, and writing; he also participated in the judging of the dead.
    Check your reference works before spouting off.
    ================

    Sisyphus wrote: “You might as well mosey into neurology school and start haranguing the professors for not incorporating phrenology into their lesson plans.”

    No, because those people who were willing to learn about the world—scientists—came to realize that phrenology was nonsense, so it was discarded. We’ve learned, Sisyphus, and by learning we have progressed. Take the hint.
    ==========

    Sisyphus: “These arbitrary pseudoscientific distinctions have no bearing on the Scriptural analyses that underlie all genuine scientific knowledge.”

    You’re apparently not familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
    “The No True Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

    “This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.”
    =============

    I: “if you will but open your mind.”

    Sisyphus: “…And let the demons in.”

    So, closed-mindedness is to be counted a virtue? (Whether or not there are demons—which you have still not demonstrated. I say that it is because you cannot.)

    Comment by Silverhill — July 12, 2007 @ 2:51 am | Reply

  1327. Of course close-mindedness is a virtue to him. It makes life a whole lot easier when you don’t have to learn anything at all, and where all problems can be resolved by “I’m right, you’re a moonbat! HA HA HA!”.

    Plus, this entire site is one big parody (though they deny it). Want proof? Ask Gaines-Crockett why her name is copyrighted, and why the license agreement to this blog explicitly states that the site is a parody and not factual.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 12, 2007 @ 4:56 pm | Reply

  1328. Sixty-Seven Scriptural References
    Which Tell Us That It Is The Sun
    And Not The Earth That Moves

    Genesis 15:12….. “…and when the sun was going down…”
    15:17….. “… when the sun went down…”
    19:23….. “The sun was risen upon the earth.”
    28:11….. “… because the sun was set….”
    32:31….. “… the sun rose….”
    Exodus 17:12….. “… until the going down of the sun….”
    22:3…… “… if the sun be risen upon him….”
    22:26…. “…the sun goeth down….”
    Leviticus 22:7…… “…And when the sun is down….”
    Numbers 2:3…….. “…toward the rising of the sun….”
    Deuteronomy 11:30….. “…the way where the sun goeth down….”
    16:6……. “…at the going down of the sun….”
    23:11….. “…when the sun is down….”
    24:13….. “…when the sun goeth down….”
    24:15….. “…neither shall the sun go down….”
    Joshua 1:4….. “…the going down of the sun….”
    8:29… “…as soon as the sun was down….”
    10:12.. “…Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon….”
    10:13.. “…and the sun stood still….”
    10:27.. “…the time of the going down of the sun….”
    12:1…. “…toward the rising of the sun….”
    Judges 5:31…. “…as the sun when he goeth down….”
    8:13…. “…before the sun was up….”
    9:33…. “…as soon as the sun is up….”
    14:18…. “…before the sun went down….”
    19:14…. “…and the sun went down….”
    II Samuel 2:24…. “…the sun went down….”
    3:35…. “…till the sun be down….”
    23:4….. “…when the sun riseth….”
    I Kings 22:36…. “…the going down of the sun….”
    I Chronicles 16:30…. “…the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved….”
    II Chronicles 18:34…. “…time of the sun going down….”
    Job 9:7…. “…commandeth the sun and it riseth not….”
    Job 26:7…. “…He hangeth the earth upon nothing….”
    Psalm 19:4…. “…tabernacle for the sun….”
    19:5 … “…cometh out to run….”
    19:6…. “…goes forth in a circle from one end of heaven to the other….”
    50:1…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
    93:1…. “…the world also is stablished that it cannot be moved….”
    104:19.. “…the sun knoweth his going down….”
    104:22.. “…the sun ariseth….”
    113:3…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
    Ecclesiastes 1:5…. “…The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down
    and hasteth to the place where he arose….”
    Isaiah 13:10…. “…sun shall be darkened in his going….”
    38:8…… “…is gone down on the sundial of Ahaz….”
    38:8…… “…so the sun returned….”
    41:25…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
    45:6…… “…from the rising of the sun….”
    59:19…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
    60:20…. “…the sun shall no more go down….”
    Jeremiah 15:9…. “…her sun is gone down while it was yet day….”
    Daniel 6:14…. “…going down of the sun….”
    Amos 8:9…. “…cause the sun to go down at noon….”
    Jonah 4:8…. “…when the sun did arise….”
    Micah 3:6…. “…and the sun shall go down….”
    Nahum 3:17…. “…when the sun ariseth….”
    Habakkuk 3:11…. “…the sun and moon stood still in their habitation….”
    Malachi 1:11…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
    Matthew 5:45…. “…for He maketh His sun to rise….”
    13:6….. “…and when the sun was up….”
    Mark 1:32…. “…when the sun did set….”
    4:6…… “…when the sun was up….”
    16:2…… “…at the rising of the sun….”
    Luke 4:40…. “…when the sun was setting….”
    Ephesians 4:26…. “…let not the sun go down upon your wrath….”
    James 1:11…. “…for the sun is no sooner risen….”
    That is a Total of 67 Verses from the Bible Which Say
    that It Is the Sun that Moves and Not the Earth!
    *******************
    # of Verses from the Bible Which Say
    that It Is the Earth that Moves and Not the Sun:
    0
    ***********************
    Will You…your Preacher…your Church Boldly
    Stand With The Bible on this Creationist Teaching??
    In the Biblical Creation there was, after all,
    no sun for the earth to go around
    until the fourth day!
    (Genesis 1:14-19)
    *******
    http://www.fixedearth.com/ – 24k –
    PEACE BE WITH YOU
    MICKY

    Comment by Micky — July 13, 2007 @ 4:17 am | Reply

  1329. Tyler Durden wrote (#932):

    “Ahem, would this be the same “One True God” that inspired Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2 which erroneously states that Pi equals 3.0 when in fact Pi equals 3.14159 (recurring)*, something even the ancient Egyptians knew.
    Wow, I guess he *does* move in mysterious ways. I reckon that was a deliberate mistake, just to test us? Keep us on our toes, yeah? Or maybe they simply misheard this “One True God”, he should’ve spoken up or engraved them on a stone tablet for all to see!!
    Well, least we have science to depend on, this “One True God” fella sounds very unreliable – just look at the book of Genesis for starters!!”

    In Acts 7:22 we read: “And Moses was educated in all the science and learning of the Egyptians.”We also learn from other authors that Moses was indebted for his knowledge to the mother of the Egyptian princess, Thermuthis. And yet Moses and all those who followed him had chosen to ignore the Egyptian science!
    Not only regarding the sacred geometry with its value of pi but also the Egyptian teachings about human anatomy.

    All parts of human body are mentioned in the Torah, excepting the spleen. There is no word in the Hebrew Bible denoting such an organ. The scientists impressed by Copernicus’s mathematics would conclude that the Biblical author ignorant of the real structure of the Universe did not possess the sure knowledge of human body either.

    Well, Charles S. Finch III, M.D. in his paper Science and Symbol in Egyptian Medicine: Commentaries on the Edwin Smith Papyrus mentions the Egyptian term denoting spleen: nnshm. Moses rejected the Egyptian value of pi for the same reason for which the Israelites destroyed the circles of stones with their barbaric ritual of sacrificing first-born children to the sun god. Regarding the spleen I will tell here only this, we would be much better off if we payed closer attention to the Biblical medicine.

    Tyler, the Biblical value of pi was, indeed, engraved in a large metal bowl or the “molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, and a line of thirty cubits which did encompass it round about” which gives value of pi 3.

    Now, why don’t you build a monument commemorating forever the value of pi which was revealed by the true and noble god, maybe Zeus, who used to kidnap beautiful boys like Ganymed for homosexual pleasures called orgasms of light.

    Here is a tip, currently, the record for calculating pi is 51 billion digits and still counting because the decimal expansion of pi is nonterminating since only rational numbers have terminating decimal expansion. Thus, there really is no “last digit” (or last dance) in pi. I suggest, you start with the Great Wall of China as a part of your monument and after that you could go up to the stars and into infinity. Good Luck, Tyler!

    *Tyler, if by ‘recurring’ you mean ‘repeating’, please, keep in mind that the Transcendental Numbers cannot be written as a finite sequence of numbers or a repeating sequence of such numbers, but require an Infinite Series of terms

    Silverhill wrote #1323:
    You (Roman Pytel) need to check the definition of “transcendental number”. It is the category of irrational numbers for which no equations can be written; they can only be expressed as the sums of infinite series.
    This is entirely different from “being infinite”, however. Transcendental numbers are just as finite as 1, 0, 1/2, etc.
    Silverhill, I followed your advice and here is what I found:
    Transcendental
    In math, a term applied to any equation, curve, or quantity which cannot be represented or defined by an algebraic expression of a finite number of terms, with numeral and determinate indexes. Transcendental quantities include all exponential, logarithmic, and trigonometrical lines, because there are no no finite algebraic formulae by which these quantities can be expressed. (Webster’s Universal Dictionary. 1936)
    And Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary has this to say on
    Transcendental
    being, involving, or representing a function (as sin x, log x,e(x)) that cannot be expressed by a finite number of algebraic operations (transcendental curves)
    ==============
    “There is a different kind of thinking behind the Biblical value of π.” (Roman Pytel wrote)
    Yes: approximate thinking, or else erroneous thinking. (Silverhill roared)
    Well, Silverhill, here is another must read for you:
    “The fact that pi is transcendental means that it is impossible to draw to perfection (…) a square with the same area as a given circle. This ancient puzzle, known as squaring the circle, was, for centuries, one of the most baffling challenges in geometry. Schemes have been devised that provide amazingly close approximations to squaring the circle. But in theoretical matematics (unlike physics and engineering), approximations are never good enough; a solution, scheme, or method is either valid, or else it is not.” Silverhill, tell that your intellectual soul mate, Tyler, before he starts building his monument.
    And here is a short passage from a Polish mathematical journal:
    “What is the exact value of the number pi? I talked to my daughter about this problem and we decided to find our own estimation of the number pi by an experiment. For this purpose, we used an old bicycle wheel of diameter 63.7 cm. We marked the point on the tire where the wheel was touching the ground and we rolled the wheel straight ahead by turning it 20 times. Next, we measured the distance traveled by the wheel, which was 39.69 meters. We divided the number 3969 by 20×63.7 and obtained 3.115384615 as an approximation of the number…Of course, this was just our estimate of the number pi and we were aware that it was not very accurate.”
    And here let me quote a Math Joke which I found in this journal:
    Mathematician’s bakery: House of Pi
    Possibly, this joke was inspired by Jorge Louis Borghes’s wise House of Sand in which the author describes an infinite book which he had found in the Argentinian National Library. It should be a must read for everybody who, like G. Bruno, believes in infinity of the world.
    http://.go2net.com/useless/useless/pi.html is 15 pages full of Pi links, everything about P: pi poems, pi formulae, pi contests. You might as well visit The Uselessness of Pi and its irrational friends page.
    And another Polish joke about mathematician:
    Q. How does a mathematician support himself?
    A. With brackets.

    Roman Pytel wrote: “T[h]oth, the Egyptian baboon-shaped god of wisdom”
    No, Thoth usually had the head of an ibis (but he was also depicted as a dog-headed ape, when in Duat, the Egyptian underworld; he only sometimes had the shape of a baboon). Also, Thoth was not only the god of wisdom, but of magic, the measurement and regulation of events, time, and writing; he also participated in the judging of the dead. Check your reference works before spouting off.
    I checked: “Thoth appears in two animal forms. He is portrayed either as an ibis (wading bird) or as a baboon.” (The World Book Encyclopedia; entry Thoth). Visit also http://www.steve.gb.com/images/me/thoth.jpg, or google Images: Thoth.
    Let me spout off once more.
    Well, the most famous physician of antiquity Galen was teaching human anatomy by dissecting Barbary apes.
    In 1699 the Royal Society published Edward Tyson’s book entitled Orang-Outang, sive Homo Sylvestris: Or, the Anatomy of a Pygmie Compared with That of a Monkey, an Ape, and a Man. For Tyson, the Pygmy was the missing link between animality and humanity. Occasionally, also the Irishman used to be mentioned in the same function. For the Palestinians, as you know, Jews are ‘sons of pigs and monkeys.’

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 13, 2007 @ 7:42 am | Reply

  1330. Micky wrote (#1329)
    “Sixty-Seven Scriptural References Which Tell Us That It Is The Sun And Not The Earth That Moves”

    Eh, Micky, hate to break it to ya, but simply repeating something that is incorrect over and over, no matter how many times, does not actually *make* it correct.

    Try clicking your heels together and saying “There’e no place like home” over and over…

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 13, 2007 @ 9:06 am | Reply

  1331. “Plus, this entire site is one big parody (though they deny it). Want proof? Ask Gaines-Crockett why her name is copyrighted, and why the license agreement to this blog explicitly states that the site is a parody and not factual.”

    I don’t even know what license agreement you’re talking about. This site is not a parody, and it’s extremely dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 13, 2007 @ 9:08 am | Reply

  1332. Roman wrote (1330)

    “Regarding the spleen I will tell here only this, we would be much better off if we payed closer attention to the Biblical medicine.”

    Am I to assume you would rather rely on a book over 2,000 years old, of dubious origins, than on modern western medicine? When you or your family are sick, do you visit a doctor/hospital or simply read the bible?

    Modern western medicine has progressed in enormous steps over the last 100 years, life expectancy is up to a record age (80+) http://www.who.int/whr/1998/media_centre/press_release/en/index3.html for most of the word’s population becasue of this – not because of the bible or religion.

    “Now, why don’t you build a monument commemorating forever the value of pi which was revealed by the true and noble god, maybe Zeus, who used to kidnap beautiful boys like Ganymed for homosexual pleasures called orgasms of light.”

    Roman, one “God” is as bad as another, hence my atheism. It’s all man-made, and of its time. Hence the rampant misogyny throughout the bible. Would you dare to treat a woman in western society today as was stated in Peter 3:6 “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” or Corinthians 11:3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

    Pi does not equal 3, therefore the bible is wrong (for *whatever* reason you may want to justify to yourself or others), so why not simply admit that?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 13, 2007 @ 9:43 am | Reply

  1333. Roman wrote (1330)

    “Regarding the spleen I will tell here only this, we would be much better off if we payed closer attention to the Biblical medicine.”

    Am I to assume you would rather rely on a book over 2,000 years old, of dubious origins, than on modern western medicine? When you or your family are sick, do you visit a doctor/hospital or simply read the bible?

    Modern western medicine has progressed in enormous steps over the last 100 years, life expectancy is up to a record age (80+) http://www.who.int/whr/1998/media_centre/press_release/en/index3.html for most of the word’s population becasue of this – not because of the bible or religion.

    “Now, why don’t you build a monument commemorating forever the value of pi which was revealed by the true and noble god, maybe Zeus, who used to kidnap beautiful boys like Ganymed for homosexual pleasures called orgasms of light.”

    Roman, one “God” is as bad as another, hence my atheism. It’s all man-made, and of it’s time. Hence the rampant misogyny throughout the bible. Would you dare to treat a woman in western society today as was stated in Peter 3:6 “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” or Corinthians 11:3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

    Pi does not equal 3, therefore the bible is wrong (by *whatever means you want to justify it to yourself or others), why not simply admit that?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 13, 2007 @ 9:48 am | Reply

  1334. “I don’t even know what license agreement you’re talking about.” You know, the official one from WordPress.

    “This site is not a parody” You would say that, of course 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 13, 2007 @ 9:50 am | Reply

  1335. Roman wrote (1330)

    “Regarding the spleen I will tell here only this, we would be much better off if we payed closer attention to the Biblical medicine.”

    Am I to assume you would rather rely on a book over 2,000 years old, of dubious origins, than on modern western medicine? When you or your family are sick, do you visit a doctor/hospital or simply read the bible?

    Modern western medicine has progressed in enormous steps over the last 100 years, life expectancy is up to a record age (80+) for most of the word’s population becasue of this – not because of the bible or religion.

    “Now, why don’t you build a monument commemorating forever the value of pi which was revealed by the true and noble god, maybe Zeus, who used to kidnap beautiful boys like Ganymed for homosexual pleasures called orgasms of light.”

    Roman, one “God” is as bad as another, hence my atheism. It’s all man-made, and of it’s time. Hence the rampant misogyny throughout the bible. Would you dare to treat a woman in western society today as was stated in Peter 3:6 “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” or Corinthians 11:3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

    Pi does not equal 3, therefore the bible is wrong (by *whatever means you want to justify it to yourself or others), why not simply admit that?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 13, 2007 @ 9:52 am | Reply

  1336. Roman Pytel, you wrote: “transcendental i.e. infinite”, which [seems to] equate transcendentality with infinity—that is, to declare that a finite line segment has infinite length. The fact that it takes an infinite series to indicate a transcendental number does not make the number infinite. A finite number has some other number (actually, an infinite quantity of numbers) that is greater than it; similarly, there are smaller numbers. That’s all.

    There are infinite numbers (aleph-0, aleph-1, etc.), but they are in an entirely different category. Use your terms more carefully, in order to avoid ambiguity.
    ==============

    “the Biblical value of pi was, indeed, engraved in a large metal bowl or the “molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, and a line of thirty cubits which did encompass it round about” which gives value of pi 3.”

    No, pi cannot be “given” the value of 3. As I said earlier (not “roared”, as you so mistakenly put it), the Biblical value is either an approximation or an error.

    Do you somehow think it wrong to accept the notion of an approximation? After all, you do it yourself in daily life. Think about it—if someone asks you the distance to a nearby town, do you say [for instance] “40 kilometers” or “40.142857 kilometers”?
    =========

    “I checked: “Thoth appears in two animal forms. He is portrayed either as an ibis (wading bird) or as a baboon.””

    As I said already. But the usual depiction is with an ibis head; and even when it’s a baboon body, the head is that of a dog. As I also already said. Pay attention.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 13, 2007 @ 5:00 pm | Reply

  1337. Oh that was superb, Sis. Now do one on the earth being flat, as we learn from Genesis — where, after all, all the answers are. Genesis tells us that the earth has four corners. No mention of two poles. Four squared-off corners.

    Also, a piece on how earthquakes and tornadoes are evidence of God’s displeasure. (I’m little confused by why they always happen in the “Heartland,” God’s country! The Bible Belt! but I suppose it has something to do with sending a message to all the atheists in New York and Hollywood.)

    Also, a piece is needed for the pagans that come to this site about lightening. and how when we hear thunder, Jesus is bowling.

    Comment by i_capricorn — July 13, 2007 @ 10:49 pm | Reply

  1338. “Am I to assume you would rather rely on a book over 2,000 years old, of dubious origins, than on modern western medicine?”

    Yes.

    “When you or your family are sick, do you visit a doctor/hospital or simply read the bible?”

    Read the Bible.

    “Also, a piece is needed for the pagans that come to this site about lightening. and how when we hear thunder, Jesus is bowling.”

    I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Are you speaking in a language you made up and taught yourself?

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 15, 2007 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

  1339. Well, when they make the Bible standard reading for doctors specializing in heart surgery, we’ll see how many fatalities crop up. I can just see it now: “Aorta? What’s that? There’s nothing in this book about that!” Huh, who would’ve thought that the Bible just doesn’t mention a lot of important stuff? And is also WRONG about a lot of important stuff (like the Earth having four corners).

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 15, 2007 @ 9:03 pm | Reply

  1340. The Earth DOES have four corners, treefrog. And if doctors did half as much praying as they do sawing peoples’ chests open and attaching false noses and breasts to women of low repute, our society would shimmer as a beacon of piety unto the ages.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 16, 2007 @ 6:48 am | Reply

  1341. “The Earth DOES have four corners”
    Sisyphus, where are these corners? Which nations are they in?

    “And if doctors did half as much praying as they do sawing peoples’ chests open and attaching false noses and breasts to women of low repute, our society would shimmer as a beacon of piety unto the ages.”
    I’m not a surgeon but I’m pretty sure that cosmetic surgery on noses or breasts doesn’t require that you saw open their chest first.

    Comment by hoverfrog — July 16, 2007 @ 7:09 am | Reply

  1342. “…and attaching false noses and breasts to women of low repute, our society would shimmer as a beacon of piety unto the ages.”

    Sisyphus, are you saying women who need reconstructive surgery after car accidents, for example or breast cancer are “of low repute”??

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 16, 2007 @ 8:19 am | Reply

  1343. “Sisyphus, where are these corners? Which nations are they in?”

    The edge of the Earth is in Antarctica. If the penguins were intelligent enough to have a nation, it would be in that one.

    “Sisyphus, are you saying women who need reconstructive surgery after car accidents, for example or breast cancer are “of low repute”?

    That’s a very, very small percentage of plastic surgery. But yes, if God put them in an accident, He meant for them to stay injured.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 17, 2007 @ 5:31 am | Reply

  1344. “That’s a very, very small percentage of plastic surgery. But yes, if God put them in an accident, He meant for them to stay injured.”

    LOL And you say this site is *not* a parody 😉

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 17, 2007 @ 5:48 am | Reply

  1345. “The edge of the Earth is in Antarctica. If the penguins were intelligent enough to have a nation, it would be in that one.”

    Wouldn’t the edges of the flat Earth be hot? I mean, if hell is under the square that makes up the Earth and hot air rises then wouldn’t it flow around to the edges and melt the Antarctic ice?

    Are you going to explain the rise in global temperature on the increase in “sin” as hell hots up to toast the extra sinners or are you going to deny global warming?

    Comment by hoverfrog — July 17, 2007 @ 6:07 am | Reply

  1346. Comment by hoverfrog: “Sisyphus, where are these corners? Which nations are they in?”

    Comment by Sisyphus: “The edge of the Earth is in Antarctica. If the penguins were intelligent enough to have a nation, it would be in that one.”

    And the other 3 “corners” are where exactly?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 17, 2007 @ 6:56 am | Reply

  1347. Please tell me this is satire.

    If it isn’t, and I’m afraid that’s the case, Brownback would be wise to distance himself as far as possible from the idiot who wrote this.

    You sir are a moron. It is people like you that give Christians and Republicans a bad name.

    Comment by Erik — July 17, 2007 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  1348. “LOL And you say this site is *not* a parody”

    It’s not. What’s your point?

    “Are you going to explain the rise in global temperature on the increase in “sin” as hell hots up to toast the extra sinners or are you going to deny global warming?”

    There is no global warming. And I’d imagine parts of Hell are quite cold. Otherwise, you could acclimate yourself to it during life by constantly burning yourself. If parts of Hell are icy cold, you’ll always find yourself tortured SOMEWHERE down there.

    “And the other 3 “corners” are where exactly?”

    We’ve been over all this many, many times before, Tyler. The edge of the world is in Antarctica. The middle is the North Pole. It’s as simple as that, really. I can’t draw you a picture online, unfortunately, so you’ll have to use your imagination to envision a flat surface in which the North Pole’s the center and Antarctica’s the edge. That’s what the world looks like. Don’t like it? Go to Hell, literally.

    “Please tell me this is satire.”

    No.

    “You sir are a moron. It is people like you that give Christians and Republicans a bad name.”

    Whatever, leftard.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 17, 2007 @ 1:28 pm | Reply

  1349. Sisyphus wrote: “But yes, if God put them in an accident, He meant for them to stay injured.”

    LOL! So, humans’ injuries never heal, then. Broken bones never knit, children’s scraped knees bleed for the rest of their lives, blisters are a lifelong torment, etc. Or do you mean, much more simply, that injuries leave scars? That it is God’s will that there be no complete healing?
    =======

    Concerning the “four corners” of the world: you’ve described a disk-shaped world. If that’s what you mean, you have (yet another) problem. Since disks have no corners, the world cannot have both a disk shape and corners. Since the Bible mentions the “four corners” notion, you’ll have to abandon the disk idea and tell us where those corners really are. After all, what the Bible says is incontrovertible, even by you.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 17, 2007 @ 1:48 pm | Reply

  1350. […] I’ve stated before that Sisyphus should get “Post of the Year” honors for it ( Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine ) , so….why […]

    Pingback by A Shameless Plug « ChenZhen’s Chamber — July 17, 2007 @ 10:38 pm | Reply

  1351. Comment by Sisyphus: “We’ve been over all this many, many times before, Tyler. The edge of the world is in Antarctica. The middle is the North Pole.”

    Yet you’ve never fully explained it properly. As per comment by Silverhill above, is the Earth disk shaped or does it have four corners? Or do you think the United Nations logo (http://www.un.org/english/) is a true representation of the planet Earth?

    “I can’t draw you a picture online, unfortunately…”

    True, but you could find an image, maybe online, or from a book, that best represents what *you* think the Earth looks like… there must be one out there, somewhere…

    Keep up the good work Sisyphus, it’s entertaining to say the least 😉

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 18, 2007 @ 2:45 am | Reply

  1352. Got one.

    See how Earth is laid out like a flower. Aww.

    Comment by hoverfrog — July 18, 2007 @ 3:39 am | Reply

  1353. A few things:
    The earth is flat
    The moon is made of cheese
    You’re going to hell if you think otherwise

    There are some days when I think things would be easier if the Universe had never come into existence. At least then, ignorance and sheer stupidity like this wouldn’t exist either. When I began reading through this, I thought that it had to be a satire. I thought that there was no way that anyone could be this ludicrous but, thanks to Sisyphus, I realized I was mistaken. At least I know that those of you on here who actually believe this are completely inane, thanks, once again to Sisyphus. I have to ask: Did you take a highschool English class? Did you even go to school at all? (No, Sunday school does not count) Jonathan Swift wrote the greatest political satire of all time, “A Modest Proposal.” Everyone with half a brain, at least, knows that. Believe me when I say this: Brownback will never have a significant impact in this country, not with his primitive ideas. And your little quip on plastic surgery reminds me just how sick and sadistic Christians are. You like to see suffering, you think it is God’s will and that is just the most terrifying thing I could possibly imagine.
    I’m done, I feel my brain cells dying as I re-read this blog and many of the naive comments.

    Comment by Kevin — July 18, 2007 @ 12:52 pm | Reply

  1354. Very well put Kevin. However, I have not heard of the Jonathan Swift piece. Please refrain from making the assumption that only people with more than half a brain have read something like that.

    Comment by kan — July 18, 2007 @ 7:09 pm | Reply

  1355. “We’ve been over all this many, many times before, Tyler. The edge of the world is in Antarctica. The middle is the North Pole. It’s as simple as that, really. I can’t draw you a picture online, unfortunately, so you’ll have to use your imagination to envision a flat surface in which the North Pole’s the center and Antarctica’s the edge. That’s what the world looks like. Don’t like it? Go to Hell, literally.”

    Why would the North Pole be the centre? Surely it is just as likely that Antarctica is the centre. Please show me some of your lovely solid evidence that I have grown so fond of.
    Well that brings me to my point of how you can say that the arguments of physics and mathematics are not conclusion and that they are just based on assumptions. Is your book not the same thing?

    Comment by kan — July 18, 2007 @ 7:15 pm | Reply

  1356. This is satire. Sisyphus might say he’s dead serious, but I know for a fact he’s sitting in his computer chair having a ball. Of course, I could be totally wrong. If so, my mind has been officially blown. Watch out for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

    By the way, Jon Swift (or Jonathan Swift) was the author of “A Modest Proposal,” perhaps the most popular and widely known satires ever. It suggested eating children to help deal with the Irish economic issues during the 18th century. He also wrote “Gulliver’s Travels.” I’m sure you didn’t know that though, because the only book you’ve read is the Bible.

    Comment by Glen Haupt — July 18, 2007 @ 9:50 pm | Reply

  1357. I just read “A modest propasal”, it was rather entertaining.
    As for Sisyphus writing this with the intent that it would be satire, I can’t quite believe that.

    “I’m sure you didn’t know that though, because the only book you’ve read is the Bible.”

    Were you talking to me Glen?
    If so, I haven’t read the bible and have no intention to.

    Comment by kan — July 19, 2007 @ 6:52 pm | Reply

  1358. Sen. S. Brownback’s War on the “Fulfilled Atheists”

    Oxford University Professor Richard Dawkins, who said that Ch. Darwin made it possible to him to be a fulfilled atheist wrote in a 1989 New York Times book review: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

    What about the Bible? “To be fair,” he writes, “much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird…a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents…that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living” (The God Delusion, 2006, p. 237)

    An edition of Charles I’s reign in which Ps. 14:1 reads: “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God” (instead of ‘no God’) was nicknamed “the Fool Bible.”At the same time a certain Laurentius Corvinus, a professor at the Cracow University wrote in his “Cosmographia” about “the earth evolving out of chaos” and not created by God. It should be reminded here that Newton was a member of the so-called Hartlib Circle organized by Samuel Hartlib who had arrived in England from Polish Prussia in 1625.

    The Hartlib Circle aimed to rationalize alchemy by marrying alchemical lore with the intellectual framework of mechanical philosophy. Newton was especially impressed by “Introductorium compendium in tractatum spherae materialis Magistri Johannis Sacrobusco” written by John of Glogau, another professor of the Cracow University who described “the iron coffin of Muhammad hanging from the heavens where a magnet is fixed”.

    Charles I paid with his life for his Polish alliance. He was charged with high treason and “other high crimes against the realm of England.” The sentence of death was read on Jan 27, 1648; his execution was ordered as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy. The sentence was carried out on a scaffold erected outside the banqueting hall of Whitehall on the morning of Tuesday, Jan. 30, 1649. Charles I’s mockery of the Bible emboldened the leaders of the Polish Counter-Reformation to attack the Hussite Prague in collusion with the Austrian admirers of Kepler’s heliocentrism. Emperor Rudolph II, the sponsor of the Keplerian heliocentrism “reached the stage of abandoning God entirely; he would neither hear nor speak of Him, nor suffer any sign of Him.”

    Let me remind here that it was atheistic, antireligious communism that butchered tens of millions in Stalin’s Soviet Union, in Hitler’s Third Reich, in Mao Tse-tung’s China and in Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

    Disregarding “scientific” propaganda of Prof. Dawkins reinforced by the papal rehabilitation of heliocentrism and evolutionism, the new Bulgarian Prime Minister Symeon Saxe-Coburg asked for the Bible and the cross during his oath ceremony. Obviously, unlike the fulfilled atheist of Oxford University, occasionally mocked by his colleagues as “the ayatollah of atheism”, Prime Minister of Bulgaria doesn’t see the teachings of the Bible as a threat to society, civilization and sanity. Who knows, maybe Ali Agca’s Bulgarian co-conspirator was for real?

    So, who is the fool; the man who says in his heart, there is God, or the one who says, there is no God? What is the source of the true knowledge: experiment or revelation?

    The authors of an American history textbook, in these admiring words, described the empirical method of Galileo: “The other day I heard an argument in the street. Five grown men were arguing about the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth. The horse was standing right there, but no one thought of opening the animal’s mouth and counting its teeth. In fact, no one even looked at the horse! This argument went on for over an hour. I suggested checking the horse’s mouth, and I was rewarded by being pushed rudely aside. There was no conclusion to the argument. The people went away confused and angry. Is this the way to learn the answers?” Galileo’s experiments were skillful, and his measurements were highly accurate. That’s one of the American scientific dogmas responsible for producing innumerable atheists against the will of their parents. (Enjoying Global History by H. Abraham and I. Pfeffer AMSCO School Publications. 1997, p. 223).

    Was Darwin well versed in the problems of the anatomy of human body? The answer is negative if one considers the complex problem of one of the parts of human body, such as the spleen. Galen regarded it as an “organ full of mystery”. According to Collier’s Encyclopedia, the spleen may be congenitally absent. Deviations in size, shape and structure, such as excessive lobulation, are also possible. Accessory spleens, sometimes in considerable numbers, are fairly common. Floating, or wandering spleens occur more frequently in women. Obviously, dissection of human body meant as experimental source of knowledge does not provide us with sure answers to all possible questions: “What is the proper shape of spleen?” What is the proper structure of the spleen?” “Is one spleen enough for human body?” “What is the proper state of the spleen: steady or floating?”

    John Locke spoke of human mind as a blank tablet upon which exercise writes and then it arrives at conclusions by using the inductive method, based on what he has observed. Locke and after him Darwin ignored all those who cautioned against the “testimony of the sense.” As late as 1661, Joseph Glanvill argued in the “Scepsis Scientifica” (p.77) “the testimony of the sense is weak and frivolous.” Indeed, in the olden times when “Christmas day” was called in English “Geola” (from Hebrew geulah, salvation) the terms “empiric” denoted a quack or a charlatan. As a certain Dwight observed, “Shudder to destroy life, either by the naked knife or by the surer and safer medium of empiricism.”

    The confusion deepens when the scientists try to define the functions of the spleen, i.e. to answer the question: What is it for, or to use philosopher Hume’s utilitarian language, what is the usefulness of it? We are told that the spleen helps filter foreign substances from the lymph that it serves as a “graveyard” for injured red blood cells. If so, how can the same author assure us that when the body needs extra blood during exercise or hemorrhage, the spleen contracts and squeezes out some of the (injured) blood cells it had stored, in the graveyard! One could use this logic to explain the resurrection of the body! At the same time we are told that the removal of the spleen does not seriously damage the organism. Indeed, we are reminded that Ancient Greeks and Romans repeatedly removed the spleens of runners to increase their speed. How does this square with the picture of the spleen as a storage device supplying extra blood during exercise?

    Of course, you hardly find any mention in the writings of these “Good Samaritans” what he Bible has to say on the subject of the spleen. Those who placed the authority of Father Copernicus or Rev. Darwin above that of the Torah say like the ancient philosophers: “How does God know? Is there any Knowledge in the Most High?” And yet the message of the Revealed Science of God is clear: there is no such a part of human body as spleen. Or, in other words, the spleen is not an original part of human body. All parts of human body are mentioned in the Torah, excepting the spleen. There is no word in the Hebrew Bible denoting such an organ. The scientists impressed by Copernicus’s mathematics would conclude that the Biblical author ignorant of the real structure of the Universe did not possess the sure knowledge of human body either.

    Well, in the Talmudic literature we find mentions of the operations of removal of the spleens of royal messengers to increase their speed. Exactly, like in Greece and Rome (Marathon runner)! The Talmudic writers use the term: “balutah” borrowed from the Aramaic language. It means that in the early period of Jewish history the occurrence of spleen in human body was also known. And yet, the Biblical writers, those secretaries of God had chosen to ignore the spleen as a part of human body, which means that the situation when the spleen is congenitally absent is the proper one. Normally, people are born without a tail, and yet sometimes a child is born with a tail. Normally, people are born without hairy faces, yet sometimes a child is born with hairy face. Did you ever pay attention how differently human noses are shaped? Darwin ignored that when he wrote about beaks! God can do whatever He chooses, even in England, or in the Vatican itself.

    Consider the revealing verses of Ps. 139:

    O Lord, Thou has searched me, and known me –
    For Thou has made my reins;
    Thou hast knit me together in my mother’s womb…
    My frame was not hidden from Thee…
    And in Thy Book (my members) were all written…

    Is the Bible trustworthy? R. Virchow, known as the Father of Modern Pathology, said: “Moses was the greatest hygienist, the world has seen. Depending upon revealed knowledge and possessing no scientific equipment, Moses taught in essentials nearly every principle of hygiene now practiced. Moses forbade the use of both swine’s and shellfish; and it may be pertinent to remark that the Gentile world which largely ignores these health rules, shows an estimated occurrence of trichina infections among adults in the US of an alarmingly high percent! Hogs like buzzards and vultures are scavengers created by God to eat up the rotten flesh of things dead. Strychnine will not kill them, but it will kill people. So would you place the authority of Father N. Copernicus, the Vatican’s playboy, whose brother, a high-ranking curialist died of syphilis, over that of the Holy Bible? It might mean the choice of life or death. Like for those British cows that were fed scientifically, according to the rules of Darwinian biology. The British cattle were almost exterminated by the Darwinian Science!

    Consider in this context what W. Durant wrote in his Our Oriental Heritage: Treatment by excrementitious drugs: “Ancient Egyptian prescriptions hovered between medicine and magic, and relief for their effectiveness in great part on the repulsiveness of the concoction. Lizard’s blood, swine’s ears and teeth, putrid meat and fat, a tortoise’s brains, and old book boiled in oil, the milk of a lying-in woman, the water of a chaste woman, the excreta of men, donkeys, dogs, lions, cats, and lice – all these are found in the prescriptions.” (P. 183) The All-Seeing eye of Horus did not see that!

    Victorian London was in worse shape than most third world cities today. Whenever it rained hard the sewers leading into the Thames overflowed and Parliament had to adjourn because of the stench. Henry Mayhew, the pioneering sociologist, tells of visiting London tenements in the 1850s, to find that decades of human excreta had been allowed to pile up in the courtyards. One should read this description keeping in mind what Malthus postulated in his Essay on Population.

    In a famous speech, reported in the Times, the admirer of the Biblical Science Rudolph Virchow, Professor of Pathology, wanted Darwin proscribed, because he considered it a “terrorist manual” which it sure is. Polytheism is the logical outcome of the idea of evolutionism; gods are transfigured British, and not only, Lords (King James himself compared himself to God). That’s why Hume, in his “Natural History” argued that polytheism is to be preferred and Gibbon praised “True Genius of Polytheism”. Newton, according to Halley, received his “revelation” from former lords turned gods. The rise of Darwinism was politics, imperial, colonial politics – pure and simple.

    When Pope Leo X was elevated to the papal chair, the Eucharist was accompanied by the pagan gods bearing the inscription, “First Venus reigned (the age of Alexander VI), then Mars (Julius II) and now (under Leo X) Pallas Athene holds the scepter”. In the 1960s there was a lot of talk in Rome about refashioning a Jesus into a beautiful Apollo. That’s why “Apollo” flew to the Moon! In Newton’s England the sun was called “the god of day.”

    The author of The Church of Darwin (The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 16, 1999) wrote: “In China, a paleontologist quipped to an American colleague: ‘In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.’”

    Carl Zimmer, a senior editor of the Discovery magazine in A Question for the President wrote: “Mr. President, I would ask, how do you reconcile your statement that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution with the fact that your administration, like both Republican and Democratic administrations before it, has supported research in evolution by our country’s leading scientists, while failing to support a single study that is explicitly based on Intelligent Design? The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and even the Department of Energy have all decided that evolution is a cornerstone to advances in our understanding of diseases, the environment, and even the biotechnology. They have found no such value in Intelligent Design. Are they wrong? Can you tell us why?” http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/sheldon/julian_apostate.html.

    In reaction to the pro-Nazi study of the French evolutionist Jesuit de Chardin, D.M.S. Watson, known to the public for his B.B.C. talks popularizing the Darwinian notion that human beings descended from primates, declared in an address to his fellow biologists at a Cape Town conference in April, 1943: “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or…can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Indeed, A. Hitler referred to the Hebrew Bible as “Jewish folklore and therefore contemptible nonsense.” ““The fool hath said in his heart there is a God”…

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 20, 2007 @ 6:49 am | Reply

  1359. “Let me remind here that it was atheistic, antireligious communism that butchered tens of millions in Stalin’s Soviet Union, in Hitler’s Third Reich, in Mao Tse-tung’s China and in Pol Pot’s Cambodia.”

    Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Heard this so many times before, and yet it’s still not true. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot were evil men, nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. And by that rationale, belief in “god” should allow people to do only good? Not so, way too many examples of how religion corrupts and kills, from the Crusades, to Northern Ireand, to the Middle East.

    This is old hack Roman, do some research and do try to keep up!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 20, 2007 @ 7:34 am | Reply

  1360. “In China, a paleontologist quipped to an American colleague: ‘In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.’”

    By all means, criticize Darwin, but have some facts, evidence or reason to back up your criticism not just superstition, dogma or scripture. Better yet, come up with an alternative theory to Darwin’s that doesn’t involve magic!!

    (Yes, yes, I do realise the irony of my above statement seeing as “faith” is the absolute lack of evidence, thereby facts, evidence or reason do not seem to count for anything) 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 20, 2007 @ 7:52 am | Reply

  1361. “LOL! So, humans’ injuries never heal, then. Broken bones never knit, children’s scraped knees bleed for the rest of their lives, blisters are a lifelong torment, etc. Or do you mean, much more simply, that injuries leave scars? That it is God’s will that there be no complete healing?”

    No healing, save what happens by nature. Nature is God’s will, although occasionally Satan can temporarily hamper it through sub-atomic machinations.

    “Concerning the “four corners” of the world: you’ve described a disk-shaped world. If that’s what you mean, you have (yet another) problem. Since disks have no corners, the world cannot have both a disk shape and corners. Since the Bible mentions the “four corners” notion, you’ll have to abandon the disk idea and tell us where those corners really are. After all, what the Bible says is incontrovertible, even by you.”

    Hoverfrog’s map is an acceptable approximation, I should think.

    “Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Heard this so many times before, and yet it’s still not true. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot were evil men, nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. And by that rationale, belief in “god” should allow people to do only good? Not so, way too many examples of how religion corrupts and kills, from the Crusades, to Northern Ireand, to the Middle East.”

    They were atheists who killed people for not worshipping them and their Godless Copernicanistic notions. Roman has more intellect in his pinky than you have in your entire head, Tyler.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 20, 2007 @ 9:23 am | Reply

  1362. The map I posted was a joke. It’s petal shaped for goodness sake.

    Comment by hoverfrog — July 20, 2007 @ 9:51 am | Reply

  1363. Of course it’s a joke. So is the whole alaska.net website. Want proof? Try reading the legal disclaimer… it’s actually quite funny!

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 21, 2007 @ 7:12 am | Reply

  1364. […] …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-My 1983 — July 22, 2007 @ 11:31 pm | Reply

  1365. […] 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-My 1983 — July 23, 2007 @ 2:52 am | Reply

  1366. “The map I posted was a joke. It’s petal shaped for goodness sake.”

    The same God Who made flowers could also make a planet the same way. What’s your point? You don’t like flowers?

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 23, 2007 @ 6:49 am | Reply

  1367. Comment by hoverfrog: “The map I posted was a joke. It’s petal shaped for goodness sake.”

    Comment by Sisyphus: “The same God Who made flowers could also make a planet the same way.”

    According to the International Astronomical Union (http://www.iau.org/), the definition of a planet is:

    A celestial body that is (a) in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

    Doesn’t mention anything about petal-shaped objects, sorry Sisyphus 😉

    Comment by Tyler Durden — July 23, 2007 @ 7:42 am | Reply

  1368. “Doesn’t mention anything about petal-shaped objects, sorry Sisyphus ”

    Oh yes, but that’s all part of the vast Liberal conspiracy to make your kids idiots… for some reason. You see, they’ve engineered themselves a reality where everything in the world is one big puzzle piece that, no matter how outrageously opposite, will always reinforce their beliefs. It’s classic Doublethink. NASA’s taken photos of the planet from space? Then NASA’s fake, which imcreases proof to a conspiracy they’ve never actually seen or encountered. Catholics officially acknowledge a round, heliocentric earth? They’re the heretics, not us! Basic 3rd grade math disproving items found in an ancient book (i.e. pi = 3)? Well, the math is wrong and you’re a sinner for even thinking it.

    Here’s a tip: instead of lining the pockets of the Heliofascist scientists who designed your car, why don’t you take the Godly route and make your own? Just try making a car from the engineering principles found in the Bible. We’ll see how far you get 🙂

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 23, 2007 @ 7:52 am | Reply

  1369. “If it moved, we would feel it moving”

    No you wouldn’t. When you sit in your car driving at a constant speed down the road, you don’t feel it then.

    Comment by Jack Liddle — July 24, 2007 @ 4:51 am | Reply

  1370. […] Key Quote: “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.” […]

    Pingback by recentrunes.com » Blog Archive » Heliocentrism Is An Atheist Doctrine — July 24, 2007 @ 8:05 am | Reply

  1371. “A celestial body that is (a) in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

    Doesn’t mention anything about petal-shaped objects, sorry Sisyphus”

    Well, if you go looking for answers from a gang of money-leeching charlatans and professional liars like the astronomers, that’s the kind of bogus answer you’re going to get. Come on, Tyler. Haven’t you learned anything from this blog yet?

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 24, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Reply

  1372. All that we’ve learned is that you’re either a fool or a prankster, Sisyphus.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 24, 2007 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

  1373. “All that we’ve learned is that you’re either a fool or a prankster, Sisyphus.”

    Maybe if you spent a little bit more time reading and a little bit less time writing, Silverhill…

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 26, 2007 @ 11:13 am | Reply

  1374. Ha! I write far less than you do, and evidently I read (and understand) far more.

    No one in his right mind can successfully deny basic physics. As has been noted, “The universe has a way of not caring what you believe.”

    Comment by Silverhill — July 26, 2007 @ 3:22 pm | Reply

  1375. From Ch. Darwin to A. Hitler

    The Political Background of the Darwin theory

    “The first germ of life was developed by water and heat” (Manu, book I, sloka 8).

    “Water ascends toward the sky in vapors; from the sun it descends in rain, from the rain are born the plants, and from the plants, animals” (Book III, sloka 76).

    “Each being acquires the qualities of the one which immediately precedes it, in such a manner that the farther a being gets away from the primal atom of its series, the more he is possessed of qualities and perfections” (Book I, sloka 20).

    “Man will traverse the universe, gradually ascending, and passing through the rocks, the plants, the worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, wild animals, cattle, and higher animals. . . . Such is the inferior degree” (Ibid.).

    “These are the transformations declared, from the plant up to Brahma, which have to take place in his world” (Ibid.).

    Darwin’s natural selection was a child of British imperial policy. Let me explain. The Hindus, mild, patient, long-suffering, whose very apathy saved the British from being driven out of the country in 1857, would raise their hundred millions of devotees as one man, in reaction to a religious desecration; regardless of sects or castes, they would exterminate every Christian. The East India Company knew this well and built her stronghold on the friendship of the Brahmans, and by paying subsidy to the pagodas (similarly, the Vatican, Russia, Iran and European Union are paying now subsidies to Hamas), and the British Government was as prudent as its predecessors. It was the castes, and non-inference with the prevailing religions, that secured its comparative authority in India. And the idea of castes was founded on the premise of karsati i.e. natural selection. Darwin was saving the “jewel in the crown” of the British Empress of India.
    Interestingly enough, the coadjutor of Darwin, Mr. A. R. Wallace in his Contributions to Theory of Natural Selection, when discussing the inadequacy of Natural Selection alone to account for the physical form of man, admitted the guiding action of “higher intelligences” as a “necessary part of the great laws which govern the material Universe”.
    What Natural Selection Really Means
    On pages 149 and 150 in The Descent of Man, Darwin writes:
    “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination, we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, for a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the race of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” You see, the savages enlightened the British Empire by the agency of Darwin.
    Rehabilitating “the Aristocratic Principle of Nature”
    So, A. Hitler renamed in his Mein Kampf the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest. Accordingly, A. Rosenberg, in his The Myth of the XXth Cntury wrote: “Christian ideas of love, brotherhood and charity destroy the basic rules of nature such as survival of the fittest…The dogma of all-embracing love and the equality of all human beings before God, on the one hand, and of democratic ‘human rights’ founded neither on race nor on national honors on the other hand, were the bases on which the European brotherhood of nations had developed. Consequently, Europe became the custodian of the inferior, crippled, of the criminals and the rejects.”

    According to the same principle of the Aryan evolutionism a 10th century archbishop of Mainz, a noted statesman and counselor of Otto the Great was known for his oppression of the poor. In time of famine that there might be more for the rich, he was legendarily supposed to have assembled the poor in a barn and burnt them to death, saying: “They are like mice, only good to devour the corn.” According to the same principle, the so- called Death Squads are murdering in cold blood thousands of South American Catholic children. The desperate Brazilian children organized a demonstration in Rio de Janeiro; they tied up to a cross one of their coevals and carried him in a procession to the Apostolic Nunciature. But, the pope rehabilitated evolutionism which dignifies natural selection as Science. Do these children have the right to choose life over death?

    So why the Church hypocritically condemns Herod for his slaughter of all the children of Bethlehem? This cruel, natural selection would never have happened if he kept in mind the words of God of Gen. 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” Is Prof. Richard Dorkins any better than Herod?

    Philosopher M. Polanyi observed, “Newtonian physics and Darwin’s notion of the survival of the fittest were key elements both in the Marxist concepts of class warfare and of racial philosophies which shaped Hitlerism and scientific world view.”

    In the Name of God, stop this Natural Selection

    Archbishop Romero of El Salvador appealed to those in the National Guard, the police and the garrisons, “Brother, you belong to our people. You are killing your own children…No soldier is obliged to obey an order that goes against the Law of God…In the name of the Lord and of his long-suffering people whose laments are heard in Heaven every day, I beseech you, I beg you, to stop the repression.” Archbishop was shot through the chest the next day as he said Mass in the chapel of a hospital. Palm Sunday – March 30, 1980 – as the Pope addressed the crowd in St. Peter’s, 125.000 people, including 30 foreign bishops, gathered in the square outside the San Salvador cathedral for Romero’s funeral.

    John Paul meanwhile declared his “heartfelt grief and deep concern” for martyrs who had died that week – in Chad, and “Palestine”, but not in El Salvador. One of the US hierarchs expressed a consensus of high churchmen when he said, “It is as much as certain that after this Pope, Oscar Romero will be canonized a saint.” Meanwhile the Pope was pursuing canonization of Pope Pius XII who refused to say a word in defense of helpless Jewish children who were murdered and burnt according to the aristocratic principle of the “goddess of Mutability” (Nature)… We read and hear these days a lot about The Passion which occurred two thousands year ago, in order that human love, brotherhood and charity could always be present in human hearts.

    The Teaching of Karma and the Hereditary Seats in British House of the Lords

    Every human genus (and therefore every caste) is thought to have as the shared or corporate property of its members a particular substance (e.g. sarira, “body”, rakta, “blood) embodying its code for conduct (dharma). The phrase “people of the sun” was used in Africa to refer to those Egyptian pharaohs who were light-skinned. The Aryan invaders in India avoided intermarriage to keep their racial identity intact and the Aryan pharaohs instituted royal incest to preserve the line of the sons of the sun-god dependent on the possession of “solar blood” that matches the ichor of the ethereal fluid supposed to flow in the veins of the gods of the classical mythology. If the Biblical authors used quotation marks they would have used them with the expression “the sons of god” (Gen 6.2). Anyway, these sons of god could not create life, like the God of the Bible, they had to marry the daughters of men to have offspring. The hoax perpetrated by Miller-Urey matched that of Soviet biologist Oparin. They also had to marry to have children.

    Mario Seiglie observed in his article Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Man and His Ideas: “Yet, ironically, some might say Darwin was a victim of his own theory of natural selection because of the genetic dangers of inbreeding. In 1839, he married Emma, his first cousin. Both families had intermarried through first cousins for some time, a dangerous trend for heredity (but he believed in his cousin Sir Francis Galton’s science about Hereditary Genius. 1869). Twenty six children were born from these first-cousin marriages; 19 were sterile and five died prematurely, including Darwin’s daughter and first son. Many suffered from mental retardation or other hereditary illnesses, as was the case with his last son. All these effects endangered great hostility toward the idea of a personal, intervening God.” (The Good News, July-August 2007, p.14). Darwin expected God to observe Galton’s idea of aristocratic principle of nature.

    Each caste’s inborn code enjoins it to maintain its substance and morality, in particular occupation, and its correct exchanges with other castes. Indian thought does not separate “nature” and “morality” or “law”, so that castes are, in Western terms, at once “natural” and “moral” units of society. The naturalization of the human organism was the first step toward a science of the natural man, toward a natural history of the human species. This was the Declaration of Independence of humans from God’s Laws, or, Torah. The decay of theology that began in the 18th century is the most evident sign of this change in the meaning of truth; the traditional plan for a philosophical approach to God was abandoned in favor of philosophical approach to man.

    Anthropology thus, took over the entire realm of theology. Max Stirner, in his work Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1845) considered God to be the product of an alienation of the human being, contrived for the purpose of having an illusory being to keep the human being from being himself, from being Beyond Good and Evil. The God of the Bible is the major obstacle to the blossoming of human freedom in its radical fullness, but not the god Indra.

    In the Kausitaki Upanishad, the god Indra, incarnating the Absolute, boasts of his apparently wicked deeds and then addresses his worshipers in an Anti-Dekalog: “Understand me as I am…with one who knows me, his world is injured by no deed whatsoever, not by the murder of his father, not by the murder of his mother, not by theft, not by the slaughter of an embryo (i.e. Abortion. Annie Besant who made this practice palatable in the Western world was a theosophist, or a convert to Hindu polytheism). Whatever evil he does, he does not blanch. We also read in the Brhadarnyaka Upanishad: “He does not become greater by good action, nor inferior by bad action.” (The Eye of Shiva, 8)

    Dr. Rodney Romney in his book Journey to Inner Space, p. 127) wrote: “This ‘cosmic law of nature’ literally never makes a mistake. There is no such thing as pure innocence, even in a tiny babe (that teaching “justifies” those Latin American death squads killing children like rats). Every soul carries within it the scars of centuries of wrong thinking and wrong doing.” (the same teaching is behind the dogma of original sin which was never proclaimed by the Hebrew Bible).

    Past lives which were lived wrongly bring about karma which must be worked off without complaint. Flying in the face of all New Age social activism, the purist interpretation of karma logically concludes that no one should try to alleviate their own or another’s suffering, lest we interfere with the outworking of their karma, upset the balance of cosmic justice, and prolong someone’s dreary journey through future lives. This rationale has long been followed in India, where sick and starving people of low caste are left to die in the streets. The same Aryan cruelty reigned supreme in Poland where the term priest was synonymous with prince. The feudal peasants living in possessions of Catholic clergy were housed together with animals. I remember such housings from the Polish village where I was born. They were called czworaki in Polish.(cp. living in the midst of excrements in the Victorian London). Their lives are not much better even now.

    The karmic or hereditary slavery is still preserved in the Sharia law. Mauritanian anti-slavery campaigner Boubacar Messaoud explains: “It’s like having sheep or goats. If a woman is a slave, her descendants are slaves.”

    Like its twin doctrine, reincarnation, the “evidence” for karma is always subjective, and it is always self serving for those already living well. The iron rule that “everyone has got exactly what they deserve” cannot help but legitimize the status quo for those who like things as they are, a classic example of circular reasoning . (Hannah Newman The Rainbow Swastika. A Report to the Jewish People about New Age Antisemitism – http://philologos.org/__eb-trs/naB.htm). Keep in mind that Charles Darwin was one of the richest landlords on the British Isles.

    John Adams in his letter to F.A. Vanderkemp of Feb. 16, 1809 wrote: “I will insist that the Hebrew have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations. If I were an atheist of the other sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by chance, I should believe that chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate to all mankind the doctrine of a supreme, intelligent, wise, almighty sovereign of the universe, which I believe to be the great essential principle of all morality, and consequently of all civilization.” Amen.

    P.S. Thanks, Sisyphus. Let’s hope that this blog will save millions of innocent children who are being butchered in cold blood to glorify the monstrous teaching of the god Indra. The word fetuses doesn’t diminish a bit our psychological trauma. Our hands are covered with bloody, unwashable stains…

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 26, 2007 @ 3:33 pm | Reply

  1376. Roman Pytel, please explain (but not at such great length as is your wont) how Newtonian physics is a key element of Marxist or racist philosophies.

    When you give that response, please also explain how Marx—who published The Manifesto of the Communist Party (commonly called The Communist Manifesto) in 1848, was influenced by Darwin—who published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (commonly called On the Origin of Species>/i>) in 1859.

    Also, please explain how Marx’s idea of an ulitmately classless society squares with the notion of one particular class, species, etc. coming to dominate its situation.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 26, 2007 @ 10:27 pm | Reply

  1377. In what sense did Copernicus’s (Galileo’s, Newton’s) book justify the Final Solution of the Jewish problem? By negating Christian tradition of Europe Copernicus removed the one and only obstacle which stood in the way of the racial solution of the Jewish question. Indeed, the Holocaust did occur at a time when the Bible had definitively lost its power over men’s hearts.

    J. Streicher, the publisher of anti-Semitic and pornographic Der Stürmer considered the Bible pornographic literature and had no use even for Christ because he was a Jew. An article published in Der Stürmer on March 19, 1942 complained that Christian teaching had stood in the way of a “racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe” and quoted as a rallying call the Führer proclamation: “the Jew will be exterminated.” The Nazis commemorated the four hundredth anniversary of publication of Copernicus’s The Revolution in 1943 by issuing a post stamp in the occupied part of Poland called Generalgouvernement bearing Copernicus’s portrait in a red hue (the young seminarian K. Wojtyla used to put this stamp on his letters). In the same year the Poles could hear the triumphant tone of the news: “The Jews have disappeared from Europe,” and the “reservoir of the East from which the Jewish plague has for centuries beset the people of Europe has cased to exist!”

    Darwin’s work suited K. Marx’s purpose in that is provided a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle i.e. mass murder. It suited Hitler’s purpose, as he said: “Nature is cruel, therefore we, too, may be cruel…I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin!…Natural instincts bid all living beings not merely conquer their enemies, but also destroy them” (quoted by Hermann Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction,1940, pp. 137-138)

    Copernicanism and Darwinism so disfigured Germany and Soviet Union that they were not nations in the sense of a civilization, but people who had become so dehumanized, bestial and without natural affection that they could systematically torture and annihilate without a twinge of conscience. They became foolish nations in the sense that they no longer resembled nations in terms of ethics and morality. They became an organization where the lowest elements of society were put in the place of rule. They were not nations in a legitimate sense, but rather an administration of the off-scouring, the scum and the refuse – all the more to humiliate Jews, as well as to “fulfill God’s (the sun god Apollo’s) Word”. They were nations that had turned all humane values upside down and inside out; and they were nations that celebrated death in gulags and death camps.

    There is an ominous historical parallel; the Vatican was the first state to extend recognition to the neo-pagan Bolshevik regime (1922). Soon thereafter Pope Pius XI disbanded Partito Popolare, forerunner of the present Democrazia Cristiana and forced its leader to exile. Similarly, and for the same reason the present Democrazia Cristiana disappeared from the political scene of Italy during the pontificate of John Paul II. Why? Because Christian teaching stays in the way of a new Palestinian State, or a new Holocaust, if you prefer.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 27, 2007 @ 10:10 am | Reply

  1378. Well, I see once again that you’re nearly as “over the top” as Sisyphus.
    ========
    In what sense did Copernicus’s (Galileo’s, Newton’s) book…

    Do not equate the works of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton; they are not one and the same. (The latter build on the former, but that does not make them a single “book”.)
    ========

    justify the Final Solution of the Jewish problem? By negating Christian tradition of Europe…

    Copernicus “negated” only the obsolete notion of a geocentric Solar system. He did nothing to harm Christianity in general or its traditions—except the tradition of holding great political power over the populace, accomplished by keeping the people ignorant. (Sort of what Sisyphus et al. are trying to do.)
    Note also that Copernicus withheld publication until after his death, so that the Church would not be able to condemn him to prison or death for opposing their version of reality. He knew that he would not be able to “negate their tradition” of viciously opposing free thought.
    ========

    Copernicus removed the one and only obstacle which stood in the way of the racial solution of the Jewish question.

    Sorry, this makes no sense. You are saying that a heliocentric view somehow supports oppression of the Jews?
    (Besides, note that the Jews are not a race; they are a culture.)
    ========

    Darwin’s work suited K. Marx’s purpose…

    Marx may well have come to see Darwin’s ideas as correlating with some of his, but again note that The Communist Manifesto, wherein Marx spelled out his class-struggle notions, was published eleven years before Darwin’s. Therefore Marx’s main ideas were conceived independently of—without any “help” from—Darwin.

    in that it provided a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle i.e. mass murder.

    “Mass murder” does not describe the struggle for survival in Nature; neither does it describe the historical class struggle. (Yes, Stalin murdered many millions, but: he was not a Marxian Communist, and the broader class struggle in the world does not involve mass death.)
    Do not use so much hyperbole (or even error) in your postings; they weaken your case considerably.
    ========

    Natural instincts bid all living beings not merely conquer their enemies, but also destroy them…

    Nonsense. The water buffalo is the “enemy” of the lion, but does not seek to destroy the lion. The buffalo will fight at need, but tries mostly to avoid, not kill the lion.
    Also, where is the attempt by one kind of tree, say, to “destroy” another kind nearby?
    ========

    …the neo-pagan Bolshevik regime

    “Pagan” means “worshiping a god other than mine”. The Bolshevik/Soviet system was not religious, however, but (officially) atheist. Therefore they were not pagans.
    ========

    Christian teaching stays in the way of a new Palestinian State, or a new Holocaust, if you prefer.

    I do not prefer. Those notions need not—and should not—be equated, and you do those people a disservice by doing so.
    A new Palestinian state could be emplaced without any further destruction of Israelis or Palestinians, if they could somehow be made to realize that they can share the land that each group believes was given to them by some version of the God of the Book.

    Comment by Silverhill — July 27, 2007 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  1379. Does anyone have anything on the new testament?

    Comment by RaptorJesus — July 28, 2007 @ 1:47 pm | Reply

  1380. This has to be the worse case of Christianity bullpoop ever. I might not be adding much to this conversation since I’m already debating religion somewhere else, but this is completely ridiculous. We can tell the Earth moves because of its relation and distance to other planets and stars in the solar system.

    “2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.” Isn’t that how God works? Religions were started by men who could not explain natural phenomenons through science.

    I’m atheist but unlike you I’m not going to shove my beliefs down every man’s throat. Believe what you want to believe in, but don’t take away the opportunity of others to learn.

    [Ed Note: Please watch your language. Profanity is not allowed on this family friendly site.]

    Comment by Maxime — July 28, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  1381. “I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism.”

    By taking away people’s freedoms and right to education, you are encouraging anti-Americanism.

    I cannot believe you censored my comment when the 3rd comment on this page says “fracking.” It seems kind of hypocritical to criticize every non-Christian theory, and then censor others on the rebuttal. “Witch doctors”? Do you not understand that many of the medications you use today would be considered witchcraft during the time when Christianity was law? You know that box that sits in your living room that has miniature people performing acts in it would also be considered witchcraft?

    Evolution and heliocentrism were not started to discredit Christianity. If it wasn’t for “heretics” we would still be living in the dark ages.

    Here’s something I believe you should read: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm. Why don’t you just put your kids in a private Christian school? Schools do not as much promote atheism as they promote freedom of religion and acceptance. Do you not realize how offended you get by the fact heliocentrism is taught in American schools? Don’t you think people of other religions would get offended if their children were only being taught Christian beliefs?

    [Ed Note: Drop the f-bomb again, Maxime, and we’ll ban your behind. Don’t do it again. This is a family website. Children read it. Keep that in mind, treefrog.]

    Comment by Maxime — July 30, 2007 @ 12:56 am | Reply

  1382. I hope the terrorists DO get a nuke and start with your ‘un-moving’ neighborhood.

    [Ed Note: Why do you hate America, Mr. Bungle? Your music is an abomination, by the way. I’m glad I finally got to tell you this simple fact. Everybody hates Mr. Bungle.]

    Comment by Mr. Bungle — July 30, 2007 @ 1:50 am | Reply

  1383. “I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism.”

    Somehow I connect being an American to being an atheist. Just because it’s all about FREEDOM. Freedom of thinking and questioning the old believes as well.

    Comment by Rationalist — July 30, 2007 @ 4:05 am | Reply

  1384. Silverhill wrote re:Christian teaching stays in the way of a new Palestinian State, or a new Holocaust, if you prefer.
    I do not prefer. Those notions need not—and should not—be equated, and you do those people a disservice by doing so. A new Palestinian state could be emplaced without any further destruction of Israelis or Palestinians, if they could somehow be made to realize that they can share the land that each group believes was given to them by some version of the God of the Book.

    I was reluctant to write about the racist aspect of heliocentrism because the accusations of racism, these days, are considered a cheap shot against one’s ideological or scientific enemies. But since you mentioned this problems in your attacks against almost my every word I cannot avoid presenting this ugly side of heliomania any longer. Sorry, I cannot make it any shorter, because I want to have your full attention.

    Renaissance scholars believed that Western Civilization had progressed beyond the barbarism of the Middle Ages, having found its inspiration and closest parallel in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome.

    In Dante’s De Monarchia the “divine predestination” of the Roman people as the world ruling power is derived not from interpretations of the Hebrew prophets or from the appointments of Peter but proved from the genealogical tree of Aeneas and Creusa! Race and not religion is the decisive thing for Dante. Campanella, the earliest apologist for Galileo introduced together with heliocentrism the monstrous idea of eugenics when he observed: “Love is foremost in attending to the change of the race; men and women are so joined together, that they bring forth the best offspring.” Thus the Age of Reason started its long course culminating the irrationality of fascism and nazism and found its refuge in the Vatican Museum.

    Consider in this context what an official Vatican publication, Guide to the Vatican Museums (Gestione Vendita Publicazioni Musei Vaticani, Citta del Vaticano. 1979, o. 12) has to say in this matter: “ It was this spirit which inspired the creation of two of the most illustrious of the humanistic institutions of the Holy See: the Vatican Library and the Vatican Museums. Both were the outcome of a vision of Graeco-Roman culture as the perfect, almost timeless expression of human creativity at its highest levels – thought and art – and as the precursor, at times almost the prefigurement, of Christanity, above all in the West.”

    Aristotle writes: “If there were men who in physical stature alone were so pre-eminent as the representatives of the Gods, then everyone would admit that other men by right must be subject unto them. If this, however, is true in reference to the body, then there is still greater justification for distinguishing between pre-eminent and commonplace souls.”

    Physically and mentally the Aryans are pre-eminent among all peoples; for that reason they are by right, as the Stagirite expresses it, the lords of the world. All Church historians inspired by Aristotle tell us that all the Semites and half-Semites, in spite of their great intelligence, never succeeded in founding a State that lasted, and that because everyone always endeavored to grasp all power for himself, thus showing that their capabilities were limited to despotism and anarchy, the two opposites of freedom.

    In 59 B.C. Cicero explains the reasons why Roman patience might, and would, break down: “Even while Jerusalem was standing and the Jews were at peace with us, the practice of their sacred rites was at variance with the glory of our empire, the dignity of our name, the customs of our ancestors. But now it is even more so, when that nation by its armed resistance has shown what it thinks of our rule. How dear it was to the immortal gods is shown by the fact that it has been conquered, let out for taxes, made slave.” To him the Jews, on account of their Biblical geocentrism, which became their bad karma, were a nation born to servitude (nationibus nati servituti).

    Like all scientific Romans Cicero believed in Pythagoras’s heliocentric astrology. In his “Dream of Scipio,” he speaks of the Sun as “the Lord and Ruler of the other lights, the Mind and Guiding Principle of the universe.” Indeed, this religion was incompatible with the Science of the Jews which prohibited all astrological beliefs: “When you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon, and the stars, the whole heavenly host you must not be lured into bowing them or serving them.” (Dt. 4:19)

    Meditate on the famous lines from Virgil’s Aeneid 6.851-853:

    Roman, remember by your strength to rule
    Earth’s peoples – for your arts are to be these
    To pacify, to impose the rule of law,
    To spare the conquered, battle down the proud.

    Two subjects of the Roman Empire spread this hateful propaganda in the 19th century. In his magisterial two-volume work Modern Egypt, Lord Cromer argued that the ‘Oriental’, meaning Semites, was irredeemably childish and the diametrical opposite of ‘us’: “Sir Alfred Lyall once said to me: ‘Accuracy is abhorrent to the Oriental mind. Every Anglo-Indian school always remembers that maxim.’ Want of accuracy, which easily degenerates into untruthfulness, is in fact the main characteristic of the Oriental mind. The European is a close reasoner; his statements of fact are devoid of any ambiguity; he is a natural logician, albeit he may not have studied logic; he is by nature skeptical and requires proof before he can accept the truth of any proposition; his trained intelligence works like a piece of mechanism. The mind of the Oriental, on the other hand, like his picturesque streets, is eminently wanting in symmetry. His reasoning is of the most slipshod description.
    The influential French philologist E. Renan attempted a “scientific” explanation for new racist and imperialist myths. He argued that Hebrew and Arabic were degraded languages, deviations from the Aryan tradition, which had become irredeemably flawed. These Semitic tongues could be studied only as an example of arrested development and lacked the progressive character of ‘our’ linguistic systems. That was why Jews and Arabs were both ‘une combinaison inferieure de la nature humaine: “One sees that in all things the Semitic race appears to us to be an incomplete race by virtue of its simplicity. This race – if I dare use the analogy – is to the Indo-European family what a pencil sketch is to a painting; it lacks that variety, that amplitude, that abundance of life which is the condition of perfectibility.”

    How the astronomy of the ‘racial riff-raff’ could be better than the astronomy of the ruling elites of the Aryan nations?

    The Racial Pedigree of the Palestinians

    In the same year as the XIXth Dynasty pharaoh Merneptah (c. 1224-1211) claimed ‘victories’ in Canaan, he also had to confront a violent combined incursion of Libyans and ‘Peoples of the Sea.’ Philistines or ‘Sea People’, as they are called in the Egyptian documents had originated from Cyprus or Crete, or for the most part, it seems, from south-west Asia Minor (Caria), where their non-Semitic language appears to have originated. The Philistines possessed strong cultural affinities with the Mycenaeans (speaking proto-Greek) whose powerful city-states in Greece were suffering destruction at about this time. Sea Peoples, including apparently the Philistines, had already been settling in Canaan before the time of Ramses III, at the expense of the Canaanites. Interestingly, the Bible preserved the one and only Philistinian word seren denoting a military rank, which is a variant of Greek tyrant.

    Emperor Hadrian can be regarded as the father of the Syro-Palestinian statehood. According to Eusebius (Historia Ecclesistica IV.6), no Jew was henceforth allowed to set foot in Jerusalem or the surrounding district. Hadrian proceeded to convert Jerusalem into a Greco-Roman city, with a circus and amphitheatre, baths and a theatre and with streets conforming to the Roman grid pattern. He also erected temples dedicated to Jupiter and himself (Aelia was his clan name). To repopulate the city, Hadrian apparently brought in Greco-Syrians from the surrounding areas. Hadrian also banned circumcision and celebrations of the New Moon were also prescribed.

    Palestinians know very well how to play the trick of the racist sentiment on the so-called Quartet. In their history books they teach their children Aryan racism: “The Philistines, who came from Crete and Asia Minor, merged with the Canaanites, who originated from the Arabian peninsula, and gave the land is name, Falastin. The Jebusites, a Canaanite people, are the ancestors of the Palestinians. Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but a “believer in one God.” The twelve sons of Jacob fled to Egypt, interbred with the Egyptians (i.e. they became mongrels, racial riff-raff) there and became numerous. Moses and his followers wandered in the desert; they were not endowed with any scientific or artistic talents and made no cultural achievements whatsoever…”

    The authors of the Palestinian history books were inspired by these passages from A. Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”: “What we see before us of human culture today, the results of art, science, and techniques, is almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan.” (…) “The Jew forms the strongest contrast to the Aryan.’’(…) “The Jewish person, with all its apparent intellectual qualities, is nevertheless without any true culture, especially without a culture of its own. For the sham culture which the Jew possesses today is the property of other peoples, and is mostly spoiled in his hands.”

    The frontispiece of the book The Migration of Symbols by Count Goblet d’Alviella is a representation of Apollo, from a vase in the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna; on the middle of Apollo’s breast there is a large and prominent swastika. In other words, the Greeks, like the Brahmins, regarded their sun god Helios, or Apollo as a chakravartin, a supreme ruler who ruled the four quarters of the world. W. von Braun, a former SS-major is considered the father of the US space program. This program can be considered the prognostic of the final triumph of the Palestinian (Aryan people) over the Jews (a Semitic people), of heliocentrism over geocentrism.

    Consider Hamas’ summer hot streak; it has scored the ultimate media trifecta. First, the New York Times and the Washington Post simultaneously ran Op-Ed articles by Ahmed Yousef, a senior leader of Hamas who defended his group’s bloody putsch in Gaza. Now, the Los Angeles Times has opened its Op-Ed page to Hamas political bureau deputy Mousa Aby Marzook.

    Here is Rabbi Marvin Hier’s opinion about those events: “Hamas, an offshoot and affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, is as committed to its vision of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law as Hitler was to his “1,000-year Reich.” And the editors turn a blind eye to Hamas’s founding charter, which invokes the infamous forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    Former Israeli Cabinet Minister Natan Sharansky succinctly described the cultural milieu in the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority as one that “promotes genocide” against Jews: “As in Nazi Germany, there is an entire culture of hatred in Palestinian Arab society today, from textbooks to crossword puzzles, from day camps to TV music videos. Calling for the murder of Jews, as Jews, is the end result.” The Nazi slogan was: Juda verrecke! The full meaning of Juda Verrecke is lost in English translation. It is akin to perishing like a “lice-ridden cur.” Nazi leaders, among them Joseph Goebbels, Julius Streicher, and Hans Frank, frequently described Jews as vermin in need of extermination.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 30, 2007 @ 10:27 am | Reply

  1385. sisyphus… isn’t that the name of some myth created by poly-theist heathens? Or was it a nihilist, godless exitstentialist french philosopher? I get them confused sometimes.

    Comment by barry — July 30, 2007 @ 12:54 pm | Reply

  1386. Look sisyphus, I think you are beeing extremely mind closed. I will state the following. All we know or believe (which are actually the same thing but that is a different phylosofical arguement)comes from empirical knowledge. What we read or hear and believe is because we have expirienced something that makes us believe it or we believe another explanation about it for the same reason. Explanation that in the fact was generated just exactly. There is actually no way of really knowing something if we go to a phylosofical disscusion except if we actually had discussion made by violence instead of arguments. There is no way i can make you believe something if your believes are not based on evidence rather than your necesity to believe. Necesity that is no different to my necesity to believe in empirical evidence. However i think you should call people who doesnt believe in god an atheu. There are a lot other religions. you should just call them non-christians.
    I think many people could actually accept the heliocentric theory and believe in god aswell, having in mind that people who wrote the bible were not god, but humans too, so they could have missed a few things or get some other wrong. I think you shouldn´t insult physisian either, you know they could say you are wrong about the relatibity thing, i think so too.

    Comment by marulo — July 30, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Reply

  1387. Roman Pytel, I hate to tell you this, but your comments will never be read by Sisyphus or Psycheout, simply because they’re too long. They’re like ADHD kids with too much candy: they can’t be bothered to read more than ten or eleven words, let alone several paragraphs. Dom’t blame them, I guess God decided to make them stupid.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 30, 2007 @ 3:58 pm | Reply

  1388. [Ed Note: Drop the f-bomb again, Maxime, and we’ll ban your behind. Don’t do it again. This is a family website. Children read it. Keep that in mind, treefrog.]

    Are you serious? Did you not read the 3rd comment? The one I was QUOTING directly from your page.

    Here: “Wow. I’m….stunned. Are you seriously that [f-word] stupid? I though we resolved this issue, oh I dunno, a few hundred years ago.

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

    The “f-bomb” was dropped 12 times, 23 times was the vulgar word for excrement not censored, unless other replacement words were used that I’m not aware of, I was the only one censored.

    I’m surprised that asteroids were barely mentioned. What is the explanation of their creation in biblical terms? They are the remnants of planets that were formed during the Big Bang. On the note of evolution, how do explain that dwarfism spreads and that family members have similar genetic make-up? Are DNA test completely bogus?

    Comment by Maxime — July 30, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

  1389. “[Ed Note: Why do you hate America, Mr. Bungle? Your music is an abomination, by the way. I’m glad I finally got to tell you this simple fact. Everybody hates Mr. Bungle.]”

    Haha, he doesn’t mean America, he means the nutcases like you. Think of it as payback for the Crusades.

    Comment by Maxime — July 30, 2007 @ 4:27 pm | Reply

  1390. “Roman Pytel, I hate to tell you this, but your comments will never be read by Sisyphus or Psycheout, simply because they’re too long. They’re like ADHD kids with too much candy: they can’t be bothered to read more than ten or eleven words, let alone several paragraphs. Dom’t blame them, I guess God decided to make them stupid.”

    Roman Pytel is one of the smartest commenters on this blog, Adam. His comments speak for themselves, and he has no need of my paltry contributions to buttress his arguments.

    You’d probably understand how this dialogue thing works, if you weren’t Canadian.

    Comment by Sisyphus — August 1, 2007 @ 7:30 am | Reply

  1391. […] best post is definitely “Heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine.” That’s right; all that crap those science teachers have been shoveling you about the Earth […]

    Pingback by » If this ain’t satire, it sure should be.-My 1983 — August 1, 2007 @ 11:40 am | Reply

  1392. Oh my!! Did comment #1392 mention the “S” word? How did that get through the satire-blocker? What next, calling this a parody?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 1, 2007 @ 3:16 pm | Reply

  1393. We can’t block it if it’s on someone else’s site, Tyler. I’m sure, after we’ve been around awhile longer, people will start to realize that we’re legit. It’s kind of sad, though, that people are so closed-minded that anything that contradicts their own beliefs is automatically dismissed as not being serious.

    Comment by Lyssie — August 1, 2007 @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  1394. Amazing. The earth is fixed in space, and everything moves around it. Absolutely amazing that anyone could believe that in ANY day and age, much less the present. I guess that we’re just going to have to face the fact that The Age of Reason is something that has not only come, but has gone as well. It actually makes things a lot easier: “But officer, I wasn’t speeding. My car doesn’t move at all; the WHOLE UNIVERSE was going by too fast!”

    Comment by ***UNChristian Word Removed*** — August 1, 2007 @ 7:52 pm | Reply

  1395. Geocentrism is false.

    Comment by the Truth — August 1, 2007 @ 8:00 pm | Reply

  1396. Comment by Lyssie: “It’s kind of sad, though, that people are so closed-minded that anything that contradicts their own beliefs is automatically dismissed as not being serious.”

    Very well put Lyssie. Just because I don’t share your belief in “god” my opinion (and others here) is “dismissed as not being serious”. Man, ye guys stink of hypocrisy!!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 2, 2007 @ 3:23 am | Reply

  1397. Please point out an example of when I have dismissed you as not being serious, as I do try my best to respect others’ opinions, and would like to know where I have erred.

    Comment by Lyssie — August 2, 2007 @ 5:33 am | Reply

  1398. Comment by Lyssie: “It’s kind of sad, though, that people are so closed-minded that anything that contradicts their own beliefs is automatically dismissed as not being serious.”

    Lyssie,

    I was being facetious 🙂 Do you not see the irony in your statement?

    It actually describes this site perfectly even though you were trying to describe people who don’t take this blog seriously. Religious people are the most closed-minded people around because they will not (or can not) see that they might, just might, be wrong about the alleged existence of “god”.

    Try giving up the crutch, stand on your own two feet and see how it feels… what’s the worst that could happen? Comfort blankets are for children, sooner or later they need to ne weaned off them for their own good.

    And if you are part of the “Blogs 4 Brownback” team then you obviously believe all this nonsense or this is just a parody, either way, my opinion (and others) is not taken seriously. QED.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 2, 2007 @ 7:48 am | Reply

  1399. But there’s irony in your statement too. You are being closed-minded by stating that religious people are the most closed-minded people around and that religion serves only as a crutch. Open-mindedness and religion are not mutually exclusive. I was actually raised in a non-religious household. My parents are very good and kind people, and I’m fully aware that morals and religion are not one and the same. However, I felt a need for a connection and a deeper meaning in my life. Some people find that via art, or sports, or what have you. I began to explore religion, reading up on many different faiths and attending different services. The solemnity and ceremony of Catholicism just clicked with me. I’m sure you do see it as a crutch, and that is your prerogative. I see it as being part of something larger than me, something that connects me to others, and something that takes me outside of my own petty problems and makes me think about the grander scheme of things.

    And I’ve said it before, but evidently it bears repeating: this is a group blog, and we we don’t all necessarily think with one mind. There are certain viewpoints that some of the other blog contributors hold that I do not hold, and vice versa. I’m not, however, going to argue with them anytime there’s a divergence of opinion. If you look at other group blogs, everybody makes their own contribution, and it’s not expected that every person in the group will always chime in with their opinion on what another person writes. So I don’t know why it’s expected of me.

    Comment by Lyssie — August 2, 2007 @ 7:59 am | Reply

  1400. “…and something that takes me outside of my own petty problems and makes me think about the grander scheme of things.”

    Why not simply see the world as it is? Why the need to live with your head in clouds, so to speak?

    The universe is far more complex, interesting and beautiful than any “imaginary being” could hope to explain.

    As for being closed-minded: show me evidence and I will consider changing my mind; whilst the lack of any evidence is what fuels faith. By that definition, I am not closed-minded.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 2, 2007 @ 8:26 am | Reply

  1401. I do see the world as it is: as something that is complex, interesting, beautiful, and mysterious. It is that mystery which makes it beautiful. I am not anti-science at all — I think that science is humanity’s way of trying to understand God’s creation, while faith is simply the appreciation of God’s creation and the appreciation of the mysteries that are beyond our ken. And as far as the closed-minded thing goes, you ARE being closed-minded. “Show me evidence,” indeed. Do you only believe in that which you can see and touch? That’s your right, but it seems to me a bit sad, as I wonder if you are fully able to appreciate the beauty and mystery of our universe and of life with your insistence on concrete proof of everything.

    As a wise man once said, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” 🙂

    Comment by Lyssie — August 2, 2007 @ 8:35 am | Reply

  1402. Lyssie,

    My idea and appreciation of the universe is vast and unlimited, by putting “god” into the equation, I feel it limits the actual appreciation of the mystery and beauty. The idea of the big-bang to where we are today is amazing to me… trying to rationalise it all by claiming “goddidit” ruins that amazement.

    Put it this way: isn’t it convenient that humans are on the planet best suited to life? Why? This is because it happened this way. No big plan, just happened that way. Amazing!! However, if “god” designed it all, we could be living on Mars or Jupiter as “god” could’ve designed us to live there. People need something to explain what they don’t understand, I get that, and some people call it “god”, but just becasue you believe in it, doesn’t make it true!

    It would seem I rely on evidence, whilst you rely on wishful-thinking 🙂

    And as a wiser man once said:
    “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” Bertrand Russell

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 2, 2007 @ 8:58 am | Reply

  1403. “It actually describes this site perfectly even though you were trying to describe people who don’t take this blog seriously. Religious people are the most closed-minded people around because they will not (or can not) see that they might, just might, be wrong about the alleged existence of “god”.

    Try giving up the crutch, stand on your own two feet and see how it feels… what’s the worst that could happen? Comfort blankets are for children, sooner or later they need to ne weaned off them for their own good.

    And if you are part of the “Blogs 4 Brownback” team then you obviously believe all this nonsense or this is just a parody, either way, my opinion (and others) is not taken seriously. QED.”

    Worse than a moonbat, you’re a scoundrel, Tyler. Why would you speak to a decent woman like this?

    Comment by Sisyphus — August 3, 2007 @ 7:36 am | Reply

  1404. “you’re a scoundrel, Tyler”
    Coming from you Sisyphus, I’ll take that as a compliment.

    “Why would you speak to a decent woman like this?”
    Are you trying to fight her battles for her? Don’t you trust her to speak for herself? I don’t know Lyssie, so how would I know if she were “decent”? And “decent” is a relative term btw, I know plenty of decent women that don’t believe in superstitious nonsense.

    “People who don’t like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn’t have such funny beliefs to start with” 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 3, 2007 @ 8:06 am | Reply

  1405. You absolutely have a right to your own opinions, Tyler. However, if you are trying to persuade someone that your way of thinking has more merit, then calling the other person’s beliefs “funny”, “superstitious nonsense”, a “crutch” or a “comfort blanket” does nothing to advance your argument.

    To me, a person’s faith is a VERY personal thing — I’ve spoken more about my faith to you, a total stranger, than I have to many people who I actually know.

    I did this in an effort to help us understand each other, so that I could understand why you feel the way
    that you do, and so that you could understand why I feel the way I do. I talked about a very personal part of myself, even though it wasn’t the most comfortable thing for me, in an attempt to try to overcome some of the well-publicized rancor between the religious and the non-religious. I did this to try to reach out a hand to you, under the assumption that even if you didn’t agree with my beliefs, you would respect them.

    However, even though I’ve not once insulted your atheism, and have tried to have a respectful, honest discussion with you, you’ve continued to insult and deride my faith. Instead of trying to understand why I feel the way that I do, you have basically tried to convert me by making fun of what I believe. If I went to your door and tried to convert you to Catholicism by making fun of your beliefs, would you appreciate it? Or would it only create discord?

    I’m disappointed, really. I thought that this would have been a good opportunity, however small, for two people of opposing beliefs to have a good dialogue and to learn to appreciate each others’ viewpoints. But, you’re not interested in understanding — you just seem interested in “winning”. And so, if it makes you feel better, I gladly concede defeat. You won the argument, Tyler. Congratulations.

    Just don’t ask me for a re-match, okay?

    Comment by Lyssie — August 3, 2007 @ 8:41 am | Reply

  1406. “Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” Nietzsche

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 3, 2007 @ 9:21 am | Reply

  1407. How God Corned the US and Soviet atheists
    Adam Nelson, please explain me, why there was no British astronaut confirming the validity of Newton’s Laws? Oh, please, don’t tell that James Bond did just that in Moonrakers

    In 1989, three years after Halley’s comet declined from all previous orbits the Soviet astronomers published an article arguing that the movements of this comet are chaotic” and that “the model of its motions is not determined!” But such a statement undermined the scientific correctness of the trajectory of the first sputnik which was calculated according to Newton’s law, the same laws that Halley used to calculate the trajectory of his come. At the same time a Hungarian scientist published a book casting doubt on Gagarin’s flight into space. Read in this context, the article published by the former organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 2003:

    Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn’t allow to perform complicated space maneuvers.

    Forty years ago, American President John Kennedy urged the people to get united about the Moon landing idea: the USA wanted to win the space competition of the 1960s at any price to maintain the image of a superpower. This was a dispute on superiority of two social systems: the flourishing (as it seemed at that time) socialism and the “decaying” capitalism. The USSR experienced problems of its post-war period, what is more, the Soviet country had to suffer great spending in the arms race in order to be ready for a probable war against any of the former allies from the anti-Hitler coalition. Nevertheless, the USSR always managed to be ahead of rich America. It was the Soviet Union that first sent an artificial Earth satellite which meant undoubted advantage of the Soviet missile production. Already at that time it was clear that level of missile technologies would become the criterion of military superiority in the nearest future. 

    American felt very much nervous: they needed to save the prestige of the country. Right at that very time John Kennedy addressed the Congress and asked for $40 billion for realization of a Moon shuttle program. The sum was incredible for that time. The whole of the world heard sensational news on July 20, 1969: Americans flew to the Moon, walked around the unexplored planet, raised the American flag there and got back home with samples of the Moon soil. People of the Earth studied pictures with the exotic Moon landscape and watched documentary TV reports of the exciting adventure.

    However, strange things showed up as soon as the first excitement caused by the flight to the Moon weakened. When researchers looked at pictures and filmed materials about the Mood expedition, they discovered some things that looked very strange. Some of the pictures revealed unnatural shades and sometimes even disagreed with the fundamental physics laws. American engineer Ralph Rene was the first who notices these faults: he declared that there was no Moon landing at all and that all pictures and films about the flight to the unexplored planet were a fake. He said that photos of that kind could be made in special pavilions on the Earth. British researchers even said that such films could be fabricated in Hollywood. What is interesting, only several tens of pictures about the Moon flight out of the total number of 13,000 pics held by the NASA were published in fact. Scientists and engineers studied all information concerning America’s Moon flight more carefully and passed a severe verdict: flight of American astronauts to the Moon is just a carefully considered leg-pull.
    Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn’t allow to perform complicated space maneuvers connected with docking and undocking of the Apollo carrier rocket that was separated from the module with people inside it. What is more, return back of the carrier rocket was also quite a problem. The Apollo onboard computers performed even poorer than present-day calculators.
    The possibility of human survival in open space was also called into question. Did a space suit made of rubber and cloth in the 1960s protect people on the Moon, the planet having no atmospheric layers and magnetic fields? Could it protect from high radiation? The temperature of 250 Fahrenheit degrees below zero would immediately kill humans in such suits. But it was reported that none of the astronauts was even affected with radiation sickness.

    Former NASA staffer Bill Kaysing, the author of the book “NASA Never Landed a Man on the Moon”, confessed that even the Agency itself considered the possibility of man’s landing on the Moon was 0.0017% at that period (which was practically nothing!).
    It is not ruled out that Americans did fly to the Moon, but didn’t advance further than its orbit. Robots did the rest of the work. However, it is also unlikely that 382 kilograms of Moon soil could be delivered to the Earth after three expeditions (Soviet Moon research vehicles brought just 0.3 kg), because additional kilograms of burden are risky for a rocket. The rest of the Moon expedition simulation was just a political trick, shooting made in pavilions that at the same time allowed the USA to spare billions of dollars. This version resembles the movie Capricorn-1. Probably, the movie was made with a view to rehabilitate America for its big lies.
    When the Apollo-Moon module system was studied more carefully, it became clear that two astronauts in space suits couldn’t find room in the module, not to mention the Moon robot that couldn’t be placed there even non-assembled. What is more, astronauts couldn’t squeeze through a narrow tunnel between the space ship and the module. In fact, an exit hatch opens inward, not outside as the legendary documentary demonstrates. The documentary was probably shot in a cargo bay of a swooping supersonic airplane to create an effect of weightlessness. It is strange but not a single star could be seen on the pictures of the Moon flight. Stars are even brighter in space than as seen from the Earth. Instead, there was blue light streaming into the illuminators of the space ship, at the time when it is known that open space is absolutely black.
    Apollo landing was also strange: running of the engine didn’t move a single stone or a speck of dust on the Moon surface. After that, the module settled on a flat surface. Pressure of a jet engine would inevitably make a crater on the place of landing while braking. As is know, the Moon gravitation makes up 1/6 of the Earth gravitation. A cloud of dust thrown from under the Apollo wheels should have been six times higher than depicted on the photos.
    As for the shadows that astronauts and their apparatuses cast on the Moon, they were of different length and direction, at the time when it is known that the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon. It may also seem strange that not a single picture of the Earth as seen from the Moon  was made during the expedition. Movements of the astronauts looked as if the film was slowly played. It was obvious that jumping and moving was very difficult for the astronauts, but the jumping amplitude was very small. Even school children know that a man weighing 160 kilograms on the Earth would weight only 27 kg on the Moon, which would made him jump like a grasshopper.
    Raising of the American flag also revealed several faults. There is no atmosphere on the Moon, it consequently means that there can be no wind.  As it was said, a flagpole had a horizontal slat on the top so that it could be possible to unfurl the flag wide. It looked rather strange that a corner of the flag fluttered and one of the astronauts even had to pull it down. Probably, some stupid worker in a film pavilion, where the documentary was shot, opened the door and let the wind inside. In a word, there were lots of strange things connected with the Mood landing expedition that produced such a sensation all over the world.
    Future life of the astronauts was also a mystery. Within a year since the sensational expedition, 11 people connected with the Apollo program died. 7 people died in car accidents and 3 burnt down in test capsules although they were high-class pilots. Is it possible that the people were liquidated because they wouldn’t keep the secret about the fake Moon expedition?
    As the Northrop Grumman corporation, the one that developed and constructed the Moon robot, told an American magazine that all negatives and records concerning the event were liquidated. It is rather strange, because we know that America treats its achievements and the history with trepidation.

    15.05.2003
    Source:
    URL: http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/2809-moon-0

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 3, 2007 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  1408. “Americans flew to the Moon, walked around the unexplored planet”
    Roman, the moon is not a planet, it a satellite of the planet Earth. Anyone, and I mean anyone, with a high-school knowledge of astronomy knows this.

    And as for the whole moon landing “hoax”, that’s like so last century, wake up and smell the latte:

    http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/moon_hoaxes_010215.html
    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

    If we needed any more evidence that this site is indeed a parody/satire, your latest post proves it. Idiot.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 3, 2007 @ 7:54 pm | Reply

  1409. Sisyphus wrote: “Roman Pytel is one of the smartest commenters on this blog, Adam. His comments speak for themselves….”

    They do indeed speak, at great—and often excessive, IMO—length; more conciseness would be a great blessing. More correctness would be an even greater blessing. The nonsense about the “fake” Moon exploration is a case in point.
    ….Just for one example: when he wrote “The temperature of 250 Fahrenheit degrees below zero would immediately kill humans in such suits.”, he showed inexcusable ignorance of basic thermodynamics (as does Sisyphus). I, like many others, have dipped my bare hand briefly into liquid nitrogen—at 321°F below zero—and suffered no damage. Wearing a highly-insulating suit such as the Moon walkers did, at a mere -250°, is plenty of protection….
    =========

    Lyssie wrote: “It’s kind of sad, though, that people are so closed-minded that anything that contradicts their own beliefs is automatically dismissed as not being serious.”

    (The following is not aimed at your, or anyone’s, religious beliefs, Lyssie.)
    What is ironic about your statement is that Sisyphus—along with others here with similar beliefs about very simple, ordinary, physical situations—contemptuously (and contemptibly) dismisses the fact-based beliefs of those such as Tyler Durden and I (and others here). Sisyphus (for one) is indeed “so closed-minded” that our beliefs are “automatically dismissed as not being serious.”
    You cannot level such a claim without it being obvious (at least to those with the capacity for critical thinking) that you are being blind to your selfsame failure. “The pot calling the kettle black”, you know.

    Comment by Silverhill — August 5, 2007 @ 12:48 am | Reply

  1410. Wildest Theories Against The Moon Landings
    http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/moon_hoaxes_010215.html

    What evidence is there, really, that the Apollo program landed men on the Moon and brought them back? Phil Plait, an astronomer at Sonoma University in California, and the Web master of http://www.BadAstronomy.com, has his reasons.

    “If I were trying to fake this, I would put stars in the image,” he said referring to the complaint made by hoax proponents that the Apollo photos lack stars. If this had been an oversight, he said, it’s an amazingly stupid thing to have forgotten, considering the scope of the “hoax.”

    Not to mention that with the way cameras work, photographing stars under those conditions would have been nearly impossible. “If you do know about physics and photographs, you can see these arguments are all ridiculous,” Plait said. [Tyler Durden: Yes Roman, this is a reference to you!!]So why do people even give an idea like this a second thought?

    “I’m not exactly sure,” said Plait, “Michael Shermer is a renowned skeptic and he has a list of reasons (such as) we have an innate thing inside of our brain, we have a need to believe. But one thing he leaves off, is that some of these things are just believable. If you don’t know much physics, these arguments might sound convincing.”[Tyler Durden: Yes Roman, this is another reference to you!!]

    Besides, Plait says the political realities of the time would have made a fraud of that scale almost impossible to pull off. “We went to the moon to beat the Soviets. If the Soviets had suspected that we faked these missions in any way, they would have been screaming at the top of their lungs.”

    Fluttering Flag –

    The Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.

    The Science: If you look closely, you will notice the flag’s edges are pulled taught. This effect, which was done purposely as to not allow the flag to just hang flat, it was created by inserting a stiff wire into the fabric. The “flutter” was created as the astronauts worked to erect the flag. As the wire was adjusted, “Old Glory” appeared to wave.

    The Shadow Knows –

    The Claim: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.

    The Science: The astronauts were taking their photos on a hilly, brightly-lit landscape while the Sun was close to the horizon. Imagine taking a photograph of someone on a rolling, uneven field of snow during a full, low-hanging Moon. The contours of the ground would produce shadows of many different lengths.

    Fried Film –

    The Claim: In the Sun, the Moon’s temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.

    The Science: No one was leaving bare film out on the hot lunar surface. All material was contained in protective canisters. In addition, at the time the Apollo missions landed, they were either at lunar dawn or dusk. As a result, the temperature was more easily manageable.

    No crater under the LEM –

    The Claim: When the LEM landed, its powerful engine didn’t burrow a deep crater in the “dusty surface.”

    The Science: Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was “kicked up” as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films.

    Its full of stars!

    The Claim: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?

    The Science: If you’ve ever taken a photograph outside at night, you’ll notice that faint distant objects don’t show up. That’s not because the air blocks them — it’s because the brightness of the nearby objects washes out the film. In fact if you were standing on the day side of the Moon, you’d have to somehow block the landscape out in order for your eyes to adapt enough to pick out the stars.

    If this were a “hoax”, can you imagine how many people NASA would’ve had to keep quiet in order to perpetrate this? Would’ve been easier just to actually go to the moon! 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 5, 2007 @ 8:25 am | Reply

  1411. The Children of Copernicus at Cape Canaveral

    “Ex arte et facultate astrologica dudum antea et ad hucusque (1520) tempora eciam apud exteras remotissimasque nations nominitassima et honoratissima semper existit.”

    This quotation was excerpted from the resolution of the faculty of the Cracow University appropriating funds for the position of astrologer, Matthew of Miechow. The decision was approved of by Bishp Tomicki, chancellor of the University. The University was Europe wide famous for its astrological horoscopes and mathematics, which N. Copernicus was studying during a period of five years (in qua atrium liberalium scola floret, arte mathematica celebris – Eneas Silvius). It will be instructive to remind in this context that the term “Genesis” meaning, nativity, horoscope was given by the Greek translators to the first book of the Bible. Suetonius mentions that Vespasian was admonished by the mathematicians to take head of Metius Pomposianus, because he had an imperial genesis. For the same reason Herod, reportedly, wanted to kill infant Jesus; he also had an imperial genesis which, by chance, as Ch. Darwin would say, came true. Shortly before Copernicus came to Cracow an astral alphabet for genethliacal purposes (i.e. to calculate nativities) was published in that town. Its impact on the mind of the young Copernicus is clearly recognizable in one of the passages of his “revolutionary” book.

    The most famous Queen of all witches of the British Empire Sybil Leek in her memoirs entitled My Life in Astrology described how credulous the modern luminaries of the space are: “Florida proved to be the means of adding yet another group of people to my astrological portfolio. I live some twenty miles from the famous Cape Kennedy, home of the US space program…Through the help of my old friend, Ann Fague, formerly of Connecticut but now working as social aide in the protocol office of General David Jones at Patrick Air Force Base, I began to meet many people working on the space program. Scientists, engineers, astronauts, and their families, all seemed to trek to the house on the river, and I was amazed at how interested everyone was in my kind of scientific astrology (In case you don’t know, scientific astrology is a bastard sister of Science). Then I was invited to give a talk about astrology at one of the monthly luncheons, and I understand I broke a record for attendance. More amazing still were the questions from the enthusiastic audience. Not that everyone was pro-astrology, but to a lecturer, an avid interest is much more satisfying than a mutual admiration society. Many ladies came to me afterward, saying they had questions to ask not for themselves, but about their families. After this talk, there was a never-ending stream of inquiries about astrology, many of them from men at the Cape whose names later became household words in the space program. Practically all the top brass at their base also had their horoscopes done, and many predictions on world events were solemnly taken to the base to be locked in one of the many safes where they could be checked at appropriate times…Reading any of the magazines and papers, the astronauts emerge either as rare, godlike creatures unable to relate to the rest of mankind, or as cardboard characters with little depths or dimension to them as people.”

    There are no tides in the Mediterranean See. Alexander saw them for the first time when he invaded India. Posidonius, a Stoic philosopher in his travels to Britain made the discovery that the moon governs the tides. He considered this as certain proof of astrology’s first axiom, that the heavenly bodies have direct effect on the physical world. Astrology represents the clearest survival of the Pagan gods (like “Apollo”) throughout the history of the West. The Byzantine theologian Stephanus still called astrology “the most valuable of all arts and queen of the sciences.”

    Shakespeare who refers frequently to astrology, believed in the influence of sun, moon, and stars on matter and all life on earth. In King Lear Kent asserts: “It is the stars, the stars above us, govern our conditions…” Flemstead – the first Astronomer Royal, who founded in 1675 a long-living dynasty – performed the first official act of his reign by casting the horoscope of the Observatory. The calculation still exists. On another occasion he was made to appear, by a coincidence as one well skilled in conjuration. Ch. Darwin also attended the seances of conjurers. He was a very credulous man, a feeble mind, an idiot.

    Prof. J.R. Lange from California considered Newton’s doctrine of universal attraction “nonsense” and had absolute proof in the fixity of the North Pole Star that the earth does not move. In a letter to General De Peyster, he wrote: “Let us hope and pray that the days of the pernicious Copernican system may be numbered.” Amen.

    Tyler, could you explain us the math of the voyage to the moon?

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 5, 2007 @ 9:35 am | Reply

  1412. Typical Apollo LM Computer Utilisation:
    http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

    During the Apollo Programme manned lunar landing mission powered descents, the guidance computer provided several sequential programmes (P63 to P67) for guidance and control operations. The basic LM descent guidance logic was defined by an acceleration command which is a quadratic function of time and is, therefore termed quadratic guidance. Fig. 2 (http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm) shows a simplified flow chart.

    The current LM position and velocity vectors were determined from the navigation routine. The target position vector, velocity vector, acceleration vector and down-range component of Jerk (time derivative of acceleration) were obtained from the stored memory. The down-range components of these state vectors (current and desired) are used in the Jerk equation to determine the time-to-go (TGO) from the current to the desired conditions. If the TGO, current state vector and desired state vector are known, then the commanded acceleration vector can be determined from the quadratic guidance law. By using spacecraft mass, calculating the vector difference between commanded acceleration and the acceleration of lunar gravity, applying Newton’s Law, then a commanded thrust vector can be found, the magnitude of which was used to provide throttling of the LM Descent Propulsion System (DPS). The vector direction was used by the LM Digital Autopilot (DAP) to orientate the DPS thrust by either trim gimbal attitude commands or RCS commands to re-orient the entire spacecraft.

    The first programme used during the Apollo LM descent to the lunar surface was P63, which contained an ignition algorithm and the basic guidance logic. Based upon a stored, preselected target site surface range, the ignition logic determined the time for the crew to ignite the DPS for PDI (Powered Descent Initiate). After DPS ignition, the basic guidance logic was used to steer the LM to the conditions for the beginning of the Approach Phase (See Fig. 3 http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm).

    When the Braking Phase Guidance programme, P63, reaches the preselected values, the guidance programme switches automatically to programme P64 (Approach Phase Guidance). This is basically the same as P63 but with a new set of targets but, in addition, provided window-pointing logic for the Landing Point Designator (LPD) operation. The LPD was a scale etched onto the LM forward triangular window, on the Commanders side, which the Commander could sight along to view the landing area to which the Apollo LM was being guided. The computer calculated the look-angle (relative to the forward LM body axis, ZB) and displayed it on the DSKY to assist the Commander in his LPD operation. The guidance programme switched automatically from programme P64 to programme P65 (Velocity Nulling Guidance) when the TGO reached a preselected value (See Fig. 4 http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm).

    The P65 programme was used for an automatic vertical descent to the surface of the Moon by nulling all components of velocity to preselected values, if this was required. There was no position control during this programme. At any time during the operation of automatic guidance modes (P63, P64 or P65) the crew could call-up optional programmes P66 (Rate of Descent) or P67 (Manual Guidance) through the DSKY. During the P66 operation, the crew could control spacecraft attitude with the computer commanding the DPS throttle to maintain the desired altitude rate. This would normally have occurred near the end of the P64 programme, near low gate, prior to switching to P65 programme for manual control of the final touchdown position. Programme P67 maintained navigation and display operations for complete manual control of the throttle and altitude. This was not a ‘normal’ mode unless the programme, P66, was inoperative.

    GUIDELINES FOR ADVANCED MANNED SPACE VEHICLE PROGRAM by Robert 0. Piland

    Lunar Mission:
    The first guideline states that the vehicle should be capable, ultimately, of manned, lunar reconnaissance. The justification for this step, in a technical sense, is that it is a logical intermediate step toward future goals of landing men on the moon and other planets. This mission will require solution of many of the problems associated with the manned, lunar landing mission. This is particularly true of the earth reentry and recovery phases of the flight. In addition, it is a mission which will require a considerable amount of trajectory control, consequently imposing rather severe requirements on the navigation and control system, and thereby effectively demonstrating our ability to navigate in space. A further significant consideration in selection of the manned lunar reconnaissance is that it is the ultimate manned mission compatible with our firmly planned booster program.

    Continued here: http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/AMSVPguidelines/ch-2.htm

    The Apollo Flight Journal: The Apollo On-board Computers by Phill Parker

    Introduction:
    One of the most important systems of the Apollo spacecraft is the Guidance and Navigation System (G&N), which played a leading role in landing the first men-on-the-moon at precise locations and helped in the three very successful ferry flights to the Skylab space station. The system will also be used in the July 1975 joint international mission of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) between the United States and the Soviet Union.

    The G&N system is semi-automatic, directed and operated by the three-man crew. It performs the basic functions of inertial guidance, attitude reference and optical navigation and is inter-related mechanically or electrically with the stabilisation and control, electrical power, environmental control, telecommunications and instrumentation systems. There are three main subsystems: inertial guidance, computer and optical. The inertial guidance subsystem senses acceleration changes and attitude changes instantaneously and provides attitude control and thrust control signals to the stabilisation and control system. Optical navigation subsystem sightings of celestial bodies and landmarks on the Moon and Earth are used by the computer subsystem to determine the spacecraft’s position and velocity and to establish proper alignment of the stable platform.

    Continued here: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.htm

    All you ever wanted to know about the science behind the moon voyages: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/apollo.html

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 5, 2007 @ 11:29 am | Reply

  1413. “Instead of trying to understand why I feel the way that I do, you have basically tried to convert me by making fun of what I believe.” This blog kind of started it by calling non-Christians moonbats and witch doctors.

    If the moon landing was faked, the Russians would have made sure that the whole world knew about it.

    Comment by Maxime — August 5, 2007 @ 12:37 pm | Reply

  1414. “Tyler, could you explain us the math of the voyage to the moon?” How hypocritical, explain the math of God.

    You choose to disbelieve something that has video footage, pictures among other evidence, while you believe in something that has no physical evidence.

    Comment by Maxime — August 5, 2007 @ 12:41 pm | Reply

  1415. Roman Pytel: “There are no tides in the Mediterranean See.”

    Wikipedia article on tides: “There are only very slight tides in the Mediterranean Sea and the Baltic Sea owing to their narrow connections with the Atlantic Ocean.”

    Do your research properly, Roman, so that you don’t look foolish or stupid.
    =======

    “Prof. J.R. Lange from California considered Newton’s doctrine of universal attraction “nonsense” and had absolute proof in the fixity of the North Pole Star that the earth does not move.”

    Henry Cavendish first measured gravitational force in the laboratory, in 1797. He would not have been able to do so unless the test objects were able to affect each other gravitationally. They did. (In other words, they didn’t have to be planets or other special-category objects in order to show gravitation.) So. Prof. J.R. Lange was a fool in that respect.

    Polaris (the North Pole Star) is not at the axis point of the celestial sphere, so it describes a small circle about that point. Therefore it has no “absolute fixity”. Therefore Prof. J.R. Lange is again shown to have been a fool, along with anyone who would repeat his foolishness as if it were truth….
    =========

    “Tyler, could you explain us the math of the voyage to the moon?”

    Tyler did provide references, as you have seen. Now, could you give us explanation of the mathematics—repeatedly asked for here, but never given—behind a flat and/or immobile Earth?
    I especially want to see how a geosynchronous satellite avoids falling to the ground, since it is (apparently) motionless w.r.t. Earth.

    You ask for the math; you receive it. We ask for the math; we don’t receive it. Why is this?

    Comment by Silverhill — August 6, 2007 @ 9:15 am | Reply

  1416. So the moon landings were a “hoax” and astrology is actually “true”? Wow!! Roman, do you spend all your free time trying to keep us entertained with mindless waffle??

    Roman, as far as astrology is concerned, do the math:

    Six Billion people on the planet, divided by twelve astrological signs = Five Hundred Million People under each sign. Whatever happened to individuality?? For example, are all Five Hundred Million Virgos going to get a new job, or move house, win the lottery, or meet a new partner all at the same time??

    Yes, yes, yes, it might depend on your actual birth-date, but try telling that to the gullible moron who reads his “stars” in the morning paper that he (and only he) is about to win the lottery!!!

    As for the scientific (non)reasoning behind astrology… do you really want me to rid you of what little dignity you still have left on this blog in front of all these nice people?? Well?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 7, 2007 @ 11:48 am | Reply

  1417. I got this far in the comments: “The metric system is pure evil” before I finally realized this was a complete satire. I congratulate you for staying on message for so long, laughing your ass off the whole time about it.

    Comment by John — August 8, 2007 @ 9:18 am | Reply

  1418. “This blog kind of started it by calling non-Christians moonbats and witch doctors.”

    That’s honesty, not insulting invective. I’ve met Wiccans who are proud to call themselves moonbats and witch doctors. They wear the titles with honor.

    “If the moon landing was faked, the Russians would have made sure that the whole world knew about it.”

    How? They would’ve had to own up to their own deceptions.

    Comment by Sisyphus — August 8, 2007 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

  1419. Tyler, you are a true sophist. The logic of my comment was: if you are a heliomaniac, you have to believe in astrology. Unlike the astronauts I don’t believe in this pseudoscience. I never attended Her Majesty, S. Leek’s lectures. I never did a pilgrimage to Cape Canaveral. I never hugged the earth there.Believing that moon landing was a hoax, doesn’t mean that astrology is true. A mere assumption that the voyage to the moon is possible means that astrology has been vindicated. Tyler, M. Hall explained the problem of the geosynchronous satellites in his book The Earth Is Not Moving. Read it.

    Silverhill, I don’t believe in a flat earth. I never said that, so I don’t need to explain the flat earth math. I am afraid, that, like a certain Don Quijote, you love to fight windmills. And doing that you don’t have time to do your math.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 8, 2007 @ 4:32 pm | Reply

  1420. Comment by Roman Pytel: “A mere assumption that the voyage to the moon is possible means that astrology has been vindicated.”

    Houston, we have a problem!

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 9, 2007 @ 5:11 am | Reply

  1421. Are you getting mixed up between astronomy and astrology, Roman? One is the study of the cosmos and the other is made up superstitious nonsense.

    Although the ’tilting at windmills’ comment vindicates any previous errors that you may have made 😉

    Comment by hoverfrog — August 9, 2007 @ 6:58 am | Reply

  1422. Why haven’t these Copernicans faced reality yet? They’ve been beaten down dozens of times over on this thread, yet refuse to give in. Do they have brains in their heads, or is that taken out and a copy of the Communist Manifesto surgically implanted in there at birth?

    Comment by Marcia P. — August 10, 2007 @ 9:17 am | Reply

  1423. Why haven’t these Christians faced reality yet? They’ve been beaten down dozens of times over on this thread, yet refuse to give in. Do they have brains in their heads, or is that taken out and a copy of the bible surgically implanted in there at birth?

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 10, 2007 @ 10:36 am | Reply

  1424. Who’s Communist? Accusing people of things like being a Communist or a moonbat is kind of immature, isn’t it? I can see children on a school playground doing this. This blog is not only funny, it’s like a real life reproduction of “Lord of the Flies.” Which is exactly what America will become if Brownback wins, btw. At first I took you seriously. I even tried arguing for a while. There’s just not a point to it anymore. I’ll see you all in hell. I hope you enjoy your lives under the jurisdiction of the Reformation of Manners and ignorance.
    Kiss my ass, suckers!

    Comment by neutronnate — August 11, 2007 @ 12:07 am | Reply

  1425. Did you really use the Bible as most of your “proof” against Heliocentrism?

    That’s pretty pathetic…

    Comment by Elving Lara — August 11, 2007 @ 12:52 am | Reply

  1426. In the Heliojungle of Irrationality

    Let me sketch in a few words the general idea of Biblical geocentrism. It is expressed in the first verse of the Book of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (1:1) The English ‘heavens’ renders the Hebrew noun ‘shamayim’ which is dual, which means God created two heavens, more precisely, the northern and southern hemispheres and the earth in between. This idea is expressed in the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag and the so-called Star of David standing for earth in between them. I admire the courage of this tiny people defending their Biblical Science.

    In the Book of Job you’ll find another vision of the earth in the space: “He stretched out the North over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). I challenge my scientific opponents to quote a Biblical verse in Hebrew describing the earth as ‘flat’.

    It was St. Augustine who defended the Aryan teaching about the ‘flat’ earth and at the same time attacked those who believed in the so-called antipodes. St. Augustine also rejected the Biblical creationism and proclaimed superiority of the philosophical evolutionism.

    Please keep in mind that the speed of the moon orbiting the earth in geocentric system would be approximately 58.000 mph, if the the accepted distance of the moon from the earth: 225, 724 miles is true.

    The movements of the moon in the heliosystem are as incomprehensible as the dogma of Holy Trinity and, indeed, since the very beginning, heliocentrism was proclaimed as a philosophical dogma inaccessible to regular human logic.

    Most encyclopedias don’t mention the problem of the movements of the moon orbiting the earth in heliosystem. I was lucky when I found the edition of the World Book Encyclopedia printed in 1960, that is, before the politically motivated “voyage to the moon”. Here is how they described the movements of the moon in heliosystem:

    “The reception of this theory (heliocentrism) is surprisingly muted. It was certainly not accepted immediately, as there are too many problems and too few advantages.

    “Every 24 hours, while the earth has turned on its axis, the moon has moved about 12 degrees eastward in its orbit. The west-to-east movement of the moon around the earth makes the moon rise an average of about 51 minutes later each day of its cycle.
    “The moon revolves around the earth at an average speed of 2,300 mph. The speed is greater near the earth than at the farthest point on the moon’s orbit. The moon completes one revolution (a circle) in about 27 and 1/3 days.”

    Please, keep in mind, the daily moon rises and moon settings are explained adequately by the earth spinning on its axis, but the difference between the twenty four hours of solar day and night and 24 hrs and 51 minutes of the lunar cycle forces the astronomers to accept the retrograde (eastward) movement of the moon of 12 degrees. So far so good, we speak about relative movements of earth and moon.

    Now, the situation changes radically, when it comes to explain the movements of the earth and the moon on their simultaneous orbits around the sun. The earth rotates on its axis at about 1,037.5 miles an hour at the equator. The speed of a trip around the Sun is about 66,700 miles an hour. I won’t complicate this problem any further by math of the hypothetical movements of the whole solar system around the center of the galaxy at an average velocity of about 220 kilometers a second, about 492.126 miles an hour.

    The movements of the two bodies: earth and moon around the sun force us to forget the circular, monthly orbit of the moon around the earth, because it’s obvious that the earth would loose its moon orbiting at 2,300 mph. So the one and only graph explaining the simultaneous movements of the earth and the moon around the sun is slalom-like orbit of the moon speeding up (more than 66,700 mph) on one side and slowing down (less than 66,700 miles mph) on the other side of the earth. And, most importantly, the distance between the earth and the moon would be fluctuating which means we would see the changes of the moon size.

    Now, let’s give a cursory glance to the book First on the Moon. A Voyage with Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr.(Little, Brown and Co. Boston. 1970):

    On page 195 we find: “Seventy hours into the flight, 13,638 nautical miles from the moon, velocity up to 4,047 feet per second, over 2,700 statute mph…”

    On page 204: “73 hours and twenty-five minutes into the mission… 75 hours…Only 2,241 nautical miles away from the moon, velocity back up to 5,512 feet per second, over 3,700 statute mph, forty-one minutes away from loss of signal as Apollo 11 goes behind the moon..”

    On page 385: “Apollo 11 a little more than four thousand nautical miles from the moon, traveling eastward at precisely 1 statute mile per second.” Compare this speed with the speed of orbiting earth and the moon of approximately 20 miles per second.

    Whoever wrote this book was sure that most people had no idea about the problems of the movements of the earth-moon system in heliocentrism. But what about the astronomers or rather mathematicins? Well, to keep their jobs they have to stay within the confines of the generally accepted paradigm. Otherwise they would be qualified as herectics or moonbats. Exactly, like Silverhill and Tyler qualify me.

    But let’s peep deeper. In the ‘theology’ of the Pythagorean sect (heliomaniacs) numbers are the ‘primeval stuff, from which the universe was born. So, if the primeval stuff is irrational (like for example the ‘pi’ number), the whole universe must be irrational. Galileo had proved it. He dropped two weights, differing as ten to one, from the leaning tower, and noted the fact that both weights reached the ground at the same time. In such a world as this, he said in effect, this is the way falling bodies behave. If that is not possible in a rational world, then the world we live in is not a rational one! He was right. The latest experiments seem to show that an electron may, for reasons best known to itself, be moving in two orbits at the same time, possibly, like the “Apollo” 11 in one orbit around the moon and in another one around the sun.

    To this point Galileo’s common sense method of noting the behavior of things, sticking close to the observable facts, has brought us; it has at last presented us with a fact that common sense repudiates. If you are fed up with living in the irrational world of heliomaniacs, you can cross over to the imaginary world built of the square roots of all negative numbers. Gauss’ ‘complex plane’ introduced to accommodate all numbers containing √-1 was transformed by H. Minkowski into a real Imaginary Paradise called the Fourth Dimension of the form D= √(-(cT)²) = (-c²T²)½. The astronauts have found this Fantasy Island in the area of negative infinity of the Jaina mathematicians which starts from -1. The tickets are as cheap as the tickets to the Moon once sold by the PANAM airline.

    In the Hohmann transfer which would keep the pace of the earth and moon orbiting at 20 mps, you have to loose 600 miles per second of velocity to be captured by the moon’s gravity. The Apollo crewmen using a different transfer had to loose only 0.4 miles per second to get the same effect. Now, what you have to keep in mind is this: When a mathematician is tackling a physical problem, and comes across quantities which have no physical existence, he refers to them as imaginary. For instance, suppose I throw a ball into the air and fire a shot at it with a rifle. If the bullet strikes the ball I would call it a ‘hit’, and if it does not, a ‘miss.’ Mathematicians studying the situation may calculate the paths of the ball and the bullet and according to the results declare that they collided at a ‘real’ point (a hit) or at an ‘imaginary’ point (a miss) in the Fourth Dimension. The word imaginary, meaning ‘existing only in human imagination’ has the same meaning as Copernicus’ ‘imaginary circles’ (‘circulos fingere’) which he used to explain the movements of heavenly bodies.

    Similarly, Newton begins with a purely mathematical construct or imagined system – not merely a case of nature simplified but a wholly invented system of the sort that does not exist in the real world at all. Here by ‘real’ world is meant only the external world as revealed by experiment and observation. In this system or construct, a single mass-point moves about a center of force. In other words, a ghost orbiting another ghost.

    A consequence of the mutual gravitational attraction is that all three of Kepler’s laws are not strictly true in the world of physics but are true only for mathematical construct in which masses do not interact with one another, orbit either a mathematical center or a stationary attracting body. The distinction Newton draws between the realm of mathematics, in which Kepler’s laws are truly laws, and the realm of physics, in which they are only “hypotheses” (or approximations), is considered one of the revolutionary features of Newtonian celestial dynamic.

    P.S. The space shuttle orbiting the earth at a speed of 9 mps, for me, proves that we live on the stationary earth. Reinhard Furrer, West German astronaut who flew on the 22nd shuttle mission in the fall of 1985 expressed his experiences in space: “I would have wished that after my return people has asked me how it was out there. How I coped with the glistening blackness of the world and how I felt being “a star that circled the earth.” (Harry Hurt III, For All Mankind. 1988, p.326) Well, only in Biblical geocentrism the stars circle the earth. In contradistinction, the one and only Polish astronaut, Maj. M. Hermaszewski took aboard a Soviet sputnik Copernicus’s The Revolutions. He was awarded the rank of a general for this deed. Now, they are building in the capital of Poland a huge Center of Science named after Copernicus which will commemorate the flight of Gen. Hermaszewski. Atheists of all countries unite!

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 11, 2007 @ 8:36 am | Reply

  1427. Republican Presidential Nomination: 07/25/2007 – 08/09/2007

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youdecide2008/index.html
    http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Sam-Brownback.html
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

    Giuliani 28.7%
    Thompson 18.7%
    McCain 14.3%
    Romney 9.6%
    Gingrich 9.5%
    Brownback 1.0%

    Iowa Republican Caucus: 07/23/2007 – 08/05/2007

    Romney 24.8%
    Giuliani 15.0%
    Thompson 11.8%
    McCain 9.5%
    Huckabee 3.5%
    Brownback 2.6%

    “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!!” 🙂

    Comment by Tyler Durden — August 11, 2007 @ 1:47 pm | Reply

  1428. #1419
    Maxime: “This blog kind of started it by calling non-Christians moonbats and witch doctors.”

    Sisyphus: “That’s honesty, not insulting invective. I’ve met Wiccans who are proud to call themselves moonbats and witch doctors.” They wear the titles with honor.”

    Even if they wear the titles with honor, you’re still guilty of the Fallacy of Composition: “Because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property.”

    Besides, not only is “moonbat” an ill-defined term, unlike “non-Christian”, you ordinarily use it in the sense of invective, not of honor. Disingenuousness wins you no points.
    ===========
    ===========

    #1420
    Roman Pytel: “The logic of my comment was: if you are a heliomaniac, you have to believe in astrology … A mere assumption that the voyage to the moon is possible means that astrology has been vindicated.”

    Sorry, no. One can easily support the heliocentric view of the Solar System without believing one whit of the nonsense known as astrology. Knowledge of the basic physics involved in ballistics, which vindicates belief in the possibility of space travel, does not vindicate astrology.
    Try harder next time.
    ===========

    “M. Hall explained the problem of the geosynchronous satellites in his book The Earth Is Not Moving.”

    Marshall Hall “explains” the seemingly different case of geosynchronous satellites by claiming that they stay up via special dispensation from God.
    When I asked him about that, wondering why God would decide to alter natural law ONLY for such satellites, he could (or would) give me no answer.
    No points for you either, Roman, not while you use Hall’s hand-waving tactics in place of facts.
    ===========

    “Silverhill, I don’t believe in a flat earth.”

    Score one for you! Your ignorance is shown to be less than complete. Now, move on to the rest of the mathematics—you know, the part where you PROVE that the Coriolis effect and the Foucault pendulum do not show a rotating Earth.
    ===========

    “I am afraid, that, like a certain Don Quijote, you love to fight windmills. And doing that you don’t have time to do your math.”

    I’ve done my math already, in calculus class, where we studied (among other things) orbital dynamics. Which math did you study?
    ===========
    ===========

    #1427
    Roman Pytel: “Please keep in mind that the speed of the moon orbiting the earth in geocentric system would be approximately 58,000 mph, if the the accepted distance of the moon from the earth: 225,724 miles is true.”

    238,857 mi (384,403 km) is the accepted center-to-center distance in the Earth-Moon system. This gives, using Kepler’s Third Law, a speed of 2277 mph (3665 kph). Your speed of 58,000 mph is too large by a factor of 25.
    ===========

    “The movements of the moon in the heliosystem are as incomprehensible as the dogma of Holy Trinity”

    I find the “three-yet-one” notion incomprehensible indeed, but I comprehend the lunar movements fairly well. The two concepts do not correlate.
    ===========

    “Now, the situation changes radically, when it comes to explain the movements of the earth and the moon on their simultaneous orbits around the sun. The earth rotates on its axis at about 1,037.5 miles an hour at the equator.”

    Sisyphus would burn you for heresy at this point—you’ve agreed that Earth rotates!
    ===========

    “The movements of the two bodies: earth and moon around the sun force us to forget the circular, monthly orbit of the moon around the earth”

    The orbit is elliptic, not circular (though the eccentricity is only 0.055).
    ===========

    “because it’s obvious that the earth would loose its moon orbiting at 2,300 mph.”

    No, that is not obvious. It is necessary that the Moon orbit at about 2300 mph, at its (average) distance.
    Also, what happened to your claim of 58,000 mph for the lunar motion? The Moon would travel at 2300 mph in either system, you see. (I hope you see.)
    ===========

    “And, most importantly, the distance between the earth and the moon would be fluctuating which means we would see the changes of the moon size.”

    No, we would not see such changes with the naked eye, with no other way of comparing them—the changes are too small to measure that way. One can see that there are such changes by considering the existence of both total and annular eclipses of the Sun. The latter happen when the Moon is farther away than usual at the time of the eclipse.
    ===========

    “On page 385: “Apollo 11 a little more than four thousand nautical miles from the moon, traveling eastward at precisely 1 statute mile per second.” Compare this speed with the speed of orbiting earth and the moon of approximately 20 miles per second.”

    So what? There are several ways in which the 1 mph speed is perfectly understandable.
    ===========

    “Well, to keep their jobs they have to stay within the confines of the generally accepted paradigm. Otherwise they would be qualified as herectics or moonbats. Exactly, like Silverhill and Tyler qualify me.”

    I do not qualify you as a heretic; neither does Tyler, as far as I can tell. I do not label you a “moonbat” either, if only because I have no clear idea of its meaning.
    ===========

    “Gauss’ ‘complex plane’ introduced to accommodate all numbers containing √-1 was transformed by H. Minkowski into a real Imaginary Paradise called the Fourth Dimension of the form D= √(-(cT)²) = (-c²T²)½.”

    1) This paradise is both real and imaginary, you say? Make up your mind.
    2) D= √(-(cT)²) is not, of itself, a description of the “fourth dimension”. It is a part of the equation for distance between events in Einsteinian four-dimensional spacetime: D= √(x² + y² + z² – c²T²).
    3) If four-dimensional spacetime is to be considered a paradise, well, so be it.
    ===========

    “The astronauts have found this Fantasy Island in the area of negative infinity of the Jaina mathematicians which starts from -1.”

    Sorry, this makes no sense. Where and what is this negative infinity, and how does it concern ballistics?
    ===========

    “Similarly, Newton begins with a purely mathematical construct or imagined system – not merely a case of nature simplified but a wholly invented system of the sort that does not exist in the real world at all. Here by ‘real’ world is meant only the external world as revealed by experiment and observation. In this system or construct, a single mass-point moves about a center of force. In other words, a ghost orbiting another ghost.”

    All physical descriptions are simplifications to some degree. Newton’s system, which still works very well in cases that do not involve extreme speeds or extremely dense masses, exists to the same degree as do other models of reality. These systems have to be invented, but that’s not a negative point.

    Your “ghost” designation is just silly. Newton showed that mutually attracting bodies move as though their masses were concentrated at their centers; it’s a consequence of the observed spheric symmetry of the field.
    ===========

    “The space shuttle orbiting the earth at a speed of 9 mps, for me, proves that we live on the stationary earth.”

    Do you mean “nonrotating” when you say “stationary”? If so, you can’t have it both ways. You’ve already admitted that Earth rotates.
    If you mean that Earth rotates but does not orbit, then your statement also makes no sense. It would be quite easy for an object to orbit Earth at 9 mps relative to Earth, regardless of Earth’s other motion.
    ===========

    (Reinhard Furrer) “How I coped with the glistening blackness of the world and how I felt being “a star that circled the earth.” … Well, only in Biblical geocentrism the stars circle the earth.”

    Please permit Herr Furrer some figurative language.
    ===========

    “…Polish astronaut, Maj. M. Hermaszewski took aboard a Soviet sputnik Copernicus’s The Revolutions. He was awarded the rank of a general for this deed.”

    For the mere deed of taking Copernicus’s book on his flight? Wow, the Poles must have very loose requirements for becoming a general!

    Comment by Silverhill — August 13, 2007 @ 9:45 pm | Reply

  1429. Silverhill wrote: “Wow, the Poles must have very loose requirements for becoming a general!”

    You got it right, Silverhill. The Vatican-oriented Poles, the Russians, the British, the Americans and tutti frutti cakes have, indeed, very loose requirements for becoming an acclaimed heliocentric genius like N. Copernicus…Sometimes, as St. Paul observed, God uses human foolishness to rule the world. “The Wisdom (in today’s parlance Science)of this world is foolishness with God.” (1 Cor. 3:19). Pope John Paul II tried to reconcile the foolishness of this world with God’s Wisdom.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 14, 2007 @ 4:28 pm | Reply

  1430. “The Vatican-oriented Poles, the Russians, the British, the Americans and tutti frutti cakes have, indeed, very loose requirements for becoming an acclaimed heliocentric genius like N. Copernicus…”

    Eh? One cannot become an “acclaimed genius” for carrying a book, though one can perhaps become a general. Don’t try to misdirect my statement.

    Now, please answer the other, more important, points.

    Comment by Silverhill — August 15, 2007 @ 2:45 am | Reply

  1431. “Sisyphus would burn you for heresy at this point—you’ve agreed that Earth rotates!”

    Better someone that I agree with 99% than someone I disagree with 99%, Silverhill.

    Comment by Sisyphus — August 17, 2007 @ 8:47 pm | Reply

  1432. Disagree all you wish, but it won’t get you anywhere in the long run without facts on your side. That’s facts, now, not just beliefs.

    And, you think that the idea of Earth’s rotation is only about 1% of your argument? That’s odd; it seemed like nearly 100% at first. Why did you change?

    Comment by Silverhill — August 17, 2007 @ 9:42 pm | Reply

  1433. Where the Steel turns into “butter” – About Some Facts

    The Nuremberg Chronicle is a pictorial history of the earth from creation to the 1490s and was published in 1493. Michael Wohlgemuth’s pictorial interpretation of the Creation in Genesis shows only circles, like Copernicus’s diagram, on the first four consecutive days. And then suddenly in the fifth picture the miracle of colorful life appears: a river, a tree on the bank and a bird singing on its branches. You won’t see any trace of life in Copernicus’s diagram which is all about movements only. But the greatest surprise expects us in the seventh picture showing God reposing above His finished product – a series of earth-centered spheres with everything in its proper place (2:1-3). The caption of the third sphere sphaera ignis teaches us that the earth is surrounded by a ring of fire. You won’t find this ring of fire in Copernicus’s book or diagram. It turns out that The Nuremberg Chronicle is right. The modern science confirmed that.

    The Thermosphere is the layer above the mesopause. The gases of the thermosphere are even thinner than those in the mesosphere, but they absorb ultraviolet light from the sun. Because of that, the temperatures rise to 3,600º F (2,000º C) at the top. This is at the height of 430 miles (700 km) of the earth’s surface.
    Now, let me quote a short passage from the Epilogue of the book mentioned previously First on the Moon:
    “Look at the command module itself – the only component of the 363-foot-high Apollo-Saturn assembly that does come safely back to earth. A substantial fraction of its weight consists of the massive heat shield that protects it during reentry into the atmosphere, and therefore serves no purpose at all during the last hundred miles of the half-million mile round trip.” We don’t know what material was used for this shield because even tungsten or wolfram widely used in space missiles and other equipment that must withstand high temperatures, melts at 3410ºC.
    And here is a question and an answer from an interview of Bill Keysing for Nardwuar the Human Serviette:
    NTHS: Doesn’t NASA say that the reason there were no stars is because their cameras weren’t set for the proper exposure, isn’t that their line?
    BK: That’s their line and that’s pure baloney, because I’ve talked to photographic experts who say that NASA have all the money in the world to have a camera that would have taken magnificent pictures of stars. But there’s a little problem, you know, the temperature on the moon is 250ºF during the lunar day, and a friend of mine put some film in an oven and ran it up to 250º F and the film just curled up. If you notice that the Hasselblad camera is worn outside of the astronaut’s suit and it is not curled in any way. So that camera would have heated up to the temperature to bake cookies in a very short time, because the Sun on the moon is absolutely relentless, there’s no atmosphere to mitigate the heat of the Sun. So it’s obvious that the pictures that they brought back were not taken on the moon, nor could they have actually taken any picture on the moon, even if they had gone there.
    The thermosphere extends from an altitude of 100 km, which means that the astronauts sojourned for a while in a fiery furnace 600 km long. There is total silence in their logbook on the stretch between 177 miles and 3,140 miles distances from the earth. The astronauts and most encyclopedias keep mum on the temperature of the thermosphere for obvious religious reasons. According to the Koran, Muhammad ascended to heaven from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on the horse Buraq which had four human heads (In Polish folklore, a certain Twardowski ascended to the moon on a cock). In Soviet artist Belov’s huge painting Space Brothers, c. 1980, the figures on horseback carry the symbols of Soviet Russia triumphantly into space. The Soviets assimilated the Islamic religious imagery for political purposes. Keep in mind that their space missions were launched from the aerodrome at Bajkonur which is in Kazakhstan, a Muslim country. Politically, any mission into space is a minefield.
    Religion enters the picture of First on the Moon on July 20. During a service in the Webster Presbyterian Church, of which Buzz Aldrin was an elder, the Reverend Dean Woodruf said in his sermon: “When self-fulfillment and fulfillment are put together perfectly we are what we are meant to be. This is what Nietzsche developed in his idea of the “Superman.” This is not a new biological species but a new kind of man who realizes his capacity for self-transcendence and self-fulfillment. This is what Nietzsche meant when he spoke through Zarathustra: ‘Bless the cup which is about to overflow, so that the water, golden flowing out of it, may carry everywhere the reflection of thy rapture. Lo! This cup is about to empty itself again, and Zarathustra will once more become a man.” As you may recall, Nietzsche’s Uebermensch (superman) was pictured as a “blond, blue-eyed beast”. Incidentally, N. Armstrong is a blond, blue-eyed man (or beast, if you prefer the Darwinian jargon) and has a statue of the Buddha (with a swastika on his chest) in his apartment. Recently, he paid a visit to Israel.
    Well, in the cartoon The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, an episode titled The ‘N’ Men had Jimmy and his friends careening out of control through the Van Allen radiation belt, giving them all superpowers based on what each was doing at the moment they went through the radiation belt. This situation parodies the origins of the Fantastic Four.
    The Reverend Woodruf preached his sermon while the astronauts were traveling through the Van Allen Belts.
    Between 50 km and 85 km above the ground Mesosphere extends. The temperatures in this zone drop to -184º F (-120º C) at the mesopause.
    A test pilot named Joe Kittinger jumped from 74,000 feet. Near 40,000 feet, his thermometer read 98 degrees below zero, but his pressure suit, which was electrically heated, kept all but his legs warm. When Kittinger landed in the desert, thirteen minutes and 45 seconds after leaving the gondola, only his right hand bore any evidence of his journey from space. On that side, the glove had failed to pressurize, and the hand had inflated to almost twice its normal size. The swelling went down eventually, but the memory of a hostile sky stayed with him.” Man will never conquer space,” Kittinger had told his crew over the radio before he leaped. “He will learn to live with it, but he will never conquer it.” (Burkhard Bilger, Falling The New Yorker, Aug 13, 2007)

    William Cooper wrote:

    “NASA was created to make interstellar travel believable. The Apollo Space Program foisted the idea that man could travel to, and walk upon, the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon. No man has ever ascended higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the earth’s surface. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program. Any intelligent student with a basic physics can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.” http://harvest-trust.org/majestyt.htm

    If the Muslims can believe in Muhammad ascending to heaven on a horse, millions of others can believe in the Apollo landing on the moon. People always need to believe in something.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 18, 2007 @ 7:09 am | Reply

  1434. “And, most importantly, the distance between the earth and the moon would be fluctuating which means we would see the changes of the moon size.”

    First of all, no, you couldn’t.
    Second, have you ever tried using the visible spectrum as a measure of movement? All objects give off electromagnetic radiation, also called visible light. Redshift and blueshift occur when the electromagnetic radiation is shifted towards the red or blue end of the electromagnetic spectrum. This happens because of an increase in the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared with the wavelength emitted by the source. This increase in wavelength corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. What this means is if you analyse an object’s redshift or blueshift (which anyone can do, by the way; it doesn’t take a scientist), you can tell which was that distant object is moving! Cool, huh? Not only have scientists used this to further studies of relative helioseismology, but they have been able to study the motion of planets more in depth. I can only assume you realize what idea this strongly reinforced (not that it really needs any reinforcing)… so I won’t go on with this monologue that most people here probably don’t understand anyway.

    Comment by neutronnate — August 19, 2007 @ 12:11 pm | Reply

  1435. #1434
    Roman Pytel wrote:
    “Where the Steel turns into “butter” – About Some Facts”

    Some facts, yes. Not nearly enough facts, unfortunately (and typically for you, Roman, more’s the pity). Let’s set a few things straight….

    The caption of the third sphere—sphaera ignis—teaches us that the earth is surrounded by a ring of fire. You won’t find this ring of fire in Copernicus’s book or diagram. It turns out that The Nuremberg Chronicle is right. The modern science confirmed that.

    Modern science confirmed no such thing. There is no ring (or shell) of fire surrounding Earth or any other body in the Solar System—not in the usual sense of “fire”, that is, the hot gases and incandescent particles resulting from a combustion process.
    ======

    “The Thermosphere is the layer above the mesopause. The gases of the thermosphere are even thinner than those in the mesosphere, but they absorb ultraviolet light from the sun. Because of that, the temperatures rise to 3,600º F (2,000º C) at the top.”

    From the Wikipedia article on the thermosphere:
    “The thermosphere is the layer of the earth’s atmosphere directly above the mesosphere and directly below the exosphere. Within this layer, ultraviolet radiation causes ionization. (see also: ionosphere). …
    The thermosphere, named from the Greek θερμός (thermos) for heat, begins about 80 km above the earth. … Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 2,000°C. …
    The few particles of gas in this area can reach 2,500°C (4500°F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. It is, in effect, an insulator instead of a conductor. A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0°C. …
    The International Space Station has a stable orbit within the upper part of the thermosphere, between 320 and 380 kilometers.
    (emphases mine)

    Note that the ISS is not incinerated (or even inconvenienced) by the very hot, but very rarefied, gases of the thermosphere….

    ======

    “A substantial fraction of [the Apollo command module’s] weight consists of the massive heat shield that protects it during reentry into the atmosphere, and therefore serves no purpose at all during the last hundred miles of the half-million mile round trip.”

    This should have been “…except during the last hundred miles…”. The heat shield is critically necessary during the last hundred miles: the approximate depth of the atmosphere.
    ======

    “We don’t know what material was used for this shield because even tungsten or wolfram widely used in space missiles and other equipment that must withstand high temperatures, melts at 3410ºC.”

    Now you, and the author, are being at least foolish again. A simple Google search (“components and materials Apollo capsule reentry”) yielded this bit from astronautix.com: “1962 November
    New heatshield design for the Apollo CM
    Extensive material and thermal property tests indicated that a Fiberglas honeycomb matrix bonded to the steel substructure was a promising approach for a new heatshield design for the CM.”

    The heatshield was made with many layers of Fiberglas. It did not matter that the melting/burning point of the glass composite was below the temperature of the super-hot air caused by the reentry, because the heatshield material was intended to be destroyed—slowly—by the heat. One layer would heat up and burn off, exposing the next layer—which, due to the insulating properties of the previous layer, had not yet acquired much heat. The next layer then behaved similarly, taking away its share of the great heat energy. Then the next, and the next, until the capsule had slowed enough that there was no longer great heating outside. There were plenty of layers in the heatshield—enough to remove all of the reentry heat and still have some layers left over; the extra layers were for extra safety, of course. (This type of shield is called “ablative”. The Space Shuttle’s shielding is different, being meant to persist instead of being consumed. It’s an extremely refractory ceramic that transfers very little heat per time, and so is able to survive this kind of heating without losing material.)
    ======

    quote from Bill Keysing: “That’s their line and that’s pure baloney, because I’ve talked to photographic experts who say that NASA have all the money in the world to have a camera that would have taken magnificent pictures of stars. But there’s a little problem, you know, the temperature on the moon is 250ºF during the lunar day, and a friend of mine put some film in an oven and ran it up to 250º F and the film just curled up. ”

    Mr. Keysing, this is just stupid. (Mr. Pytel, promulgating Keysing’s stupidity is also stupid.)
    Yes, they could have included a camera for the purpose of photographing stars from the Lunar surface. But that’s not what they were trying to do! They wanted to get photographs of things on the Moon, such as astronauts, flags, bootprints, and vehicles. To do this they had to reduce the sensitivity of the camera to keep the images from being overwhelmed by the intense sunlight. This reduction of sensitivity meant that much fainter light sources, such as stars, fell below the threshold; they therefore could not show up in those images.
    This has been explained already, elsewhere, many times; do a Google search for good websites (such as Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy).

    Also, putting unprotected film in an oven is in no way comparable to putting film in a well-insulated camera on the Moon. To claim that the former invalidates the latter is to be disingenuous at best, unpardonably stupid at worst.
    ======

    “So that camera would have heated up to the temperature to bake cookies in a very short time, because the Sun on the moon is absolutely relentless, there’s no atmosphere to mitigate the heat of the Sun. So it’s obvious that the pictures that they brought back were not taken on the moon, nor could they have actually taken any picture on the moon, even if they had gone there.”

    What’s “obvious” is that Mr. Keysing thinks that the camera was simply left out in the sunlight continuously. It wasn’t. (Also, 250ºF is rather low for baking cookies. Go check your cookbook.)
    ======

    “The thermosphere extends from an altitude of 100 km, which means that the astronauts sojourned for a while in a fiery furnace 600 km long.”

    A rather short while, in a region not properly describable as either fiery or a furnace (see above).
    ======

    “There is total silence in their logbook on the stretch between 177 miles and 3,140 miles distances from the earth.”

    Perhaps because there was nothing special to report that was not already logged by automatic instruments, both on board and on the ground?
    ======

    “The astronauts and most encyclopedias keep mum on the temperature of the thermosphere for obvious religious reasons.”

    “Obvious”? Nonsense. “Religious reasons”? Nonsense. “Most encyclopedias” do discuss the layers of the atmosphere, to varying degrees of detail of course.
    ======

    “Keep in mind that [the Soviets’] space missions were launched from the aerodrome at Bajkonur which is in Kazakhstan, a Muslim country.”

    Keep in mind that in order to best use Earth’s rotational speed, launches should be done as near to the Equator as is practical. Kazakhstan, which was not a separate country in the Soviet era, is well to the south in the old Soviet territories. Its religion (which did not officially exist in Soviet law) was irrelevant.
    ======

    quote from Joe Kittinger: “Man will never conquer space. He will learn to live with it, but he will never conquer it.”

    So what? We will never “conquer” the sea, either, but we have learned (mostly) to live with it.
    ======

    quote from William Cooper:
    “NASA was created to make interstellar travel believable.”

    No, it wasn’t. It was created for the purposes of interplanetary travel. Interstellar travel is a whole different ball game (although in recent years, NASA and other organizations have been doing preliminary design work for interstellar exploration).
    ======

    “Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.”

    Utter nonsense. This also has been refuted many times, in many ways. See the Bad Astronomy website again, for instance. (No, I have no connection with Dr. Plait or his website.)
    ======

    “No man has ever ascended higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the earth’s surface.”

    Was this number chosen to be higher than the known maximum altitude of the ISS (about 215 miles)? Even if so, it’s irrelevant. It is stated here without substantiation, and is therefore without merit as an argument.
    ======

    “No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program.”

    Again, unsubstantiated (and untrue, besides), so it, too, is worthless.
    ======

    “Any intelligent student with a basic physics can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.”

    More nonsense. Physics (and engineering) students study dynamics, including ballistics and orbital mechanics. The equations are straightforward. (By the way, knowing basic physics—which you apparently do not—would not enable one to “prove” anything about an alleged conspiracy and fraud.)
    ======

    “People always need to believe in something.”

    Yes. It’s very bad that you choose to believe in nonsense, however….

    Comment by Silverhill — August 19, 2007 @ 3:55 pm | Reply

  1436. “Yes. It’s very bad that you choose to believe in nonsense, however….”

    The Bible is not nonsense, Silverhill.

    Comment by Sisyphus — August 20, 2007 @ 12:59 pm | Reply

  1437. Anything that states that rabbits are ruminants, or that bats are birds, is nonsense at least to that degree.
    Anything that contains contradictory statements is also nonsense, again to that degree.
    Examples:
    Moses and others saw God (see: Exodus 24:9-11—“Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
    And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
    And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.”

    But no one has seen God (see: 1 John 4:12—“No man hath seen God at any time.”).

    These are contradictory; therefore at least one of them is wrong (that is, nonsense).
    ============

    However, what I was labeling as nonsense in my previous post was not Biblical claims; pay better attention, Sisyphus. What was arrant nonsense on the part of Roman Pytel, and/or his cited sources, were claims such as:
    that the thermosphere is unsurvivably hot;
    that NASA did not insulate their cameras;
    that religious reasons were involved in launching from Kazakhstan;
    that the composition of the space capsules’ heatshields is unknown;
    etc.

    You can’t blather your way past physics, folks. Science (in its proper form) deals with reality—with facts—that cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand and a condescending or disingenuous attitude. Facts can help cause belief; belief cannot help cause facts!

    Comment by Silverhill — August 20, 2007 @ 11:32 pm | Reply

  1438. “The Bible is not nonsense, Silverhill.”

    The Bible essentially tells the story of a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father. This cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree (edited copypasta from *Chan).

    Sorry, you’re trying to imply that centuries of scientific advancement are nonsense, but a frequently-edited (Do you speak Hebrew? No? Sorry, then you’re not reading the real Bible!) book of stories is not?

    I recommend downloading the song “Leaving Jesusland” by Nofx. Yes, the evil evil “rock” powerchords may hurt your quaint sensibilities, but then you’d have an idea of how stupid people like you look to the rest of the country–nay, the world. Sorry for the bluntness (Heh. Blunts.), but it had to be said.

    I’m going to smoke a bowl and watch some legally-acquired lesbian pornography. Have a great day! 😀

    -Donk.

    Comment by Donkspeedonkdonk — August 23, 2007 @ 12:48 pm | Reply

  1439. Oh god…

    OH GOD!

    I CAN’T FATHOM YOUR STUPIDITY!

    OH GOD!!

    Comment by Geremy Tibbles — August 23, 2007 @ 2:36 pm | Reply

  1440. You’re a shell of a man, donk. Criticizing Jesus will earn you nothing but perdition, and pornography and illegal drug use will land you in prison.

    Plus, you gave poor Geremy Tibbles conniptions. And who can blame him? Who indeed?

    Comment by Sisyphus — August 24, 2007 @ 5:50 am | Reply

  1441. sounds like Donk hit the nail on the head. Thats a great explanation!

    and as for a shell of a person….Sisyphus has that honor.

    I wonder if you realize that the stone you’re pushing is your religion, and that the hill you are climbing is science. You will never quite push your religion all the way up to the point where it overrules science. You’ll just get to watch as your religion rolls back down the hill again, while science advances.

    Dont worry though…evolution isn’t for everyone…obviously it has escaped you.

    Comment by Spyke — August 24, 2007 @ 8:57 am | Reply

  1442. Since the Exodus, Freedom has always spoken with a Hebrew accent. (Heine, Germany to Luthetr, 1834)

    That man alone is free who has God for his leader (Philo, Every Good man Is Free, 1)

    Not a handful of rain descends from above without the earth sending up two handfuls of moisture to meet it. (Simeon b. Eleazar, Gen. R. 13.13)

    All God’s creations borrow from each other: day from night and night from day, the moon from the stars and the stars from the moon…the sky from the earth and the earth from the sky. (Exod. R., 31.15)

    If our slaughter-houses were placed under the supervision of the Jewish shohet…disease would be less prevalent and the average duration of life would be increased. (Leroy-Beaulieu, Israel Among the nations, 1895, p. 159)

    I believe in the sun even when it is not shining. I believe in love even when not feeling it. I believe in God even when He is silent. (Inscription in a Cologne cellar, where Jews hid from the Nazis)

    Fear of God is the thread on which, the virtues are strung together like pearls. Loosen the knot of fear, and all the precious virtues will fall apart (Orhot Tzadikim, 15C, Introduction.)

    In heliocentrism the moon moves forward and backward at the same time, like Lenin, who used to go two steps forward and one step backward. (Unknown)

    Our miraculous survival through the cataclysms of ancient and modern dynasties is a proof that our mission is not over. (Zangwill, Children of the Ghetto)

    We have taken your Bible over and made it ours, and said never a word of appreciation of the genius for God which produced it…We have called peace a Christian attitude, forgetting that it was a Jew who first used these words, which now belong to humanity, about beating swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. (Edmonds, Federal Council Bulletin, June 1931)

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 24, 2007 @ 2:21 pm | Reply

  1443. Whomever wrote this blog would probably still agree that the world is flat too if that was the case. This dude reminds me of that lady who would go to Military funerals and say crazy stuff about fags and homophobic remarks. Some people just need a reality check especially these Christian/Catholic Fundamentalists and what they believe to be true.

    Here’s a demonstration of what catholic fundamental brain-washing does to you. Just see it for yourself I don’t have to lie to you the long paragraph above my message and the video link below proves my point. Check it out.

    [Ed Note: Please watch your potty mouth. Thanks.]

    Comment by Danny Salerno — August 24, 2007 @ 2:32 pm | Reply

  1444. A Theology for the Age of Reason

    The Apollo astronaut Russel Schweikart (see, Gaia, Evolution and the Significance of Space Exploration, JS Journal, published by International Synergy (December 1987; 2:2, p. 29) who “was the first person to walk in space without an umbilical cord to the craft, swept along by the magical, invisible connection of shared momentum,” believes that Gaia (he used the name of pagan goddess for Earth) may be nearing some sort of threshold analogous to giving birth. We may conclude that a new member will soon be added to Copernicus’s astrorum familia. You can find a picture of the earth as prima materia suckling the philosopher’s son in Mylius’s Philosophia Reformata, 1622.* As you remember Pope John Paul II introduced an old-new ritual of hugging the goddess Gaia during his numerous pilgrimages. His successor discarded this pagan ritual.

    (*In a deep valley between two mountains, a naked woman with a Moon head stands nursing a solar headed child at her breast. Her body is enveloped in the globe of the Earth, and she stands with her feet immersed in a lake or channel of water that runs between the two mountains. On top of the leftmost mountain a salamander stands in a blazing fire, while on the top of the rightmost hill, is a birds nest. On bird sits on the nest while the other is about to fly off into the air.)

    The New Age author Peter Lemesurier in his book The Armageddon Script writes enthusiastically about the worship of the Great Mother Earth. He writes as though he is an astronaut in a spaceship in orbit around our planet. As they rounded the barren lunar globe for the… last time, and the resplendent half-earth once again rose from behind that now familiar curved and rocky horizon, what they saw coming up to meet them was strangely familiar.. An image straight out of the racial memory. A god out of the world of the archetypes. It was none other than the rounded form of the Great Mother, Earth herself, clad in the same flowering robes of shimmering blue and white that had been those of mother-goddesses of earth and sky throughout man’s history – and not least his most recent mother-goddess, the Virgin Mary herself…” (245-6)

    It’s possible that R. Schweikart’s vision of the earth goddess giving birth to a new member of the solar family was inspired by Kepler’s familiar interpretation from the vantage point of his own scientific research concerning the question of what had constituted the famous Star of the East for the three Magi at the Nativity of Christ. Noting that the great conjunction of planets had occurred in the years 7-6 B.C., the astronomer compared the phenomenon to the recent conjunction of 1604, when a nova had appeared at the very place where the planets converged. As a result, Kepler believed that a new star of this kind had emerged in similar fashion to announce the Birth of Christ.

    Kepler wrote two treatises, De stalla nova and De vero anno about the “true date” of Christ’s birth; quoted in Ioan Couliano, Eros and Magic in the Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. p. 185)

    Let’s go deeper into sexual magic of heliocentrism. N. Copernicus befriended two men when he was studying medicine at the Padua University: a certain Celio Calganini who, according to Erasmus of Rotterdam, anticipated Copernicus’s book with his That the Sky Stands and the Earth Moves,* and one Girolamo Fracastoro (1478-1553) who, like Copernicus himself, dabbled in astronomy. He also wrote dense philosophical treatises and long classical poems, and held high status as the most celebrated physician of his time (in his role as papal doctor). Fracastoro could not resolve the origin of syphilis, so he wrote a poem and devised a myth, naming syphilis to honor a fictional shepherd (don’t mistake him with the astronaut Alan B. Shepard) of his own invention.
    *Interestingly, the original title of Copernicus’s book was De mundi revolutionibus i.e. About the Movements of the Earth. This was changed by the publisher into The revolutionibus orbium coelestium which makes mockery of Copernicus’s hypothesis!

    In his poem Syphilis sive morbus Gallicus Fracastoro tells us that we must not view syphilis as divine retribution for human malfeasance. Rather, syphilis originated by natural (i.e. materialistic) causes that can, in principle, be understood. In fact, Fracastoro continues to argue that the infecting semina of syphilis may arise from poisonous emanations sparked by planetary conjuctions. He even invokes a linguistic parallel between transmission of syphilis by sexual contact (coitus) and the production of bad seeds by planetary overlap in the sky, for he describes the astronomical phenomenon with the same word, as coitum et conventum syderum” (the coitus and conjunction of stars), particularly nostra trium superiorum, Saturni, Iovis et Martis (our three most distant bodies: Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars) (Stephen Jay Gould, Syphilis and the Shepherd of Atlantis, Natural History 8 (109) Oct. 2000).

    You see, Newton himself never believed that bodies attract each other at a distance (for the same reason, Galileo rejected the lunar theory of the tides).It seems, he was most reluctant to adopt a theory which came from the same stable as, for example, the theory that “influenza” epidemics are due to an astral “influence” (influenza so called because formerly attributed by astrologers to the influence of the stars).

    Interestingly, Voltaire called the Newton calculus “the art of numbering and measuring exactly a thing whose existence cannot be conceived.” All the 18th century attempts to supply rigorous foundations for the calculus failed. Let them indulge their imagination. Osiander in his preface to Copernicus’s book declared that it was lawful for an astronomer to indulge his imagination, and that this was what Copernicus had done.

    Now, my question is, do you believe that the AIDS epidemic is a result of “poisonous emanations sparked by planetary conjunction, (sexual act)” or, rather it is to be understood as a warning of God “annoyed” by the abominable excesses of the Sex and Drugs Revolution?

    Fracastoro knew that syphilis infected only humans, but he regarded this observation as a puzzle under his theory of poisonous airborne particles that might, in principle, harm all life. He ignored that, unlike humans, the animals don’t have prostitutes or brothels and don’t do pilgrimages, and that explains why they are not infected with syphilis. A Polish chronicler of 16th century noted that morbus Gallicus was brought to Poland by a woman who went with a pilgrimage to Rome. Let me remind here that St. Thomas Aquinas considered it necessary for every town to set up a brothel. Copernicus’s brother Andreas who was a high ranking curialist in Rome (he reported how his brother advanced in his work on the book) died of syphilis upon his return to Ermland (Warmia). Using Andreas’ reports, Cardinal J.A. Widmanstaedt had explained to Pope Clemens VII (1478-1534) Copernicus’s heliocentrism (Copernicanum de motu terrae sententiam explicavi) for what he was awarded a precious gift, a Greek manuscript preserved to this day in the Munich Library. Interestingly, in old chronicles syphilis was called “Canonical Flu”.

    Suzanne M. Rino in her article Hitler and the Occult: Nazism, Reincarnation and Rock Culture (www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/HITLEROC.TXT) observed: “The Swastika was originally a Sanskrit sun symbol, denoting a heliocentric cosmos ordered by an Aryan nature god who became the reinterpreted “God” of the Nazis.” The Nazis were as pornographic as their Renaissance predecessors. In the Indian cosmogony, this sun god was symbolized by a linga (phallus), and a yoni (vagina) stood for the earth.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 25, 2007 @ 1:33 pm | Reply

  1445. Now, my question is, do you believe that the AIDS epidemic is a result of “poisonous emanations sparked by planetary conjunction, (sexual act)” or, rather it is to be understood as a warning of God “annoyed” by the abominable excesses of the Sex and Drugs Revolution?

    AIDS is caused by demons entering the body during butt sex. Any Christian, at lest the good, white, Baptist, Americans ones, with a good and Biblically correct education knows this.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — August 25, 2007 @ 3:17 pm | Reply

  1446. Female Equality in Tennis is an Atheist Doctrine

    What’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 feminists among us: the issue of gender equality in tennis, and the idea that, on September 20, 1973, Bobby Riggs lost to the evil lesbian Billie Jean King.

    Now, it has to be granted that there may be some evidence going either way; the history books, film footage, and personal collections of those who witnessed this so-called defeat may be on ground nearly as firm as that of my opinion. Notwithstanding that this event stirred powerful emotions amongst the prevailing feminist establishment of the effete early 1970s, in an atmosphere poisoned by the so-called Watergate witch-hunt. I ask you, if Billie Jean King is such a powerful figure in the so-called world of so-called women’s so-called tennis, why is it that she has not won a major singles tournament since 1975?

    It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of match officials, then and now, are mathematically sound. However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that ladies, such as Billie Jean King, are incapable of holding a full-sized, man-sized tennis racquet. Even if they could do so, they would be unable to swing it through the air. That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. I have held a tennis racquet in my hands, and swung it through the air. I know what I’m talking about. Don’t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, or of television, or the history books, or the liberal media, or the moneylenders (and I think you know who I mean, when I say “moneylenders”, hint). What may appear to be a full-sized tennis racquet, on the television, is in fact three-quarters the size, in real life. The tennis courts are smaller, and the ladies are allowed frequent breaks. Television does not show this, because television is dominated with liberals. There is no way that Billie Jean King could have beaten Bobby Riggs, given his greater musculature, his greater stamina, and his greater reach. No matter that King was a lesbian. That is a lifestyle choice, a betrayal of nature. No amount of woman-kissing and woman-fondling would give her the physique of a man. No amount of rolling around in bed, or in fields of grass, naked, holding hands, being romantic, with women, could transform Billie Jean King into a man. She will have to live with the shame of her gender for all eternity, for there are no sex-change operations in heaven.

    Looking at the Bible, I note that the Lord is silent on the subject of women’s tennis. Clearly, women’s tennis was not meant to be. You may argue that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about tennis, of any variety, and you would be right; and so would I. Still, I digress. The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine that Billie Jean King defeated Bobby Riggs is http://www.captiveculture.com/.

    The website, which is French, contains numerous photographs of luscious French ladies encased in latex and layers of plastic, bound and gagged from head to foot, engaging in the most unspeakable acts of carnal lust. It proves that our so-called culture’s embrace of Billie Jean King is almost as foolish as the embrace of Martina Navratilova, or Fatima Whitbread. I have often wondered what it would be like to embrace Fatima Whitbread. It would be like embracing a man. There is nothing wrong with embracing a man. Jesus embraced men. But he did not press his hips again men. He withheld his hips.

    To quote from just one of my favourite websites:

    “Fungi are all destitute of chorophyll, and, therefore, to be supplied with elaborated nourishment, must live as saprophytes or parasites. They range in size from single microscopic cells to systems of entangled threads many feet in extent, which develop reproductive bodies as large as a man’s head.”

    If that, alone, isn’t enough to convince you of the folly of embracing a soulless, atheistic notion of “equality” that elevates women to heights beyond their ability, perhaps this will soften your stony head:

    “Of all the inventions that came out of the bicycle industry, probably none is as important and useful as Dr. Dunlop’s pneumatic tire.

    Airless tires have been obsolete for over a century, but crackpot “inventors” keep trying to bring them back. They are heavy and slow. They give a harsh ride and poor high-speed cornering on rough surfaces. They are also likely to cause wheel damage, due to their poor cushioning ability. A pneumatic tire uses all of the air in the whole tube as a shock absorber, while foam-type “airless” tires/tubes only use the air in the immediate area of impact.”

    If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don’t want my children learning about Billie Jean King in school, or women’s tennis at all. I think that women’s tennis encourages atheism, laziness, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false competition. It’s complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propagation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.

    I can’t wait to hear from the women’s libbers and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how ladies can hurl tennis balls through the ether, physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its man-centric Christian roots. That is a promise.

    UPDATE: Look, people, even your heroine Steffi Graf recanted her idiotic notions about women being able to use man-sized racquets, when she said that “It’s definitely a different generation and if you look at Venus and Serena they are physically just so much stronger, and they are all starting to use different racquets now, the bigger ones, which help give more power.” Clearly she is not suggesting that Venus and Serena Williams are using racquets any larger than man-sized racquets, which means that Steffi Graf is ADMITTING, IN HER OWN WORDS, THAT IN BILLIE JEAN KING’S DAY! (pause) women must have used racquets which were at least a little bit smaller than men’s racquets. And of course men’s racquets have increased since then. If she’s your so-called reliable source of inspiration for the existence of women’s tennis, I think it does wonders to shatter the notion of credibility that one of its main so-called proponents admitted that it is all a sham so abruptly.

    Comment by Ashley Pomeroy — August 25, 2007 @ 6:13 pm | Reply

  1447. First of all, buttsecks is fantastic. I highly recommend it.

    Second of all, contact with infected blood and bodily fluids in mucous membranes causes it. This means that even a good, clean southern Baptist such as yourself–if you fornicate under consent of king and the other party was infected by something like a dirty syringe doing missionary work, for instance–can get AIDS.

    Quit being so condescending about something you have no knowledge of.

    Thirdly, one could argue (Not me, heavens no!) that by saying “All Christians that are also a) Good b) Baptist c) American and d) possessing a, quote, “good and Biblically-correct education”, you also implying that entire demographic is as ignorant as you. For all of our sakes, I really hope this is not the case!

    Comment by donkspeedonkdonk — August 25, 2007 @ 9:11 pm | Reply

  1448. Also also: Ashley’s post just made my day. Thank you.

    Comment by donkspeedonkdonk — August 25, 2007 @ 9:15 pm | Reply

  1449. Second of all, contact with infected blood and bodily fluids in mucous membranes causes it. This means that even a good, clean southern Baptist such as yourself–if you fornicate under consent of king and the other party was infected by something like a dirty syringe doing missionary work, for instance–can get AIDS.

    I have never fornicated with gays, even when I was doing missionary work in San Fransisco. I could never get AIDs because the very hands of one of Jesus’ warrior angels are protecting and shielding my genitals from the sodomites’ demon tainted blood.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — August 26, 2007 @ 8:03 am | Reply

  1450. You missed my point entirely (though that second sentence is Borat-esque hilarity). And frankly, I doubt you’ve ever fornicated at all. I hope this is the case as you raising children is a chilling thought indeed.

    I was saying that there are a lot of totally straight people–Christians, no less–who have HIV/AIDS due to unsanitary medical conditions. Don’t be so self-righteous.

    Comment by donkspeedonkdonk — August 26, 2007 @ 11:19 am | Reply

  1451. Ashley’s is just the BEST post of this entire blog. Trust me I have read them all. I laugh my &(/&%$%& off.

    Comment by insertnamehere — August 26, 2007 @ 9:09 pm | Reply

  1452. Wow, you are just gahl-darn brilliant! I’ve always felt this way about this Galleleo bull-hawkey.

    Now on to more pressing issues. If there is anyone out there who believes this pansy crap about beating your kids being “rong,” then you ain’t reading Proverbs lately.

    Proverbs 23:13 — Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

    Proverbs 23:14 — Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

    My thoughts exactly! Woo-hoo, praise Jesus, now bend over boy, cuz you’re gonna get a whoopin!

    Comment by PJ — August 26, 2007 @ 11:45 pm | Reply

  1453. Galileo looked at Venus in 1609 – 1611 and noticed it exhibited phases which alternated between a large diameter thin crescent and a smaller diameter full phase. The latter was seen probably around April 1610.

    Galileo’s observations supported a model of the solar system previously proposed by Copernicus.

    Comment by Al — August 27, 2007 @ 12:35 am | Reply

  1454. Between 1609 – 1611 Galileo observed phases in Venus which alternated between a large diameter thin crescent and a smaller diameter full phase.
    (The latter seen around April 1610).

    The experimental data (drawings of the phases) matched the model of the solar system earlier proposed by Copernicus.

    Perhaps galileo could have invented a different solar system with his observations which would have been more in keeping with that emotion we identify with religious faith.

    Instead he chose to correlate it to the Copernican system.
    This was an act of free will for which the Church showed compassion by waiving the death sentence in lieu of a token confession.

    Comment by Al — August 27, 2007 @ 1:13 am | Reply

  1455. Go Brownback! The last true Conservative/?

    Comment by Nate Elarton — August 27, 2007 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  1456. What in the name of Sir Isaac Newton is your freaking problem?

    Sincerely, Chris

    [Ed Note: Watch your language!]

    Comment by Chris Parmly — August 27, 2007 @ 3:13 pm | Reply

  1457. #1443
    Roman Pytel wrote:
    “Not a handful of rain descends from above without the earth sending up two handfuls of moisture to meet it. (Simeon b. Eleazar, Gen. R. 13.13)”

    So, the ground is losing water twice as fast as it receives it? Why is the whole world not a desert already?
    ========

    “All God’s creations borrow from each other: day from night and night from day, the moon from the stars and the stars from the moon…the sky from the earth and the earth from the sky. (Exod. R., 31.15)”

    So what?
    ========

    “In heliocentrism the moon moves forward and backward at the same time…. (Unknown)”

    Impossible with respect to any single frame of reference.
    ========

    #1445
    Roman Pytel wrote:
    “Russel Schweikart…’was the first person to walk in space without an umbilical cord to the craft, swept along by the magical, invisible connection of shared momentum’

    There is nothing magical about momentum.
    ========

    “‘…robes of shimmering blue and white that had been those of mother-goddesses of earth and sky throughout man’s history – and not least his most recent mother-goddess, the Virgin Mary herself… (245-6)'”

    The usual colors for Mary’s robes are blue and red.
    ========

    “Let’s go deeper into sexual magic of heliocentrism.”

    Quite a stretch, this. There can be sexual magic associated with the heliocentric view, I suppose, but there is nothing inherent about it.
    ========

    “Fracastoro could not resolve the origin of syphilis, so he wrote a poem and devised a myth, naming syphilis to honor a fictional shepherd (don’t mistake him with the astronaut Alan B. Shepard) of his own invention.”

    IMHO, there is no chance of confusion with Admiral Shepard; it’s pointless for you to take time to issue this “caution”.
    ========

    “You see, Newton himself never believed that bodies attract each other at a distance…”

    He did not understand the attraction, but he would not have worked out the mathematics of it if he didn’t believe that it existed.
    ========

    “Interestingly, Voltaire called the Newton calculus ‘the art of numbering and measuring exactly a thing whose existence cannot be conceived.'”

    The infinitesimal, you mean. Mathematics also deals with infinities, which also cannot be conceived diretcly, but their utility remains.
    Did you know that calculus, with its “inconceivable” quantities, was used to develop the electronics upon which you depend to post to this blog? It is quite a useful thing, you’ll agree.
    ========

    “All the 18th century attempts to supply rigorous foundations for the calculus failed.”

    19th-century mathematicians, however, such as Riemann, put on the finishing touches by supplying a rigorous proof of the limit concept. It took a while, but so what? Things that are fundamentally important are seldom fully formed at the outset.
    ========

    “Now, my question is, do you believe that the AIDS epidemic is a result of ‘poisonous emanations sparked by planetary conjunction, (sexual act)’ or, rather it is to be understood as a warning of God ‘annoyed’ by the abominable excesses of the Sex and Drugs Revolution?”

    I believe neither. Remember that AIDS began in the jungles of central Africa, where there was not—not yet, at least—a “sex and drugs revolution”.
    ========

    “Fracastoro…ignored that, unlike humans, the animals don’t have prostitutes or brothels and don’t do pilgrimages, and that explains why they are not infected with syphilis.”

    No, what he “ignored” (because microbiology did not exist in the 16th century) was that syphilis is specialized to infect only humans (like smallpox). This species-specific aspect is not confined to pathogens that infect humans, however.
    ========

    “The Nazis were as pornographic as their Renaissance predecessors.”

    Even if so, so what? Pornography (with which the swastika is not associated) has nothing to do with the facts of the cosmos.
    ========
    ========

    #1447
    Ashley Pomeroy—great job! You obviously did a lot of thinking for that one, as contrasted with those who have primarily done only a lot of typing (RP, are you listening?).
    ========
    ========

    #1450
    BJ Tabor wrote:
    “I could never get AIDs because the very hands of one of Jesus’ warrior angels are protecting and shielding my genitals from the sodomites’ demon tainted blood.”

    LOL! Do the hands of that angel feel good on your genitals, BJ?

    By the way, AIDS is caused by a virus, not by demons. (Just so you’ll know the truth.)

    Also, do you realize that you wouldn’t need to make use of an angel’s time and hands if you would just keep yourself chaste and clean?

    Comment by Silverhill — August 27, 2007 @ 4:30 pm | Reply

  1458. Is it just me, or does this thread take anyone else 10 minutes to upload?

    In brief- Ashley makes a good point. I agree with her reasoning. Women have no place in mens’ sports. Donklephant is a Sodomite as well as a fool; I see a connection between the two.

    “Proverbs 23:13 — Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

    Proverbs 23:14 — Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

    My thoughts exactly! Woo-hoo, praise Jesus, now bend over boy, cuz you’re gonna get a whoopin!”

    There’s nothing wrong with those verses, PJ. America’s children need more discipline.

    Comment by Sisyphus — August 27, 2007 @ 5:40 pm | Reply

  1459. #1459
    Sisyphus wrote:
    “Is it just me, or does this thread take anyone else 10 minutes to upload?”

    If there were not such a tremendous load of garbage posted by the likes of you, Roman Pytel, BJ Tabor, et al., it wouldn’t take very long!
    ========

    “In brief- Ashley makes a good point. I agree with her reasoning. Women have no place in mens’ sports.”

    1) Ashley did not claim that women have a place in men’s sports.
    2) Ashley wrote a very good parody of your whole style of presentation here, Sisyphus. If you truly did not notice that, then you’re a bigger fool than you think any of us is….

    Donklephant is a Sodomite as well as a fool; I see a connection between the two.

    “Proverbs 23:13 — Withhold not correction from the child: for [if] thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

    Proverbs 23:14 — Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

    My thoughts exactly! Woo-hoo, praise Jesus, now bend over boy, cuz you’re gonna get a whoopin!”

    There’s nothing wrong with those verses, PJ. America’s children need more discipline.

    Comment by Silverhill — August 28, 2007 @ 12:24 am | Reply

  1460. (Oops—I had meant to delete the quoted text from “Donkelephant” through “discipline” there. Please ignore….)

    Comment by Silverhill — August 28, 2007 @ 12:26 am | Reply

  1461. This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. What next? The Earth is flat and lies on back of four elephants?

    Comment by Allex — August 30, 2007 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

  1462. A Shooting-Star to the Rescue – YHWH The Invincible

    Andrew D. White in his book History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom wrote: “Seneca, had the scientific instinct and prophetic inspiration to declared that the time would come when comets would be found to move in accordance with natural law.” The “prophecy” of Seneca had not been forgotten. Obviously, Copernicus rejected the Biblical interpretation of comets as extraordinary signs sent by God. The thoughts of Newton in science and Bayle in philosophy were evidently tending to accomplish the “prophecy” of Seneca.

    Pierre Bayle, in tearing down the pretended scriptural doctrine of comets, tore down much else: of all men in his time, no one has so thoroughly prepared the way for Voltaire. He declared: “Comets are bodies subject to the ordinary law of Nature, and not prodigies amenable to no law.”

    Newton, in 1686, having taken the data furnished by the comet of 1680, demonstrated that comets are guided in their movements by the same principle that controls the planets in their orbits. Halley recognized the comet of 1682 a one which had already appeared at stated periods, and foretold its return in about 75 year; and the battle was fully won when Clairaut, seconded by Lalande and Mme. Lepaute, predicted distinctly the time when the comet would arrive at its perihelion, and the prediction was verified.

    Seneca, Copernicus, Galileo, Cassini, Newton, Halley, and Clairaut had gained the victory. The natural law cometary concept means that we are part of a system (Copernicus’s machina mundi) not requiring constant patching and arbitrary interference. Interestingly, Kepler disagreed; he insisted on a compromise formula that comets might be heavenly bodies moving in regular orbits, and even obedient to law, and yet be sent as “signs in the heavens.

    It was total war of Science on Jewish people and their Biblical Science. That’s exactly the same what the Psalmist expressed in his words: “Come, let us cut them off from nationhood, that Israel’s name not be remembered anymore!” (Psalms 83:5)

    Seneca, Copernicus, Galileo, Cassini, Newton, Halley, and Clairaut “killed the God of the Bible with their science” and their disciples sacrificed million of Jews to Copernicus’s sun god (Baal, Molech etc) in the ovens of Auschwitz and in other places.

    The War on Jewish People Goes On:

    By striving to prevent, and then to roll back and destroy (through processes of ceaseless vilification, homicidal slander in the media, arming and inciting hostile neighbors, etc) Jewish sovereignty, the nations, led by the greatest powers in the world, have for a long time been engaged in a process of de facto de-legitimization, even banning, of Judaism: Religious bigotry, anyone? Under Western pressure, exerted through local stooges, Muslims control or ban Jewish worship at Judaism’s holiest sites. “Ethnic cleansing” – remember that watchword of anathema? The nations intend that more and more of Israel be made Judenrein. How quaint, how supremely cynical, that this is concomitant with their crocodile (and very belated) tears about Auschwitz.

    Let’s be clear. In instituting and sustaining, by all means short of nuclear war, a process that prevents Jews from settling their land, the nations reject the bedrock of Judaism and deny the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and that means, too, the Scriptures in which His promises to them are recorded. True, intact Judaism is to be erased. As Hannah Newman so succinctly stated: “Some people are working for a world that is free — free of Jews.” (Condi’s Gift: Partition Plans Redux by Eugene Narrett, February 09, 2005, IsraelNationalNews.com)

    At first in June and then in July of 2006 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. Rockets came raining down on major population centers. 1 million Israelis had to live in bomb shelters. A war was being waged in the North and the South and terror activity was up in the West.
    The media lost an opportunity to encourage and strengthen the populace during last summer’s war, Drucker, the diplomatic commentator for Channel Ten, charged: “During the war, we sinned by fanning the public hysteria… What the public wanted was some kind of massage to the national ego; it wanted all’s-clear sirens. But during the war, we did not succeed in calming down the hysteria or in reducing the element of tension – and sometimes we did the exact opposite.” (Hillel Fendel, Israeli Media Self-Criticism: “We Fanned the Hysteria” Arutz Sheva, 2.7.07)
    In those days when the Jewish people were attacked on two fronts I sent “a message to the national ego”, a paraphrase of the well known Biblical verse (Jdg 5:20), which was published on July 24, 2006 8:10 PM by Yediot Achronot (Ynetnews): “Stars from their courses will be fighting against enemies of Israel.”
    Two weeks or so the comet became visible to the naked eye:
    Fact File:
    Discovery date: August 7, 2006
    Discoverer: Australian astronomer Robert H. McNaught
    Alternate designations: C/2006 P1, Comet McNaught, Great Comet of 2007
    Core Size: 300metres – estimate
    Coma Size: 100,000km – estimate
    Tail Length: Up to 300,000,000km – estimate
    Reuter, Thu Jan 25, 3:54 AM ET

    The McNaught Comet is seen in the southern New Zealand sky from Dunedin in the country’s South Island January 23, 2007. The comet, named after Australian astronomer Rob McNaught, has a tail about 30 million km.

    Halley’s was hugely disappointing, Hale-Bopp was striking in a limited kind of way, but Comet McNaught is breathtakingly beautiful.

    “The nucleus (centre) of the comet is very impressive looking through a telescope. It’s just a great big ball of fire, it’s amazing” Northland Astronomical Society treasurer Deborah Hambly said this week.
    McNaught is 100 times brighter than Halley’s Comet was in 1986. “”We might get a comet this bright once every 30 years or so, but we can only predict them once they have been discovered,” Ms Hambly said.
    Let me remind here that in 1986 God redirected Halley’s comet to the Southern hemisphere thus mocking Newton’s inviolable laws. The American people still remember how one of their astronauts advertised “from space” that it was Newton who guided them in their “most fantastic journey to the moon.” The word God sounds so unscientifically these days…
    Alexis Dolgorukii of the Russian princely pedigree wrote in his article What Is “THEOSOPHY”, a Process or a Religion: “We have learned so much since Einstein’s introduction of his General Theory of Relativity that the idea of something called a “Law” of nature is deemed as quaint, dated, and more than faintly ridiculous.” God rules His stars not the Roman Natural Law.
    The logic of my message to Ynetnews was totally unscientific; I would says it was an interventionist logic based on prophecy of Amos:
    “And I will turn the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall built the waste cities, and inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof. And they shall no more be torn up of their land which I give them, says the Lord your God.” Did you catch that phrase, “and they shall no more be torn up out of their land which I give them, says the Lord your God.” When God orders, the “stars from their courses fight against enemies of Israel…” – Amos 9:14-15
    How come, that NASA with its orbiting Hubble telescope or the Russian Star City’s astronomers, or the sojourners of the International Space Station did not predict its appearance? See official NASA website: “A Bright Comet is coming: That object is comet C/2006 P1 (Comet McNaught). It was discovered on August 7th, 2006 by the hugely successful comet discoverer Rob McNaught…)”. I would say that interventionist logic expressed in Biblical phrase: “He Never sleeps or slumbers the Guardian of Israel” is better than the logic of Seneca and his admirers. God’s Starfighter circled the earth for over five months. Consider in this context the title of an article published by the German magazine SPIEGEL-ONLINE: “The Greek Inferno, The Left at the Mercy of God.” Like Soviet Union after Halley’s Comet swerved in 1986.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — August 31, 2007 @ 11:56 am | Reply

  1463. #1463
    “Seneca, Copernicus, Galileo, Cassini, Newton, Halley, and Clairaut “killed the God of the Bible with their science” and their disciples sacrificed million of Jews to Copernicus’s sun god (Baal, Molech etc) in the ovens of Auschwitz and in other places.”

    No, the Nazis “sacrificed” millions of Jews (and homosexuals, and Gypsies) to the “god” of political expedience. Those victims were convenient scapegoats for Germany’s troubles, and were used by Hitler to unify and strengthen the German people’s resolve. There was no sun god involved, even figuratively.
    ========

    “Let me remind here that in 1986 God redirected Halley’s comet to the Southern hemisphere thus mocking Newton’s inviolable laws.”

    Roman, you continue your amazing nonsense. When will you open your eyes?

    Halley’s Comet did not suffer any such change of orbit; it proceeded according to Newton’s Laws, just as it has always done. It was mere chance that Earth was not conveniently placed for best seeing when the comet was nearest the Sun. Just because the 1910 appearance was spectacular does not mean that each appearance will be similar.
    Go learn some physics. You’ll be amazed at the beauty, majesty, and mystery that the Universe can offer the observer, even without miraculous and arbitrary intervention.
    ========

    “How come, that NASA with its orbiting Hubble telescope or the Russian Star City’s astronomers, or the sojourners of the International Space Station did not predict its appearance?”

    Brief answer: Because you can’t predict the unknown. (Duh.)
    Longer answer: Because the HST, the Star City observers, and the ISS crew were not specifically looking for comets, and also did not happen to look at that part of the sky at the right time. Amateur astronomers discover most of the comets, because they are much more numerous than the professionals and they have much more time to devote to a given region of the sky.
    ========

    “God’s Starfighter circled the earth for over five months.”

    What is this Starfighter, please? If you mean the comet, you’re wrong; comets do not orbit Earth.

    Comment by Silverhill — August 31, 2007 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  1464. I want to know who the extremist right wing nut job fascist nazi Brownback supporting jack ass a-hole is who altered my Ron Paul post #55 in the Ron Paul thread. Totally pathetic and the kind of thing a commie does.

    Vote for Ron Paul. White power rules! Brownback sucks.

    Comment by spacebrother — August 31, 2007 @ 11:19 pm | Reply

  1465. Why do you meanies keep altering my posts?

    Comment by spacebrother — September 2, 2007 @ 10:32 pm | Reply

  1466. They sometimes edit posts that contain sufficiently objectionable language, spacebrother;perhaps that’s the problem here?

    They seem to be OK with leaving in language that shows the poster to be a flaming bigot, however….

    Comment by Silverhill — September 3, 2007 @ 4:09 pm | Reply

  1467. “They seem to be OK with leaving in language that shows the poster to be a flaming bigot, however….”

    Spacebrother is a disgusting person, Silverhill. As is Ron Paul. The more people understand this, the better.

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 4, 2007 @ 5:42 am | Reply

  1468. “They sometimes edit posts that contain sufficiently objectionable language, spacebrother;perhaps that’s the problem here?

    They seem to be OK with leaving in language that shows the poster to be a flaming bigot, however….”

    Comment by Silverhill — September 3, 2007 @ 4:09 pm

    Actually Silverhill, the people who run this blog embellish my posts by adding bigoted comments. Because I disagree with their candidate they feel the need to add stuff to my posts I never typed. Likely they’ll do it to this post as well. Hopefully you’ll read it before they change it.

    Comment by Spacebrother — September 4, 2007 @ 8:44 am | Reply

  1469. That certainly puts a different light on it, spacebrother. If they are sufficiently lacking in honor so as to stoop as low as that, they certainly are not worth the time and attention of proper ladies and gentlemen.

    How about it, Sisyphus? Is there merit to the claim? Be completely, neutrally honest.

    (Of course, even if you respond honorably to that, by now it could be difficult to believe you—especially if you’re running even one of these blogs merely as a joke.
    But if you’re actually serious, it would also be difficult to believe you, because of the ludicrous notions that you (seem to) espouse and your strong unwillingness to approach the universe with an open mind.)

    So: the ball is in your court, but you are nonetheless at a disadvantage. Ready?

    Comment by Silverhill — September 4, 2007 @ 10:29 am | Reply

  1470. You’re correct Silverhill. He does lack honor, integrity, just like Brownback.

    Comment by spacebrother — September 4, 2007 @ 3:08 pm | Reply

  1471. Newton Defeated Once More
    Surprise Meteor Showers: Will They Become as Predictable as Lunar Eclipses?

    By Peter Jenniskens
    Meteor astronomer, Carl Sagan Center, SETI Institute
    posted: 30 August 2007, 06:38 am ET
    Will meteor showers become as predictable as lunar eclipses in the future? Early astronomers in the ancient Orient and China predicted lunar eclipses after noticing periodic patterns in their return. Precise predictions became possible centuries ago once Newton formulated the law of gravity. The application of Newton’s law to predicting meteor showers is something we have been able to do well only very recently. In the past ten years we have had some success in predicting the return of unusual showers by calculating how the planets hustle the dust trails in and out of Earth’s path.
    So far, the Aurigid shower on September 1 is our most ambitious prediction. The meteors date from 2000 years ago, four times farther back in time than the previous record holder, the year 2000 Ursid outburst, which dated from the time of Columbus.
    Will the Aurigid shower return as predicted between 4 and 5 PDT in the early Saturday morning of September 1? Will it be visible from western parts of the USA and Mexico? Again, we’re flying to observe based upon our predictions. Only by making these observations can we improve our methods, and make forecasting meteor showers as reliable as predicting eclipses.
    Please join us in making observations. We invite that the general public to submit digital images and camcorder pictures of the Aurigid meteors.
    More information: http://aurigid.seti.org
    How Exact is Exact Science?
    The 2007 Aurigid Meteor Shower on September
    Submitted by admin on Sat, 2007-09-01 12:39.
    “We expect the outburst to peak at 11:36 UT (4:36 a.m. PDT) +/- 20 minutes on Sept. 1st,” says Jenniskens. “The whole event should last about 2 hours and be visible from California, Oregon, Hawaii and the eastern Pacific Ocean.”
    An independent model of the debris stream calculated by Danielle Moser, a colleague of Cooke at the MEO, predicts a peak time of 11:26 UT. “That’s in good agreement with Jenniskens and Vaubaillon,” says Cooke. “However, our model predicts a mostly empty stream and a very weak shower.”
    The New York Times
    Posted 2007-09-02, 15.06.23
    (Sept 1) The frantic calls started coming in around 8 PM from New York City all the way South to South Carolina: fireballs from the sky! Burning boats! Flares! Strobe lights on the water!
    It may have taken the East Coast by surprise, because astronomers had predicted that the meteor shower would appear only on the West Coast.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — September 4, 2007 @ 3:58 pm | Reply

  1472. So where is this so-called defeat? According to Roman Pytel, scientists predicted a meteor shower using data of 2000 years-old meteors. I don’t know much about the subject, but it seems like a very complicated calculation, so the fact that they predicted the time of the meteor shower only with a few hours error is (to me at least) a success.
    They sayed they used a MODEL wich is an APROXIMATION of reality. A model is used when the system in study is too complicated to make an exact calculation, so you make assumptions about it in order to simplify the problem and make the calculation affordable.
    Plus, predictions obtained using this model can only be as good as the data used and there is allways some error or uncertainty asociated with every measure.
    Moreover, predicting an eclipse is a completely different matter than predicting a meteor shower.
    The fact this calculation was not absolutely precise means that possibly some of the assumptions made for the model were not adecuate and NOT by any means, that Newton’s laws are false.
    PD: Sorry about my grammar, I’m not an English speaker.

    Comment by Brownianmotion — September 4, 2007 @ 10:03 pm | Reply

  1473. A couple of answers required from our bible experts.

    Was Mary married to Joseph before she conceived Jesus?

    If she was, had the marriage been consummated?

    Did Jesus have any brothers and sisters?

    Where did Koseph and Mary lived when Jesus was born? Galilee or Nazareth?

    John’s Gospel says that Jesus was from the seed of David. If he was from the seed of David, how come God was his father?

    What happened to the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and Bartholomew?

    Comment by Fourbrick — September 5, 2007 @ 7:33 am | Reply

  1474. Just to respond to the allegations of Christian violence: yeah, they’re true. Yes, they were justified using Christianity as a smokescreen for their crimes.

    However, it’s not Christianity, per se; it’s people with power. People with power kill people and then justify it however they see fit.

    Comment by Matthew — September 6, 2007 @ 1:09 am | Reply

  1475. Brownback rocked in the debate. Top of the field.

    [Ed Note: Well said!]

    Comment by spacebrother — September 6, 2007 @ 3:02 am | Reply

  1476. Brownback rocked in the debate. Top of the field.

    [Ed Note: Well said!]

    Comment by spacebrother — September 6, 2007 @ 3:02 am

    No, you altered my post like the fascists you are.

    It originally read: Brownback bombed in the debate bottom of the field.

    pathetic weasils that you are foe altering posts. How fascistic of you.

    Comment by spacebrother — September 6, 2007 @ 2:08 pm | Reply

  1477. Brownback rocked in the debate. Top of the field.

    [Ed Note: Well said!]

    Comment by spacebrother — September 6, 2007 @ 3:02 am

    No, you altered my post like the fascists you are.

    It originally read: Brownback bombed in the debate bottom of the field.

    pathetic weasels that you are foe altering posts. How fascistic of you.

    Comment by spacebrother — September 6, 2007 @ 2:08 pm | Reply

  1478. Sisyphus, what you are doing to folks such as spacebrother is not just teasing, not just a prank. It’s actively malicious, and thoroughly dishonorable.

    If you can’t take the heat (posters’ negative comments, that is), get out of the kitchen (blogging, that is).

    Comment by Silverhill — September 7, 2007 @ 12:11 am | Reply

  1479. I’m not the one altering his posts, Silverhill. I have yet to alter anyone’s post. Take that up with Psycheout. If it’s happening, it’s his doing. As far as I know, Spacebrother is a White Power supporter, just like Ron Paul.

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 7, 2007 @ 9:08 am | Reply

  1480. 1463 – “Seneca, Copernicus, Galileo, Cassini, Newton, Halley, and Clairaut “killed the God of the Bible with their science” and their disciples sacrificed million of Jews to Copernicus’s sun god (Baal, Molech etc) in the ovens of Auschwitz and in other places.”
    1464 – No, the Nazis “sacrificed” millions of Jews (and homosexuals, and Gypsies) to the “god” of political expedience. Those victims were convenient scapegoats for Germany’s troubles, and were used by Hitler to unify and strengthen the German people’s resolve. There was no sun god involved, even figuratively.
    ========
    The Heliocentric Roots of the Jewish Holocaust

    When God is dethroned, His throne does not remain empty for long. Some false god, some Wotan, Moloch, Mammon or Mars, or Apollo soon occupies it. (Silver, World Crisis, 1941, p. 80). Well, Hitler called the Jewish Torah “the Bible of Satan.” Rosenberg called it “Tales of Pimps.”He demanded: “the so-called Old Testament must be abolished officially.” Nazi educators tried to replace instruction in the Old Testament by “Nordic sagas from Wotan on.”

    Like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, whose mission of revenge was also blocked, Hitler concluded that conscience was what made him a coward. Therefore he adopted a new set of values that he associated with heathen Germans of the distant past and tried to model himself on their chief sun god Wotan in appearance, bearing and action.

    He replaced his nondescript hair style and handlebar mustache with the hanging forelock and brush mustache that he copied from a painting of Wotan. The painting “The Wild Chase,” is of the genre depicting Wotan as a figure of terror in a frenzy of action. Wotan’s assistants are a pack of killer wolves. During WWII, Hitler called one of his command posts the Wolf’s Lair, another the Wolf’s Gorge, and still another the Werewolf. He called young members of the Hitler Youth “wolf cubs” (recall that the figures of Romulus and Remus were added to the Roman she-wolf in the Renaissance period, when the Church organized the Jesuit Order) and the SS “my pack of wolves.”

    Hitler had himself portrayed under the sun with Wotan’s raven on its face with spread wings. Wotan’s raven replaced the Christian dove as the symbol of the Holy Spirit. In Greek mythology the same raven was a messenger between the sun God Apollo and the world. Interestingly, the Holy Spirit on the homepage of the French Diocese of Arras has the shape of swastika

    Swastika – the Symbol of Totalitarian Terror

    The swastika signified at first the arms crossed over the breast, the regular Indian gesture of submission and also the legs similarly folded as the statues of Buddha are usually represented. The exclamation “swastika” the Hindus still employ as a mode of assent, synonymous with Amen, So be it or to speak masonically, “So mote it be!” When a man desires to become a Bandya (Buddhist monk) the rites required for his initiation occupy three days, foremost amongst which the swastika is solemnly set upon an altar of unbaked bricks; the neophyte being seated on the ground with his legs disposed after the same fashion. The statues of the goddess Kali also bear the symbol of swastika i.e. the symbol of total submission referred to in the Nazi jargon as “Kadavergehorsam,” i.e. submission like that of a corpse. The Buddha preaching his first sermon in the deer park at Benares is indicated by a cushioned, empty throne on which the swastika, an ancient solar symbol is carved. In Copernicus’s book we find the description of the sun god sitting on his royal throne and ruling surrounding family of stars.

    Islam and Anti-Islam of the Total (Buddhist) Submission

    Disappointed when the Jews did not acknowledge his leadership, Mohammed turned against them and invoked Hanifism, the supposedly uncorrupted religion of Abraham, against them (According to one tradition, in this “uncorrupted religion” Abraham went through with the sacrifice of his son). He also ascribed to Abraham many of the elements of Arab paganism that he took over into Islam. From this time on, Mohammed no longer regarded Islam as a form of revelation ranking with Judaism and Christianity; he proclaimed it to be the one and only true religion.

    We have to consider the dialogue between God and Abraham within the context of the ancient Near East. Abraham lived in a world of idolatrous child offerings, where fathers demonstrated fealty to Molech by placing their children on the blood-thirsty sun god Molech’s or Baal’s fiery altars. Abraham was almost expecting the divine voice to command: “Take now your son, the one whom you love…and offer him up as a whole burnt offering.” (Gen 22:2). In the fanatical religious climate of the Middle East, Abraham’s silent acquiescence was nothing unusual. The entire point of the akedah story is to prohibit child sacrifice. The Almighty’s demands are quantitatively different from those of Molech – and, for that matter, of militant Islam. The emotional load of the Izaak story was so overwhelming that it sabotaged the bloody cult of the sun god Moloch-Baal and liberated children of Israel from its murderous burden.

    Tragically, this cruel form of idolatry has returned with a vengeance to the present-day Middle East, with Palestinian parents, teachers and preachers encouraging children to blow themselves up, along with innocent Israeli mothers and babies.

    The Nazi and Arab Solar Pagans Join Hands

    This pagan solar religion of jahiliya was embraced by the founder of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Antun Sa’adeh, a Greek Orthodox Syrian who spoke German and whose vision of Greater Syria was definitely influenced by German nationalist writings. They greeted and still do, especially in their headquarters in Beirut, their leaders with a Hitlerian salute; sing their Arabic anthem, “Greetings to You, Syria” to the strains of “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles”; and throng to the symbol of the red hurrican. His anti-Biblical “creationism” found its expression in the party’s emblem on its flag. It shows a red zoub’a (whirl, cyclone, tempest), symbolizing strength and dynamism, which is nothing else but a variant of swastika, which was always the solar symbol. Keeping in mind that the name of the state Syria is itself derived from the Aryan sun god Surya we will easily find out that Sa’adeh “creationism” is nothing else but a cosmological dogma of the Vedic sages. The variant name of the same god in Persian religious tradition was Svar, and the ancient Poles embraced it in Slavicized version Swarozyc. Polish archeologist Prof. Witold Hensel in his book U źròdeł Polski średniowiecznej, (p. 49) describes pits in Gzin (Poland) containing not only animal bones, pieces of pottery and metal instruments but also human bones with distinctive cuts. These pits are remainders of religious ritual in which cannibal practices constituted an essential part. Artifacts adorned with crosses, symbol of the sun, were also excavated. The cross of the Babylonian sun god Shamash was also found in southern Poland, near Lublin.

    A heliocentric diagram unearthed by Israeli archaeologists shows the sun in the middle of zodiac, represented by the wheel-cross. In remote ages in the East, and also in early Northern mythology, this sign of the wheel-cross was a symbol of the sun. It was also called Cross of Wotan. The swastika, or Fylfot Cross is derived from the sun wheel by breaking the circumference of the circle.

    The Nazi-Arab religious ecumenism in heliocentrism found its best expression in political collaboration. Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin moved to Berlin when the Nazi leaders promised him “every possible aid in their fight for liberation…as well as to the abolition of the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine. On Jan. 20, 1942, 14 Nazi officials met in a villa on the lakeshore (Wannsee) to plan the carrying out the Final Solution: the extermination of the Jews. In admiration, the Arabs dubbed Hitler “Abu Ali”, the “good fighter”. The Balkan Muslims gave Hitler a few divisions of their jihadists to fight in the Eastern Front. The name Auschwitz, in Polish Oswiecim derived from the name of Aryan sun god Auschweykis (if I remember correctly) suggests that the greatest slaughter house of WWII was intended to send a religious message to all votaries of the solar religion in the Arab world and beyond it. Recall in this context that Aztec priests were accused by the Spaniards of performing 50,000 human sacrifices a year to their sun god.

    The Polish underground press showed no compassion for the Jews being murdered in concentration camps. The national, Copernican ego echoed the cruelties of Baal (Molech) worshipers: “There is no need for us to enlarge on the subject of Jews: we know them all too well. They will not graduate to the membership of nations of good will, until the ‘revolutionary, wandering Jew’ has been burned out, and until his ashes will have fertilized the barren wastes of the Jewish soul.” Behind this contempt for “barren wastes of the Jewish soul” lurks the conviction about the scientific superiority of the solar religion of the pagan world. This contempt is kind of self-defense against the Biblical deprecation of the astrological cult expressed in this verse: “When you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon, and the stars, the whole heavenly host you must not be lured into bowing them or serving them.” (Dt 4:19)

    The god for the “Age of Reason”

    The Roman Stoics referred to their sun god as Reason of the World (Logos) and exactly the same meaning has the Teutonic Wotan whose name is derived from the Sanskrit root vid, to know (the same meaning has the component wid in another Polish name of sun god Swiatowid). The Website Wotan – the Sungod sums up the pagan solar theology of Copernicus as follows: “The universe, as a whole, is a spiritually living being – the ultimately supreme God, if you will…The center of our solar system is, of course, the sun. What modern man often overlooks is the fact that the sun is more than the physical center, it is also spiritual center. From the earliest times, man has recognized the various sources of this spiritual energy from the sun, and has expressed this recognition in a process of deification of the natural features of the world and its surroundings. Wotan represent the Teutonic attempt to deify and understand this primary source of spiritual energy…For a Christian, the sun represents a stern but protective Father who will save his worshipers if they will only accept him and his ways…Of all the peoples of the world, the Teutons are alone in having experienced the miraculous and sublime process of evolutionary change that has enabled them to see the sun’s energy as alive, evolving and creative. Unfortunately for humanity, Wotan’s people lacked the courage of their convictions, they opted for easy road, and accepted Christianity. Now, after centuries of betrayal, hypocrisy and revealed falsehood, his people are rejecting the Judeo-Christian lie and turning to their inner spiritual selves for truth and understanding, and they are finding Wotan. There can be no more impressive demonstration of the creative power of Wotan than this. We stand on the threshold of a new era, and what we see before us is the universe. As we carry the banner of our Sun’s spiritual energy (In Hindu tradition this spiritual energy of the sun is called prana) to the farthest galaxies, we can take pride in the knowledge that we are the bringers of the seed of evolution, creativity, honor, and dignity.”

    Y. Arafat was a very spiritual man; he was tutored in his student years, in Cairo, by Former Major General Otto Ernst Remer, Fűhrer’s chief bodyguard. As such he was embraced by Pope John Paul II fourteen times! No other head of state was so honored by the Polish Pope. Nobody can tell that Araft’s soul was all “barren wastes”.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — September 7, 2007 @ 10:17 am | Reply

  1481. “I’m not the one altering his posts, Silverhill. I have yet to alter anyone’s post. Take that up with Psycheout. If it’s happening, it’s his doing. As far as I know, Spacebrother is a White Power supporter, just like Ron Paul.”

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 7, 2007 @ 9:08 am

    That’s B.S. You weasels are adding all that racism crap to my posts. And it’s untrue that Ron Paul is either. You are concocting that fantasy yourselves.

    But you’ll probably continue altering my posts, including this one like the cowards you are who can’t accept opposing opinions.

    Comment by Spacebrother — September 7, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

  1482. “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

    This guy has it right. The real “white power” people here are Brownback, Psychout and Sisyphus. You’ve been called out. Make sure you dry clean your white hoods and capes you censorship supporting America Haters.

    Comment by Spacebrother — September 7, 2007 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  1483. #1480
    Sisyphus wrote: “I’m not the one altering his posts, Silverhill. I have yet to alter anyone’s post. Take that up with Psycheout. If it’s happening, it’s his doing.”

    OK, it’s Psycheout’s doing. The main problem, though, is: why is it being done at all?
    If you (the collective ‘you’, that is) feel free to alter what others say here, instead of respecting their right of free expression, you’re just running a puppet show. You might as well turn off the Comment feature and make up all the posts yourselves. That would be a rather silly thing to do, but at least it would be harmless.
    =========
    =========

    #1463
    Roman, your explorations of history and mythology are interesting, but you’re still dodging the issue(s) that have been put forth. Answer our questions, directly and succinctly–if you can.

    Comment by Silverhill — September 7, 2007 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

  1484. “That’s B.S. You weasels are adding all that racism crap to my posts. And it’s untrue that Ron Paul is either. You are concocting that fantasy yourselves.”

    Evidently, Ron Paul supporters are incapable of literacy. Did you read what I just said?

    “OK, it’s Psycheout’s doing. The main problem, though, is: why is it being done at all?
    If you (the collective ‘you’, that is) feel free to alter what others say here, instead of respecting their right of free expression, you’re just running a puppet show. You might as well turn off the Comment feature and make up all the posts yourselves. That would be a rather silly thing to do, but at least it would be harmless.”

    Take it up with Psycheout. It’s not my doing. Send him an email. Personally, I wouldn’t alter comments. I’d prefer to have liberal comments stand as they are. But this is a family-oriented site, and sometimes that may not be possible. Anyway, take it up with him. I don’t handle a lot of these issues. Mostly, I just write posts and comments, here. Managing the site is more Psycheout.

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 10, 2007 @ 2:10 pm | Reply

  1485. Here’s an even better idea: since you know how to get in touch with Psycheout better than we do, why don’t you do it? If you object to the limitation of free expression here, but don’t do anything about it, you’re implicitly endorsing it.

    Comment by Silverhill — September 10, 2007 @ 3:44 pm | Reply

  1486. “That’s B.S. You weasels are adding all that racism crap to my posts. And it’s untrue that Ron Paul is either. You are concocting that fantasy yourselves.

    But you’ll probably continue altering my posts, including this one like the cowards you are who can’t accept opposing opinions.”

    “Evidently, Ron Paul supporters are incapable of literacy. Did you read what I just said?”

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 10, 2007 @ 2:10 pm

    Altrered again. This time changing my words.

    Should read as……

    And it’s untrue that Ron Paul is a *racist* either.

    You guys take one word out of my post just like the censorship supporting America Haters you are.

    “I wouldn’t alter comments. I’d prefer to have liberal comments stand as they are. But this is a family-oriented site, and sometimes that may not be possible.”

    But you have altered posts and support altering posts. You then acknowledge the alteration as being written by the original poster by responding to it as if I was the one who wrote it. Also what makes you think I’m a liberal? Just because one thinks “your” candidate is the wrong guy for the job does’nt make one a liberal. Thats just a defense mechanism by extremists types like you to label people who are obviously right when you’re obviously wrong.

    Thank you Silverhill for seeing how these people really operate and holding them accountable for their actions.

    Revisionism, censorship and slanderous propaganda are the tools of Commies, Fascists, Nazi’s and criminals.

    Comment by Spacebrother — September 11, 2007 @ 8:57 am | Reply

  1487. “Here’s an even better idea: since you know how to get in touch with Psycheout better than we do, why don’t you do it? If you object to the limitation of free expression here, but don’t do anything about it, you’re implicitly endorsing it.”

    I’m just a Brownbacker and a contributor. It’s my job to write posts, not fight other contributors on behalf of moonbat (or, in the case of Spacebrother, Nazi) commenters. If you don’t like something Psycheout is doing, you take it up with him. I’m not your nanny. His contact info is publicly available, just hit the contact link at the top of the thread.

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 14, 2007 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  1488. I’m just a Brownbacker and a contributor. It’s my job to write posts, not fight other contributors on behalf of moonbat (or, in the case of Spacebrother, Nazi) commenters. If you don’t like something Psycheout is doing, you take it up with him. I’m not your nanny. His contact info is publicly available, just hit the contact link at the top of the thread.

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 14, 2007 @ 11:42 am

    Moonbat huh? How original bwahahahahaha.

    The Nazi’s here are the Jonestown Browback Koolade club who alter blog posts and censor/delete posts. Sisyphus and Psychout hate America, hate the Constitution, love “white power” since their Freudian slip of inserting this phrase into my posts only exposes their true beliefs and are Pharisees in regards to their so-called Christain beliefs.

    Face it, you guys hate free speech and freeom of expression and go out of your way to quiet those whom share the true moral views you lack.

    Or likely Sisyphus and Psychout frequent mens restrooms at airports and play footsie.

    Comment by Spacebrother — September 14, 2007 @ 2:33 pm | Reply

  1489. Sisyphus wrote: “I’m just a Brownbacker and a contributor. It’s my job to write posts, not fight other contributors on behalf [gratuitous insults removed] commenters.”

    Psycheout is not being an “other contributor”, he’s being a “disruptor”.
    Sisyphus, you started this blog; have you no interest in maintaining its integrity?
    ========

    “If you don’t like something Psycheout is doing, you take it up with him.”

    If you don’t like it, why have you not complained?
    If you do like it—well, it just shows that you are shallow and useless.
    …No, strike “useless”. You can always serve as a bad example!

    Comment by Silverhill — September 14, 2007 @ 6:19 pm | Reply

  1490. […] Exactly once a year, in fact. I’m completely positive this is true. Not everyone agrees (see this post by supporters of Sam Brownback, for example). Does that make me an extremist on this issue? What […]

    Pingback by rochesterturning.com: turning the tide upstate — September 15, 2007 @ 4:33 am | Reply

  1491. The Einstein Solar Mythology

    The atheists would have us believe that the Bible is not true. They describe it as a corrupt compilation of the writings of a small band of Middle Eastern nomads with absolutely no relevance for us in our time. They even reject the standard of morality it teaches. They ascribe the entire biblical message to a pagan, mythological origin. Paradoxically, and regrettably, various theologians in nominal Christianity today assimilated many of these concepts of criticism espoused by the atheistic community. Some of them reject Darwinism but not heliocentrism. But where are the roots of modern Science?

    Philosophy Behind E=mc²

    Plato’s dogmas: The soul of the world was diffused everywhere from the center to the circumference . God has the form of a globe. In Timaeus the ever-present image of space is transferred to time – succession is conceived as extension i.e. time is another dimension. The idea or pattern of the world is not the thought of God, but a separate, self-existent nature, of which creation is the copy. Mathematical abstractions, stripped of qualitative difference are in space but not in time; they are makers of time and may be compared with the modern conception of laws of nature.

    “One can today easily demonstrate that there can be no valid derivation of law of nature from any finite number of facts; but we still keep reading about scientific theories being proved from facts. Why this stubborn resistance to elementary logic?” (Imre Lakatos, Science and Pseudoscience). Newton himself thought that he proved his laws from facts. Kaufmann, a distinguished physicist, refuted Einstein’s relativity theory in the very year it was published.

    The Hindu term brahman is a neuter noun which means energy. One recalls that Akhenaten made solar heat his god, and called it “One”. Brahman is no deity; deities are personifications of aspects of brahman. The word brahman was used in different senses; it had the wider meaning of “holy word”, “sacred knowledge”, “incantation” with the implication in this last case of the presence of magic powers.

    Nebertcher, the Egyptian god who was the “Lord of the uttermost limit of the universe” says: “I uttered a spell over my heart (or, mind), in which I laid the foundations with strict exactitude of everything that made afterwards.” This looks remarkably like the Platonic Logos.

    In the New Testament, the Gnostic doctrine of the Word-Logos, at the beginning of all things seemed to many, including St. Augustine (“Confessions” 8:13), to have direct affinities with Heraclitus, with Plato, and with the doctrines of the Stoics who, termed their principle of theology both Logos and God. Again, the Stoic tradition and theology were influenced by the use of the word OM in the Hindu religion which, early became synonymous with brahman, but later it was spelled Aum (the Russian ‘um’ (mind) is derived from this term) , and it was taught that it represented the triple nature of cosmos: the Absolute, the Relative and their mutual relation.

    One Upanishad of 500 B.C. asserts that the entire creation was derived from the OM (Cf John 1:3: “All things were made by it” i.e. The Word, Mind). The analogy with the New Testament is even more striking when one remembers that OM is often called “the oldest Son of Brahma.” This doctrine lies behind the Bar Elahin (Son of God) born of fire in the furnace wherein the Persian king (like Ahmadinejad) threw three friends of Daniel. This Bar Elahin could be compared to astronauts traveling through the thermosphere which transformed them into Uebermenschen which I mentioned in my earlier comment.

    According to the New Roman catechism “fire” symbolizes the transforming energy of the Holy Spirit, the same fire which Jesus said he had come to cast upon the earth and which came to rest upon the infant Church at Pentecost, the very same fire which Paul urged the Thessalonians not to extinguish – for it is none other than the Holy Spirit Himself (#696). In physical terms fire is the basic element that becomes all things.

    The Egyptian idea of the sun traveling across the heavens is closely linked to the seasonal death and revival of food crops and other plants. The sun burns plants to a crisp and it brings life. Another example is the mythic bird, the phoenix, which, in order to be reborn, needs to enter into the fire on a regular basis and be totally consumed, or purified, by the fire.

    The pharaoh Akhenaten praised the sun in his “Hymn to Aten”: “Your rays envelop the lands as far as you all have created…You who bring children into being in women, and made fluid into mankind…” (Cp. Darwin’s “little warm pond”)

    So the fiery principle of Heraclitus belong to mythology; Apollo was called Eleleus because he orbited in a collected mass of fire. The first principle alternately creates the world from itself and again itself from the world, and all things, Heraclitus says, are an exchange for fire, and fire for all things, as goods are for gold and gold for goods.” (Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 388DE).

    Heraclitus was a Einstein of antiquity; his equivalence of fire and things matches Einstein’s equivalence of energy and matter as expressed in his famous equation E=mc². The phoenix-like character of matter reborn from its “ashes” (energy) was allegedly proved in atom smashers in which the energy released in the collision transforms itself into new subatomic particles.

    Heraclitus also invented “atom smasher”; his sun was a bowl in the sky, its concave surface toward us. Fiery vapors from the earth gathered there and burned themselves out. The world on the upward way gives us summers and, winter are converse movements. This closed cycle contains the image of death and rebirth of vegetation like in the famous parable of St. Paul: “…When you plant a seed in the ground it does not sprout to life unless it dies.” (1 Cor 15:36). This parable was inspired by Kata Upanishad 1:8: Like corn decays the mortal, like corn is he born again. Juvenal in his Satire XV ridiculed the Egyptian belief in these words: “At first Sin got to Egypt, and did sow gardens of gods, which every year did grow.”

    Prof. A. Sakharov’s Solar Phoenix

    The Soviet physicist “proved” that the sun is an immortal god in his dogma of the “solar phoenix”, or strictly materialistic principle of the “spontaneous resurrection of energy (brahma) such as takes place in the sun’s core.” And this scientific dogma explains the strange Latin expression “resurrexit” (“he has risen again”) which in nonscriptural references is used almost invariably and surrectio (“risen”) hardly ever. Resurrectio suggest natural process repeating itself time and again and not a “historical fact” as exemplified by the risen Jesus. The term resurrectio mirrors Plato’s cosmology which was cyclic, with periodic destruction and recreation of the universe in conjunction with various astronomical events. Sakharov wanted to undo Patriarch Nikon’s reform who in the 17th century dropped the part of the phrase concerning sanctification “by the Holy Spirit and by fire” because “fire” did not have sufficient textual warrant, and this offended those who believed that the Holy Sprit was Himself fire according to the Aryan dogma. Prof. Sakharov was a true Aryan “jamad-agni”, or a sage who knows the identity of god and fire.

    In the 11 October 1988 issue of the Russian-language newspaper Youth of Estonia A. Sakharov gave what was to be the most revealing interview in his life. He reminded the words of A. Eichmann about the “ecstasy of his realizing that to him and him alone, the simple son of a German villager, should fall the lost of carrying out so great a project.” It sounded like rehabilitation of the Nazi policy of genocide.
    On Feb. 9, 1989, A. Sakharov traveled to Italy where he spent more than an hour in private audience with the Pope John Paul II and received an honorary doctorate in astronomy from the University of Bologna. Rector of the University said on this occasion: “Not by chance has he (Sakharov) been placed in the company of Copernicus, of Galileo and of Giordano Bruno. Not by chance is the book chosen for the laureation of A. Sakharov The Dialogue of the Two Greatest Systems by Galileo: a choice meant to recall the spirit of liberty…” Or I would say, license to kill the remaining Jews…
    Moses Thrashes Big Bang

    The Vedic god Surya was a solar bull. According to the Assyrians, the bull was born of the sun. So, Moses took the calf, which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and scattered it upon the water, and made the people of Israel drink it. (Ex. 32:20). Then Moses said to Aaron, “What did this people do unto thee, that you hast brought a great sin upon them?”

    Moses posed a direct question to the high priest, who led the people astray in their wickedness. It is written: thou shall not follow a multitude to do evil (Ex. 23:2). Here, Aaron has immediately done exactly that. Note Aaron’s response:

    “And Aaron said, ‘Let not the anger of my lord burn hot; you know the people, that they are set on evil. 23 For they said to me, `Make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ 24 And I said to them, `Let any who have gold take it off’; so they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and there came out this calf.” (RSV Exodus 32:22-24 22) Why gold? Well, Egypt was rich in gold, which was valued for its beauty and because it was believed to be of the flesh of the sun god. So this calf came out of the fire exactly like Daniel’s Bar Elahin came out of the fiery furnace, because m=E/c².

    Evolving Bull

    In later Jewish folklore the Biblical story was supplemented with remark that the “calf was walking by itself and grazing in the pasture.” (See, Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer 25: “Satan entered it and mooed in order to misled Israel.”).. As a result of its relentless evolution the golden calf mutated to a Moses of the British Israelites, aka John Bull wearing Union Jack with the Babylonian solar cross on his chest.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — September 15, 2007 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  1492. Psycheout, please let Spacebrother’s Fascism stand on its own. Don’t tone it down, or otherwise muddy it, just because this is a family-friendly website.

    There. Is everyone happy?

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 18, 2007 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

  1493. Not to worry folks. Remember that you’re talking to the man who thinks that toasters are far too complex for mere mortals to comprehend (speaks wonders of HIS intelligence!), and that God himself divinely inspired the plans to create everything from Maytag washers to cheap Chinese iPod knock-offs to battery-operated dildos. LOL!!!

    Comment by Adam Nelson — September 18, 2007 @ 7:14 pm | Reply

  1494. “Psycheout, please let Spacebrother’s Fascism stand on its own. Don’t tone it down, or otherwise muddy it, just because this is a family-friendly website.

    There. Is everyone happy?”

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 18, 2007 @ 4:20 pm

    Sorry. I don’t support fascist theocracies like you and your buddies do. Don’t catagorize me with you guys because of your neo-con fascism.

    Fascism = Altering other peoples messages, censorship, illegal wiretaps on American citizens, revising history, revising facts, supporting wars based on lies and deliberate misinformation, forcing religious beliefs on people ….and the list goes on.

    Really if it’s left up to people like you and Psychout all we ever hear about is Britney Spears yeast infection or OJ’s next murder victims instead of the deaths and sacrifices by our brave men and women in uniform stuck in a failed policy.

    Comment by spacebrother — September 18, 2007 @ 11:45 pm | Reply

  1495. Spacebrother, you gotta remember that these guys live in a permanent Saturday-morning-cartoon like state. The world is full of good guys (whom they oddly assume they are) that are whole and virtuous, and then there are bad guys, who do bad things purely because they are “evil”, requiring no further explanation. Such a primitive black-and-white view of life leads to this rabid conservative extremism where anything they don’t like is an affront to God and the moral world.

    Heh, as if they would recognize any of those things if they ever saw them.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — September 19, 2007 @ 6:24 am | Reply

  1496. “Sorry. I don’t support fascist theocracies like you and your buddies do. Don’t catagorize me with you guys because of your neo-con fascism.”

    No, of course not. You just support David Duke. It’s a world of difference.

    “Such a primitive black-and-white view of life leads to this rabid conservative extremism where anything they don’t like is an affront to God and the moral world.”

    I didn’t create the rules, I just abide by them. Once you get that through to your treefrog brain, A-dumb, you’ll be that much closer to abandoning atheism and embracing the Love that moves the Sun and other stars through the watery ether of the Heavens.

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 19, 2007 @ 9:32 am | Reply

  1497. Sisyphus, ether is a scientific concept. To accept ether means to accept at least a part of the scientific method. So you’re either a hypocrite or a fraud.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — September 19, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Reply

  1498. when they say it’s ove. Corrina Eudora.

    Comment by Corrina Eudora — September 19, 2007 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  1499. “No, of course not. You just support David Duke. It’s a world of difference.”

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 19, 2007 @ 9:32 am

    Still on about your White-Right-Wing fantasy huh? In your eyes anyone who supports peace, love, equality, justice and wholesome morality is evil and anyone who supports war, murder, racism, hatred, failure, death and destruction is a patriotic Christain.

    “Spacebrother, you gotta remember that these guys live in a permanent Saturday-morning-cartoon like state. The world is full of good guys (whom they oddly assume they are) that are whole and virtuous, and then there are bad guys, who do bad things purely because they are “evil”, requiring no further explanation. Such a primitive black-and-white view of life leads to this rabid conservative extremism where anything they don’t like is an affront to God and the moral world.

    Heh, as if they would recognize any of those things if they ever saw them.”

    Comment by Adam Nelson — September 19, 2007 @ 6:24 am

    I think you are correct and hit the nail on the head. Glass houses indeed.

    “I didn’t create the rules, I just abide by them. Once you get that through to your treefrog brain, A-dumb, you’ll be that much closer to abandoning atheism and embracing the Love that moves the Sun and other stars through the watery ether of the Heavens.”

    Comment by Sisyphus — September 19, 2007 @ 9:32 am

    Spoken like a true fascist theocrat. It’s the “I’m right, you’re wrong” and “believe what I believe or die” scenario. Even the Vatican has finally embraced science and evolution over the last 30 years but I guess you’re a better Catholic than the Pope or even Christ himself.

    “Sisyphus, ether is a scientific concept. To accept ether means to accept at least a part of the scientific method. So you’re either a hypocrite or a fraud.”

    Comment by Adam Nelson — September 19, 2007 @ 9:56 am

    Right on again. I personally think he and his buddy Psychhout are each hypocritical frauds. The fact that they use computers which were created through scientific principals exposes this reality. Otherwise they would live like the Amish and shun all technology in it’s Satanic forms.

    To get back on topic……

    The Earth DOES revolve around the Sun but the universe does’nt revolve around the Sun. The Earth and our Sun are only a tiny speck in a vast galaxy which itself is a tiny speck to the overall universe which itself is expanding. But I guess the brave people who have sacrificed their lives in the name of space exploration don’t matter like the soldiers in Iraq in the eyes of Sisyphus and Psychout. They are either purpetuating corporate control over the media by consciously or unconsciously claiming moral superiority over people who don’t buy into their agenda, regardless of how preposterous their views are.

    Comment by Spacebrother — September 19, 2007 @ 1:05 pm | Reply

  1500. Indeed! You’ve noticed that they refuse to answer substantive questions in a meaningful way. They prefer instead to twist posters’ names into insults while deliberately missing the point, and/or doing a lot of research into mythology instead of physics. (Research into both mythology and physics could help everyone, Roman. Try it.)

    They also are grossly inconsistent in (what passes for) their arguments. In the opening part of this blog, we see Sisyphus’s exhortation:
    “…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…”
    So, we could examine the idea of Earth’s motion empirically, using our senses—but we are not to accept the evidence of our senses! That is insane!

    Comment by Silverhill — September 19, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

  1501. The Message from Slavonic Jerusalem – Prague

    God’s History vs. Natural History

    “Things don’t merely happen (chance) to us Israelites. God makes them happen to teach lessons to Israel. God makes history. It is the reality formed in response to God’s will that counts as history:” (J. Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, p. 130

    Newton himself thought that he proved his laws from facts. He was proud of not uttering mere hypotheses: he only published theories proven from facts. In particular, he claimed that he deduced his laws from the “phenomena” provided by Kepler. But his boast was nonsense, since according to Kepler, planets move in ellipses, but according to Newton’s theory, planets would move in ellipses only if the planets did not disturb each other in their motion. But they do. This is why Newton had to devise a perturbation theory from which it follows that no planet moves in an ellipse. Newtonian scientists predicted the existence and exact motions of small planets which had never been observed before. And again, Newton chanced on the false explanation of this phenomenon.

    On March 13, 1930 , Clyde W. Tombaugh, an assistant at the Lowell Observatory, using predictions made by Percival Lowell, an American astronomer found a new planet’s image on three photographs. The planet was named after the Greek and Roman god of the hell, Pluto. In Greek and Roman mythology he was also called Hades. Pluto was a very cruel deity, like A. Hitler himself. Let me remind here one of A. Hitler’s boasts: “By the clever and continuous use of propaganda, a people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell, and vice versa.”

    You will recite this parable about the king of Babylonia:
    How has the oppressor come to an end, the arrogance been ended?
    How have you fallen from the heavens, O glowing morning star;
    been cut down to the ground O conqueror of nations? (Isaiah 14: 4.12)
    On August 24, 2006, or 16 days after the McNaught comet became visible to the naked eye, and, capping years of intense debate, astronomers resolved to demote Pluto in a wholesale redefinition of planethood that is being billed as a victory of scientific reasoning over historic and cultural influences. The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.

    The site of this meeting, Prague, the capital of Czech Republic is rich in historical reminiscences. Prague always clung to the Biblical geocentricity and became a refuge of the best known geocentricist Tyho Brahe whose system undermined convoluted arguments advanced by G. Galilei in defense of his heliocentric system.

    The Unique, geocentric clock of Prague

    The clock constructed as early as 1410 by Miklush of Kadan is the symbol of John Hus’s Biblical revolution which regarded as the supreme head of the Church on earth not the Pope, but Jesus, the Defender of the Bible. On the astronomical dial of Prague, the movement of the starry skies around the earth is shown by a smaller, eccentric ring that is marked with the signs of the constellations (the Latin term firmamentum used by Jerome in his Vulgate suggests the heliocentric immobility of the starry skies i.e. fixed stars). Fixed, in the middle of the face is the earth, including its meridians, parallels, and poles, with Prague at the center. On the face are also three circles representing the equator and the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. The dial thus shows the relative positions of earth, moon, and stars throughout the year. Below the astronomical dial is the calendar disk, on which country scenes are painted to depict each month of the year. Every hour on hour from eight in the morning until eight at night, this amazing mechanism springs to life. At the end of WWII, Nazi forces tried to destroy the astronomical clock by setting fire to the Old Town Hall. Pope John Paul II tried to put this clock into oblivion by rehabilitating Galileo…

    A 19th-century Polish historian stated boldly: “Even in the 16th century Polish literature was still written in Latin or was merely an adaptation of Latin patterns. There arose paradoxical situation that men loving in their hearts God of Truth, in their writings proclaimed glory of Apollo, Bacchus and other heathen deities.” In historical reality, however, their paganism was always gaining the upper hand.

    For instance, at the Council of Constance, Paul Vlodkovits, the Rector of the Cracow University defended the pagans’ right to existence and declared the practice of forcible conversion to be unchristian. But at the same time, he demanded John Hus to be burned at the stake, because he mined the Hebrew Bible for inspiration and regarded the Jews as his natural allies.

    Prague and Cracow rose to international fame during the ensuing centuries, the first by preparing, with John Hus at its head, the intellectual climate for the Protestant Reformation; the second by sheltering Copernicus, the father of the Counter-Reformation which, in later historical development culminated in the Jewish Holocaust during WW II.

    Interestingly, the Cracow University, also known as Jagiellonian University, of which N. Copernicus became the world-renowned student was inaugurated by rector Stanislaw of Skalbmierz as a sanctuary of Apollo’s Muses. Copernicus’s seal shows one of those Muses. And Apollo became his god seated in the middle of all and ruling his family of stars.

    From his sanctuary at the Cracow University Apollo inspired the author of the entry: History for the Encyclopedia Americana: “In this Christian synthesis of world history, aside from the artificiality of its chronology and synchronism, two characteristics are noteworthy, namely, the absurd relative importance attached to Hebrew history and the serious bias against pagan civilization which made an objective historical narrative absolutely impossible.”

    In 1865, J.H. Stirling argued that “Hume is our Politics, Hume is our Trade, Hume is our Philosophy, Hume is our Religion.” Accordingly, the Natural History began to have a more positive impact on readers. Charles Darwin was particularly taken by the fact that Hume’s Natural History accounts for religion’s “origin in the human mind.” Museums of Natural History became sanctuaries of Apollo’s muses.

    The writer of the Martyrdom of George of Cappadocia makes the spirit to raise up from the dead a pagan called Boes, who had been dead two hundred years, and who told Dadianus, the governor that he had been on earth a worshiper of the “stupid, dumb, deaf, and blind Apollo.” NASA rehabilitated Apollo; Pope John Paul II rehabilitated Galileo for what he was awarded the title Man of the Year (1994) by the Time magazine.

    Whereas the gods of Olympus, including Apollo, tirelessly pursued beautiful boys, like Ganymede or women, the God of Sinai watched over widows and orphans. R. Ingersoll charged Moses with vulgarity (!) and thundered that the Bible “has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science.” At the same time Rudolph Virchow known as the father of Modern Pathology insisted that “Moses was the greatest hygienist the world has seen; he taught in its essentials nearly every principle of hygiene now practiced.” He knew that fecal matter may be deadly and that explains his harsh laws against homosexual practices.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — September 22, 2007 @ 9:44 am | Reply

  1502. “Galileo recanted his idiotic notions about the Earth revolving around the Sun.”
    At gun point.

    The Catholic church threatened to execute him if he didn’t recant. How Christian of them.

    Comment by Jen — September 23, 2007 @ 5:18 pm | Reply

  1503. Thus Spake Ahmadinejad at Columbia University

    The image of the sun god smack in the middle of synagogue floors can’t be easily explained away. We recall though, that back in the time of the Second Temple, the Essenes showed “devotion to the deity in a way all their own. Before the sun rises they do not utter a world on secular affairs, but offer to him some traditional prayers as if beseeching him to appear.” (Josephus, War (Williamson trans.), II 125-145).

    The Essenes (whose ideal Temple was oriented toward the sun, and whose calendar was solar) were reflecting the subliminal influence of Zoroastrianism. This religion had strongly affected the descendants of the Jewish exiles who had stayed on in Mesopotamia. The Persian prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra) viewed reality in terms of a struggle between light and darkness.

    Also, the Essenes while using the trench for defecation wrapped their mantle around them “that they may not offend the rays of the deity.” The modern heliocentrists, including pres. Ahmadinejad, also fight to reduce emissions of gases into atmosphere.
    Beneath the supreme god of goodness and light, Ahura Mazda, the prophet had found a place for an old Indo-Iranian deity named Mithras, who was later identified with the “unconquerable sun.” In the 2nd century BC, many Jews, expelled from Mesopotamia by the Parthians, made their way back to the land of their fathers and brought the Zoroastrian influence with them. It is not altogether surprising, therefore, to find the Essenes identifying the Jewish God with the sun. The same eastern influence comes out in the middle of the synagogue floors.

    In is easier to understand this religious apostasy of Jews in the light of famous German scientist Alexander von Humbold’s conviction declared in private: “I have known, too, for a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasp’s nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude. If once a famous astronomer arises against the present conception, I will communicate too, my observations; but to come forth as the first against opinions which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.”

    How could this tiny nation resist the military power of its all pagan neighbors professing religion of the Unconquerable Sun (Sol Invictus)? We have the same situation presently; the scorn of the thoughtless multitude hangs like Damocles’ sword over everybody who dares to defend true Science of the Bible.

    Let me give you an example. Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist has been denied tenure at Iowa State University this year. Why? Dr. Gonzalez is co-author of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery (Regnery, 2004). The books asserts that earth’s ability to support complex life is a result of supernatural intervention. Exactly, like the Bible says:

    “And God said: ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so.” This is the most important idea of the Biblical geocentrism: everything we see n heaven is subordinated to the purpose of earthly life in which man takes the most important position.

    No ancient heliocentrist would have taught that man is the king of creation, and that the starry heaven and the planet earth were created for his sake. He, who doubts the assertion, may turn to the Magical and Philosophical Precepts of Zarathustra (Psellus, Chaldean Oracles, 4, CXLIV), and find its corroboration in the following:
    “Direct not thy mind to the vast measures of the earth;
    For the plant of truth is not upon ground.
    Nor measure the measures of the sun, collecting rules,
    For he is carried by the eternal will of the Father, not for your sake,
    Dismiss the impetuous course of the moon;
    For she runs always by work of necessity.
    The progression of the stars was not generated for your sake.”
    Centuries later the same heliocentric depreciation of man was expressed in a quatrain from the rubaiyat by the Persian poet Omar Khayyam, who was also a mathematician, and a drunkard, like Tom Paine:

    ‘This nothing but a magic Shadow-show
    Played in a box whose candle is the Sun
    Round which we Phantom Figures come and go.

    The circumambulations around the Kaaba recently inspired the late Iranian philosopher Al-Shariati with such a reminiscence: “As you circumambulate and move closer to the Kaaba, you feel like a small stream merging with a big river. Carried by a wave you lose touch with the ground. Suddenly, you are floating, carried on by the flood. As you approach the center, the pressure of the crowd squeezes you so hard that you are given a new life. You are now part of the people; you are now a Man, alive and eternal…The Kaaba is the world’s sun whose face attracts you into its orbit. You have become part of this universal system. Circumambulating around Allah, you will soon forget yourself…you have been transformed into a particle that is gradually melting and disappearing. This is absolute love at its peak.” This melting and disappearing was inspired by L. Riefenstahl’s warriors who in her Day of Freedom merge with the swastika.
    Fist of all, please note the equivalence of the Kaaba (i.e. a stone) with Allah, i.e. Allah = sun. Second of all, Khayyam’s phantom figures have been transformed into gradually melting and disappearing particles. Or, in other words, a man in heliocentric philosophy turns into a collective or mass man. Thinking, individual human being means nothing in this totalitarian philosophy. In the words of the Soviet poet Maiakovsky: Yedinitsa nul! Individual human being is a zero!

    It was for this reason that the purely mechanistic theory of salvation offered by Bolshevism was so welcome to the great mass of the people, to whom personality in its freedom, pride, and responsibility was completely unknown. For it declared automatic action to be the highest ideal, and undertook further to make no demands on the creative energies of the worker and on his independent personality, but was, on the contrary, ready to “release” everyone from independent initiative and independent judgment. Like those workers working on the chain. In the factory paradise of the Bolshevists, no one was to be faced with personal decision, for the communist State asked merely for blind obedience (or “obedience of a corpse”) and very limited mental attainments. This hope of a reign of complete intellectual irresponsibility for the individual was perhaps the mainspring of the attraction, which the Bolshevist theory had for the Russian masses, and was that which ensured it so rapid a triumph.

    Similarly, the heliocentric Nazism glorified surrender, exalted mindlessness, and glamorized death (by death’s head flags), like those executioners at Columbine High

    The HelioBuddha saw the world as a process of incessant change and becoming. There is no room left for the individual “I” which gives rise to all sorrows, binding us with cords to the world of illusion. But when a wise man knows there is no such “I” the bonds are loosened.

    For Zen, body, mind, and spirit are not three substantially different entities. The natural scientist stands in the physical world and sees the human being as a continuous part of it. Such a perspective understands human activity to be governed by natural laws i.e. Karma.
    The Grand Ayatollah of NASA
    Dan Goldin was a self-made man from the Bronx, probably the only guy in the building who went to City College of New York, surely the only senior official with a mere bachelor’s degree. What he lacks in lofty academic credentials he makes up for with chutzpah, volume, raw smarts, and pure animal drive. Goldin had never given up his Mohammedan dream of the Space Age in which every American citizen has a rocket car in the driveway, and a ticket on a spaceship to Alpha Centauri (where one’s beloved huris bask in glamorous life). I heard him say things like, “In the 21st century we will be citizens of the solar system.” And: “We’re in the business of making dreams come true.” (Joel Achenbach, Captured by Aliens. 1999, p. 24)

    Somebody in this country should write a book about The Almighty Iran Lobby. The name ‘Iran’ means the ‘most Aryan.’

    Comment by Roman Pytel — September 29, 2007 @ 9:29 am | Reply

  1504. Abortion sends babies to god faster!

    Comment by HAHA — September 30, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

  1505. That’s funny, I thought that geocentrism was a pagan notion, not a Christian one. Guess Christianity borrowed more than just their holidays from them. 😉

    Comment by Rena — September 30, 2007 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

  1506. Father Funes has a small full-time staff of only 13 scientists, most of them Jesuit priests, to run his astronomical research programmes, but co-operates with many prestigious universities around the world.

    Why does the Vatican fund astronomical research after centuries of public dispute over the relative roles of science and religion?

    Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, a member of Father Funes’s team and curator of one of the world’s most important collections of meteorites, kept at Castelgandolfo (the Pope’s summer residence), explains.

    “They want the world to know that the Church isn’t afraid of science,” he said.

    “This is our way of seeing how God created the universe and they want to make as strong a statement as possible that truth doesn’t contradict truth; that if you have faith, then you’re never going to be afraid of what science is going to come up with.

    “Because it’s true.”
    Taken from BBC NEWS
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7021358.stm

    Comment by Brownianmotion — September 30, 2007 @ 9:38 pm | Reply

  1507. “This is our way of seeing how God created the universe and they want to make as strong a statement as possible that truth doesn’t contradict truth; that if you have faith, then you’re never going to be afraid of what science is going to come up with.

    “Because it’s true.”

    Exactly.

    Comment by Sisyphus — October 2, 2007 @ 4:59 am | Reply

  1508. […] and, well, intellectuals really don’t like anti-intellectual movements. (Edit: Here and here is a good example of the kind of crap I’m talking about. I can only hope it’s a sick […]

    Pingback by The Negative View of Evangelicals on University Campuses (Part Deux) « The 12 Angry Men Blog — October 2, 2007 @ 5:18 pm | Reply

  1509. The thing is that these priests/astronomers don’t see any contradiction between the bible and science because they don’t take the bible literally, as Sisyphus does. You can perfectly be a scientist and an active christian without that being a contradiction.
    Literal interpretation in an INTERPRETATION as any other, and as such, is subject to choice. Father Funes chose an interpretation of the bible that is far less contradictory with the real world. Science is no more than asking yourself questions about the world (God’s creation if you like) and trying to find LOGICAL and non-contradictory answers to those questions.

    Comment by Brownianmotion — October 2, 2007 @ 5:25 pm | Reply

  1510. Sorry, “Literal interpretation in an INTERPRETATION as any other” should read “Literal interpretation IS an INTERPRETATION as any other”.

    Comment by Brownianmotion — October 2, 2007 @ 7:48 pm | Reply

  1511. After reading through a whole bunch of Sisyphus replies, I’ve come to the conclusion that he *must* be a troll. A brilliant troll! Seriously, this guy has to be anti-Brownback. If so, good for you Sisyphus. If not, keep talking, because you’re your own worst enemy!

    Since I believe in *real* freedom, Sisyphus can say whatever he likes. Go for it!

    Comment by Dale Cooper — October 3, 2007 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

  1512. You know, until I read this blog I thought that psecheout was the dumbest person in the world,, but my hat’s off to you sisyphus. Total and complete ignorance has hit a new level.

    The Earth doesn’t move? Then explain how it is now billions of miles from where it was just a few years ago. The Earth is unshakable? You obviously don’t live in California. But the real question is, where is that solid foundation that it sits on? We have sattelites all around the planet and none of them have spotted a foundation anywhere, however there is lots of film footage of the Earth, and what do they show the Earth doing? Oh no, it can’t be, but it is, it’s spinning, and with every spin one side turns dark as the other turns light according to which side is facing the sun. But that’s impossible, right? The sun goes up and down, the Earth doesn’t go round and round.

    Sorry sisy, but the Universe is lots bigger than you and everything in it is moving at incredible speeds, not only is the Earth orbiting the Sun every 365.25 days, it (along with the sun and all our other planets) is also moving in a much larger orbit around the galactic hub (that would be the center of the Milky Way glaxy) and the galaxy itself is also moving, right now it’s moving toward an unavoidable collision with the Andromeda galaxy, but don’t worry, we wont live to see it.

    And we don’t need to use mathematics or scientific theory to figure these things out, we can see it happening, we have film footage of all of the planets moving in their orbits around the sun.

    The Bible was written three thousand years ago by prophets and holy men who had no idea what the world was, where it was or how and why the sun rose and set, to them the only possible explanation was that it was all made and controlled by a superbeing of incredible power. God was created in Man’s image and books were written, prophesies spoken and religion was born. But who’s religion do we believe, if we believe the Christians, then all other religions are lies, the same goes for the rest, any religion we choose to believe makes us destined to believe all other religions are lies. But every country on every continent made up their own religion, some with one god, some with many gods, but all of them were different from the gods of neighboring countries. So which one is true? Nevermind, I already know your answer to that, it’s the one that YOU believe in that’s true, just as people from the other religions would say that it was theirs that is true. And since you are obviously another one of those people who specialize in circular logic (I would tell you what that is, but I would rather go ahead and let you prove it for me first, which if you reply to this I’m sure you will give all the proof I need as to your circular logic) I don’t need your answer about the true religion.

    The truth is, this planet came about in the same way that all the other planets formed. Stars and planets are still being formed in this way, we have been able to watch this process through scenes provided by high power telescopes like Hubble.

    I am not going to knock the Bible, it has some very good moral values to teach, and some very good stories in it, but it was written by men with a very limited understanding of the world around them. Men fear what they do not understand, so religion served to alleviate the fears of our ancestors, all of them, from every corner of the globe (and please, no smart alec comments about globes not having corners) used their religion to explain the things they did not understand about their world. So, in all fairness to religion itself, if you believe the Bible, then you must also believe the teachings of all other religions since those came from their gods as yours came from your god.

    On the very basest level, did it ever occur to you that if Adam and Eve were the first two people on Earth, and after Kane killed Abel he journeyed to the land of Nod and took a wife, where did she come from? the only people on Earth were Adam, Eve and Kane, yet he went to Nod (which, by the way, had lots of people there) and took a wife. In the Bible, God appeared to several people, ever wonder why he never appeared to two people at once? Today, if you say God appeared to you, you would have to undergo mental evaluation.

    But I digress,,, stupidity in all it’s forms is amusing to me,,,,and you are the most amusing thing I’ve ever come across,,, but I shouldn’t worry, the chances of anyone taking anything you say seriously are very slim since you have already demonstrated the fact that you are totally uneducated and narrow minded.

    If you fell on a pin you would be blind in both eyes.

    Comment by Arn Lewis — October 3, 2007 @ 6:38 pm | Reply

  1513. By the way sisy,,, notice that I use my real name,(first and last), you and psycheout should try that,, but I understand, if I were as dumb as you two I would be ashamed to use my real name too.

    Comment by Arn Lewis — October 3, 2007 @ 6:56 pm | Reply

  1514. Mein Gott in Himmel, was ist diese Scheiße?

    You really need to get a life. The Bible right now is meant to be taken with a grain of salt. If the interpretations were literal, We would be still not allowed to eat certain kinds of foods, and people would be ostracized from communities for being “ceremonially unclean”. These ideas were made to protect the Jewish people because, at that time, it was a health issue. The same idea applies to your Geocentricism. People, at the time the Bible was written, did not have the scientific understanding to figure out one way or the other that the Earth revolves around the sun, or visa versa. All they saw was that the sun went up in the morning, and down in the evening. This led them to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth. It was not wrong of them to believe that. When mathematics proved otherwise, people began to believe otherwise.

    By the way,
    “No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.”

    Could you show me your source on this? People believe you more if you actually give them proof of your claims.

    Comment by Fenris — October 5, 2007 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  1515. Don’t hold your breath, Fenris. Folks such as Sisyphus and Roman Pytel don’t respond to requests, or even challenges, to provide unequivocal support for their views. It may be that they simply have no wish to properly reply; it is my belief, however, that they have no ability to properly reply.
    (They are quite free to refute this point, by properly replying….)

    Comment by Silverhill — October 6, 2007 @ 5:04 pm | Reply

  1516. I am not attacking either side or anything, because I have read a lot of comments and am seeing no actual exhange of ideas – just insults – and I don’t see the point in that.

    I am asking out of pure curiosity: if the Earth remains fixed and only the sun moves, then how are things like the Coriolis Effect, Foucault’s pendulum, and changing seasons explained?

    And I really don’t understand how the heliocentric view promotes anti-Americanism. I don’t think these things are mutually exlusive. By making these kinds of generalizations and unfounded statements, I believe you are ultimately driving people away from your point of view because they will stop giving your argument credence. The best way to get people to seriously listen to your ideas is not by attacking their ideas and who they are…just some advice.

    Comment by M.N. — October 10, 2007 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

  1517. “I am asking out of pure curiosity: if the Earth remains fixed and only the sun moves, then how are things like the Coriolis Effect, Foucault’s pendulum, and changing seasons explained?”

    Distortings effects of the watery ether.

    “And I really don’t understand how the heliocentric view promotes anti-Americanism.”

    Secularist viewpoints- including those encouraged by Helioleftists- are fundamentally anti-American. Don’t believe me? Go to a peacenik rally, and try to find someone who doesn’t believe in Copernicus. You won’t find even a single person, I can assure you.

    “By making these kinds of generalizations and unfounded statements, I believe you are ultimately driving people away from your point of view because they will stop giving your argument credence.”

    Then they were leftists to begin with, and weren’t going to listen to the Truth no matter how I couched it.

    “The best way to get people to seriously listen to your ideas is not by attacking their ideas and who they are…just some advice.”

    Well, I suppose if I were a Pharisee I could bribe some celebrities to espouse my viewpoint. But two sins don’t make a virtue.

    Comment by Sisyphus — October 12, 2007 @ 7:36 am | Reply

  1518. The Copernican Principle of Mediocrity

    corresponds to Zarathustra’s dogma that “the progression of the stars was not generated for your sake.” This is the idea, which is central in the Copernican Revolution, that there is nothing special about our own view of the universe; that what we see around us, including life, is likely to be replicated over and over, not in detail but in wonderful diversity. The universe, according to this mythical notion, is a starlit Garden to which Mohammed found the gate, and we simply have to find the lost key. No wonder, then, that Carl Sagan energetically promoted the search for extraterrestrial life and for signals from alien civilizations.

    In the 1950s when Y. Arafat was tutored in Cairo by the Nazi general, the Nazi heliomania was being resuscitated. Triumph of the Will played for eight months in a single cinema in San Francisco in the 1950, a few years after the Holocaust! A long run at the New Yorker theater on Manhattan’s heavily Jewish Upper Side roused protests; someone tried to burn down an exit door.

    Among Leni’s defenders was the “venerable” documentarian John Grierson. He reportedly kissed the foot of this third-class actress in public and said, Lenin Riefenstahl is one of the greatest filmmakers in the world, and certainly the greatest female filmmaker in history. Incidentally, the films that made her famous were banned in her homeland.

    American Astronomical Society commemorated Y. Arafat’s visit to the White House with the publication entitled, “Strategies for Mars: A Guide to Human Exploration,”in which you will also find an article, “Mars Mission Concepts: The Von Braun Era,” because it was this former SS-major who in 1952 published his “Das Marsprojekt”, a plan to send spaceships to Mars.

    Creating “Scientific” Base for Existence of Huris

    The “Face on Mars” policy was further developed in 1996 when Y. Arafat had its first one-on-one Oval Office chat (See, New York Times, Thursday, May 2, 1996). Two months later a photograph of one particularly striking example – a segmented wormlike object resting languidly on a bed of mineral grains – has appeared in newspapers, in magazines, and on TV shows around the world. This “worm” – if “worm” it is – has become Mars’s de facto ambassador to Earth. This worm was supposed to be the fulfillment of the Copernican “principle of mediocrity”.

    There was nothing new in this deceiving enterprise. In March 1961 three American scientists told the New York Academy of Sciences: “We believe that wherever this meteorite (found at Orgeuil in France) originated something lived.” In the November 18, 1961 issue of Nature magazine the researchers reported that they had found, in a fragment of the Orgeuil meteorite objects somewhat similar to fossil algae found in sediments on earth. However, the skeptics of the University of Chicago challenged the validity of various analyses by their New York colleagues that had suggested a biological origin for the objects. In the November 17, 1964 issue of Science they made it clear that, to them, the most likely explanation of the “fossils” was a hoax.

    And in early 1998 the Mars Society was founded which proclaimed, “If we find signs of life, it will indicate that life is probably spread across the universe.” As Mohammed believed it was. And here Mohammed’s religious imagination encounters the ancient Roman UFOmania as advanced by the philosopher Lucretius. Lucretius, the Roman disciple of the Greek atomists wrote like a modern believer in extraterrestrials: “We must therefore admit again and again, that elsewhere there are other gatherings of matter such as this one which our sky holds in its eager embrace…Now if the atoms are so abundant that all generations of living creatures could not count them, and if the same force and nature remains with the power to throw each kind of atom into its place in the same way as they have been thrown here, you must admit that in other parts of the universe there have been worlds and different races of men and species of wild beasts.”

    Another “scientific” bonus for Y. Arafat came when Toby Owen, a member of the imaging team found the “face” on Mars while examining a photographic mosaic sent by the Viking 1 Orbiter through a magnifying glass. NASA itself distributed the picture with the caption the “Face on Mars?” Interestingly, “the Face of Mars” bore a very striking resemblance to Y. Arafat’s face! The big break for the face on Mars was its appearance in a screaming story in the “Weekly World News”, the most ridiculous of the tabloids. By the time R. Hoagland wrote “The Monuments of Mars” (1987), there was not only a face, there was a city and even a pyramid.

    Two astronomers at Moscow University, Josif S. Shklovskii and Nicolai Kardashev, became interested in the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations during the early 1960s. Shklovskii wrote a book that was translated and expanded by Carl Sagan: it became the bible of SETI enthusiasts worldwide. Shklovskii suggested that the two moons of Mars, named Phobos and Deimos, might be artificial space stations.
    Sagan propounded a new theory: that Moses, Jesus, and all the great religious figures of ages were really extraterrestrial beings. The miracles of the Bible had all happened as described; they used advanced technology that was perfectly ordinary on their planet. In the middle of a dinner, Sagan slammed his fist on the table, sending the dishes rattling. He looked his guest, Abrahamson in the eye and bellowed, “I tell you, Jesus Christ is extraterrestrial!” Nothing new! A Syrian merchant named Marcion advanced this hypothesis two thousand years ago. This Syrian Jesus matches Clark Kent of the series Smallville.
    The American edition of Intelligent Life in the Universe (Sagan was co-author with Shklovski) appeared in 1966. But then, Shklovski published his new view of things in a 1976 article in the Russian journal Voprosy Filosofii. The article’s title translates as “Could Intelligent Life in the Universe Be Unique?” News of Shklovski’s apostasy spread throughout the SETI community. It was a personal setback to Sagan. Shklovski had been one of the first to share a dream that so many considered outlandish.
    John Paul II to the Rescue
    In January 1984, Sagan, Alexandrov, S.J. Gould, and fifteen other scientists spent a three-day retreat in the Vatican, preparing a report on nuclear winter. As Sagan presented the report to Pope John Paul II, Alexandrov was at his side. Today Sagan’s scientific legacy is most keenly felt at NASA’s new Astrobiology Institute at Ames Research Center and in the striking number of his students now continuing his search for extraterrestrial life. In years to come Pope John Paul II would kiss the Koran during his visit to Baghdad.
    Sen. Brownback Strikes back
    A Republican presidential candidate has voiced support for a peace plan put forward by MK Benny Elon (NU-NRP) which maintains Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. “This is a realistic proposal and different way forward… which needs to be looked at broadly in the international community,” Senator Sam Brownback said.
    He called the plan, which proposes recognizing Jordan as the sole representative of the Palestinians instead of the Palestinian Authority, and calls for the dismantling of UNRWA and the Palestinian refugee camps and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees “bold, aggressive, clear and workable.”
    The conservative American senator noted that while he does not endorse all aspects of the plan – specifically regarding the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority – it could be the basis for a positive discussion for the long-term relations between Israel and the Palestinians.
    “Land for peace does not work,” Brownback said, citing Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a case in point. Elon said that the long-term proposal constituted a “real deep conceptual change,” which required time, energy, and funding.
    “This is a national and international information campaign,” Elon said Wednesday at a Jerusalem press conference which included videotaped remarks of the Republican senator.
    “If Israel will not be in Judea and Samaria,” Elon said, using the Biblical names for the West Bank, “then Hamas will be there.”
    “We have had enough cocktail parties at the White House with the Nobel prize winner [former PLO head Yasser] Arafat,” Elon said.
    “Now is the time for a real conceptual change,” he concluded.
    P.S. You are asking out of pure curiosity: if the Earth remains fixed and only the sun moves, then how are things like the Coriolis Effect, Foucault’s pendulum, and changing seasons explained?
    Well, in my bathtub the water drifts to the left, which, according to Coriolis’ hypothesis, would mean that I am living in the southern hemisphere. But I am living in New York. Re Coriolis Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum read Marshall Hall’s book The Earth is not Moving. He calls the pendulum “a false prophet”, and rightly so. When the Red Army captured Poland in 1945, the political officers demonstrated the truth of heliocentrism in Polish churches using swinging bobs. Umberto Eco mocked this Red Army circus in his novel Foucault’s Pendulum: “Wherever you put it, Foucault’s Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it. Every point in the universe is a fixed point: All you have to do is hang the Pendulum from it.” Go ahead, hang it!
    Whenever you meditate on changing seasons think hard about snow on mountain tops; they are closer to the sun and yet they don’t melt.
    Time for Serious Science, like Biblical Geology, is coming, guys.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — October 12, 2007 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  1519. The earth is flat. This is a fact: look at the UN’s flag. Those mechanical numbskulls are waving the answer right in front of us, and lying to us through our schools. Even the Christian schools are getting this wrong. ‘Santa Claus’ is code for Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, by the way. His domain is the North Pole, the center of the world.

    And since the earth is flat, there is no justification for heliocentrism. How can a pancake-shaped landmass revolve around the sun, moonbat? The fact that we are the only planet that has life also seems to confirm that we are the center of the universe. God has made our planet very special, and you helioleftists just refuse to acknowledge this.

    Comment by Bob_Corker — October 12, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  1520. Is this article really serious or extremely sarcastic… I really can’t tell?

    Comment by anon — October 13, 2007 @ 2:56 am | Reply

  1521. […] It’s nice to see this perspective on the web. Recently, D>Run sent me a blog entry that ‘melted my brain’. Obviously I like the above perspective being published far better that this round of ‘logic’: heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine […]

    Pingback by » ESPN game cast philosophy vs Brownback blog: ~ ESPN wins ~ design blog: — October 14, 2007 @ 8:52 pm | Reply

  1522. Roman Pytel wrote:
    “The universe, according to [the notion of ‘mediocrity’], is a starlit Garden to which Mohammed found the gate, and we simply have to find the lost key. No wonder, then, that Carl Sagan energetically promoted the search for extraterrestrial life and for signals from alien civilizations.”

    Sagan was looking for interesting elements of this world, not the next world (if there be such). Invalid comparison.

    “In the 1950s when Y. Arafat was tutored in Cairo by the Nazi general…”

    What connection did Arafat have with heliocentrism, and why should anyone care?

    “Incidentally, the films that made [Leni Riefenstahl] famous were banned in her homeland.”

    Along with all public declarations of support for Nazism. The Germans wised up about it, after the war. When will you, Roman?

    “[The]American Astronomical Society commemorated Y. Arafat’s visit to the White House with the publication entitled, “Strategies for Mars: A Guide to Human Exploration,””

    Umm…even if the AAS somehow decided to commemorate Arafat’s visit, and to do so with something completely irrelevant to Arafat’s cause, so what?

    “[von Braun] was this former SS-major who in 1952 published his “Das Marsprojekt”, a plan to send spaceships to Mars.”

    Dr. von Braun’s former affiliation with the SS was irrelevant to his work on space exploration. Your mentioning it here is an example of the logical fallacy called “poisoning the well”.

    “The “Face on Mars” policy”

    If there was ever any particular “policy” re: the wholly imaginary Face on Mars, Arafat had nothing to do with it.

    “…when Y. Arafat had its first one-on-one Oval Office chat”

    The pronoun “its” is reserved for non-human things. “His” is the word you want here.

    “…a segmented wormlike object resting languidly on a bed of mineral grains…has become Mars’s de facto ambassador to Earth.”

    I suppose you mean the intriguing features in the ALH84001 meteorite; if so, say so.

    “This “worm” – if “worm” it is –”

    It is not. The features are smaller than any cellular life, and therefore far smaller than any worm.

    “Another “scientific” bonus for Y. Arafat came…”

    What is this fixation that you have on Yasser Arafat? And whatever does/did he have to do with heliocentrism? And what on Earth does/did he have to do with Sam Brownback (remember him)?

    “Interestingly, “the Face of Mars” bore a very striking resemblance to Y. Arafat’s face!”

    No. Even when there was only the one photograph of that half-shadowed hill, the suggestion of a face was rather simple; stylized. There was no close resemblance to Arafat’s (or most anyone’s) face.
    Later, better photography has shown that it
    has no resemblance to a face. It’s a dead issue now; it’s time that you stopped lying about it.

    “[Carl] Sagan [declared], “I tell you, Jesus Christ is extraterrestrial!””

    If there was such an entity as Jesus the Christ, as described in the Bible, then He was definitely half-extraterrestrial, since God the Father is nonterrestrial. Dr. Sagan might have been right after all….

    “[Sen. Brownback] called the plan, which proposes recognizing Jordan as the sole representative of the Palestinians instead of the Palestinian Authority, and calls for the dismantling of UNRWA and the Palestinian refugee camps and the rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees “bold, aggressive, clear and workable.””

    Workable, yes—but only if the locals can manage to set aside more than 2000 years’ worth of ingrained, heavily reinforced notions of bigotry, hate, and fear. What are your estimates of the chance of success?

    “Well, in my bathtub the water drifts to the left, which, according to Coriolis’ hypothesis, would mean that I am living in the southern hemisphere. But I am living in New York.”

    *SIGH*…you still stubbornly refuse to study any physics, and you still blindly accept common (though incorrect) notions, apparently. The Coriolis effect is too small to redirect the spin of water from a bathtub if the water has acquired the opposite spin by other means, such a human splashing around in it. Careful experiments with undisturbed tubs of water have shown that the Coriolis effect works exactly as expected when the local situation does not mask it.

    “Re Coriolis Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum read Marshall Hall’s book The Earth is not Moving.”

    The one where Hall states—without support—that geosynchronous satellites are motionless, but still do not fall, because of a special dispensation from God?
    (As I have alerady said, I asked Hall to provide support for his claims. He did not. This is because he cannot.)

    “Wherever you put it, Foucault’s Pendulum swings from a motionless point while the earth rotates beneath it.”

    Motionless, yes, with respect to the surface of Earth. Not with respect to Earth’s center, however.

    “Whenever you meditate on changing seasons think hard about snow on mountain tops; they are closer to the sun and yet they don’t melt.”

    The ice in your home freezer, assuming that it’s the usual kind that is uppermost in the refrigerator’s cabinet, is closer to the Sun than the food in the refrigerator below, yet it doesn’t melt.
    Oh, you say that that’s because the air is kept cold there? Well—surprise, surprise—the air near the tops of high mountains is colder than that on the ground; below freezing, in fact. It, too, is kept cold, by its distance from the warmer ground; such air is closer to the cold realm of outer space.
    You can learn about these things in grade-school science class, boys and girls. (If, that is, the school is not polluting your minds with the mythology that is fraudulently labeled “scientific” creationism.)

    “Time for Serious Science, like Biblical Geology, is coming, guys.”

    No, Serious Science has already arrived; the question is, will you get on board, or shall you be left behind to wallow in your own needless ignorance?

    Comment by Silverhill — October 15, 2007 @ 5:28 pm | Reply

  1523. […] result is that Ms. Eaton is now adamant that her friends — the folks who think the sun revolves around the earth, the people who believe people rode dinosaurs like horses, and the tweedles dee and dum who explain […]

    Pingback by “Anti-Christian Bigot” « Illinois Reason — October 16, 2007 @ 12:29 pm | Reply

  1524. I AM TIRED OF scrolling through this in the”my comments” of my Dashboard…
    News Flash
    Heliocenterism DOES NOT state the sun is the center of the UNIVERSE
    no one teaches this either.
    Heliocenterism means the sun is the center of THE SOLAR SYSTEM.

    This means God,the earth, my neighbor, my pinky, sisyphus’ empty head, any of these could still be the center of the universe. You can be any religion you want and still understand this concept. Understanding requires common sense, not religion.
    —-
    After my last comment here I got the response from DPS saying
    “Well, your science textbooks are the word of witches, homosexuals, and radical heliofascists” (helio fascists? is that like a squeaky voiced hitler?)

    DPS has not figured out that the servers and computer he uses are based on science text books….
    Apparently he uses the art of witchcraft, homosexuals, and squeaky Hitlers when it is convent for him.(maybe more than we know)


    So for the rest us withes who have commented or used this blog,
    Can anyone cast a spell my way to get rid of this nonsense from the “my comments” section of wordpress.com?

    Comment by Cafedog — October 16, 2007 @ 7:33 pm | Reply

  1525. This site cracks me up! What a country!

    Comment by FlyingCowKing — October 18, 2007 @ 8:31 am | Reply

  1526. AUTHENTIC RECORD AND GEOLOGY SCIENTIS CAN’T CALCULATE THE AGE OF THE EARTH. The subject of evolution among those who understand it must be aware that there is the danger of excessive subjectivity concerning one owns knowledge. This is not healthy, is a means of cultivating the mind with vain thoughts, and be fill with self examination. Is better, to be objective. The subject of evolution is easy to refute but difficult for man to apprehend. Evolution was a psychological, economical, sociological, political, philosophical, atheist; theory that have gotten into the kosmos( world system) is thought everywhere. This theory is having its end in a microscopic world. Darwin called cells and his follower’s genes or DNA. Wiseman said: ‘even one who, like myself, has been for many years a convinced adherent of the theory of selection, can only reply: We assume so, but cannot prove it in any case. It is not upon demonstrative evidence that we champion the doctrine of selection as scientific truth; we base our arguments on quite other grounds’ (1870). Jacques Barzun In our century, said: Darwinism has triumphed as an orthodoxy, as a rallying point of innumerable scientific, philosophical, and social movements Mr. Darwin became the oracle, as Barzun suggests, and the Origin of Species the fixed point with which Evolution moved the world`(1930). Darwinism was accepted by eugenics which was Hitler idealism or dream, never accomplished in Germany but applied in North America, where is up to now working, nevertheless the biggest lied on humanity is ending microscopic world. Evolutionist as well those who support the design theory have fall into this category cells, DNA manipulation, little machines, it can get as little as the micro lenses can get. The fact is DNA manipulation does not exist. In plants where is the effects of manipulating a fruit plant by means of DNA? Why a blueberry is always small, big orange size would be nice. What about the clones like dolly, the fact is that never a clone has taken place. And that we have X and Y genes which are combined in males as well in females , to say that means that man can be like a woman or vice versa Science, at its simplest, is a statement of observable fact: X male leads to Y female, and Y female leads to X male other wise a X and Y combination or Y and X either true or false; or unknown; combination lead us to a male or a woman either way is ok for Darwinism either way humanity has been label and accepted as animals . Problem is we go from scientific data to judge morality this is a mixture without reasonable knowledge therefore does not have a scientific explanation X and Y in math’s science are empirical measurements never in human genes. Male are 100% male and female 100% female. In the last years Darwinism who lowers mankind to the status of animals has told the world psychologically that is ok not to be 100% man or 100% woman. You be the judge. In the other hand Hawkins http://theatheistofdelusion.blogspot.com/ and his theory that only get as far as the fact of the gap vers.2 of Gn. Chap 1 can get does not have a clue on what is to be tripartite , we have never seen a monkey worshiping a tree but man do truly seek God because we have a human spirit, what is religion? To seek many ways in trying to reach God, even in this way humanity has the right to do it . And what is to have God simple to have found him, Mr. Hawkins knows about the body the soul or psychology (study of the soul) but his lack of knowledge in spirituals matters made of him a man whiteout, complete knowledge. What a pride must he have in comparing himself with God by calling the Unseen the Invisible and Immortal the God of Delusion? Please pay attention to this. Rafael. Nee. We believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God, and every word of it is inspired. A very grievous thought in the mind of godly ones is that men have despised and opposed His Word. God’s children are grieved because men do not respect God’s statutes. Among the sixty-six books of the Bible, Genesis has been subjected to the most doubt. Those who oppose the Bible often try to overturn God’s clear revelation with geological ages and prehistoric discoveries. The evidences in geology prove to them that the earth has been in existence for tens of thousands of years, and that the record of six thousand years of history in the Bible is untrustworthy. In the name of science, the world hurls its attacks on the book of Genesis. Many dear brothers in the Lord are not that scholarly (the author being one of them) and become lost in this storm. Although geology does not form part of our meditation, for the benefit of all, we will study the Word of God by the Lord’s grace at the commencement of our meditation and will consider how perfect is His Word, so that we can silently behold His beauty in His presence. Genesis is God’s revelation, while geology is man’s invention. God knows the whole truth. As such, His revelation can never be wrong. Man only sees in part. As such, his conjectures are not accurate. When we place Genesis side by side with geology, we should follow Genesis and not geology, because it is God who stands behind Genesis. If there are any basic differences between Genesis and geology, the error must be on the side of geology. The authority of the Bible is undisputed. Everything that is contrary to the Bible is wrong. Thank God our Father that He has given us such a complete revelation. If there are any incompatibilities between God and man, we would rather give up man and accept God. If there is no incompatibility, should not feeble human beings all the more believe in the revelation from heaven? Men often laugh at the ridiculous stories of creation circulated among the Chinese, the Babylonians, and other countries. No scientist has to spend much effort to refute these myths. The reason is that there is not much weight to these traditions. This is why they have not attracted much attention. But men’s attitudes towards the Bible are very different. The very fact that they have tried their best to resist the Bible proves the power of the Bible. They cannot treat the Bible the same as the traditions of the nations because they have recognized the extraordinary nature of the Bible. All those who have read Genesis 1 cannot fail to marvel at the beauty of its record. How ordinary it is, yet how marvelous! It is a plain record and contains no theory or arguments to prove its authenticity. The writer of the book was not bound by the book, but was transcendent above its record. The true author of the book is the One who is far above the universe it describes—God. Had the recorder of the book, Moses, written this book according to his own learning and ideas, his thoroughly Egyptian-trained intellect would surely have been influenced by the Egyptian theory of creation. Yet who can detect a trace of Egyptian philosophy in Genesis 1? Why is this? It is because God was the One who inspired Moses to do the writing. Otherwise, how could Moses know that the land came out of the water? This is, of course, a fact established by geology and is a modern discovery. Had Moses not been inspired, it would be difficult to explain this fact. As to the development of life on earth, although the Bible does not support the theory of evolution, it does not altogether reject the fact that there was a progression. First, there were aquatic organisms, and then there was man. Would not a scientist marvel at the record of Moses? The omniscient God must surely have given inspiration according to facts; those who were inspired by such an omniscient God cannot be in error. Yet the Bible is not a textbook of science. Its goal is to guide sinners “unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). Nevertheless, the Bible does not contain any scientific errors. If there are any contradictions with science, it is either a misinterpretation of the Scripture or a misjudgment of science. Many of the definitive statements by geologists in the past have been overturned! Many of their assertions have been proven wrong. Cummings said, “Geology has made mistakes in the past. It is possible that it will be wrong again. The hasty and loud assertions by those who are not too familiar with its theories may be proved inaccurate again.”Since the Bible is not a science textbook, it only mentions the “what’s” of creation without mentioning the “whys.” Science is interested in the “whys.” Of course, in many cases it is successful in doing this. But one must not overturn the “what’s” with theoretical “whys” just because man’s finite mental research has come into conflict with God’s record. What God said are the facts because He knows everything. If the world wants to study what God has said and why He has said it, it must not hold on to its own ideas while rejecting God’s authority. It is a good thing to have wisdom, but there is one kind of foolishness which is more blessed. Among Christians, there is a popular theory that Genesis 1:1 is a kind of general introduction, and that the work of the six days is actually an expansion of the record of verse 1. In other words, they consider the words “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” as merely a subject of Genesis 1. They say that in the first sentence the writer wrote down a summary of what he was about to say, after which he went at length into an explanation of this sentence. After telling us that God created the heaven and the earth, Genesis goes on to tell us the condition of the earth after creation, and how He created light, air, the land, the plants, and the animals day by day. This popular theory considers Genesis 1 as a record of the creation of the universe, and that the universe was created out of desolation. If we study the first chapter of the Bible carefully, we will see the error in this supposition! This erroneous supposition, not the Bible itself, has put the church into a great debate with the world. This supposition gives men the excuse to say that Genesis is incompatible with geology and casts doubts in the minds of many young people concerning the accuracy of the Bible. In Hebrew, the original language, there are altogether seven words in Genesis 1:1. Each of these seven words has independent meanings. God’s inspired record does not say that at the beginning of time, God molded the heavens and the earth into being, or that He made them out of some elements. It says that the heavens and the earth were created. How clear is the word created! To create is to make something out of nothing; it is to create something out of void. It is not to make something out of some existing elements. The word create is Bara in the original language. “In the beginning , God Bara the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The word Bara is used three other times in Genesis 1 and 2: (1) “And God created (Bara) great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good” (v. 21). (2) “So God created (Bara) man in his own image” (v. 27a). (3) “In it he had rested from all his work which God created (Bara) and made” (2:3b).To create is to make something out of nothing. The great whales and every living creature do not have an outward body only, but a life-element within them. The only way that this can be done is through God’s direct work of creation. This is why it says that God created the great whales and every living creature (1:21). There is a very good reason for the Bible to say “created” instead of “made.” In the same way, although man’s body was made from the dust, 2:7 tells us that man has a spirit and a soul which cannot be made from any physical material. This is why the Bible says that God created man according to His own image. In Genesis 2 there are three words for the act of creation: (1) Bara, which means to make something out of nothing. We have covered this briefly. (2) Asah, which means to make. This word is very different from the first. Bara is to make something out of nothing, while asah means that there is some raw material first, and then something is made out of the raw material. A carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create a chair. In describing most of the work during the six days, this word is used. (3) Yatsar, which means to complete, has the sense of a potter molding a piece of clay into shape. This is the word used for formed in 2:7. Isaiah 43:7 shows the relationship between these three words: “Everyone who is called by my name, / whom I have created, formed, and even made for my glory.” To create is to make something out of nothing, to form is to mold into shape, and to make is to work from some material. Genesis 1:1 uses the word Bara. The phrase in the beginning is a further proof that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is no need of any hypothesis. Since God has said this, man should believe. If man wants to fathom God’s work in the beginning with his finite mind, he will only expose his own presumptuousness! “By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3). Furthermore, who can answer God’s challenge to Job concerning the creation? God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning. The heaven does not refer to the heaven that surrounds our earth but rather to the heaven of the stars. This “heaven” has not changed since the creation of the universe. Although the heaven has never changed, the condition on earth has changed! If we want to understand Genesis 1, it is very important to differentiate between the earth in verse 1 and the earth in verse 2. The condition of the earth in verse 2 was not the condition at the beginning of God’s creation. In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth, His creation was perfect. God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, the condition of void and confusion in verse 2 was not the original condition at the time of God’s creation. How could God possibly have created an earth that was void and without form? We can answer this question by reading one verse alone. “For thus says Jehovah, / Who created the heavens— / He is the God / Who formed the earth and made it; / He established it; / He did not create it waste, / But He formed it to be inhabited: / I am Jehovah and there is no one else” (Isa. 45:18). How clear this is! The word waste in this verse is the same as the word without form in Genesis 1:2, which thou are in Hebrew. Unfortunately, translators of the Bible have not used the same word in both places. “He did not create it [the earth] without form.” Why then does Genesis 1:2 say that “the earth was without form”? It is easy to find the solution. In Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth that God created then was not void and without form. Later there was a cataclysm, and the earth became without form and void. Verse 3 does not refer to the original creation, but to a restored earth. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then during the six days, He re-created the world. The world in Genesis 1:1 was the original world, while the world in 1:3 is our present world. Genesis 1:2 describes the transitional condition of desolation after the initial world and prior to our present world. We do not base our explanation on Isaiah 45:18 alone (even though Isaiah 45:18 alone is sufficient as a proof). We have other evidences. According to Bible scholars, in Hebrew the first word in verse 2 is a conjunction, which should be translated as and. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void.”The “and,” according to Hebrew usage—as well as that of most other languages—proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5:1). There the opening words, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. — G.H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, p. 31. “Therefore, what follows in Genesis 1:2 is not a detailed explanation of the record in 1:1, but an independent, distinct, and later event”. The creation of the heavens and the earth is one thing, and the earth becoming without form and void is another. Later we will explain why the earth became void and without form. About a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the word was in “the earth was without form” should be translated became. Dr. I.M. Haldeman, G.H. Pember, and others also pointed out that this word is the same as the word became used in Genesis 19:26. “And she became a pillar of salt.” If the same word is translated became in 19:26, why should it not be translated the same way here? Even the word became in 2:7 is the same word as in 1:2. Therefore, it is not hypothetical to translate 1:2 the following way: “And the earth became without form.” When God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was not without form and void. Later it became such. Let us read a few more verses:”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exo. 20:11). Comparing these two verses, we can see that the world in Genesis 1:1 was very different from the world in 1:3. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, but in the six days, God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them. There is a vast difference between create and make. One is to have something from nothing, while the other is to improve the things that are in existence. The world can make, but it cannot create, while God can both create and make. This is why Genesis says that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Later because of the cataclysm, the earth became desolate, and “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exo. 20:11).Second Peter 3:5 through 7 says the same thing. The heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. Verse 6 speaks of the world flooded with water, which is the earth that was without form and void and that was under the water in Genesis 1:2. “The heavens and earth now” in verse 7 is the restored world after Genesis 1:3. There is a clear difference between God’s work in the six days and His work of creation at the beginning. The more we read Genesis 1, the more we will see that our explanation above is the proper one. In the first day light was called into being. Before the first day there was already land, but it was “without form and void” and was buried in the deep under the water. On the third day God did not create the land; He merely caused it to appear. F.W. Grant said that the work of the six days merely put a new order to the earth; it did not create something out of nothing. The earth was there already. The Bible never says that the earth was created during the six days. Grant also said, “At which point did the first day begin? Some may think that it began from desolation. Yet this is not true. The `evening’ on the first day indicates light had been there since the beginning. `The darkness he called Night,’ yet the `evening’ is a darkness that is already under the control of light.”In the first day God did not create the light; He merely caused the light to appear on the darkened earth. In the same way in the second day, He did not create the heaven. The heaven there was not the heavens, but the atmospheric “heaven” which surrounds the earth. This was not created then. Where then did the atmosphere come from? Our answer is that it was created in verse 1. Therefore, there was no need now to create; there was only the need to restore.”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There is no detailed discussion here. We do not know if the primordial world was created in an instant or became what it was through an endless period of time. We do not know if it was completed in a few thousand years or millions of years. We do not know the shape and the size of it. All that we know is that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” We do not know how many years there were between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. We do not know how long ago God created the heaven and the earth, and we do not know how many years after the creation of the primordial world did the desolation of verse 2 occur. But we believe that there was a long period of time between the perfect creation at the beginning and the later change into something that was without form and void.”In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” How much later was it that “the earth became without form and void”? We cannot tell. But we know one thing: there was a long gap between the two expressions. This long gap between the first two verses of Genesis covers the whole prehistoric period. But from verse 3 until now there are less than six thousand years. Since we have proved that there is a big gap between the first two verses of the Bible, all the years which geology demands to exist and all the geological periods associated with these years can fall within this period. We do not know how much time passed on the earth and how many changes occurred on the earth’s surfaces and in the atmosphere before there was the condition of void and formlessness; the Bible does not say anything about it. But we can say for sure that the Bible never says that our earth is only six thousand years old. The Bible only testifies that there are six thousand years of human history. If the Bible has not said something, science can conjecture all it wants. But science cannot form conjectures on what the Bible has already said. After we understand the first two verses of the Bible, we can be assured that there is no contradiction between the Bible and geology. All the attacks by geology on the Bible are beating the air. How wonderful is the Word God has written! We are not saying this to please science. God’s revelation never wavers before man. We do not give up the Bible’s authority in order to accommodate man’s inventions. If there are any contradictions between the Bible and science, (and we would expect there to be some, because fleshly man is always at enmity with God), we have no intention to reconcile and annul these differences. The above assertion was not proposed after some geological discoveries, in an effort to reconcile the Bible with science. There were men in the ancient church who spoke about this. At that time, geology was not yet in existence! When men like St. Augustus interpreted Genesis, the world did not yet have the term geology! A Christian does not trust in human wisdom, but in God’s Word. We need nothing other than the sure rock of the Bible. As long as we have the “it is written” (Matt. 4:6) in the Scripture, everything is solved. Unfortunately, many apologetics have forgotten their ground; they change the words of the Scripture to accommodate man’s teaching. An example is given by A.W. Pink, who noted that after the translation of a certain Assyrian tablet, the apologetics enthusiastically reported that much of the Old Testament history was verified! This turns things upside down! Does the Word of God need verification? If the record on the Assyrian tablet coincides with that of the Bible, it only shows that the Assyrian tablets have no historical error. If they do not agree, it merely proves that the tablets are in error. Worldly men and vain scientists will of course scorn at our logic. But this only goes to demonstrate God’s Word which says, “But a soul’s man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know them because they are discerned spiritually” (1 Cor. 2:14). We must never lower ourselves to appease men. It seems like a good idea to change the Bible to suit man’s taste, but doing so changes the true nature of the Bible. How wonderful is Genesis 1! It devotes only one verse to the description of the first creation! It uses only one verse to describe the desolation of the world! This is far less than the thirty or so verses that describe the restoration of the world! Who can come up with a composition that matches the record of Genesis 1? The subject is difficult, yet the explanation is clear; the facts span a long time, yet the description is simple. It does not talk about science, yet it is scientifically accurate. Who except God can compose such writing? The reason God did not say more than this is that He only intended to show man His own relationship with man. J.N. Darby said: This revelation from God is not a history by Him of all that He has done, but what has been given to man for his profit, the truth as to what he has to say to. Its object is to communicate to man all that regards his own relationship with God…But historically the revelation is partial. It communicates what is for the conscience and spiritual affections of man…Thus no mention is made of any heavenly beings…Thus also, regards this earth, except the fact of its creation, nothing is said of it beyond what relates to the present form of it. — The Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, reprinted 1970, p. 9.Indeed, God’s revelation is not given to satisfy human curiosity, but to manifest His Godhead, the world’s sinfulness, the way of salvation, and the coming glory and judgments. The present worldly knowledge is indeed dangerous. Unless God bestows grace on man, man would boast in himself and use the knowledge he acquires as a basis to oppose God. How difficult it is for an intellectual person to humble himself! Man can search for knowledge as much as he wants. But God will not supplement this with His revelation. This is why He does not say much in Genesis 1. Our present need is not more science, but deeper spiritual fellowship. Only this will reap real fruit in eternity. We have to praise God the Father because He is full of love! He not only created us, but re-created us, and made us a new creation in the Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus! How sweet is this name! God has given us His Son. What a marvelous grace this is! THE ORIGINAL WORLD AND AFTERWORDS DESOLATION In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth perfect. Later, after an unknown period of time, the earth which was originally good became waste and empty, without any life whatsoever. God then rose up to recreate the world; He restored the desolate world in six days. In the next chapter we will study the work of the six days. Now we will consider why the world became desolate. How could God allow the work of His hands to be destroyed? Why did such a catastrophe come upon the once beautiful earth? There is probably no other reason besides sin. The question we are considering has no perfectly clear explanation in the Bible. Nevertheless, we can find many shimmering lights in the Word of God which will enlighten us concerning this question and which will enable us to have a little more understanding concerning the former world and the cause of its desolation. Only the Word of God can guide us and our thoughts. The understanding of His Word, regardless of the question being discussed, always brings us edification. The greatest vanity is the reasoning’s in man’s mind which do not rest on the foundation of God’s Word. Although in reading Genesis 3 we cannot find Satan’s name, we all know that the serpent was Satan’s vessel and perhaps was even the embodiment of the devil. Revelation 12:9 say, “And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth.” Genesis 1 gives no record of the creation of Satan. Where did he come from? This is a problem. Furthermore, we can see many evil spirits in both the Old and New Testaments; we meet them even more frequently in the Gospels. Where did they come from? We also do not see the creation of angels in the six days of work in Genesis 1. Where, then, did the angels who are frequently mentioned in the Bible come from? These questions are all related to our subject. Since the creation of the angels and the other supernatural beings is not recorded in Genesis 1, which covers the work of God during six days, we know that they were not created during that time. Since they were not created within these six days, when were they created? The only explanation is that they were creatures of the former world—the original, perfect world. As the fossil remains clearly show, not only were disease and death—inseparable companions of sin—then prevalent among the living creatures of the earth, but even ferocity and slaughter. And the fact proves that these remains have nothing to do with our world; since the Bible declares that all things made by God during the Six Days were very good, and that no evil was in them till Adam sinned…Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident tokens of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another world and have a sin-stained history of their own, a history which ended in the ruin of themselves and their habitation. — G. H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, pp. 34-35.By reading Jeremiah 4:23-26, we see the reason why the earth became waste and emptiness. Verse 26 says that it was due to “His [Jehovah’s] burning anger.” Why was the Lord so angry? It was probably because of the sin of the creatures at that time. Isaiah 24:1 says that “Jehovah now makes the earth desolate.” Why would the Lord destroy the earth of His original creation? Judging from the history of our own world, we can answer that it was probably because of the sin of the earth’s inhabitants which forced God to judge them. We have said before that when we read Genesis, we do not see the origin of Satan. As we look into the cause of earth’s desolation in the beginning, our mind will naturally think “an enemy has done this” (Matt. 13:28). Other than attributing the cause to Satan, it seems that we cannot find any other clues in the Bible. We will study a portion of the Bible which seems to tell us the origin of God’s enemy and thereby we may know the condition of the former world and the cause of its becoming desolate. Let us now read Ezekiel 28:1-19. These nineteen verses are divided into two sections: (1) verses 1-10 concern the prophet’s warning to the prince of Tyrus, and (2) verses 11-19 concern the prophet’s lamentations upon the king of Tyrus. The first section, a word to the prince of Tyrus, is easy to understand. He was exalted with pride, considered himself God, and thought that he was wiser than Daniel. Due to his progress in commerce, he became puffed up. Therefore God punished him, causing him to be slain and destroyed by the terrible of the nations. Soon after this prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar of the Chaldeans came and destroyed Tyre. Josephus believed that the prince of Tyrus was Ithobalus, who was called Ithobaal II in the history of the Phoenicians. Since we know that this prophecy has already been fulfilled, it is not difficult for us to interpret verses 1 through 10. But when we read on from verses 11 through 19, we find many places that we do not understand. Since this portion of the Word is very much related to the subject which we are studying now, we quote the text in full: Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou seals up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou was created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covered; and I have set thee so: thou was upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more (Ezek. 28:11-19).This section is indeed hard to understand, for it contains many expressions which cannot be applied to any mortal man. If the “king of Tyrus” were only a mortal man, how could we explain the things in verses 11 through 15? How could the king of Tyrus have been in the Garden of Eden or upon the holy mountain of God? How could he have been the anointed cherub that covered the ark? None of the things mentioned here had been the experience of the king of Tyros’. We cannot explain this section simply by spiritualizing it. It is unfair if we spiritualize the interpretation of a section when we encounter difficulties in it. I believe that the first section (vv. 1-10) addressed to the prince of Tyros’ was a word spoken to King Ithobalus II, and the second section (vv. 11-19), the lamentation upon the king of Tyros’, denotes the coming Antichrist. Verse 2 of this chapter speaks of Tyro “in the midst of the seas.” By reading Daniel 11:41-45, we know that when the coming Antichrist will be in Palestine, perhaps he will dwell at Tyro. That is why he was called the king of Tyro here. Moreover, Antichrist is Satan incarnate; therefore, numerous expressions in this section refer to Satan himself. Mr. Darby said, “Verses 11-19, while continuing to speak of Tyro, go, I think, much farther, and disclose, though darkly, the fall and the ways of Satan, become through our sin the prince and god of this world.” Dr. A. C. Gaebelein also said that the king of Tyro is a type of the last great sinner (Antichrist), that behind this evil king, we see another power that is Satan; Satan was the power behind the king of Tyros’ then, and he still is the god of this age now, who rules the nations of this world. If we have studied the Scriptures carefully, we will realize that the justification for merging Satan and Antichrist in this passage into one being is not contrary to the general teachings of the Scriptures. We know that, although human beings have their own will, their walk is either directed by God’s operating (Phil. 2:13) or by the operating of the evil spirits (Eph. 2:2). Human beings are never totally free. Ordinarily, human beings are under the control of the evil spirits. Sometimes, in important matters, Satan himself, in addition to the working of evil spirits, will also participate in the work. Hence, we see him personally coming to tempt Christ in the wilderness. Later, in trying to hinder Christ from going to the cross, he personally used Peter. After that, in attempting to destroy Christ, he entered into Judas. Eventually, on the world stage he will be united to Antichrist. Scripture says that the works of Antichrist are “according to Satan’s operation” (2 Thess. 2:9); it is Satan who “gave him his power and his throne and great authority” (Rev. 13:2). Since Antichrist is the incarnated devil, the Holy Spirit speaks of him together with Satan in this passage. In these few verses, the superhuman aspects all refer to Satan himself, and the remainder to Antichrist. Since our purpose is not to study the question of Antichrist, but to know the creatures of the former world and the cause of its desolation, we shall put aside the verses in this portion concerning the Antichrist and concentrate on Satan, who is related to our subject. Now let us consider the words that refer to Satan. Ezekiel 28:12 says that Satan (Note: “Satan” is the name used after he had sinned; he was called the “son of the dawn” and also “Daystar” or “Lucifer” (Isa. 14:12) before his fall. “Satan,” which means “adversary,” is his name after the fall. For the sake of convenience, we shall call him Satan in the following paragraphs.) “Sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.” This depicts his condition before he had sinned. He was superior to all the other angels. Phrases like “sealest up the sum,” “full of,” and “perfect” reveal that he was the greatest of all the creation. God had put him above all the creation. Being “full of wisdom” probably refers to his understanding of God’s will; if this is true, he might have had the office of a prophet already. The first part of Ezekiel 28:13 says, “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering.” When we read Genesis 3, we indeed see Satan there. However, he was not being covered by “every precious stone”; he was tempting Adam and Eve. Hence, the two gardens of Eden are not of the same time. In Adam’s Garden of Eden, Satan had fallen, whereas here, it clearly depicts the situation before his fall. Hence, the garden of Eden here must be earlier than the one at Adam’s time. If so, then it must not have belonged to the present world but to the previous one. This Garden of Eden, like the coming New Jerusalem, had many precious stones, such as sardius, beryl, etc. The Garden of Eden where Adam lived was not like this. The Bible focuses only on the trees and does not say anything concerning their being covered with precious stones. Hence, the Garden of Eden here must be different from that of Adam and is much earlier. His being covered with the precious stones reminds us of the precious stones on the priest in Exodus. He probably had been appointed by God to be a priest. The latter half of the verse says, “The workmanship of thy tablets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee.” In the Bible musical instruments are used by kings. We see how David played the harp for king Saul. When the king of Babylon was destroyed, the sound of his lutes were said to be brought down to Sheol (Isa. 14:11). And when the king of Babylon was pleased, various musical instruments were played (Dan. 3). Satan was a king at that time and these musical instruments were given to him by God. The first half of Ezekiel 28:14 says that he is “the anointed cherub that covered.” Anointed indicates that he is consecrated. The work of the cherubim is to lead men to worship the Lord (Rev. 4:9-10; 5:11-14). Therefore, his work in the beginning was also to lead the creatures at that time in the worship of God. This also refers to his priesthood. The latter part of verse 14 says that he was “upon the holy mountain of God” and had “walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.” The holy mountain of God probably is the place where God’s glory is manifested. As the priest of God, he would, of course, stand before Him to minister. What does it mean to walk “up and down in the midst of the stones of fire”? Ezekiel 1:26 reveals that the position of the cherubim is below the throne. Now when Moses took seventy of the elders of Israel up the mountain of Sinai, “they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness…And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount” (Exo. 24:10, 17). The paved work of sapphire stone in the appearance of devouring fire probably was “the stones of fire.” This indicates that Satan enjoyed a very high place, right below the throne of God, and was very intimate with God. Verse 15 says that he was perfect in his ways from the day that he was created, but that later God found iniquity in him. All of God’s creation was perfect; God is not the author of sin. Iniquity was initiated by the archangel who sinned. He was created and given a free will by God just as we were. Unfortunately God’s created angel abused his freedom! And how many people are still following his footsteps! The first part of verse 16 says that by the multitude of his merchandise they have filled his midst with violence, and he has sinned. We may refer this word solely to Antichrist. During the end time commerce will be very prosperous (Rev. 18). Many sinful things will be brought in because of this. This can be proven by history.Nevertheless; the same clause may be applied to Satan. Mr. Pember points out that “the word translated `merchandise’ may also…signify `detraction’ or `slander’; and we know that the very name `Devil’ means `the slanderer,’ or `malignant accuser\'” (Earth’s Earliest Ages, p. 52). Thus, we can find out the meaning here. We see how Satan accused Job and tried to destroy him with insidious acts. Also in Revelation 12:10 we read, “Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night.” The casting down here probably corresponds to the casting of Satan out of the mountain of God in Ezekiel. The reason for the casting out in Ezekiel and in Revelation is one and the same, that is, accusation (or slander). Perhaps what was recorded in Ezekiel was the conviction of Satan by God and what was written in Revelation was the sending of Michael by God for the execution of that conviction. Then why would God still allow Satan to remain in the heavens? The reasons seem to be: (1) the time of God has not yet come, and (2) His own children need the furnace to purge away the dross still in them. Ezekiel 28:17 reveals the cause of Satan’s fall. His heart was lifted up because of his beauty, and his wisdom was corrupted by reason of his brightness. The king of Babylon as described in Isaiah 14:12-14 bears much resemblance to this verse. Many servants of God believe that the Holy Spirit is not only pointing out the king of Babylon, but in a deeper sense, the cause of the fall of Satan who was behind the king of Babylon. In my view, the record in Ezekiel reveals the cause of his pride, while in Isaiah it shows the manner in which he exhibited his pride. It is probable that after comparing himself with God’s other creatures, his heart was lifted up. In the end he tried to exalt himself to be equal with God and thus suffered God’s judgment. “How you have fallen from heaven, / O Daystar, son of the dawn! /…But you, you said in your heart: / I will ascend to heaven; / above the stars of God / I will exalt my throne. / And I will sit upon the mount of assembly / On the sides of the north. / I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; / I will be like the Most High” (Isa. 14:12-14). Since he was so proud, God punished him. His authority in the heavens was removed and abolished by God. The remaining part of the prophecy in Ezekiel is not relevant to our subject, and we shall stop here. From the prophecy contained in this passage in Ezekiel, if our interpretation is correct, we can see how God created Satan the fairest and wisest of all His creatures in the former world and made him their leader. God placed him in the garden of Eden, which was long before the Eden of Adam. The things in the former garden, if not altogether different from those of the latter garden, were at least more numerous than the latter. They resemble the future New Jerusalem. He was a prophet there, teaching all the inhabitants of the earth with his wisdom to know how to serve God. He was also there as the priest of God, directing them in the worship and praises of God. He was also the king among the creatures, having been placed in a position that was above all the creation. He must have been in such a condition for a lengthy period of time (v. 15), but because of his sin, he became the greatest enemy of God. So far we have covered the origin of Satan. We shall now proceed to cover Satan’s angels and demons, which are under him, and to investigate how they fell and how this affected the earth, causing it to become waste and void. From the New Testament we see that under the hand of Satan there are two living beings: (1) angels and (2) demons. Let us first look at the angels. Matthew 25:41 speaks of “the devil and his angels.” Revelation 12:4 says that the dragon’s “tail drags away the third part of the stars of heaven, and he cast them to the earth.” The stars denote the angels (Rev. 1:20). Therefore 12:9 says, “And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan,…he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.” These angels were probably the ones established by God in the beginning to assist Satan to rule the world. They were “the congregation of the mighty” and “the gods” in Psalm 82 (cf. John 10:35). When Satan fell, they either conspired or sympathized with him. Therefore, they fell together with him and became today’s “rulers,” “authorities,” “world-rulers of this darkness,” “the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenliest” (Eph. 6:12). Note that the numbers are plural. These angels are not disembodied demons; they have ethereal bodies. This is why the Lord promises that the children of resurrection will be like the angels in the heaven. Satan has another class of subjects, the evil spirits. Demons and the evil spirits (or filthy spirits) are the same. We can tell this by checking with the translation of the Mandarin Bible. In Matthew 8:16, it firstly mentions the demons, then the spirits. But the Bible translators, seeing that the Holy Spirit used the words “demon” and “spirit” interchangeably, translated both into “demons.” In Luke 10:17 the word “demons” is in the original language, but in verse 20 the word “demons” should be “spirits.” In these two verses of the Bible we see the Lord Jesus acknowledged the “demons” and the “spirits” to be the same and thus the Chinese Bible translator again translated both as “demons.” Matthew 17:18 speaks of the Lord casting out a demon, yet Mark calls this demon an unclean spirit and dumb spirit (Mark 9:25). Demons and spirits are the same. These demons, or spirits, probably were the race who lived in the former world. They helped Satan in his sinning; or, perhaps after Satan sinned, they followed him rather than forsaking him and obeying God. Therefore, they were cut off by God and their bodies were removed from them. Hence, they became disembodied spirits. Although we cannot find any clear evidence in the Bible to confirm this theory, we can find some clues. In Matthew 12 we see the situation of a demon when he left the human body. He became helpless and wandered about. Besides the human body, he could not find another resting place. Therefore, he eventually returned to his original place, the human body. If they were not disembodied spirits, why did they have to enter into man’s body? As we read Luke 8, we see how the legion of demons was unwilling to leave the human body. When they had no way to remain in the human body, they even entered the bodies of the swine. Presently in the world they still cling to human bodies. Even some believers are unconsciously possessed by them. They are different from Satan and his angels who do not like to enter human bodies. Satan and his angels still have a spiritual body, but the demons do not. Their character and liking seem to prove that they are the disembodied spirits. Since they are disembodied spirits, where were they when they were disembodied? We know that the spirits of all the dead are in Hades. So, where do these spirits come from? They must have come from the former world. While they were alive, their habitation was probably the former world where Satan exercised his rule. In the Bible we can find another clue that tells us that there were inhabitants in the pre-Adamic world. Isaiah 45:18 shows that the world created by God in the beginning was not waste and empty. Since this verse speaks of the original world, one expression suggests to us the existence of mankind in the previous world. It says, “He is the God / who formed the earth… / He did not create it waste.” This clearly refers to the original creation. Following this it says, “He formed it to be inhabited.” This seems to clearly tell that the earth then was inhabited by some race. As we read the Bible further, we find clues which indicate that there is a detention place for the demons now. The legion of demons in Gadara must have known this. They were in great fear and begged the Lord that He would not “order them to depart into the abyss,” (Luke 8:31) because they would be tormented there (Matt. 8:29). Mr. Pember says that this “abyss” in the original language is abussos; and that “in some passages, such as the ninth chapter of the Apocalypse, this term is evidently applied to a fiery hollow in the centre of the earth: but it is also used for the depths of the sea, a meaning which accords well with its derivation” (Earth’s Earliest Ages, p. 60). In the future Satan will be detained in a bottomless pit in the center of the earth. This is revealed in the book of Revelation. The demons are also detained in an abyss now, yet some of them still have freedom. We must wait until God’s appointed time comes for them to be completely shut inside. This abyss is probably different from the one in the heart of the earth; it is in the sea. Furthermore, at the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-15) when all the prisoners will have been thrown into the lake of fire, there will be no more sea in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1). However, there may be only one abyss that is divided into two parts. There are other clues concerning the sea being the place of detention for demons. In the Septuagint Bible, the word “deep” in Genesis 1:2 is the same as “abyss” here. We have said that these demons are probably created races that lived in the first world. This corresponds to what we read in Genesis 1:2 because they originally lived on the earth. After sinning, their bodies were destroyed by God; their habitation was judged by God and became without form and void. The whole earth was covered by water and was characterized as “the deep.” It follows then that the spirits of the races at that time were in this “deep”! Finally, on the third day when God restored the earth, He commanded the earth to come out from the water and called the gathering of the waters the sea. This earth was prepared for mankind in the new world. Where then have the former demons gone? We can spontaneously answer that they went into the sea. As we read Revelation 20:13, we often do not understand why the sea will give up the dead which are in it. It is understandable to say that death and Hades will deliver up the dead which are in them, but why will the sea give up the dead who are in it? The common interpretation is that the sea surrenders the bodies of those who are drowned. If so, then the earth should also give up its dead because there are more bodies buried in the earth than in the sea. Yet the earth does not give up its dead. Therefore, the sea will give up the spirits of the imprisoned ones and not the bodies of the dead. Men’s spirits are in death and Hades; the Bible does not say that the spirits of man are kept in the sea. Then whose spirits will the sea give up? It will give up those who are from the other world, that is, the former world. The sequence here indicates this. “The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them.” Those who lived in the former world died first. Therefore, they will be the first beings to be given up; then, we who are of this world will follow after because every man will be judged in his own order. Thus far we have seen the probable origin of Satan, his angels, and the demons. As to how man lived on the former earth, this is something beyond our knowledge. However, we can see some hints in the Bible. Many Bible scholars, Dr. Scofield being one of them, believe that Jeremiah 4:23-26 refers to the condition of Genesis 1:2, in which the earth was without form and void. Although the context of this passage is the desolation of Judah, these few verses of the Scripture have a notably broader view, as if God caused the prophet to view the desolation of the earth in the beginning. If our belief is accurate, then we know that in the former world there was “the fruitful land” and “its cities” (v. 26). The inhabitants then dwelt in cities and some took up farming as an occupation. When they were deceived by Satan, the burning anger of Jehovah came upon them (v. 26) and the earth became “waste and emptiness” (v. 23).From these biblical clues we see the original situation of the earth, the races who dwelt on the earth, the paradise, and the princes, etc. If we are not mistaken in our meditation, we can draw a conclusion concerning the first world and the cause of its desolation as follows: In the beginning of “time” (as opposed to eternity) God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was not waste (Isa. 45:18) but very beautiful and perfect. On this earth there were inhabitants and the number of the inhabitants was great. Before God created the earth and human beings, He had created the angels (Job 38:6-7). He assigned Satan, whom He created, as the leader to be above all the angels. Satan, the most beautiful and wisest of all, the prime of all God’s creation, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. God made him the ruler of the world; therefore, he was called “the ruler of the world” (John 14:30). Many angels were under his rule, and these angels shared in ruling with him. Then, because of his position and honor, he became proud. Due to pride, he rebelled and lifted himself up to be equal with God. He was not satisfied with being a creature, but desired to be the Creator. Therefore, he slandered God before the people and accused the people before God. God found out his iniquity and condemned him. When the time comes, he will be cast to the earth. One third of the angels (Rev. 12) followed him in rebellion and, therefore, became the angels of the devil. God has prepared hell for them (Matt. 25:41), and when the time comes, Satan will be cast into it. In the former world, the inhabitants of the earth, being under Satan and his angels’ rule, were also deceived and filled up with sins. (We can readily understand this when we consider our world situation today.) Therefore, God’s anger was fierce, and He completely destroyed the earth and all the races therein and locked up many spirits in the abyss in the sea. These evil spirits, angels, and Satan himself formed the kingdom of darkness. We do not know how long this period lasted. Later, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters again, and the Triune God began His restoration work on the world. After His restoration of the world, He created Adam and his wife and asked them to guard it, so that there would be man on the earth to cooperate with Him in heaven to stop Satan’s power. Perhaps God used Adam to test Satan to see whether he would repent. However, he came to tempt Adam; therefore, God cursed Satan. Because Adam fell, he could not bring the world which was under Satan’s rule back to God. On the contrary, the world Adam received from God’s hand was given anew to Satan. Since angels and mankind had failed, God came in the person of the Son to be a man, the last Adam. The Lord Jesus became God’s prophet, priest, and king. When He was on this earth, He was God’s prophet without blemish. When He was about to die, He was able to say, “The ruler of the world is coming, and in me he has nothing” (John 14:30). At His death all who are in Adam were crucified in Him. He was able to include all of the old Adamic creation in His crucifixion because He is God, and He is able to continue on as the new man. His human living had nothing to do with Satan. Through His death and resurrection, He regained the world lost by the first Adam. Every sinner, who is destined to die in the old Adam, can return to God and be saved if he rejects the first Adam through the death of the last Adam and joins himself to Christ in life. This is the meaning of believing in the death of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, whoever believes in the Lord Jesus becomes an enemy of the devil. In everything he attacks us, and in everything we resist him, his angels, and the demons. This is God’s purpose in saving man, and this is a real spiritual warfare. Satan was judged once on the “holy mountain of God,” and he was judged again on the hill of Golgotha. He has been convicted, yet his judgment has not yet been executed. When the time comes he will be cast down from heaven and when the Son of God returns to this earth, he will be cast into the abyss. After one thousand years he will forever suffer in the lake of fire. Now the Lord Jesus holds the authority which Satan had abused, and He will hold it until all traces of rebellion disappear. He has brought His own blood into the Holy of Holies and has cleansed the heavens; He is now a Priest of God. When He returns, it will be the time of the restoration of all things. He will be a King, ruling this world from heaven with all the overcoming saints, in the same way that Satan ruled with his angels in the former time. At that time He will teach the inhabitants of this earth to know God’s will and to worship God, in the same way that Satan did in the former days. The situation in the millennium will be like the situation in the world before Satan sinned. Christ will restore all things to the condition in the “beginning” in order to accomplish God’s original purpose. After this He will burn up the whole world, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth in which the righteous will dwell. Therefore, as God’s children we ought to have a deeper enmity for the devil. For thousands of years God’s only purpose has been for man to be joined with Him to destroy Satan’s authority. Our God is a law-abiding God. He will not take back by force the world which was lost through man. Therefore, He sent His Son to become a man in order to regain what man had lost. We, men who have been saved, ought to cooperate with the unique “Man,” the Lord Jesus. In our life, in our work, in our environment, in our dwelling, and in the world, we should resist the works of the devil. Our resistance is in firmness of faith (1 Pet. 5:9), and not by means of fleshly weapons (2 Cor. 10:4), which is the way of social reformers who are being utilized by the demons. Satan was wise and beautiful! But because of his pride, he ended up in complete ruin. It is dangerous for frail mortals to esteem themselves wise and beautiful! Beware, lest being lifted up with pride, you fall into the judgment of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). Being self-exalted with pride is not a blessing to man; wisdom rests only with those who fear the most high God Jehovah. THE EARTH RESTORED THE RECOVERY OF THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS We have seen that in the beginning God created a perfect world. Later, because of the sins committed by Satan and those who dwelt on the earth, they and the earth were judged by God, and the earth became without form and void. Now we will see God’s work of restoring the earth. In the book of Job, Job mentions the failure of Satan’s rebellion in order to show that it is foolish to dispute with God. “He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? which removed the mountains, and they know not; which overturned them in his anger; which shakes’ the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble; which commanded the sun, and it rises not; and sealed up the stars” (Job 9:4-7). When did God do this? When did He shake the mountains and the earth, and alter the position of the celestial bodies due to man’s stubbornness towards Him? Since the time of Adam, such an act of God in the world has not been seen. This passage must be a description of God’s judgment on Satan and on the earth under his dominion when he rebelled. At that time God shook the earth and overturned the mountains. The calamity came so swiftly that the mountains were overturned unnoticed. In addition to the earth, the positions of the celestial bodies were also affected. Because of God’s judgment, the sun disappeared completely and the stars did not shine. The world was plunged into darkness. There was no sun and no heat was produced. Consequently, this led to the glacial epoch on this earth. Then, after a long period of time, possibly due to internal heat at the earth’s core (Rev. 9:2), the ice gradually melted. However, the sun had not yet appeared and the stars were still “sealed up.” When the Spirit of God began to move, there was the deep, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Job not only mentions God’s judgment, but also His work of restoration. He says, “Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, / and treadeth upon the high peaks of the sea; / which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, / and wonders without number” (Job 9:8-10, Heb.). The phrase “spread knows? / Or who hath stretched the line upon it? / Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? / Or who laid the corner stone thereof; / when the morning stars sang together.” No matter which earth is referred to here, whether the original created earth or the restored earth on the third day, one thing is definite: before the earth was formed, the stars already existed. As the earth was being formed, morning stars were there singing together, praising the work of God. In Genesis God was only rearranging the stars that were there before. After He had gathered the light into the sun and had made it the great light, He restored the stars and made them appear in the sky to meet the needs of the earth. The Holy Spirit inspired Moses to describe God’s work with human words because the Bible is written for man. He did not speak of the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars, but only mentioned their relationship to the earth and man. Although seasons, days, and years have to do with other creatures, the use of the celestial bodies “for signs” is specifically for man, since no one besides man is able to observe the motions of the celestial bodies in order to make signs. God only speaks about the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars according to man’s viewpoint. He does not mention other matters. In man’s eyes the sun is the greatest light, the moon is the second, and the stars are still smaller lights. Is it not wonderful that God has prepared such an immense universe for men as small as we? On the fifth day, after the dry land and the celestial bodies had been restored, God prepared to create living organisms to inhabit the earth. “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (v. 20). God’s commandment expressed God’s purpose. “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind” (v. 21). God created these things out of nothing. We do not know what materials God used to make fish and aquatic life. As for the birds, 2:19 tells us that they are made out of the ground. Science tells us that living organisms first existed in the water, then on the ground. Aquatic organisms are the most primitive species among all the animals. Even today, the ocean is still home to the majority of the living creatures. Birds, on the other hand, are the most primitive species of all warm-blooded animals. We can see how closely science resembles the description in the Bible. Although science proves these words, faith believes without the help of science! On the sixth day God went on to create the beasts, the cattle, and the creeping things. Finally, He created man in His own image. We will discuss the creation of man in more detail in later messages. Here we will deal only briefly with the subject. Chapter one covers the creation of man in a brief way to show us man’s position among the creatures, while chapter two describes the origin of man in detail to show us man’s relationship with God. We should notice that man was “created” by God (v. 27). Man did not evolve from a lower class of animal. The word “creation,” as we have mentioned, means the making of something out of nothing. It is a special work of God and not a natural process of evolution. The Bible does not give credence to

    Comment by rafael — October 18, 2007 @ 9:17 pm | Reply

  1527. Rafael, good job. Now, please debunk these ’round earth’ liars.

    Comment by Bob_Corker — October 19, 2007 @ 6:22 am | Reply

  1528. Rafael,,, that had to be the longest line of bull I’ve ever read. When are you idiots going to realise that the world was not created 6,000 years ago, and it wasn’t created in 6 days either, it’s been here for several hundred million years and evolution is a fact, not a theory, life is still evolving on this planet and the signs of it are everywhere, the Bible was written by prophets and teachers that used God as an explanation for those things that they could not explain with the limited knowledge man had at that time. Every country in the world had their own gods and they all have their own “Bibles” to back up the beliefs of their religion, but you, like everyone else, thinks your god is the only god. Isn’t it obvious by now that every god was actually created by man in man’s image, not the other way around. It’s your fear that makes you want to believe in a deity, you’re afraid of the thought of oblivion so you choose to believe there is someone that will make you live again after death, sorry, but no such creature exists, God is a crutch for the weak, everyone prays to gods for the same reason, simply because they are afraid of death.

    Oh yeah, and on a happier note, Brownback is dropping out of the race, which is good, over half of the country has never heard of him. Sorry, losers.

    Comment by Arn — October 19, 2007 @ 6:55 am | Reply

  1529. Hey, I was right after all. There is a limit to WordPress posts, at least for post length. It appears that Rafael was caught by the 64k character limit 🙂 Boy, I bet the coders never thought anyone would do that.

    Kind of makes me wonder what was cut off…. well, not really.

    David…

    Comment by Fixerdave — October 19, 2007 @ 4:06 pm | Reply

  1530. sixty four k of typing and no one is reading. took 4 seconds to scroll passed it on my My comments.
    heres a short comment(just for fun)
    how is Brownbacks’ campaign going?

    Comment by Cafedog — October 19, 2007 @ 4:33 pm | Reply

  1531. He came, he saw, he wimped out…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1922351520071019

    Comment by Cyriac — October 19, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  1532. (from the Reuters story)
    “Brownback blamed a shortage of campaign funds and media pessimism about his chances for his inability to compete in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.”

    Nothing at all to do with public reaction to his embracing of 13th-century ideas such as a flat (or non-rotating) Earth, then. I see.
    ===========
    ===========

    rafael, that was a remarkably good example of logorrhea (“incessant or compulsive talkativeness; wearisome volubility”)–next time, though, can you try holding it down closer to, say, 120 words instead of almost 12,000?!

    Also, avoid such patent nonsense as: “The fact is DNA manipulation does not exist.”
    It exists, dude. It has existed since man began domesticating animals (and plants) and selectively breeding them for desired characteristics.
    It already exists in the more modern form too–altering DNA by biochemists’ direct action. Do you know any diabetic who uses injected human insulin? That insulin comes from bacteria, not humans–bacteria that have had their genome altered by the deliberate addition of the human genetic information necessary to make that hormone. (That’s just one example of many. Go out and read some more. Learn and remember what you read, too.)
    ===========

    “In plants where is the effects of manipulating a fruit plant by means of DNA? Why a blueberry is always small, big orange size would be nice.”

    Do you want to personally pay for the research and development of that? Be warned–it would be rather expensive.
    ===========

    “What about the clones like dolly, the fact is that never a clone has taken place.”

    BS. (Or, “SS”?) Ian Wilmut & Co. have some rather different imformation on this….
    ===========

    “X male leads to Y female, and Y female leads to X male other wise a X and Y combination or Y and X either true or false; or unknown; combination lead us to a male or a woman either way is ok for Darwinism either way humanity has been label and accepted as animals.”

    This is nearly gibberish. “Y female” and “X male” don’t make any sense.
    And, humans are animals, by all usual definitions of the term.
    ===========

    “Problem is we go from scientific data to judge morality this is a mixture without reasonable knowledge…”

    Yes, your writing is indeed a mixture without reasonable knowledge.

    “…therefore does not have a scientific explanation X and Y in math’s science are empirical measurements never in human genes.”

    What is “math’s science”? And how is it that genes and chromosomes are immeasurable?
    ================

    “Male are 100% male and female 100% female.”

    Except for the XXY males (and females), and the X0 females, and such.
    ===========

    “In the last years Darwinism who lowers mankind to the status of animals has told the world psychologically that is ok not to be 100% man or 100% woman.”

    Are you trying to work in a reference to naturally occurring conditions such as homo- and bi-sexuality? If so, so what? The sexuality spectrum is widely known, even if not widely accepted (by narrow minds).
    ===========

    “You be the judge.”

    OK: I judge that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and are unlikely ever to know.
    (I also judge that I’m talking to a metaphoric brick wall here, as impervious to learning as, oh, Sisyphus or roman pytel or DNS or…Sam Brownback?)

    Comment by Silverhill — October 19, 2007 @ 7:18 pm | Reply

  1533. Geocentrism Is A Pagan Doctrine

    Geocentrism is an ancient belief that the earth is at the center of the universe. The most detailed description of a geocentric universe was created and explained by Ptolemy, a 2nd-century Greek pagan. Ptolemy’s system remained the dominant view of the universe for over a millenium, partly because a lot of people are egocentric enough to believe the universe revolves around them, and partly because his misguided ideas were so complex and took so long to create that it seemed a shame to toss them aside.

    In the 15th and 16th centuries, several Christian astronomers, including Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, discovered evidence of a heliocentric, or sun-centered model. However, Church authorities at the time had been brainwashed by Ptolemy’s pagan view of the universe, and refused to accept heliocentrism, banning books on the subject and threatening its promoters with excommunication.

    By the late 17th century, devout Christian scientists Johann Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton published scientific and mathematical treatises which proved conclusively that heliocentrism worked, and that a geocentric universe is impossible. The Church finally accepted this view of the universe, though it took some time. As stated in Encarta:
    An investigation into … [Galileo’s] condemnation was opened in 1979 by Pope John Paul II. A papal commission, set up in 1982, produced several scholarly publications related to the trial. In October 1992 the commission acknowledged the error of the church’s officials. In a speech accepting the report John Paul, alluding to Galileo’s views on scripture and science, said that Galileo, “a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him.”

    See? Two can play this little game. Also, while the Bible is an excellent source for religious purposes, it is absolute folly to consider it as a science text. Remember that the Bible was transcribed by fallible human beings who thought that hares chew cud.

    Comment by Confused — October 19, 2007 @ 11:55 pm | Reply

  1534. The Biblical Geology: The Earth and its “Pillars”

    Andrew Dickson White in his History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom wrote: “Still, at various times and places, germs implanted by Greek and Roman thought were warmed into life. The Arabian schools seem to have been less fettered by the letter of the Koran than the contemporary Christian scholars by the letter of the Bible; and to Avicenna belongs the credit of first announcing substantially the modern geological theory of changes in the earth’s surface.” Mr. White got it totally wrong.

    According to his false theory Avicenna accounted for the fossils by suggesting a “stone-making force.” His belief was inspired by the myth of the birth of the Persian god Mithra who was forced out of a rock (petra genetrix, or, Hesiod’s materia matrix) as if by some hidden magic power. His birth inspired Darwin with the idea that evolution is controlled by a “force” that acts on plants and animals slowly, over the course of many generations, to produce changes in their forms.

    Long before Avicenna, following the Mihraic birth myth, St. Augustine, a former Manichean interpreted Genesis to mean that God created animals and plants only virtually, in the sense that the earth was given the power to bring forth living things in time. In such an exegesis the earth regained its mythological divine power. The New Age belief that the earth is, actually, ancient goddess Gaia is the modern variant of the ancient myth.

    Darwin’s goddess Mutability vs. the God who creates and maintains life on Earth

    In the Darwinian scheme nature, so far as we can discern, without passion and without intention, forms, transforms, and retransforms forever. She neither weeps nor rejoices. She produces man without purpose, and obliterates him without regret. She knows no distinction between the beneficial and the hurtful.

    In the Biblical scheme, While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. (Gen., 8:22)

    God’s blessing: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen. 1:28) is fully apprehended only when it is placed in the world created out of nothing. In contradistinction, the ancient cosmogonies tell about the creation of the world out of pre-existing materials, and the origin of the world is often intertwined with the origin of gods. For the Mesopotamian his creator God was only the demiurge who built the world we live in out of matter and according to laws that are not of his creating. In this world there is something God did not create. In the world created out of matter the fear of living in overcrowded and poor living conditions is very real. As a way of disposing of “the human pollution of the world” atheistic science proposed “zero population growth.” The use of death became one way to control population.

    There is no such fear in the world created by God out of nothing, because: “As the hosts of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured, so I will multiply the seed of David, my servant.” (Jer 33:22). Seeing people multiplying the Biblical author relieves them from fear with the words: “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; and the earth abideth for ever (Ecc 1:4). When Abraham heard God’s promise that his seed shall be as countless as the stars (Gen 15:5) he knew nothing about the treasures which God was preparing inside the earth for the generations to come and which made the industrial revolution possible. And hosts of the Lord are still coming preparing new treasures for Abraham’s countless seed.

    Regarding life as an outcome of accidental chemical processes, Science does not search into the vast process of Ceaseless Creation which is being renewed time and again in the successive periods of the world history. Keeping life prosperous and growing is not an easy task. Let’s descend to the bottom of this problem.

    The language of the Bible does not sound like the jargon of the modern Science, non the less the thoughts of many Biblical verses match exactly conclusions of the present-day geologists.

    For instance, the verse: “And God said: ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear’” (Gen. 1:9) express the same phenomenon which the modern geologists discovered when they saw that rocks formed blow the seas are now high in the mountains and that mountain chains have been raised repeatedly at different places and then worn away.

    According to one hypothesis the Himalayas were formed as a result of continental collision when India broke off Gondwanaland and slammed into Asia. Floating continent? But we also can imagine the rise of India the same way as the rise of the Hawaiian Islands. Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa are the two principal volcanoes that created the island of Hawaii. Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain in the world, for it rises some 32,000 feet above the ocean floor, making it several hundred feet taller than Mt. Everest. The island of Hawaii is the youngest and most volcanically active and lies to the southeast. The rest of the islands are in line to the northwest, with each being elder than the one to its southeast. It appears that the islands were produced assembly line fashion, with each one moving away in succession from its point of origin as though on a conveyor belt.

    Similarly, the Deccan Plateau formed from lava outflows. Basalt up to 7,000 feet (2100 m) thick covers 250,000 square miles (650,000 sq. km) in India’s Deccan Plateau. Volcanic plugs like these of Mauna Kea or Mt. Everest are embedded in the basalt (like teeth are embedded in jaws); they are the “pillars” of the world upon which the Lord “hath set the world” (1 Sam 2:8). According to modern Science more than 80% of the earth’s surface above and below sea level is of volcanic origin. And they work for us, for generations to come.

    Upon similar “pillars” the Bolivian lake Titicaca rests. Though now more than two miles above sea level, the area around the lake is littered with millions upon millions of fossilized sea shells. This suggests that at some stage the whole of the Altiplano was forced upwards from the sea-bed, perhaps as part of the general terrestrial rising that formed South America as a whole. We observe at present similar rising of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

    The youngest rocks of the oceans were found in such places as the mid-Atlantic Ridge, which runs like a seam through Iceland and reaches to the South Pole. Iceland is one of the most thermally active countries in the world and is blessed with an abundant geothermal energy source for generating electricity and heating buildings. Under Iceland the upwelling is so intense that the plateau rises above the sea level. On other parts of the mid ocean ridge, volcanic activity is quite prevalent and there are as many as 20 major eruptions a year. Like Iceland, the Azores, and the islands of St. Paul, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, Gough, and Bouvet are surface expressions of the Mid-Atlantic volcanic eruptions. Similarly, the other continents had been built.

    Because the crust under the Pacific Ocean is more volcanically active, it has a higher density of seamounts than the Atlantic or Indian Ocean. The average density of Pacific seamounts is between five and ten volcanoes per 5,000 square miles of ocean floor, a considerably greater occurrence of volcanoes than there is on the continents. Oceania is a collective name for the groups of islands in the Pacific Ocean of volcanic or coral formation, lying between the southeastern shores of Asia and the western shores of the American continent. Coral reefs abound throughout the South Pacific, in the East Indies and the Indian Ocean to Ceylon, and around Madagascar. They also form along the tropical eastern coast of Brazil, and at Bermuda. Since these sea gardens grow, this means that the coral islands of Oceania are being enlarged. Steadily enlarged for future generations of people and other living creatures.

    When soil lodges on the coral, vegetation begins to grow Among the builders of the world, coral rivals even man’s ability to alter the surface of the earth. Hundreds of atols consist of reefs several thousand yards across, many of which are formed on ancient volcanic cones that have subsided below the sea, with the rate of coral grow surpassing the rate of subsistence. Fringing reeds grow in shallow water; the best example is the Great Barrier Reef off the northeastern coast of Australia. It forms an underwater embankment more than 1200 miles long, 90 miles wide and 400 feet high. Coral reef environments have among the highest rates of photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation, and limestone deposition of any environment. Coral reefs are centers of high biological productivity and their fishes are a major source of food in tropical areas.

    Studies indicate that the sea floor is spreading in the Red Sea through and that the Arabian Peninsula is slowly, drifting away from Africa. The Red Sea may thus be an Ocean in embryo. “One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; and the earth abideth for ever.”

    The coastlines are changing incessantly the same was as the surface of the earth is changing. Prophet Isaiah who spoke (45:2) about “the crooked places (i.e. Mountains) being made straight” was right. Similarly, in the opinion of present-day geologists, if there is one thing that can be said about the earth with complete certainty, it is that it is continuously changing. The earth’s surface rocks are constantly being worn away to form sediments that are redistributed over the surface. This process of erosion, transportation, and deposition has taken place since the surface was first formed. Rocks and soil are degraded, or eroded by atmospheric weathering, running water, glaciers, winds, and waves, and by changes produced by plants and animals. As streams carve their channels, they remove earth material (Grand Canyon!) that will be later deposited as sediment. The sediments may accumulate to form a variety of land features, including sandbars, deltas and river floodplains. In the course of geological history, the sediments may eventually be converted into sedimentary rocks. These sediments had covered with thick layers organic sediments i.e. billions upon billions of little plants and animals that sank or were washed into the ancient seas. In time they formed an ooze hundreds of feet deep (like those in Everglades) which was subjected to tremendous pressures at the sea bottom. That’s why petroleum is found only in beds of ancient seas, many of which are now thousands of feet below dry land.

    Isn’t it a miracle that the face on the moon stays the same? Always, forever! Why? Here is the answer: “And God said: ‘Let there be lights in the spread of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.’” These signs are for us who understand their meaning. How Great Thou Art.

    Prof. Carl Becker in his book The Heavenly City of the 18th century Philosophers demonstrates that the period commonly described as The Age of Reason was, in fact, very far from that; that Newton, Voltaire, Hume, Diderot, and Locke were living in a medieval world inspired by the Arab philosophers such as: Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes an others. There is no logical reason why the scientists of the 1980s should be any more infallible in their pontifical statements of scientific dogmas than their predecessors of the 1880s, or 1200s for that matter.
    Renunciation of the traditional revelation was the very condition of being truly enlightened; for to be truly enlightened was to see the light in its fullness, and the light in its fullness revealed two very simple and obvious facts. One of these contained the sum of those negations which we understand so well – the fact that the supposed revelation of God’s purposes through Holy Writ a fraud, or at best an illusion born of ignorance, perpetrated, or at least maintained, by the Jews in order to accentuate the fears of mankind, and so hold it in subjection. Like Walt and Mearsheimer proclaim in their, now world-famous, screed. Why do they care to write for “human pollution”?

    Comment by Roman Pytel — October 20, 2007 @ 8:06 am | Reply

  1535. “Trying to give Jon Swift a run for his money?”

    Who is Jon Swift?

    Seriously, Mr. Pagan Deity Who Pushes A Stone Up A Hill For All Eternity?

    Johnathan Swift was a 17th-century satirist who is famous for the essay “A Modest Proposal,” which pretends to suggest cannibalism as an economic strategy in order to illustrate the extreme social inequality of his time. Every American high school student has to read his work as an example of satire, and the fact you claim to have never heard of him indicates you were too busy writing bootleg Chick Tracts to learn anything useful in school.

    Comment by Confused — October 20, 2007 @ 7:38 pm | Reply

  1536. 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?

    I LOVE America. That’s why I don’t try to LIE to them about how the universe works.

    And btw, Islamist terrorists DON’T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE EITHER. A teacher once went into one of the terrorist training schools to teach children that God makes earthquakes happen by causing the tectonic plates in the Earth’s crust to slide against each other. As soon as he mentioned the plates, the Junior Jihadists said, “You are telling lies! There are no plates! Earthquakes happen because Allah wills it!”

    End Islamofascism–Teach Science!

    [Ed Note: Pathetic. Don’t you mean “teach lies?”]

    Comment by Confused — October 20, 2007 @ 7:58 pm | Reply

  1537. Ah, a human of great faith!

    Move some mountains for me, please.

    Comment by Heliocentric — October 21, 2007 @ 3:54 am | Reply

  1538. Man, other Christians believe in heliocentrism. So even among your group, you are divided.

    Comment by Heliocentric — October 21, 2007 @ 4:00 am | Reply

  1539. I feel like i’m pushing a stone up hill myself right now. What is this a P K Dick Novel? I have read about the Helio-leftist, the helio-fascist (being that fascism is right wing that would be Helio rightist) So i am geussing those who are neither are in the middle:
    Helio- Center-ist…..I’d love to send this page to my old high school English Teacher.(at least she’d be happy someone is talking about Swift)
    ……..
    Pyle, you make a point. That SCIENCE and RELIGION often AGREE.
    Why? because they are all about understanding the Natural world, neither are Absolute Fundamental Truth. so religions and science will over lap and they all will change in journey of understanding.

    Isaac Newton? well i cant think of a better example, a man so deeply curious about the world around him, both in faith and in physics he nearly drove him self to his end. To him science and faith were inseparable.

    I will point out, to Confused…They never taught about Newtons personal struggles with Faith in my high school, and you cannot separate the man from his science. So where they really teaching me Newtonian Physics?

    Comment by Cafedog — October 21, 2007 @ 8:03 am | Reply

  1540. when you say it’s ove. Huda Swithun.

    Comment by Huda Swithun — October 21, 2007 @ 1:20 pm | Reply

  1541. (written on the presumption that Psycheout can avoid abusing his power this time, by not twisting posters’ words into things that they would never say)

    It’s over, folks. Brownback has realized that he doesn’t (and didn’t) stand the proverbial snowball’s chance; perhaps he’ll apologize for having wasted people’s time and money?

    Sisyphus, Roman Pytel, DNS, et al.—I pity you, I really do. You feel so safe and secure behind your wall of ignorance, but the world will leave you behind, just as it does all who cannot—and, especially, who will not—face reality.

    There’s a word for someone who strives to maintain such a limited state: loser.

    Goodbye.

    Comment by Silverhill — October 23, 2007 @ 3:41 pm | Reply

  1542. Check out the store linked in this page. Show your Christian love by buying…a thong?!

    Lest ye take the plank from ye own eye…

    Comment by James — October 23, 2007 @ 5:17 pm | Reply

  1543. Egad. Amazing. If I didn’t have atheistic tendencies before, I definitely do now. Well, thanks for helping me make my mind up, Mr S.

    Comment by Moi — October 24, 2007 @ 1:20 am | Reply

  1544. The Biblical Geology: Host of YHWH

    The Biblical Secretaries of God assigned meteorites to the vast category called “Host of the YHWH.” Indeed, if we take into consideration frequency of the meteorite falls, we can compare this phenomenon to rain or dew; that’s why the scientific literature speak about “meteorite showers.” Meteors occur in the earth’s atmosphere every day. These and invisible meteorites are estimated to add more than 1,000 short tons (910 metric tons) daily to the earth’s weight. But who counted them? Did anybody count bacteria or viruses? Yeast is always there when we need it.

    Approximately, 15 billion tons of continental material reaches the outlets of rivers and streams annually. Most of the detritus is trapped near the outlets and on continental shelves and only a few billion tons actually escapes into the deep sea. Together with the biological material in the sea it contributes about 3 billion tons of sediments in the ocean floor each year. Obviously, the Host of YHWH have to balance the yearly disappearance of the continental material into sea depths. And, in fact, they do.

    The river Rhone in southern France flows through a plain of sands and gravels, but buried far beneath these deposits, lies a deep channel. It can be traced down the Rhone valley, sinking over deeper as it goes, until near the Mediterranean coast it is 3,000 feet below the present sea-level.

    A similar buried channel underlies the valley of the Nile. In the Delta, it sinks so far beneath the thick layer of sediments deposited by the river that it seemed untraceable. Recently, oil geologists located it – 8,000 feet beneath the city of Cairo

    The great Sphinx of Giza, as a 19th-century photograph shows has spent a large part of its known history covered up to its neck in desert sands. Whilst thus covered, its body has not been subject to wind-erosion, yet the body is heavily weathered. Could there have been some weathering agency at work?

    Indeed, the meteorite showers may consist of no more than 5 meteors in an hour but may reach as many as 75. On occasions, the sky may be lit by thousands of meteors per hour. Some 35,000 or so meteors fell one hour during the Leonid meteor shower of November 1833. This spectacular display of the Host of YHWH terrified most everyone who witnessed it. On Feb. 8, 1969, a 30-ton meteor broke up over the town of Pueblito de Allende in northern Mexico. Some of the 5,000 objects larger than a baseball are currently being tracked around the earth – the natural satellites.

    Without rain, snow, dew, the earth would not put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind (Gen 1:11), which means that life would not be possible. We don’t perceive the life-fostering function of the meteorite showers because it covers much longer periods of time. The language of the Bible does not sound like the jargon of the modern Science, nontheless the thoughts of many Biblical verses match exactly conclusions of the present-day geologists.

    For instance, the verse: “And God said: ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear’” (Gen. 1:9) express the same phenomenon which the modern geologists discovered when they saw that rocks formed blow the seas are now high in the mountains and that mountain chains have been raised repeatedly at different places and then worn away.

    Climbers in Switzerland, Austria, and Croatia, as they ascend more than a mile above sea level, pass decks of ice-crusted rock made from the skeletons of sea creatures that once lived in the Mediterranean. More than 3,000 years ago, the trodos ophiolite on Cyprus was mined extensively by the Greeks for its copper and tin. In essence, the Greeks were minding the ocean floor that had been conveniently brought up the the surface by God.

    The deposits were formed by the precipitation of metals from hot-water solutions that were rich in silica and metal and were discharged through the sea floor by hydro-thermal springs. The ophiolites have been identified in various parts of the world: on the Apennines of Norther Italy, the northern margins of the Himalayas in southern Tibet, the Ural Mountains, the eastern Mediterranean, the Afar Desert of northeastern Africa, the Andes of South America, and islands of the western Pacific such as the Philippines, uppermost Newfoundland, and Point Sol along the Big Sur coast of central California.

    At the same time, as the Greeks were mining for ophiolites, Celtic miners burrowed through rock and clay of the Salzberg (lit. salt-mountain) and dropped shafts more than 1,000 feet long to extract the salt. An underground mine about 1,000 feet below the surface of Detroit produces more than 1 million tons of salt a year.

    There are fossils in Cheops’s limestone blocks. One can spend days and nights cataloging the different kinds of sea life in these blocks. The skeletons of microscopic animals accumulated to form beds of the clear, white lime the Egyptians found so attractive for building pyramids. And now, consider the fertile Delta; once, this delta was a bay; patiently the broad Nile filled it up so that peasants could grow enough cotton to export hundred million dollars’ worth of it every year.

    Most of what is now Louisiana was once part of an ancient bay of the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana is a “gift” of the Mississippi River. The 350 million cubic yards of sediments carried down by the mighty river each year would cover the entire state of Connecticut, if spread in a layer one inch thick. The many tons of mud, sand, and gravel which the great river dumps into the Gulf of Mexico each day would fill a freight train 150 miles long.

    Under the microscope, most of chalk resolves into a coarse powder. Embedded in it, however, are myriads of skeletons of one-celled animals called foraminifera. When the crushed foraminiferal skeletons are subjected to heat and pressure they turn into limestone. A huge chalk and limestone deposit make up much of the southeastern part of England. The Latin name of England Albion (White Island) is derived from the color of these deposits. They are, in turn, part of a much larger deposit, some of which has been worn away or overlain by other types of rock, that stretches from the Baltic through the Low Countries to northern France. At the 22,000-feet level on Mount Everest in the Himalayas there is a 200-feet stratum of foraminiferal limestone. It is used to make roads and in building. Michelangelo’s David was once a collection of tiny foraminifera living on the sea bottom.

    If it not were for the meteorite showers that the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth sends upon the surface of organic sediments, coal could not have been formed. Coal consists chiefly of carbon, derived directly from organic carbon compounds of vegetation. The carbon in the plants that later formed coal was not obtained from the soil by way of plant roots, but from the air by way of leaves. Being the only known natural agency known capable of abstracting large amounts of carbon from the air, plants employ it in the construction of their tissues and store up for future use. Coal is fossilized plant material, preserved by burial and altered by earth forces. In order that the organic sediments could have been transformed into coal they had to be covered by billions upon billions tons of earth sent as meteorite showers, which made possible compaction and condensation. The distribution and amount of meteorite dust falls are controlled by the air current and winds in the upper atmosphere and then are dispersed by the different systems of air streams, which could be compared to rivers in the ocean.

    The radar pictures taken by Columbia belied all those who explained the covering of the Great Sphinx as a result of engulfing it by the shifting sands of Sahara. Now we know that the Sphinx disappeared from the face of the earth similarly as the stone age camp sites – covered by mountains of sand. For the first time the Sphinx was excavated during the reign of the pharaoh Thutmose IV about 1450 B.C. And then, it had been covered again and again. In the 19th century, when it was found by the archaeologists it was again largely engulfed in sand. Indeed, the Creator accurately distributed His host on the face of the earth.

    The design of human eye and also of ear and nose points to God who continues His creation by enlarging the earth for growing populations of diverse creatures. Tears which are produced by lacrimal glands help to clear eyeballs of foreign particles, such as dust, and keep them from drying out, which would result in blindness. Each time the eyelid blinks, it sucks a little fluid from the glands. After the tears pass across the eyeball, they flow out through two lacrimal ducts that open at inner corner of each eye. They lead to a lacrimal sac and then to the nasal duct. This duct runs the length of the nose and finally opens into it.

    The external auditory canal is the opening you see if you look directly into the ear. The outer third of the canal is lined with fine hairs and with the tiny glands that produce wax. The hairs and wax trap dust and other small particles.

    Both nasal passages have a lining of soft, moist mucuous membrane covered with microscopic, hairlike projections called cilia. The cilia wave back and forth constantly, moving dust, bacteria, and fluids from the nose to the throat for swallowing.

    We perceive the same designing “Mind” behind the oil-producing process. Large reservoirs of oil and natural gas are dependent on the existence of certain geological conditions, such as a sedimentary source for the oil, a porous rock to serve as a reservoir, and some kind of confining sediments. The source material is generally organic carbon in fine-grained, carbon-rich sediments. Porous and permeable sedimentary rock such as sandstone provides the reservoir, and diverse geologic structures that result from folding or faulting of sedimentary layers (earthquakes!) can serve as dams to pool the oil. In order for organic material to be transformed into oil, at least one or two conditions must be met. Either the rat of accumulation must be so high or the oxygen in the bottom water must be so low that the material is not oxidized before it is buried. Oxidation causes decay, which destroys organic material; therefore, areas where there are high rates of accumulation of sediments rich in organic material are the most favorable sites for the formation of oil-bearing rock.

    Referring to famine as a check on population, Bishop Malthus wrote in the following incredibly sincere passage from the revised sixth Edition of his Essay on the Principle of Population (1862):

    “…We should facilitate, instead of impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits.” Now you understand better why certain people hate Moses and the Torah.

    As the 1972 Club of Rome’s Project Report on The Predicament of Mankind made us all aware, there are “limits to growth”, and if the world’s major industrial powers continue to pursue economic growth and to foster an ethic based on ever-increasing production and consumption of goods the planet’s resources will rapidly be depleted and the environment irremediably polluted. To create “a steady state of economic and ecological equilibrium,” the Report concluded, will require a Copernican revolution of the mind” and if the human species is to survive “man must explore himself – his goals and values – as much as the world he seeks to change. So now, at last you know what the Copernican revolution really means.

    In the Biblical cosmology “God divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament” (Gen. 1:7). Accordingly, we learn from Ex 16:31 that “when the layer of dew was gone up, behold upon the the face of the wilderness a fine, scale-like thing., fine as the hoar-frost on the ground.” This was the “Bread” which YHWH had given them to eat. In the logic of the Bible, the thought that the God who created life on the earth have fed his people with “manna which they knew not, neither did their fathers know” (Dt. 8:3), can be regarded as a miracle only in the sense that this food of Heavenly Restaurant had been sent precisely when it was needed for their survival. The idea of the survival of the fittest, or the strongest does not fit into Biblical scheme of things.

    Because God did not stop to create after six days of creation. God’s day of rest suggests His continued activity. The Guardian of Israel won’t slumber.

    Isidore of Seville’s Originum sive Etymologiarum contains Herodot’s and Diodor’s statements that geometry had been invented by the Egyptians to measure land after the disappearance of boundary markers in the Nile floods. Then the Egyptian gymnophysists taught Eudoxos, Pythagoras and Plato all the mysteries of Thoth, a Great Lord of magic which was also called mathematics. Translating the curvatures of the earth into ideal shapes of spheres, triangles and squares they were trying to ascertain the extent of the earth. But how can you find out the extent of the earth knowing that God keeps enlarging its size? Reading the list of annual meteor showers which God sends to earth, remember the revealing questions contained in the Book of Job: “Where were thou when I founded the earth? Tell if you have understanding.” “Who determined its dimension if thou knowest? Or who stretched the measuring line over it?”

    Comment by Roman Pytel — October 27, 2007 @ 11:56 am | Reply

  1545. This website is a hoot! I thought for a moment that perhaps you were being serious but now that I read further, “I get it”.

    This is almost as good as SPY magazine was in its first few years.

    Comment by John — October 27, 2007 @ 9:47 pm | Reply

  1546. Sisyphus you must be retarded

    Comment by Steve — October 28, 2007 @ 8:36 pm | Reply

  1547. Can Darkness Be Also Light

    In the ancient Babylonian astrological system, it is the Sun-god who is the ruler and main god of the zodiac. And all the gods of heaven (the stars) were considered offspring of the sun. According to pagan philosophy, all the star gods you have heard about in school were actually manifestations of the heat, fire and light which flowed from the sun. It was believed that it was the Sun-god who was the source of all things, and all the other gods were but emanations of the sun, “flesh of his flesh.” Therefore, all the manifestations of the gods of nature were just manifestations of the one god, the Sun, whose worship by primitive man was in reality to Satan. Even Lucifer’s name means “Day Star,” the “Illuminated One,” or “Shining One” (Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Young, 1970,  p.806)
    This global solar religion of Nature is reflected in various languages. Salverte in his Des Sciences Occultes, observed: “Almost all the Tartar princes, trace their genealogy to a celestial virgin, impregnated by a sun-beam, or some equally miraculous means.” In India, the mother of Surya, the sun-god, who was born to destroy the enemies of the gods, is said to have become pregnant in this way, a beam of the sun having entered her womb, in consequence of which she brought forth the sun-god.”
    The name of Persian sun god Sure is cognate with Chaldean zuhr (“to shine”), zuhro (“the Shiner” cp. Zorro) and, of course zuro (“the seed”) because a beam of light was also an impregnating seed. The name Pyrisoporus, as aplied to Bacchus, means Ignigena, or the “Seed of Fire”, and Ala-sporos, the “Seed of God”, is just a similar expression formed in the same way.
    The name Aur-ora, in the physical sense, signifies also “pregnant with light”; and from “ohra,” “to conceive” or be “pregnant,” we have in Greek, the word for a wife. The name of the Anglo-Saxon Zernebogus means: “The Seed of the Prophet Cush”. The common name of peoples who worshiped the pagan sun gods was Children of Light as against Children of Darkness i.e. the Jews who refused to worship the object in Nature, such as the sun. The God of the Bible never allowed any person to approach Him in worship through any of his created objects of nature! In fact, God firmly forbids it! The apostle Paul spoke directly to this subject, in Roman 1:21-24 “…when they knew God, glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image…” Then in verse 25, Paul cut the ground out of anyone who thinks they can worship the created object rather than God, when he said, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped the creature more than the Creator…”
    How their foolish heart was darkened? In more remote times, products now known to be poisonous were used to whiten the skin. For example, as early as 400 B.C.E. the Greeks whitened their skin with a face powder of lead carbonate. Poppea Sabin, the wife of Roman Emperor Nero, used this toxic substance to whiten her face. In the 16th c., arsenic was used by some Italian women to give their faces a translucent appearance. In other words they wanted to have sining faces like the sun queen Elizabeth I.
    The skin is the body’s largest organ, measuring some 20 feet for an average male and 17 square feet for an average female. It contains receptors that respond to pain, touch, and temperature. The skin is the body’s first line of defense against heat, cold and trauma, as well as against toxins, chemicals, and pollutants. Ironically, the skin of these Children of Light has a potential enemy – their sun god.
    A curious fact for the life of the Essenes emerges from a study of the Jubilees calendar; it began the year on the fourth day of the week, Wednesday, on the principle that it was only on that day that the heavenly luminaries were created, and thus one could not properly speak of “day and night” before that (Gen 1:14-19). In the Hindu myth Kala and Akala, time and not-time, are two forms of Brahma, after he had produced the world or rather the sun as the first thing in the universe.
    I think that German poet Goethe caught very well the deeper meaning of the Biblical teaching about the sun having been created only on the fourth day. He observed: “Experience is not something simple, and can never be purely objective, because it is our own active organization which first makes experience possible, in that our senses take up only definite impressions, definitely shaped, moreover, by themselves, (We may stimulate the optical nerve as we will, the impression is always “light”, and so in the case of the other senses), while our understanding also sifts, arranges and unites the impressions according to definite systems. There are many problems in the natural sciences on which we cannot with propriety speak, if we do not call in the aid of metaphysics.” 

    After years of experimentation with time sensing in the honeybee, von Frisch concluded that “we are dealing here with beings who, seemingly without needing a clock, possess a memory for time, dependent neither on a feeling of hunger nor an appreciation of the sun’s position, and which, like our own appreciation of time, seems to defy any further analysis.”

    While experimenters may think they have totally isolated their potatoes and their oysters by shielding them from light and changes in barometric or thermal conditions, these organisms have subtle ways of sensing what is really happening in the world outside.

    Sir Cyril Burt in Arthur Koestler’s The Roots of Coincidence destroyed Newton’s dogma inspired by the pagan heliolatry. In Query XXX at the end of his Opticks Newton, like all other members of the Royal Society wondered: “Why may not Nature change bodies into light and light into bodies?” Swift satirized the Royal Society in Gulliver’s Travels as the Grand Academy of Lagado, whose members made plans for extracting sunshine from cucumbers.
    Here are Sir Burt’s words: “Our tactile perception of the gravitational effects of mass (e.g. a grain of sand falling onto the skin) requires a stimulus of at least 0.1 gram, say about 1020 ergs; the kinaesthetic sense (e.g. lifting a weight) is coarser still. On the other hand, the eye in rod-vision is sensitive to less than 5 quanta of radiant energy, about 10-10 ergs or rather less. In detecting energy therefore man’s perceptual apparatus is 1030 times more sensitive than it is in detecting mass. Had the perception of mass been as delicate as the perception of energy, the identity of the two would have seemed self-evident instead of paradoxical. When seeing light we should at the same time have felt the pressure or impact of the photons, and mass and energy would from the outset have been regarded as merely two different ways of perceiving the same thing…” At the same time our eyes are immune to temperature changes; we don’t wear gloves on our eyes.
    Creatures like us who see only in visible light deduce that everyone in the entire Universe, including God, must see in visible light. But God who created the world and its abundance showed Moses a different light never seen by the pharaoh Akhenaten! He showed him the light, which makes it possible for the owl, a pair of binocular with wings, whose eyes make up a third of its head size, to become the “night watchmen of our gardens”*. And this means that the owl can see a mouse in the darkness of night from a distance of several hundred yards.
    *On page 236-237 in the Dictionary of Symbols by J.E. Cirlot, the owl is described as follows, “In the Egyptian system of hieroglyphs, the owl symbolizes death, night, cold and passivity. It also pertains to the realm of the dead sun, that is, of the sun which has set below the horizon and which is crossing the lake or sea of darkness.”

    The potto lives in the forests of western Africa. It usually sleeps during the day in hollow trees and hunts for food at night. The potto’s big protruding eyes help it see easily in the dark. And what about giant eyes of an Australian spider that can see an ant in black darkness of nights? Some animals also see in infrared, or with radically different kinds of eyes (barred, compound, iridescent, tabular, at the ends of stalks). The world that greets them looks totally different. (Google: Images, Night Life to see more night creatures)

    The Biblical teaching about relativity of light wasn’t entirely silenced by the Gentile Theology – as Newton called heliocentrism – concocted at Anu-Heliopolis in cooperation with Damascus.

    The difference between black and white is not a matter of color, but of how much light they reflect. The terms are relative, not absolute. Black and white are fundamentally the same thing; the difference is only in the relative amounts of light reflected, not in their color. The fraction of incident light that human skin reflects varies widely from individual to individual. Skin pigmentation is produced mainly by an organic molecule called melanin, which the body manufactures from tyrosine, an amino acid common in proteins.

    Albinos suffer from a hereditary disease in which melanin is not made. Their skin and hair are milky white. The irises of their eyes are pink. Albino animals are rare in nature because their skins provide little protection against solar radiation, and because they lack protective camouflage. Albinos tend not to last long. They don’t survive under the killing rays of Copernicus’s sun god.

    People of Northern European ancestry and people of Central African ancestry are equally black in the ultraviolet and in the infrared (Google: Images, Ultraviolet Light to see for yourself), where nearly all organic molecules, not just melanin, absorb light. Only in the visible, where many molecules are transparent, is the anomaly of white skin even possible. Over most of the spectrum, all humans are black. Interestingly, taking interferon for hepatitis may change a white man into a black one.

    The Scripture speaks of the precious fruits put forth by the sun and moon (Dt.33:14) The precious things put forth by the moon refer to those plants that depend on moonlight, as some flowers, because in the Biblical lore the light of the moon is independent of the sunlight.
    We have also many “children of darkness” among the flora. Flowers of the Hedge Bindweed open wide in early morning. But they usually close in the bright sunlight later in the day. Night-Blooming Cereus climbs walls and rocky ledges in the West Indies and other warm lands. Gardeners in Hawaii and the Far East also cultivate this type of cactus. Its creamy blossoms open only at night (Google: Images, Night Plants to see more pictures of such plants).
    There is a particular organic pigment responsible for the absorption of light in such flowers as roses and violets – flowers so strikingly colored that they’re named after their hues. It’s called anthocyanin. Remarkably, a typical anthocyanin is red when placed in acid, blue in alkali, and violet in water. Thus, roses are red because they contain anthocyanin and are slightly acidic; violets are blue because they contain anthocyanin and are slightly alkaline.
    Blue pigments are hard to come by in nature. The rarity of blue rocks or blue sands on earth is an illustration. Only the heavens radiate blue and declare the Glory of God. Keep in mind, there is dew for every blade of grass.

    The mystery of long-range butterfly migration has been resolved by a team of scientists from Jerusalem’s Hebrew University Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Quality Sciences, the University of Massachusetts Medical School, the Czech Academy of Sciences and the University of California, Irvine.

    In findings published in a recent issue of the magazine, Neuron, the researchers reported that the butterfly’s signal to migrate thousands of miles over several months comes specifically from ultraviolet light detection in the insect’s eye.

    Clearly, the more we learn about life, the more we see evidence of often subtle, yet truly profound, design. Such insights move many to echo the Bible’s words of praise to the Creator: “I shall laud you because in a fair-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware.” Psalm 139:14

    P.S. You are out of ammo guys!

    Comment by Roman Pytel — November 3, 2007 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

  1548. ROMAN PYTEL::
    For an insane person you certainly are long winded.

    And just so you know,,, I never run out of ammo. 🙂

    Comment by Arn Lewis — November 4, 2007 @ 7:40 am | Reply

  1549. is there any way you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that heliocentrism is bunk and geocentrism is totally true WITHOUT using scripture, word of God, or any sort of argument that involves faith rather than science? i have an open mind, convince me. saying that scientific evidence proves nothing isn’t gonna cut it, cause then we’re left with nothing

    Comment by mike fjeldal — November 7, 2007 @ 4:32 am | Reply

  1550. Wow.

    First of all, this is all basically a bunch of propoganda techniques put together. Every other sentence is some kind of glittering generality or name-calling.

    Second, you’re EXTREMELY hypocritical in your so-called “proofs” of geocentrism. You debunk the work of Newton, Galileo, Eintstein, Kepler, and others without any clear explanation of WHY they’re wrong, while stating that “countless” experiments have proven geocentrism?

    Anyway, this is probably a very good troll anyway, so I’m wasting my breath.

    Comment by Irith — November 11, 2007 @ 10:17 am | Reply

  1551. The Mythic Taproot of Matter

    And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: ‘Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:15-17)

    And the woman said unto the serpent: ‘Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die’ And the serpent said unto the woman: ‘Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. (Gen 3: 2-5)

    In The Two Babylons, by Hislop, p. 227, we read the following:
    “Along with the sun, as the great fire-god, and, in due time, identified with him, was the serpent worshiped. In the mythology of the primitive world, the serpent is universally the symbol of the sun. In Egypt, one of the commonest symbols of the sun, or sun god, is a disc with a serpent around it. The original reason of that identification seems just to have been that, as the sun was the great enlightener of the physical world, so the serpent was held to have been the great enlightener (Illuminator)of the spiritual, by giving mankind the ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil.'”
    The ancient Mayans of the Yucatan in Mexico worshiped the serpent god under the name of Can. Can means “serpent” in the Mayan language, as Can or A-Can was the ancient Sumerian and ancient Scottish word for serpent. Here we find the origin of our word canny, shrewd or serpent-like. The Babylonians worshiped Can the serpent and Vul, the god of fire. The Romans simply combined the two words into ‘Vulcan,” the Roman god of fire from when also comes our word “volcano”. This seems to be how the Mayans and Mexicans named their gods. They too combined two words to describe their serpent god. “Kulkul” means “beautiful bird,” and “Can,” serpent. Hence, “Kulkulcan,” which means “Bird Serpent” in the Mayan language. This is the exact same meaning for Quetzalcoatl, the Mexican pagan messiah in central Mexico.
    In the Stoic doctrine, which is solar mythology dressed up as philosophy, also bodies alone are a reality. Bodies are made up of two principles, a passive, matter, and an active principle, form; but form itself is corporeal. It is warm vapour (pneuma), or fire, yet fire distinct from the element of this name; it is primitive fashioning fire (pyr technikon), sungod. In order to form the world a part of it changed itself into the elements, fire, air, water, earth, and constituted the body of the world, while another part retained its original shape, and in that shape confronts the first as form or soul. This was pure materialism.
    Trees in Mythology

    Forests play a prominent role in many folktales and legends. In these dark, mysterious places, heroes can lose their way, face unexpected challenges, and stumble on hidden secrets. Part of the age-old magic of forests lies in the ideas that people have about trees,. In myths and legends from around the world, trees appear as ladders between worlds, as sources of life and wisdom, and as the physical forms of supernatural beings.

    The ancient Egyptian symbol for “plant” meaning “Tree of Life” was three sacred lotus lilies. They have three stems curving to the left as though blown into life by the breath of Hu, the Celestial Sphinx. On top of each stem is the Lotus flower which was used in Ancient Egypt to represent Life and Resurrection. It is from this hieroglyph that the “fleur de lis” which is frequently found in Ancient Egyptian Art traces its origin.

    The glyph which denotes the sacred knowledge associated with Hu is also formed by the three stems of the three sacred lotus lilies. The Osiris Crown can be similarly considered in these terms. Following the role model of Osiris, in 1346 AD Edward the Black Prince won three feathers at Crecy which he adopted as him emblem. If the three feathers are gathered at the stems a fleur de lis is created.

    Osiris, in his earliest Axis Mundi form of a tamarisk tree trunk, was called Djed. His later mummy wrappings were symbolic of his having been encased inside a tree trunk. His mummy was therefore an Axis Munde … as indeed were all future mummies. Over time the tree trunk was replaced by the imagery of a pillar which became known as the Djed Pillar, the Pillar of Stability. Osiris became the Axis Mundi around which the heavens appear to revolve; he became the World Pillar, the link between the terrestrial and celestial worlds.

    Tree of Life represents creative forces in the universe. Sunbirds sit on the branches; a five-headed cobra, symbolizing water, rises from the trunk. In the middle of the tree the sun is placed reminiscent of the heliocentrically conceived universe in which energy (Brahma, or pyr technikon of Stoics) plays the most important creative part. One recalls that Akhenaten made solar heat his God, and called it “One” (Equivalence of matter and energy). –Alexander the Great prays to the sun and moon as he journeys to the world’s end. From the Alexander Romance in a 16th –century French manuscript.

    Matter is the Mythological Tree of Life

    In one particular instance Greek religion contributed directly to Greek philosophy by handing over to philosophy the doctrine of immortality – a doctrine which in every stage of its philosophical development has retained the mark of its theological origin. Plato, for example, distinctly refers it to the Bacchic and Orphic mysteries.

    Taking the term in its widest sense, matter signifies that out of which anything is made or composed. Thus the original meaning of hyle ( Homer’s ‘υλή) is “wood,” in the sense of “grove” or “forest”, and hence, derivately,”wood cut down” or timber. The Latin materia,, as opposed to lignum (wood used for fuel), has also meaning of timber for building purposes.

    The Greeks originally had no word for matter in general, as opposed to raw material suitable for some specific purpose or other, so Aristotle adopted the word for lumber for this purpose. The idea that everything physical is made of the same basic substance holds up well under modern science, although it may be thought of more in terms of energy or matter/energy.

    Hylozoism is the doctrine according to which all matter possesses life. It is a poetical view of the world. We should therefore not be surprised that the first school of philosophers in Greece, the Ionians, conceived of the universe as animated throughout and full of gods: empsychon kai daimonon plere (Diog. Laer., I,27)

    In the Renaissance, Bernardino Telesio, Paracelsus, Cardano, and G. Bruno revived the doctrine of hylozoism. The latter, for example, held a form of Christian pantheism. God is the source, cause, medium, and end of all things, and therefore all things are participatory in the ongoing Godhead.

    Anaximander could regard the heavenly bodies as blessed Gods, Xenophanes could ascribe omnipotence and omniscience to the material world ( The Biblical Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil stands for this philosophical dogma). Empedocles could represent love and strife as “elementary bodies” – all this in explaining how “pure reason could have been identified with pure space” by Parmenides and Anaxagoras

    Certain Greek philosophers treated the magnet as alive because of its attractive powers (Thales), or as ‘divine’ (Anaximanes; cp. Newton’s gravity being spiritual body of Jesus Christ), perhaps because of its apparently spontaneous power of movement, or because of its role as essential for life in animals (Messmer’s “animal magnetism”).

    In the 19th century, hylozoism had been revived by some thinkers as a postulate of science. Literally taken, it would be materialism, and in that sense is indefatigably advocated by E. Haeckel, who identifies mind with organization and life, and life with energy, which he makes a property of the atoms. Matter is for him the only reality. He, moreover, imagines ether to be the primitive substance, a part of which, as was the case with the primitive fire of the Stoics, transformed itself through condensation into inert mass, while another part of it subsists as ether and constitutes the active principle, spirit. Very few thinkers, however, would commit themselves to such a doctrine. But many scientists use it as a postulate without ever inquiring into its metaphysical implications. Those who have commonly agreed that at least mental life can by no means be resolved into matter consequently have modified the concept matter itself, and described matter and mind, after the view already set forth by Spinoza, as two manifestations, or two aspects,of one and the same reality. This reality may be declared different in itself from both matter and mind, and unknowable (H. Spencer); or it may be declared identical with both matter and mind, which are respectively its outer and inner sides. In either case, hylozoism has passed into psycho-physical parallelism with tendencies towards either materialism or idealism.

    Do Atoms (Matter) exist?

    Excerpts from Rudolf Steiner’s Atomism and its Refutation (published in Zeitschrift Anthroposophie, Buch 3 and 4, 1935)

    The modern physicist says: in reality, nothing exists except swinging, moving atoms; everything else is merely a creation of my brain, formed by it when it is touched by the movement in the outer world.

    If this way of thinking were correct, then I would have to tell myself: man is nothing more than a mass of swinging molecules. That is the only thing in him that has reality. If I have a great idea and pursue it to its origin, I will find some kind of movement. Let us say I plan a good deed. I only can do it if a mass of molecules in my brain feels like executing a certain movement. In such a case, is there still any value in “good” or “evil”? I can’t do anything except what results from the movement of my brain molecules.

    Th error underlying the theories of this science is so simple that one cannot understand how the scientific world of today could have succumbed to it. We can clarify the issue by a simple example. Let us suppose someone sends me a telegram from the place A. When it reaches me, I get nothing but paper and lettering. But I know how to read, I receive more than merely paper and printed signs, that is a certain content of thought. Can I say now: I have created this content of thought only in my brain, and paper plus lettering are the only reality? Certainly not. For the content which is now in me is also present in the place A in the same manner. This is the best example one can choose. For in a visible way, nothing at all has come to me from A. Who could maintain that the telegraph wires carry the thought from one place to the other? The same is true about our sense perceptions. If a series of other particles, swinging 589 billion times a second, reach my eye and stimulate the optic nerve, it is true that I have the sensation green. But the ether waves as paper and written symbols for the telegram in the example above are only the carriers of “green”, which is real on the body. The mediator is not the reality of the matter.

    As wire and electricity for the telegram, so the swinging ether is here used as mediator. But just because we apprehend “green” by means of the swinging ether, we cannot say: “green” is simply the same as the swinging ether. This coarse mistaking of the mediator for the content that is carried to us, lies at the root of all current sciences. We must assume “green” as a quality of bodies. This “green” causes a vibration of 589 billion vibrations per second, this vibration comes to the optic nerve which is so constructed that it “knows” when 589 billion vibrations arrive, they can only come from a green surface.

    The same holds true for all other mental representation. If a have a though, an idea, an ideal, it of course must be present in my brain as a reality. That is only possible if the brain particles move in a certain way, for an entity existing in space cannot suffer any changes except by motion. But we would be deadly mistaken about the content of the idea as compared to the way it appears in the body, if it were to say: the motion itself is the idea. No – the motion only provides the possibility for the idea to gain form and spatial existence.

    If motion occurs, there must be something that moves. By what do I recognize motion? Only by seeing that the bodies change their place in space. But what I see before me are bodies with all qualities of color, etc.

    So what does the physicist want to explain? Let us say color. He says: it is motion. What moves? A colorless body. Or, he wants to explain warmth. He again says: it is motion. What moves? A body without warmth. In short: if we explain all qualities of bodies by motion, we finally have to assume that the moving objects have no qualities, as all qualities originate in motion.

    To recapitulate. The physicist explains all sense-perceivable, all sense-perceptible qualities by motion. So, what moves cannot yet have qualities. But what has no qualities cannot move at all. Therefore, the atom assumed by physicists is a thing that dissolves into nothing if judged sharply.

    So the whole way of explanation falls. We must ascribe to color, warmth, sounds, etc., the same reality as to motion. With this, we have refuted the physicists, and have proved the objective reality of the world of phenomena and of ideas. (See http://vn.rsarchive.org/ Articles/ AtmRef_index.html)

    Even the Moscow Museum of Atheism and its ideological twin the Museum of Natural History do not possess an exhibit called matter. Try to buy it in a pharmacy to continue your life forever! Matter, by definition is indestructible; it has no beginning and no end. So how could it have transformed itself into perishable, fragile things like plants, animals and humans? Materialistic science answered such a question by the hypothesis of abiogenesis also known as spontaneous generation or auto-creation by chance and thereafter, by evolution, into higher forms of life. But that’s a self-contradictory doctrine. Because, at first, the immortal matter self degrades itself into perishable things that somehow evolve again into immortal matter also known as Nirvana or Omega Point (the Hindu Aryans called god puru or point), or Nothingness (Sunyata).

    Comment by Roman Pytel — November 17, 2007 @ 9:07 am | Reply

  1552. still long winded, still nuts and still good at copying old (very old) ideas that were discarded long before any of us were born, well, except maybe for that old 1935 dribble about the existence of atoms.
    So now tell me how any of this dribble that you copied from old books has anything to do with helping prove the world is flat or unmoving, or how it has anything to do with this subject at all.
    You need to get yourself some newer books and climb out of the ignorance of years gone by and join the real people in the real world, this is 2007, a lot has changed in the scientific community since 1935, you should try to catch up.
    All the arguements and crazy ramblings about total nonsense can ever refute the simple fact that people have been outside of our atmosphere and actually watched the Earth turning in space. And all of your dribble in that last comment merely proves that you spend way too much time copying poop out of old books.

    Comment by Arn Lewis — November 17, 2007 @ 11:06 am | Reply

  1553. Congratulations Sysiphus, this is the greatest hoot I’ve read in some time!

    And how good you are at keeping such a straight ‘face’ throughout!

    Just 2 questions:

    1. Why do you obviously HATE Brownback so much?

    2. Do you think it’s blatant luddite thinking like this which has resulted in the US being rated NUMBER 18 of 24 developed countries for its education standards!?

    Thanks again for the giggles.

    P.S. Be careful next time you go surfing – wouldn’t want you to fall off the ‘edge’……!!

    Comment by steve — November 20, 2007 @ 10:25 pm | Reply

  1554. ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ …
    mere words cannot describe how ridiculous these people are…

    [Ed Note: Acquaint yourself with the rules or be banned. No filibustering.]

    Comment by Elephant Bones — November 27, 2007 @ 5:34 pm | Reply

  1555. Sir, I do not live in Colorado and have no idea who this Brownback is; but you are at fault in claiming that the very foundation of Christianity is geocentrism. This is absurd! The foundation of Christianity is CHRIST (hence the name CHRISTianity). Christianity is not a religion; people have often mocked it and made their own religion out of it, but in truth Christianity is not a religion. Religion is man reaching to God. Christianity is God reaching to man. Galileo was a heliocentrist and a Christian. Science is not the evil of the world. Evil is the evil of the world. It has the power to put on a mask of said “science,” and often it does. But having the sun at the center of the universe has no affect whatsoever to Christianity. The Bible is a spiritual love letter, it is not a science book. It does not delve into science because science is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Once you say science is evil, next you will say art is evil. Once art is evil, literature is evil. Once literature is evil, dancing, expression, and freedom are all evil. The only thing that such statements accomplish is making people hypocritical judges. Do not judge; Paul did not dare to even judge himself! Judging is seperate from reproving. Judging is condemning men. Reproving is noting their sins that they might repent. Jeremiah did not judge; he reproved! He said again and again: you’re sinning! Repent for God has an infinite love for you! The Scripture that you quote is ambiguous concerning the matter. The words “immovable,” “firm,” “fixed,” they mean in Hebrew “unwavering” (by implication cannot SLIP or GO OUT OF COURSE), and “erected” (which means simply that it was put there). They are not speaking of science. They are not speaking of geocentrism. They are speaking of our Almighty Father making this universe which explodes with His glory and how it shall never ever come to an end but only by wrinkled like a table cloth and straightened again that it be perfect. Darwinism is far, far from heliocentrism. Darwinism in and of itself makes man to be an animal. It states purely that we got all our ideas from animals and are nothing more than they are. It also tries to deny the existence of God but fails utterly. Heliocentrism is calculation. It’s observation. NASA isn’t an evil conspirator. NASA is NASA; it wastes time and money on irrelevant things in space. But they are free to do so, and the love of stars is of no surprise- God’s work is quite beautiful.
    All you are saying is science is evil. Science is “knowledge”…that’s literally what it means. It then is the discovery of God’s glorious world. People may distort it or make it to be what it is not, but that does not change what it is. If indeed heliocentrism is a lie, though, which I truly doubt with all my being, believing it is not a man’s condemnation. It is irrelevant. What can God not love us and make us in His Image if we aren’t in the center of the universe!!! Goodness, how absurd! You make God to be weak saying this. You make Him also cruel. I have repented of my sins. I am slowly being made into His child. But shall I go to Hell, an eternity of torture and everlasting horror, simply because I believe that the Sun is the center of the universe?
    You are very, very wrong. But I say this as a reproof. Not a judgment. And in all likelihood Brownback believes none of this, but just wants to gleen the support of Christians. You people make Christianity a political party…and few things make me more angry than that.

    Comment by Lori — November 29, 2007 @ 12:07 pm | Reply

  1556. What?! And you own a computer?!
    Those machines are the instrument of the DEVIL!!
    You are a disgrace to all the true cristians…Hell will be waiting for you in the afterlife.

    Comment by Raquel — November 30, 2007 @ 9:43 am | Reply

  1557. The Lethal Math of the Solstices

    Since Plato, all heliocentrists use the same deceiving trick: whenever they cannot explain certain phenomena in terms of heliocentric philosophy they revert to geocentric language or intermingle heliocentrism with geocentrism. The following excerpt from Wkipedia (entry: Solstice) is a typical sample of this doubletalk: “A solstice occurs twice a year, whenever Earth’s axis tilts the most toward or away from the Sun, causing the Sun to be farthest north or south at noon. The name is derived from Latin sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still), because at the solstice, the Sun stands still in declination, that is, its movement north or south is minimal.

    According to the British National Maritime Museum, the solstices are the time when the Sun is at its furthest from the celestial equator and these occur in mid-summer and mid-winter. Incidentally, the British celebrate their midsummer’s day on either the 23rd or 24th of June, although their scientists assert that the longest day actually falls on the 21st of June and Wikipedia stresses that “Solstitial celebrations still centre upon 24 June, which is no longer the longest day of the year”.

    In geocentrism, we would say: since the month of June the sun travels ever so slightly southward in the ecliptic each day for some six month of the year and each day the daylight becomes shorter. In December the sun halts for a few days in its journey before commencing the slow ascension northward once more for the next six month.

    The sun moves in two cycles: 1) it is spiraling downward toward the tropic of Capricorn where the winter solstice occurs and 2) it is spiraling upwards toward the tropic of Cancer where the summer solstice occurs. Amazing thing is that when it reaches these two tropics it stays, for a few days, on the same orbit, or in other words, the sun stands still in declination.

    The Inca Festival of the sun (Inti Raymi) marked the winter solstice and a new year in the Andes. One ceremony performed by the Inca priests was the tying of the sun. The ceremony to tie the sun to the stone was to prevent the sun from escaping to the North Pole. In Machu Picchu there is still a large column of stone called an Intihuatana, meaning “hitching post of the sun” or literally for tying the sun. The Roman Church, in order to prevent all critical reflection on Copernicus’s book, ordered the Spanish conquistadors to suppress all Inti Festivals, and to destroy all the intihuatana. One was preserved because the Spanish conquest never found Machu Picchu.. The perennial Roman heliocentrism is reflected in the pagan wheel of the year on the surface of St. Peter’s Square in front of St. Peter’s Church (see http://www.canadafirst.net/our_heritrage/solstice/). Since 1944, a theatrical representation of the Inti Raymi has been taking place at Sacsayhuaman (one mile from Cusco) on June 24 of each year, attracting thousands of local visitors and tourists.

    The Roman historian Pliny observed in his Natural History: “We are so much at the mercy of chance that Chance herself, by whom God is proved uncertain, takes the place of God”. Like in Ch. Darwin’s books. In contradistinction, the Torah stresses: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Ecc 3:1) So, God designed the solstices for a purpose. Can this purpose be discerned? The answer is a resounding yes. The solstices are the most convincing proof of the truth of the God inspired Torah’s astronomy. If the sun, having reached the solstitial tropics, reversed its spiral movement without staying on the same orbit for a few days we would not have this formidable argument against the heliohoax.

    In order to fully comprehend this problem imagine substituting the speeding earth for the spiraling sun. The dead end arises when you try to explain a few days of the same length in the helioscheme. Because in this scheme the earth moves on the circular orbit of the ecliptic i.e. it moves downward or upward which also means that for half a year the days age growing shorter or on the upward turn – longer. They never stay the same, not on a few consecutive days of the year. In order to explain the solstices in heliocentrism we have to assume that at a certain point of of its travel the earth comes to a sudden stop, or, that its speed goes down from 20 miles per second to 0, and after a few days it suddenly jumps from 0 to 20 miles per second. Apocalyptic consequences of such an assumption for the life on earth are obvious unless you are so blinded by your helioreligion that you reject any rational argument. And besides, such an assumption thrashes the boondoggle of Newton’s Principia.

    If the earth stands still for a few days it means that after that it has to increase its speed to make up for this delay, but that also means that covering more distance, thanks to the increased speed, would result in disproportionate increase of daylight on the upward travel of the earth and respectively decrease on the downward turn. Keep in mind the difference: the trajectory of the sun in geocentrism is spiral; the trajectory of the earth in the helioscheme is circular or elliptical if you prefer Kepler and Newton to Copernicus and Galileo.

    When you introduce the moon into the solstitial equation, you’ll have to conclude that the solstitial areas are governed by a totally different set of physical laws that contradict the boondoggle hidden behind the Newton’s apple.
    The authors who by their tables of date and time of solstices and equinoxes point to the empirically verifiable fact of the “sun” reaching the highest or lowest points in its travel around the earth miss the point, namely that it is the earth that stands still in declination (See, for example, the table of summer and winter solstices set up by the British National Maritime Museum at http://www.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.3843) . The assertion that the summer solstices are the longest and shortest days of the year, and, that after the solstice, the days begin to get shorter or longer are simply not true. But on such false descriptions the helioboondoggle thrives since centuries.

    Let me confront them with astronomical facts that totally destroy these deceptive manipulations. I will use for my presentation a Soviet calendar of the year 1989 because the Soviet astronomers are beyond any suspicion that they might manipulate the astronomical data. Copernicus being highly praised by K. Marx and F. Engels was embraced by them as a patron “saint” of their materialistic, atheistic ideology.

    Here is their time of sunrises and sunsets on a few consecutive days in June and December of 1989: on June 20 the sun rose at 4.43 and set at 22.20; on June 21 again, sunrise at 4.43 and sunset at 22.20; on June 22, the same, sunrise at 4.43 and sunset at 22.20 and finally, on June 23 still the same, sunrise at 4.43 and sunset at 22.10. So, in effect we have not one longest day but four. Only on June 24 the sun rose one minute later (at 4.44) and set one minute later (at 22.21). We have the same situation on June 25, which means that we have 6 longest days of 17 h 37′ daylight. For four consecutive days the earth stood still in declination, which literally means that it did not move upward on its elliptical trajectory. Then it moved a little bit up to stand again for two days.

    In the same year the Soviets had seven shortest days of 6 h 57′ daylight between December 18 and 24 although not in the same time frame: on Dec. 18 and 19 the sun rose at 8:58 and set at 15.55; on Dec. 20 and 21 the sun rose at 8.59 and set at 15.56; on Dec. 22 and 23 the sun rose at 9.00 and set at 15.57 and on Dec 24 the sun rose at 9.01 and set 15.58

    In other words, in 1989 the earth stood still for 13 days. In helioscheme the earth covers the distance of 1, 728.000 miles per day and night and that means that on the remaining part of its trajectory the earth had to make up for over twenty million miles. Nobody, so far, explained the causes of these sudden stops and jump start accelerations.

    In the year 2002 the Poles had only two longest days: on June 20 (sr 4.14- ss 21.01)* and on June 21 (sr 4.14 – ss 21.01). June 22 was one minute shorter. During the winter solstice they had the shortest day on December 21 (sr 7.43 – ss 15.25). But here is a surprise, December 22 was one minute longer (sr 7.43 – ss 15.26) but December 23 was, contrary to the rule, one minute shorter, exactly like the shortest day, although in a different time frame sr 7.44 – ss 15.26). December 24 was one minute longer (sr 7.44 – ss 15.27) but December 25 was again one minute shorter (sr 7.45 – 15.27). The Polish proverb says that it is only on New Year’s Day that the daylight is really longer “by a ram’s jump” (Na Nowy Rok przybywa dnia na barni skok).

    *According to the table set up by the National Maritime Museum the summer solstice in 2002 occurred on 21 June, 13.24
    *According to the same source, the winter solstice occurred 22 December, 07.04

    Consider in this context the dogmas of Copernicus’s contradicted by the results of Kepler’s researches.. The Polish Bombastes Furioso aka Sir Lucius O’Trigger hypothesized:

    Planets move in perfect circles
    Planets move in constant speed
    Sun at the center of these orbits

    But Kepler showed:

    Planets move in ellipses
    Planetary speed varies constantly
    Sun is not quite at the center of the planetary orbits

    Which “heliotruth” do you believe in? Is International Space Station moving in a perfect circle or rather in a perfect ellipse? Does it move in constant speed or rather its speed varies constantly? How do you drink water in zero gravity? I reflect on this question day and night since I saw the picture of the toilet installed aboard the ISS. Believe me, it’s a real monster.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — November 30, 2007 @ 11:59 am | Reply

  1558. Dude….seriously…

    How do you think MOVING satellites stay in a fixed position above a certain area of the Earth….

    Stupidity has no bounds – the Earth is moving!

    Comment by Amazed, South Africa — December 1, 2007 @ 12:25 pm | Reply

  1559. I see that once again Roman Pytel has proven himself to be the longest winded idiot around. Like about 15 minutes worth of reading just to find out that he has absolutely no idea what the hell he’s talking about. Next time you post a comment Roman, try telling the truth, it’s easy all you need is three little words, just say “I don’t know” because obviously you don’t.
    And please argue that point with me, you would be a fun one to make a fool of,,, never mind, you done did that. But I do await the chance to chew your nonlogic up with real facts, oh, and I can prove my facts, can you? Just because you’re ignorant doesn’t mean you have to spread it around.
    I do wish the owners of this site would start another thread on the idiotic notions of flat earth, non moving earth, sun and moon 300 miles above us and both 32 miles in diameter, these are things that are just begging to be laughed at. Especially that stupid ether thing that these folks and the folks at the flat earth society believe so much in. And I’m sure not a single one of them will know without my telling them what the stupidest part of that belief is.

    Comment by Arn — December 4, 2007 @ 7:22 am | Reply

  1560. “is there any way you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that heliocentrism is bunk and geocentrism is totally true WITHOUT using scripture, word of God, or any sort of argument that involves faith rather than science? i have an open mind, convince me. saying that scientific evidence proves nothing isn’t gonna cut it, cause then we’re left with nothing”

    Yes. You don’t feel it moving. Also, your eyes show you the Sun moving, not the Earth.

    Empiricism backs me up. So the burden is on you to prove me wrong, Sciece-Boy.

    “I do wish the owners of this site would start another thread on the idiotic notions of flat earth, non moving earth, sun and moon 300 miles above us and both 32 miles in diameter, these are things that are just begging to be laughed at. Especially that stupid ether thing that these folks and the folks at the flat earth society believe so much in. And I’m sure not a single one of them will know without my telling them what the stupidest part of that belief is.”

    Okay… What’s the stupidest part of believing in God’s way of making the Universe, Arn?

    Comment by Sisyphus — December 5, 2007 @ 2:18 pm | Reply

  1561. [Okay… What’s the stupidest part of believing in God’s way of making the Universe, Arn?

    Comment by Sisyphus — December 5, 2007 @ 2:18]

    To start with, your way of asking that was stupid. I never said Gods way of making the universe was stupid, that was you who just said that. I said them and their ether filled universe was stupid, and if you go along with that then I guess you’re stupid too. Oh wait, we already knew that. I’ll wait to see if you go along with them on that before saying more.
    In the meantime, have you apologised for lying about the platypi yet? Or are you going to continue to call the bible a liar on that one?

    Comment by Arn — December 5, 2007 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  1562. Truly…I see no relevance to this argument at all. Empiricism cannot prove the earth doesn’t move…they have gravity to back that. And all these countless facts of the scientists can’t prove it does…because unless you are part of their esoteric clique you won’t understand a word of it; you’ll just nod your head a naiively believe them. It doesn’t MATTER either way. God does not save you by how the galaxy moves but by Christ’s blood; so this webpage has begun to agitate me without bounds. I am glad then that I do not have to visit it ever again.

    Comment by Lori — December 6, 2007 @ 11:44 am | Reply

  1563. The “Anomaly” of the Comet 17P/Holmes

    Pliny in his Natural History wrote about the sun: “Upheld by the same vapour between earth and heaven, at definite spaces apart, hang the seven stars which owing to their motion we call ‘planets,’ although no stars wander less than they do. In the midst of these moves the sun, whose magnitude and power are the greatest, and who is the ruler not only of the seasons and of the lands, but even of the stars themselves and of the heaven. Taking into account all that he effects, we must believe him to be the soul, or more precisely the mind, of the whole world, the supreme ruling principle and divinity of nature. He furnishes the world with light and removes darkness, he obscures and he illumines the rest of the stars, he regulates in accord with nature’s precedent the changes of the seasons and the continuous re-birth of the year, he dissipates the gloom of heaven and even calms the storm-clouds of the mind of man, he lends his light to the rest of the stars also; he is glorious and pre-eminent, all-seeing and even all-hearing -this I observe that Homer the prince of literature held to be true in the case of the sun alone.  For this reason I deem it a mark of human weakness to seek to discover the shape and form of God.” ( Book 2, chap. 4-5)

    Like the Iranian myth Pliny perceived his world of natural history as the arena of perpetual struggle between two opposite forces: light and darkness. The Qumran Hymn describing the war of children of light against the children of darkjness was inspired by the same mythic vision of the world. The Jewish Pythagoreans of Qumran rejected the teaching of the Torah expressed in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis:

    And God said: ‘Let there be light’… and God divided the light of darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Gen 1:3-5)

    And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars…And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Gen 1:16.19)

    All helioscientists mock these verses and consider them as the proof of the total ignorance of their author who dares claim for himself the inspiration of God’s wisdom.

    Mrs. Gestfeld in her A Modern Catechism wrote the following questions and answers:

    Q. Must we not reverence the Bible as God’s Holy Word?
    A. No. There is no “must” in the matter.
    Q. What is the Bible?
    A. Outwardly a mass of paper, pasteboard and printer’s ink, like any other book; inwardly, a revelation for those who
    need and are open to receive it.
    Q. Who made you?
    A. I am making myself.

    Did her brain make itself too? The US feminists were in the forefront of the great war on the Bible. E. C. Stanton in her The Original Feminist Attack on the Bible (Introduction by Barbara Welter). Arno Press. New York/1974 wrote:
    “The study of human evolution led to a study of the evolution of human institutions, from which the Church was non exempt. Comparative religion, the beginnings of anthropological relativism, and the application of new scholarly techniques to the Bible, made it possible to doubt if that hallowed book was really divinely inspired at all.”

    Well, let me turn your attention to the newest spectacle in the night skies which has mystified both hobby astronomers and professionals around the globe. It is the comet 17P/Holmes. The comet has mesmerized the astronomers over the past month by its sudden expansion overnight, on October 23-24, as it went from a minor looking comet in the sky to brightening by over one million times. The German magazine entitled its article about this comet of November 23, 2007: The Monster of the Night Skies.

    As of November 9, 2007, Comet Holmes is the largest object in the solar system, being even larger than the Sun. Astronomers are not certain why the comet expanded after it got to its closest point to the sun. Normally, or, according to a scientific law, comets will outgas (expel) particles as they approach the Sun. However, Comet Holmes expanded six months after this event. Go to yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_70761.shtml to see Comet Holmes passing directly in front of Mirfak, the brightest star of the constellation Perseus to see how gigantic this comet is compared to the stars.

    The author of the article for Der Spiegel wrote: “Rather than shrinking as it gets further from the sun as most comets do, this one just keeps getting bigger and brighter. At the beginning of the week, the cloud of dust and gas surrounding the comet’s core – called the coma – had already grown larger than the sun. Now just a few days later, the coma’s diameter is twice that of the sun – the dust cloud measure some 2.7 million kilometers across whereas the sun is just 1.39 million kilometers across. And there is no sign that it is finished.”

    Dr. Maciej Mikolajewski from the Torun Center for Astronomy at Nicolaus Copernicus University told SPIEGEL ONLINE: “It’s the first time I’ve ever seen such a thing. I’ve never seen such a bright comet in my life.”

    And yet this “monster” did not change the night into day although it grew larger than the sun. In other words God showed us that his words about the division of light of darkness are true. For three “days”, days without sun and nights without moon and stars were turning about the earth.

    Let me remind in this context J. Kepler’s argument with Galileo who embraced G. Bruno’s identification of stars with suns: “If the little disks of, say, 10,000 stars are fused into one, how much more will their visible size exceed the apparent disk of the sun? If this is true, and if they are suns, why do not these suns collectively outdistance our sun in brilliance? Why do they all together transmit so dim a light to the most accessible places? When sunlight burst into a sealed room through a hole made with a tiny pinpoint, it outshines the fixed stars (i.e. billions upon billions) at once! Will Galileo tell me that the stars are very far away from us? This does not help his cause at all. For the greater the distance, the more does every single one of them outstrip the sun in diameter. If this infinite Ocean of Fire is ever encircling our earth how can we explain rain, dew, frost, ice? “

    Long time ago, the Confucian geocentrists decided to make fun of this solar myth and they concocted a wise story about an ancient period when there were originally ten suns encircling the earth. But when the people felt blinded and their crops withered and perished in the fierce heat they sought a method of curbing the sun’s power. When the earthly ruler YAO implored the Lord of Heaven, Di Jun to restore the old order whereby only one sun appeared at a time Di Jun ordered his assistant Yi, an expert archer to shoot down the nine suns.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — December 9, 2007 @ 12:35 pm | Reply

  1564. …well, can’t argue with that one, Roman. well put.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — December 9, 2007 @ 1:07 pm | Reply

  1565. Sisyphus, thy feeble brain and lame excuses have angered Me. Thou shalt go to a cliff and throw thyself off it. Then thy shalt go to Hell, where Satan himself shall partake in thy torture. Brownback and all his supporters, all 50-something of you, shall also be struck by a Holy Lightning Bolt. You shall weep, “But what evil have we done that we should be sent to Hell?” to which I shall reply, “Thou have denied the teaching of the atheists, for though they do not believe in Me, they have more knowledge than you of this wondrous world I have created for thee.”

    Comment by God — December 9, 2007 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  1566. …Thank you, God, for clearing that up.
    But WTF happened to the separation of church and state?

    [Ed Note: You are delusional.]

    Comment by Bob — December 9, 2007 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  1567. Well sayed God!!!!
    This people is so busy thinking about an old book that is unable to see the beauty of Your Creation!

    Comment by brownianmotion — December 9, 2007 @ 9:09 pm | Reply

  1568. [Ed Note: You are delusional.]
    For responding to a message from God, or saying that the church and state should be separated (Which it should)?

    Comment by Bob — December 10, 2007 @ 3:06 pm | Reply

  1569. chalcedon.edu

    This is a good place for learning Scripture. It was founded by Rushdoony, a Geocentrist and one of the founders of the Christian Right movement.

    Comment by bobcorker — December 11, 2007 @ 7:36 pm | Reply

  1570. WOW! I’m British, not involved in American politics! I’ve just found this site through surfing about Charles Lyell. I’ve only had time to skim though it. Could someone please publish it as a hardcopy book??! It would be so much easier as bed-time reading. Humour, fiction, relationship, development, aggression, idiocy, debate, pathos, history, intrigue, politics, science -what more could any best-seller want? It’s in my favourite list! WOW! and it still isn’t finished! There could be a sequel…. even a prequel…. hmmmmmm….

    Comment by TimC — December 13, 2007 @ 9:07 am | Reply

  1571. TimC: Epic indeed…

    Comment by brownianmotion — December 13, 2007 @ 1:01 pm | Reply

  1572. TimC, hate to break it to you, but it’s headed downhill, they are running out of topics and just doing nonsense now so its degraded into nothing more than an insult slug fest.

    Comment by Arn — December 13, 2007 @ 1:07 pm | Reply

  1573. Tim,

    Do not believe what Arn writes. He is a disgruntled petty little prevert and is prone to insulting this site and everyone serious who posts here.

    Look around. I think you can find a bit of truth here.

    Comment by Marty McPain — December 13, 2007 @ 1:13 pm | Reply

  1574. Ignore Marty McLame. he’s a troll.

    Comment by Spacebrother — December 13, 2007 @ 1:22 pm | Reply

  1575. quoting:
    “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

    “Thou” here has never lived in San Francisco clearly. Either that or thou didn’t do such a good job fixing the earth. Sounds a bit like a shaky foundation…

    Comment by namedsmith — December 13, 2007 @ 11:32 pm | Reply

  1576. Is anybody else like me? Whenever I see a long-winded quote, I scroll down to make sure that it is by Roman Pytel and then, when it is, I totally ignore it. What a load of garbage by one person.

    Comment by Fourbrick — December 14, 2007 @ 6:09 am | Reply

  1577. Fourbrick,, ditto, I do that now too. A lot of it is just copy and paste from somewhere else anyway and most of it is outdated nonsense.

    Comment by Arn — December 14, 2007 @ 6:58 am | Reply

  1578. Only most of it?

    Comment by hoverfrog — December 14, 2007 @ 7:48 am | Reply

  1579. Totally do it too.
    It’s amazing how someone can read so much and yet understand so little.

    Comment by brownianmotion — December 14, 2007 @ 1:06 pm | Reply

  1580. Se questo e’ il tuo dio allora non vedo come egli non possa essere un grosso maiale sadico e sessuofobico.

    Comment by dandus — December 17, 2007 @ 4:44 pm | Reply

  1581. I’m not sure, but I think dandus just called someone a sexophobic, sadistic pig, lol.

    Comment by Arn — December 17, 2007 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

  1582. Argue all you want, but in the words of Galileo, “E pur si muove.” You can’t stop the Earth from moving just because you want it to. God made the universe the way He did for a reason. Stop questioning it because it doesn’t fit in with your ancient pagan sources.

    Comment by L — December 17, 2007 @ 6:46 pm | Reply

  1583. I thought this was a nice bit of satire, until I read the first few comments and realized that some individuals were taking this seriously. I am glad to see that I am not going mad and there were others who have commented as to the obsurdity of taking this seriously.

    This kind of mentality is why I feld Kansas to begin with! Unfortunately it took me 22 years to make that move, I made up for belatedness by moving all the way to Europe. I was unaware that he had presidential aspirations. I swear that if he gets the republican bid, I am filling out my application for British citizenship the next day.

    Comment by Former Kansan — December 19, 2007 @ 8:12 am | Reply

  1584. What I mean to say are the following (some have already been said by others, but you paid little attention to them):

    1)Yes they have. Please read on and I will explain:

    Guglielmini first noticedi that if you let a weight fall from high enough, you will notice it doesn’t fall on the perpendicular to the ground, but quite far from it (this has been proved without wind, of course). This is easily explained by the fact that the farther an object is from the center of earth, the faster it rotates (just think about a wheel going faster: the edges move faster to keep up with the circles). When an object falls, it gets to a slower part of earth, and thus is ahead

    Copernicus realize earth was moving around the sun because the movements the planets was around the sun, and couldn’t be explained any different

    Galileo added to to this the study of the sunspots, and realized all the planets were revolving on their axis as well.

    Kepler has added precise laws governing the movement of the planets around the sun.

    Because of Newton’s laws of dynamics, it would be senseless to imagine something lighter (like earth) to move around something faster. You have stated that earth after all doesnt’ exactly revolv around the sun even for the scientists, and in this way you are right: both the sun and the earth rotate around a point 500km from the exact center of the sun (that is, the baricentrum of the system earth-sun), but since the sun is 1392000 km wide, the center of mass is distant only the 0,0004% of the sun’s diameter from the sun’s actual center, in perfect agreement with Newton’s laws. Not much of a difference 🙂

    Einstein proved that earth revolves around the sun because if it were the contrary the stars we see turning around us (wich are undoubtly far beyond us) would be moving at speeds many times that of light, which is impossible (as demonstrated by Michelson-Morley’s experiment and Maxwell’s equations).

    I also have something to say about the rest of the points. I will write about them later. 🙂

    Comment by dandus — December 20, 2007 @ 5:58 am | Reply

  1585. Above i meant “imagine something lighter (like earth) to move around something HEAVIER”. Anyhow,

    2) No it doesn’t. See above.

    3) Please post these experiments, I’m interested. Probably one of them is the movement of mercury around the sun, wich doesn’t completly agree with Newton’s law, but as you said with the discovery of Relativity everything went fine.

    4) No, it isn’t. If you think differently, please explain yourself better. Relativity does not only demonstrate earth movement, but many,many more things, and is experimentally proved in many and many different ways, which only a minority concern earth movement, e.g. the deacayment of muons: muons form in High atmosphere, and decay in a very little time. Since they are REALLY fast, they cas still run 0.5 km after they form and before they decay. But we get many of them even at sea level, 10km below. This would be unexplicable without relativity.

    5) Why not? Please explain yourself.

    6) Err… I think you got this wrong: the Michelson-Morley experiment showed only that earth doesn’t move compared to speed of light. Hubble’s law shows that universe is very very large and keeps on growing, like a baloon inflating.

    I never heard that the things you mentioned prove such a thing, and I am studying phisycs at colleg. Please post a link to a trustworthy sourche which says so, I’m be glad to discover something new.

    7) Scriptures are not a book about science, but about morale. Every Christian who wants to be worthy of his or her name should in my opinion follow it’s moral teachings, but not any single word: this couldn’t be what god wants humans to do. It would be like giving wings capable of flight and to forbid to fly at the same time: why would you give me wings for in the first time? Do you want me to feel frustrated and sad?

    Comment by dandus — December 20, 2007 @ 6:20 am | Reply

  1586. Rome’s Perennial Heliocentrism

    Frank Cumont in his Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans wrote: “From astronomical speculations the Chaldeans had deduced a whole system of religious dogmas. The sun, set in the midst of the superimposed planets, regulates their harmonious movements. As its heat impels them forward, then draws them back, it is constantly influencing, according to its various aspects, the direction of their course and their action upon the earth. Fiery heart of the world, it vivifies the whole of this great organism, and as the stars obey its command, it reigns supreme over the universe. The radiance of its splendor illuminates the divine immensity of the heavens, but at the same time in its brilliance there is intelligence; it is the origin of all reason, and, as a tireless sower it scatters unceasingly on the world below the seeds of a harvest of souls.”

    Vitruvius with reference to Varro (116-27) explains, in his presentation of astronomy, the forward and backward movements of stars in this way: “Like heat, at first loosens and then attracts to itself all things…for the same reason the powerful influence of the sun attracts with its rays the stars to itself and does not let them move forward, but forces them to return to itself.” Vitruvius was a Newton of classical Rome.

    There is an interesting issue connected with the conflict between the Torah and philosophical science. It was Aristotle’s belief that there are rules which objects are, by their very nature, forced to obey without the need for divine intervention. The logic of natural laws goes like that: “Before the beginning of the earth, before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed sitting there, having no mass of its own. We believe the disembodied words of Sir I. Newton were sitting in the middle of nowhere billions of years before he was born and that, magically, he discovered these words. They were always there even when they applied to nothing. Gradually the world came into being and then they applied to it.” We can identify these disembodied words with the Logos of the Gospel of John. Actually Newton himself did that when he identified gravity with the spiritual body of Jesus Christ in his article De aere et aethere.

    And that also explains another important phenomenon in the human history: the identification of the Roman law with the Natural Law in contradistinction to the revelation of the Biblical Law by Personal God bearing personal name YHWH.

    In Thomas Digges’s translation of The Revolutions the sun is “like the king in the middest of al who reigneth and geeveth lawes of motion to ye rest.” In this translation the sun stands for abstract Nature, or the essential inherent force formed by the assumption of a single prima cause, like the Aristotelian Prime Mover. In the world of Prime Mover character of man is produced by “gym rooms”. This was also the doctrine of the English public schools in spite of the fact that human actions are not simply bodily movements. Natural man was a child of natural philosophy according to the dogma of natural selection.

    Natural Man portrayed in Tharsymachean guise has two main characteristics. His psychological make-up is simple: he is out to get what he wants, and what he wants is narrowly circumscribed. Power and pleasure are his exclusive interests. But to get what he wants this wolf has to wear the sheep clothing of the conventional moral values. His masquerade can only be carried through by putting the conventional moral vocabulary to the service of his private purposes. He must say in the law courts and the assembly what people want to hear, so that they will put power into his hands. Thus the arête of such a man is to learn the craft (special skill), the techne, of molding people by rhetoric. He must take them by the ear before he takes them by the throat.

    On the highest theoretical level, Roman law was believed to be a reflection of reason, or of “natural law”. The concept of natural law (taken from Stoic philosophy) assumes that the world operates according to rational principles, that there are universal principles of reason. The law of the state was regarded as the positive, detailed implementation of natural law, and any law that was repugnant to reason had to be a bad law. That’s why impersonal sun god of heliocentrism defined as abstract ‘Mind’ and ‘Ruler of the Universe’ is so important in this system! And that also explains Paul’s aversion to Jewish Law (Torah). The Roman Commonwealth was to be ruled by the impersonal Natural Laws.

    Emperor Septimus Severus proposed to bring all his subjects together under the worship of Sol Invictus – the Unconquered Sun – and to subsume under that worship all the various religions and philosophies then current. All gods were to be accepted, as long as one acknowledged the Sun (Now referred to as Energy) that reigned above all.

    The Pagan Heliocentrism Science of the Scholastic Philosophy

    T. Campanella in his Apologia pro Galileo (Defense of Galileo) Frankfurt 1623 argued as follows, According to the testimony of Laertius, Plutarch, Aristotle, and Galen, Pythagoras first announced to the Gentiles his marvelous doctrine of the motion of the earth, of the sun in the center, and of systems in heaven. He informs them that the moon is another earth, and that the four elements, not to mention water, exist in the stars. Copernicus began to develop his system from the preceding contributions of the Pythagoreans, motivated by the observations of Francesco Maria. The disciple of Pythagoras, Timaeus Locrus, demonstrated by mathematics the diurnal rotation of the earth, and Philolaus of Crotona – the annual revolution of the earth (also by mathematics!) Copernicus then added the motion of libration from the pattern of the motion devised by Thebit of Babylon and King Alphonso of Spain.

    That such a motion was necessary St. Thomas Aquinas also suggested in Metaphysics from statements of Simplicius. Aquinas’s embrace of heliocentrism was brought about by the Arab atheist philosopher Averroes. Scholastic philosophy of Aquinas was what the Arabs called falasifa in which Muslims used the concepts and methods of Greek philosophy to give their own explanation of the Islamic faith. It was religion in clothes of Greek philosophical atheism. Armed with this dialectic perversity, Muslims had regarded Jews with “amused, tolerant superiority.”

    Aristotle testifies, that Pythagoras, who located the place of punishment in the center of the earth and made fire the cause of motion, described the earth as mobile and animate. So Ovid believes in “Metamorphoses”, Origin in his commentary on Ezechiel, and Plato. It is essential, if hell be in the center of the earth, for earth to be hot within, and, according to Gregory and others cited in the argument of St. Thomas, to be mobile. The interpretation of Galileo does not oppose the belief of St. Gregory, but rather that of Aristotle.

    If the Fathers are correct when they say the firmament stand unmoved, the stars stand with it. When the Master of the “Sentences,” St. Chrysostom, and other fathers declare, in harmony with Catholic faith that the firmament is unmoved, it is necessary that they state the same of the stars much more vigorously. Since the stars are immobile it follows that the earth is carried about as a ship, and that stars appear to be moved just as from a ship an island or a tower on the shore seems in motion.

    Roman Church’s Patronage of Copernicus

    The pressure of the official churchmen, who urged Copernicus to publish his work is manifest in a letter of 1536 to the author by Nicolaus Cardinal Schoenberg, a high ranking member of the Vatican curia: “…For I had learned that over and above your excellent knowledge of the theories of the ancient mathematicians you have founded a new world according to which you state that the earth is moving and the sun is occupying the lowest, i.e. the central place in the universe, and that the eighth heaven is immobile and forever fixed… Thus, learned Sir, I hope that I will not be deemed a nuisance when I urgently request you to communicate your discovery to the learned world.” This letter was published together with Copernicus’s book.

    Tiedman Giese, bishop of Kulm insisted for a long time on publication representing it to Copernicus as his duty toward science and mankind. Thanks to these encouragements Copernicus dedicated his work to Pope Paul III and in his dedication expressed his hope that the Pope by his “infallible judgment” will be able to silence all critical opinions. And that’s what really happened. Do you still believe in the fake Galileo trial?

    On the 16th of August 1820, the Congregation of the Holy Office (formerly known as Inquisition) reported that Settele, the professor of astronomy at Rome and Washington might teach the Copernican system as truth established. This meant promotion of T.Paine’s anti-Semitism based on his admiration for heliocentrism of the Greek philosophers and contempt for “barbarity” of Jewish Biblical culture and a very backward-looking theological doctrine.. Quite recently Pope John Paul II recognized evolutionary hypothesis also as truth established. As long as Pope Benedict XVI was one of many cardinals he expressed his criticism of Galileo, but after his election he recanted, which means that evolutionism and heliocentrism are two pillars of of Roman Catholicism.

    Already Plato wanted to defend his dogmas with the help of an inquisition. And this tradition endured. The editor who decided to publish Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision” which undermined the heliocentric scheme was dismissed from Doubleday. “Respectable and reputable professors deluged Doubleday with letters threatening to boycott their textbooks if ‘Worlds…’ was not withdrawn.” (See Norman Storer, Scientists Confront Velikovsky). When a fossil preparatory in the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Smithsonian Institution started speaking out against evolution, he was sacked in this “Land of the Free”. That’s how the American Inquisition works. Now, you know guys, that you are living in scholastic Dark Ages. Like that freak who sings about Lady in Red in Gregorian Chant which was also inspired by Arabic music.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — December 20, 2007 @ 4:58 pm | Reply

  1587. I weep for the future of man kind. Use your brain.

    Comment by Trav — December 22, 2007 @ 5:13 pm | Reply

  1588. Well sayed Trav! Well sayed!

    Comment by brownianmotion — December 23, 2007 @ 10:29 pm | Reply

  1589. I wonder if Roman actually reads ANY other post besides his oun pile of scheiBe.

    Comment by brownianmotion — December 27, 2007 @ 10:28 pm | Reply

  1590. Okay, if you were to look at the planets from ABOVE, we would see the Earth moving AROUND the Sun; so in the Newtonian world, HELIOCENTRICISM IS TRUE. They only use GEOCENTRICISM for convenience in relativity; using HELIOCENTRICISM would still give the same answer, but it would be more involved; that’s the only difference.

    I am praying to God that you will realise this.

    Comment by Felis — December 27, 2007 @ 11:23 pm | Reply

  1591. if you do not believe in scientific fact, that God created the universe etc., then where did God come from. You may have heard of conservation of mass – you cannot create something from nothing.

    Comment by CBELL — December 28, 2007 @ 7:57 am | Reply

  1592. […] *links. […]

    Pingback by This Is What Atheism Does « Calvinists 4 Conservatism — December 30, 2007 @ 9:55 am | Reply

  1593. Political Earthquake: Russia Rejects Darwinism

    Prof. Page Smith observed in his book Killing the Spirit. Higher Education in America: “Rosenstock-Huessy had experienced the resentment and hostility of his Harvard colleagues (one of them referred to him as “that little squirt”) because he refused to genuflect to two of the reigning deities of the academic world, Marx and Freud, and occasionally spoke favorably of God. (…) Academic fundamentalism is at issue, the stubborn refusal of the academy to acknowledge any truth that does not conform to professional dogmas”.(pp.XII and 5)

    January 19, 2006 Ian Fisher and Cornelia Dean in their article In ‘Design’ vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome wrote: “The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as “correct” the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.” It took the Vatican 10 months to “persuade” the Senate of the Warsaw University to express its support for the Vatican’s decision.

    Desirous to defend pope John Paul II’s scientific legacy and his prospective canonization (Holy Evolution!) the Senate of the Warsaw University issued on October 19, 2006 a declaration warning that “No reasonable scientists dares deny the theory of evolution.” They reminded the stubborn rebels who tried to throw the evolution out of the schools that in 1950 Pope Pius XII declared that there is no conflict between evolution and the Magisterium (official doctrine of the Church) and that pope John Paul II in his statement of October 22, 1996 said: “…les nouvelles connaissances conduisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l’evolution plus qu’une hypothese”

    One George Wood expressed John Paul’s statement in more practical terms: “Basically what the Vatican said was that they are not scientists, and that God created Reality. If Science observes reality to be different from religious beliefs, then people should listen to the Scientists and ignore their previously held religious beliefs.” Let me remind here that Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn dismissed in a New York Times article John Paul’s 1996 statement as “rather vague and unimportant” and seemed to back intelligent design.

    Creationism or evolutionism is a life or death problem for modern Israel. The Torah view of history is that history had a beginning and that the beginning is in God’s hands. Therefore, what comes thereafter is invested with meaning and purpose; the creator is not the prime mover of ancient philosophy and therefore we have no reason to be afraid of the bleak exhaustion of resources or the running down of the sun. God’s will and Personality dominate everything and make of history a moral arena.

    The Sages commented on the verse: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gen 1:1) as follows:

    Why does it start with the Creation? So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, “You are robbers, because you have seized the land of the seven Canaanite nations,” Israel can answer, “The whole world belongs to the Holy One. He created it and gave it to whom He pleased, He gave it to them and He took the land from them and gave it to us.” God revealed to Israel the works of Creation in order to give them the heritage of nations (Ps 11.6). If the world belongs to Evolution, the earth, including the Holy Land, is the possession of the most favored race sometimes called transhumans which has the same meaning as Nietzsche’s Uebermenschen.

    Well, John Paul’s double rehabilitation of heliocentrism and evolutionism has to be viewed in the context of his political postulate of 1984 regarding establishment of an “independent” Palestinian state. In the aftermath of the Annapolis Final Solution Conference (AFSC) Cardinal Renato Martino, who heads the Vatican’s office for migrants, said that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homeland, and said he hoped Israeli-Palestinian peace talks would address the issue. That would mean the end of the Jewish state in the Middle East

    Consider these revealing facts. Just one day after the Annapolis conference at which the PA recognized the State of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, the PA’s official TV station screened a map that shows a Palestinian state in place of Israel. At the same time M. Abbas reiterated his rejection of Israel’ s demand to recognize it as a Jewish state. It turns out that the “moderate” PA leader who gets billions of dollars from international donors for his “moderate” attitude embraced Hamas leader Haniyeh’s plan of annihilation of Jewish state.

    On Tuesday July 11, 2006 Haniyeh wrote in his article for the Washington Post: “Israel must resolve issues raised by its existence to bring about peace. It’s not enough for Israel to address its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” In reaction to this article Radio Israel quoted Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni as saying: “He is implying claims against the existence of the State of Israel.”

    A week later, on Tuesday July 18 The Washington Post’s columnist Richard Cohen introduced into the US mainstream media what can be considered as the most serious attempt at de-legitimization of the state of Israel. His opening salvo went like that: “The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself. (…) The smart choice is to pull back to defensible – but hardly impervious – borders. That includes getting out of the most of the West Bank – and waiting (and hoping) that history (!) will get distracted and move on to something else.”

    A nation of European Jews? I would say, it was a state for survivors of death camps that were supervised by Love Inc. and and a million of refugees from Arab countries who were occasionally decimated by the order of the All Merciful sharia.

    Mr. R. Cohen substitutes history for God to avoid mentioning that it was God who promised this land to His people. Of course, Mr. Cohen’s history is the Natural History which is reigning supreme from its throne in the Museum of Natural History. Unlike the Guardian of Israel who never slumbers Mr. Cohen’s Evolving History can be outsmarted and distracted to move on to something else like, for instance, evolving a new species of frogs for the French cuisine. Similarly, Mr. Cohen’s History evolved the Freedom fries!

    Unfortunately, Mr. Cohen himself was distracted and he missed a very important event which happened one day earlier i.e. On July 17. On that day, according to Xinhua agency’s report Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held a trilateral summit meeting, the first of its kind among the three countries. At the summit, Hu said China, Russia and India, who have set up bilateral strategic partnership among them, have vital influence on the international and regional affairs. These are the countries that have the worst memories of the British colonial power and are not ready to welcome the return of this power to the Middle East or to any other part of the world, for that matter.

    The Russians remember that The British used the Palestine mandate as a stronghold to foment political strife inside the czarist and then the Soviet empire. So, when the opportunity occurred, the Soviet empire struck back. Mightily, from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The best way to subvert the British power in the Middle East and its colonial possessions in Asia was to undermine their stronghold in the Middle East by recognizing the Independent Israel established by the United Nations’ decision to divide Palestine into two states one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. If this was a mistake, as Mr. Cohen assures us, then this mistake was also committed by the USA that immediately recognized the Jewish state. Now, somebody could get impression that Mr. Cohen signalized by his article that the USA might withdraw some day its recognition of the Jewish state because Natural History supported by the Vatican became its “formidable enemy.”

    But on December 12, 2007 the former organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Pravda sang a requiem over this “formidable enemy”. The requiem was entitled Natural Selection not the same as Evolution and was penned by Babu G. Ranganathan who was introduced by the editor of the paper to his international readers as an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who’s Who in The East. The author’s articles have been published in various publications including Russia’s Pravda and South Korea’s The Seoul Times. The author’s website may be accessed at: http://www.religionscience.com. On the last page of his article Mr. Ranganathan gave a link to an excellent article by scientists and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish entitled A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origian of Life is impossible (http://icr.org/article/3140/). If you want to read the original piece in Pravda go to: http://english.pravda.ru/print/science/earth/102720-natural_selection_evolution-0.

    While reading this article I recalled the words of a Chinese scholar who pointing to the difference between China and the USA said, In China you cannot criticize the government, but you can criticize evolution. In America it is the other way around, you can criticize government, but you cannot criticize evolution. The political impact of this publication may be assessed by the Vatican’s sudden postponement of canonization of pope Pius XII who started this whole political flirtation with evolutionism, because he was scared to death by the emergence of Jewish state in the Middle East.

    Now, the sense of intellectual superiority over and the contempt for the “barbaric” Hebrew Bible will be significantly reduced. Unimaginable event occurred just before our eyes; Pravda which so recently was defining the thinking of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world by its “scientifically proved Truth” now is recanting this alleged Truth. Pravda, however, did not recant in the scenery of a fake trial like that of Galileo’s. What Pravda did reminds me of the death of Samson:

    “And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left. (…) And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein.” (Jud. 16:29-30). Let the neo-Philistines rest in peace process together with their evolution and heliocentrism.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — December 31, 2007 @ 4:47 pm | Reply

  1594. I think this site is just a gag that satirizes the religious right on evolution. That’s why I found it incredibly funny. No one can be this stupid and actually believe something so nonsensical. The guys on this site are just making garbage up to get into flaming contests because they are bored.

    Comment by Toby Lauterbach — December 31, 2007 @ 6:27 pm | Reply

  1595. Galileo took back the truth about the Earth revolving around the sun under pressure from the church where they threatened him with excommunication and death.

    I also found this whole site a good laugh. Any good Christian knows that not everything in the bible is true and it is rather a guide and a book of morals.

    Comment by Concerned Citizen — January 2, 2008 @ 1:57 am | Reply

  1596. THE MEANING OF LIFE

    1. THE PURPOSE OF MAN’S EXISTENCE
    Who we are? Why are we in this world? Where are we going?
    Have you ever asked yourself why this questions and what the meaning of the human life is? No matter what type of person you are or what your profession is, there are a few things which you, like most people, would agree with, that is:
    Money cannot satisfy man; neither can education satisfies man, nor can
    Pleasure do not satisfy man, Nor can success satisfy man.
    WHY?
    Because you have not yet realized:
    2. GOD’S PLAN

    God has a plan. Which is to deposit his life into man his plan has everything to do with man? In the bible there are tree different words in Greek to designated the word “life”
    1. Bios referring to the biological life our body
    2. Psycho referring to the soul logical means study. The word Psychology means the study of the soul, emotions, mind and will.
    3. There is another word for life that is Zoe the highest life. Whenever the bible speaks of eternal life speak of Zoe. In a Greek dictionary you will find the distinction.
    This is the reason why, Gods plan with the man he created, in first place is not to bring him to heaven, neither to save Him from hell. But to receive the life that was not created. God’s life.
    His plan with man is complete, from creation, while living in earth, and the future.
    This is the reason why God created man different than the rest of his creation
    1. MAN HAS GOD’S IMAGE
    Please read the following verse:
    “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness….”Genesis 1:26a
    God’s creation of man is different from His creation of all other things. He created man in His own image. A glove is created according to the likeness of a hand with the purpose of containing the hand.Likewise, man was created in the image of God with the purpose of containing God.
    2. MAN IS A VESSEL
    Now read the next verse:
    God “should make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy…even us.”Romans 9:23-24
    We are vessels of God. God wants to be our content. As bottles are made to contain water, we are made to contain God.
    It is no wonder that knowledge, wealth, pleasure, and accomplishment can never satisfy you, for you were created to contain God!
    3. THE PARTS OF MAN
    Please continue by reading the next verse:
    “May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete?”1 Thessalonians 5:23
    Man is God’s vessel. The Bible divides this vessel into three parts—the spirit, the soul, and the body. See diagram below:

    The BODY is simply the physical body, belonging to the physiological level, contacting the things of the material realm, and is the most superficial part.
    The SOUL is the mental faculty, belonging to the psychological level, contacting the things of the mental realm, and is a deeper part.
    The SPIRIT is the deepest part of man, belonging to the spiritual level, and contacts the things of God.
    For problems of the body one may see a doctor. For problems of the mind one may visit a psychiatrist. Yet only God can solve the problems of the spirit.
    4. THE MEANING OF LIFE
    God wants to enter into man’s spirit, to become his content and his satisfaction.
    This is the purpose of human existence! You are not merely created to contain food in your stomach, or to contain knowledge in your mind, but you are created to contain God in your spirit.
    1. THE TWO NATURES OF MAN
    Since man was made in the image of God, he possesses a good nature that matches God’s nature, with virtues such as truthfulness, goodness, loveliness, wisdom, kindness, and valor.
    However, there is also an evil nature in man which wars against his good nature. The Chinese met physicists refer to this war as a battle between reason and lust. Throughout history, both in the East and West, those who understand human nature acknowledge the existence of this evil nature which the Bible calls:
    2. SIN
    Because sin is in man, he is unable to carry out his good intentions.No one likes to be greedy, jealous, or murderous. No one likes to be boastful, arrogant, or deceitful. No one likes to be irritable, licentious, or lustful. No one likes to murmur, complain, or curse.
    Nevertheless, man cannot escape his evil nature. Please read the following verses:
    “For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but to do the good is not.”Romans 7:18
    “But if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that do it but sin that dwells in me.”Romans 7:20
    This is a portrait of man.
    3. THE FALL OF MAN
    Sin entered into man and caused him to fall. See diagram below:
    (1) Sin caused man’s spirit to be deadened:
    “And you, being dead in your offenses and sins.”Ephesians 2:1
    (2) Sin caused man’s mind to rebel:
    “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by evil works.”Colossians 1:21
    (3) Sin caused man’s body to sin:
    “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body to obey its lusts.”Romans 6:12
    The fallen man is like: A damaged and untunable radio which cannot receive and play music, but rather meaningless noise. He is also like:A cup that has fallen into the gutter still having its original fine form but now covered with mud.
    4. MAN CANNOT SAVE HIMSELF
    Throughout history, man has tried every possible way to escape sin, but he has found that:
    Good works cannot save him from sin. Education cannot save him from sin. Ethics cannot save him from sin. Chanting cannot save him from sin.Religion cannot save him from sin.
    This picture of man simply depicts the battle between his good nature and his evil nature.
    1. WHO IS CHRIST?
    Christ is the Savior sent from God to the world to solve the problems of human life.
    He is the embodiment of the Triune God.
    “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”Colossians 2:9
    He is also God incarnated:
    “The Word was God…the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us…full of grace and reality.”John 1:1, 14
    Therefore, He is both the complete God and the perfect man. See the following diagram:

    He is more than a good man! He is more than a great man! He is more than moral man! He is more than a holy man! He is the God-man!
    2. THE DEATH OF THE GOD-MAN
    This God-man was nailed to the cross to accomplish the work of redemption. He died with three statuses:
    (1) As the Lamb of God, He died to take away man’s sin.
    “…the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”John 1:29
    (2) As the brass serpent that had been lifted up, He died to crush the old serpent, Satan, and to deal with the serpent’s poison within man—his sinful nature.
    “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.”John 3:14
    (3) As a grain of wheat, He died to release the divine life.
    “…a grain of wheat…dies, it bears much fruit.”John 12:24
    NOW:
    His death has taken away the sin which man has but should not have!His death imparts into man the life which he needs but does not have!
    1. THE TWO BECOMINGS OF CHRIST
    God became flesh, born as a man called Jesus. Please read the following verse:
    “The Word became flesh and tabernacle among us.”John 1:14
    The Lord became the Spirit called the life-giving Spirit by His resurrection from the dead. Read the following verse:
    “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.”1 Corinthians 15:45
    Since this Spirit is the life-giving Spirit, He dispenses God with His life into His believers.
    Hence, the Bible says:
    “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.”1 John 5:12
    2. REGENERATING MAN
    In his first birth, man obtains a physical life.
    When man receives God’s life through Christ, he experiences a second birth, which the Bible calls regeneration.
    “God…has regenerated us…through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead.”1 Peter 1:3
    Jesus said, “Unless a man is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”John 3:3
    A pig cannot participate in the sheep’s kingdom and live a sheep’s life by education, improvement, or regulation; it must possess the life of a sheep.
    Similarly, man cannot participate in God’s kingdom and live a divine life by education, improvement, or regulation; he must receive the life of God!
    3. THE MEANING OF BEING A CHRISTIAN
    A Christian is one who receives God’s dispensing. God first dispenses Himself into our spirit and then spreads from our spirit into our soul. Finally, He fills and saturates our spirit, soul, and body with Himself. The Bible calls this final stage glorification.
    “And whom He predestinated, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”Romans 8:30
    Through this, we can be transformed and conformed to the image of Christ.
    “Because whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son.”Romans 8:29
    This is the purpose of human life! This is the meaning of being a Christian!This is what God has planned for you!
    WHAT MUST YOU DO NOW?
    Now that you have realized God’s plan, you should do four things:
    1. TURN YOUR HEART TO GOD—REPENT
    Repentance is not to be remorseful. Repentance is neither to turn over anew leaf. Repentance is to have a change in mind.
    Previously you had your back towards God. Whether you were doing good or evil, you were turned away from God. Your mind was turned away from God. Now listen to what the Lord Jesus said:
    “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.”Matt. 4:17
    2. BELIEVE—RECEIVE
    To believe is not to nod your head, nor to agree, nor merely to be appreciative.
    If someone gives you a watch, it is not enough for you just to nod your head in agreement and admire the watch. You need to receive it. Believing is just receiving. Read the following verse:
    “But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”John 1:12
    3. CONFESS—CALL
    Being a Christian is an open matter. God requires that your heart believe and that your mouth confess.
    If your heart does not believe, you cannot be saved.
    If your mouth does not confess, neither can you be saved. But:
    “…if you confess with your mouth, Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from among the dead, you shall be saved.”Romans 10:9
    4. BE BAPTIZED—TESTIFY
    Baptism is a testimony before men. All believers should be baptized in order to be saved not only before God, but also before men.
    The Lord Jesus said:
    “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.”Mark 16:16
    Through baptism, God transfers us from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God. For this reason, the Lord Jesus said:
    “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”John 3:5
    NOW PLEASE PRAY:
    “Lord Jesus! I am a sinner. I need You. Come into my spirit. Take away my sin. Fill me that I may have the life of God. I receive You right now as my Savior and life. I give myself to You. I ask this in Your name, Amen!”
    Now you are clear about the meaning of human life! May the Lord bless you and cause you to continue living in God’s plan!
    Now, pray often, read the bible, you are the church, the church is not a physical building, neither an organization is the body of Christ Ephesians 1:22, we are the house of God Hebrews 3;6 we are Gods temple I Corinthians 6:19 and in eternity we will be the bride of Christ Revelations 21:2 . But after Eternity we will return to the source and origin of all things God the Father, Colossians 3: “a renewal in which is not distinction between Greek and Jews, circumcise or uncircumcised, barbarian or Scythian, slaves or free man but Christ” Galatians 3:25 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free man, neither male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” This Christ Jesus is the new man Ephesians: 2:15 “ By abolishing in his flesh the enmity, which is the law of commandments contain in ordinances , the in Himself He might make of the two one new man” This new man said in John 20:17 “I ascend to my Father and your Father” By him we became the many brothers of Christ and He is not ashamed to call us his brothers Hebrews: “ for this reason He is not ashamed to call us brothers” He is our older brother Romans 8:“ That He might be the first born among many brothers” Our older bother Christ is our Wisdom, He is Our Physician , our Light, and the one whom together with us his young brothers He will give all the infinite universe even us to the Father so that God the Father ICo 15:29 “ God maybe all and in all” this means the in the infinite universe that we finite man will never reach, God the Father will be all everywhere and He will be in us therefore we will be with our Father everywhere we never get bored, we will never get tired in a universe that has not end, furthermore we will enjoy His love forever. This is the meaning of life. God the Father since has place in us the desire of have Him. Regardless you are a believer or unbeliever, moral or immoral, wise or fool, with Him or against Him. He is waiting for you and He will run to you as soon you come for Him.

    Comment by rafael — January 5, 2008 @ 9:22 am | Reply

  1597. This has nothing to do with Heliocenterism.
    1500 plus comments go thru my “mycomments” on the WP.com and what concerns me is not the content of what some of these commentors believe. But the loneliness that provokes some of these long repetitive comments, is frightening.

    One can take these texts and interpret them as a meaningful guide but..

    The meaning of life is within active living.

    Comment by cafedog — January 5, 2008 @ 3:07 pm | Reply

  1598. I thought I’d come back and read a bit more. The entertainment goes on! Here’s a link to a website which explains relativity very well:
    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/lecturelist.html
    The main thing I DONT like about the site is the dogmatism demonstrated on all sides. Whether you believe we’ve evolved from apes, or fallen because of original sin, none of us see anything other than a part of the picture. I believe in biblical creation, but it doesn’t conflict with my believe in a heliocentric solar system (heliocentricism can ONLY refer to our local solar system; if the dogmatic claim is made “Earth is fixed at the centre of the universe, central in relation to WHAT? Fixed in relation to WHAT?).

    God has given us wisdom to explore and discover our universe. Anthropic principle suggests that our world is a VERY special place, set up in a very special way. The conventional view – our planet rotates, orbits the Sun, which rotates around the centre of our galaxy – still demonstrates many very special conditions of our cosmic environment, that we are in a very privileged and special position; with ever-diminishing likelyhood that it all happened by chance. When it comes to our (partial) understanding of the universe, atheists, evolutionists and creationists are looking at the SAME EVIDENCE. It is described in different ways due to different ASSUMPTIONS in mind PRIOR to the examination of that evidence.

    The real LIE is in claiming that any particular worldview is proven as fact. Even the young earth creationist worldview depends on the prior assumption that the Bible is the wholly reliable word of God (which by the way, describes the Earth as a sphere suspended in nothing). So neither worldview actually PROVES anything. One of my main inclinations to creationism is that it offers explanation of why the bible itself exists; no other worldview does. This is reinforced by the fact that ancient universe/neo-Darwinism has pushed its worldview on to society, despite such poor ‘evidence’ – suggesting a hidden agenda (which would be to live without a higher authority to answer to). Most creationist scientists have the humility to put forward theories, which describe our world consistent with God’s Word, without resorting to the browbeating of claiming “I’m right and you’re an idiot if you don’t believe me”. You may find examples contrary to this; well if a few creationists go a bit overboard, it’s only to help redress the imbalance of 150 years of propaganda.

    Sadly, there is one Christian attribute completely lacking in comments from either side of this blog – HUMILITY. Nothing about the physical nature of our world is ultimately proven; science is an act of groping towards a decrease in ignorance.

    I know someone who says they might concede that God exists, even made the universe, but can’t see why God would be interested in little old him. I’ve explained that God has other priorities, and that mere size or configuration of the universe, which can seem so important to us, is insignificant to Him.

    My personal belief is that the nature of our world is best explained as a demonstration of the reality of God; the biblical God; the God that is loving and compassionate and creative; the God that is patient with our foolish ways; the God that wants to see us come to the truth, and be successful in His terms. I will defend my views, but not force them on anyone. God can never be proved in a ‘scientific’ way. But there’s one simple test anyone can apply, reproduce and repeat. If you’re REALLY interested in the truth rather than pushing an agenda, all you have to do is humble yourself and send out a cry “God, if you’re really there, reveal yourself to me.” If you DARE pray this honestly, He will, every time.

    Carry on beat each other up if you want to. But all this bickering over what is stationary, what revolves around what, Which ‘science’ is true or trash, is ultimately self defeating for both sides, as it becomes a distraction to the real issues of truth and what society is founded upon. I would recommend everyone to pursue an answer to a self-asked question: “Why do I believe what I believe?” Shake off the stuff that’s unreliable. You’ll find a personal knowledge of God through Jesus Christ is all that remains.
    “Jesus is Lord!” – but don’t take my word for it!

    Comment by TimC — January 7, 2008 @ 12:57 pm | Reply

  1599. My initial intent was to join this great debate, but I can see it has all but died along with Brownback’s campaign. Funny how that works. So, after reading nearly 1600 of these posts over the past couple of days, I just have a few things to say.

    First, I’d like to thank some of you. Science Avenger, Cyriac, Hoverfrog, Silverhill, Tyler Durden, lietk12, and others: You all have been excellent sports. You have shown “Christ-like” patience in dealing with the idiocy in front of you. Some would call that amazing, considering patience is a moral virtue that *has* to stem from God, apparently, and not all of you are Christian. But I digress. My point, here, is that I have learned a lot from you. Many of you have shown an incredible depth of knowledge in science, mathematics, history, and even theology, and you all have been willing to substantiate your claims with valid evidence, often before being hounded to do so. I have learned quite a bit from each of you, so I cannot thank you enough for your intelligence, your wit, and your sincerity.

    Sadly, I only wish these qualities were shared by the other side. Out of all the Sisyphus supporters, only Roman Pytel and Rafael have bothered to provide anything to back up anything else. In the case of the latter, it was a massive wall of text that was obviously copied and pasted from something else. In the case of the former, I have my suspicions. Perhaps you, Roman, can put them to rest. Are you really Dr. Roman Pytel? I admit I know nothing of you other than what I see here, so I am basing my question simply on the quality of your posts. I have noticed that the article posts, while extremely well-written, were likely “your” works previously published elsewhere. The non-article posts, however, which are obviously written on the spot, in real time, seem to be of lower quality with respect to both grammar and overall competence. Why is this? I admit that anything is possible. Perhaps you’re just not so good on your feet.

    For the rest of you, I’d recommend staying under your rocks. If ignorance is bliss, you guys must be living in paradise down there.

    Comment by Brian-sama — January 8, 2008 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

  1600. “Galileo took back the truth about the Earth revolving around the sun under pressure from the church where they threatened him with excommunication and death.”

    The wage of sin is death.

    “I also found this whole site a good laugh. Any good Christian knows that not everything in the bible is true and it is rather a guide and a book of morals.”

    You are a moral deviant and a heretic. I will pray for you.

    “My initial intent was to join this great debate, but I can see it has all but died along with Brownback’s campaign. Funny how that works.”

    The campaign endures. It is carried within the Huckabee campaign. A Huckabee victory is the necessary precursor to a Brownback Presidency.

    “For the rest of you, I’d recommend staying under your rocks. If ignorance is bliss, you guys must be living in paradise down there.”

    You know, we’ve been posting for months now. This wasn’t the last post on the blog. I’ve written about 200 posts since this one, including one this very day. Why not read up on other posts, instead of lurking in one that was written 8 months ago?

    Comment by Sisyphus — January 8, 2008 @ 1:18 pm | Reply

  1601. I said: “For the rest of you, I’d recommend staying under your rocks. If ignorance is bliss, you guys must be living in paradise down there.”

    Sisyphus said: “You know, we’ve been posting for months now. This wasn’t the last post on the blog. I’ve written about 200 posts since this one, including one this very day. Why not read up on other posts, instead of lurking in one that was written 8 months ago?”

    Thanks for the info. I found this blog linked through an outside source, so I was not aware the debate lived on. I’ll gladly continue reading, then.

    For the record, though, my comment about “staying under your rocks” had absolutely nothing to do with the recent paucity of posts, although I can see how it could be construed that way.

    Comment by Brian-sama — January 8, 2008 @ 2:46 pm | Reply

  1602. Thanks for your recommendation of the rest (the majority) of us to stay under are rocks! We ll be sure to follow your advice… while living in the real world, with people…ya know… that world that revolves around the sun!

    Comment by cafedog — January 8, 2008 @ 6:15 pm | Reply

  1603. “Thanks for your recommendation of the rest (the majority) of us to stay under are rocks! We ll be sure to follow your advice… while living in the real world, with people…ya know… that world that revolves around the sun!”

    And thanks for missing the point. I was talking about the rest of the people from the “other side.” You know, the geocentrists. Good job with that one. >_<

    Comment by Brian-sama — January 8, 2008 @ 9:56 pm | Reply

  1604. “Yes. You don’t feel it moving.”
    Well then. I don’t see God. I don’t feel God. I cannot breathe God. Thus, by your logic, He must be nonexistent. But wait! A badly translated, 5000 year old book talks about Him! So of course He’s real!
    You seriously expect me to believe that some guy controls all our actions, destinies, etc.?

    Comment by Bob — January 9, 2008 @ 3:54 pm | Reply

  1605. “Well then. I don’t see God.”

    I pity you, then. You must be blind.

    “I don’t feel God. I cannot breathe God.”

    Yes you do. You may be paralyzed, but I know you have to be breathing.

    “Thus, by your logic, He must be nonexistent.”

    No, God is an empirical fact. God is everything.

    “But wait! A badly translated, 5000 year old book talks about Him! So of course He’s real!
    You seriously expect me to believe that some guy controls all our actions, destinies, etc.?”

    He’s not “some guy.” He’s not like your drunken friend at the bar, or your Sodomite sin-partner. He’s God. That’s substantially different.

    Comment by Sisyphus — January 9, 2008 @ 4:28 pm | Reply

  1606. Philosophical Category of Heliocentrism

    Five of the most important philosophers of the Renaissance – Cardano, Telesio, Patrizi, Bruno, and Campanella – were panpsychists. All of them were admirers of classical heliocentrism. They had to be, because heliocentricm in terms of philosophy is panpsychism.
    The Renaissance panpsychists were nothing but a new generation of Stoics who insisted that all material objects are “bodies”, and they are in fact “compounds of ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ (god or logos). Mind is not something other than body but a necessary constituent of it, “’reason’ in matter.”

    A short passage from Pliny’s Natural History will allow to better grasp the essence of panpsychist world view:
    “Upheld by the same vapour between earth and heaven, at definite spaces apart, hang the seven stars which owing to their motion we call ‘planets,’ although no stars wander less than they do. In the midst of these moves the sun, whose magnitude and power are the greatest, and who is the ruler not only of the seasons and of the lands, but even of the stars themselves and of the heaven. Taking into account all that he effects, we must believe him to be the soul, or more precisely the mind, of the whole world, the supreme ruling principle and divinity of nature. He furnishes the world with light and removes darkness, he obscures and he illumines the rest of the stars, he regulates in accord with nature’s precedent the changes of the seasons and the continuous re-birth of the year, he dissipates the gloom of heaven and even calms the storm-clouds of the mind of man, he lends his light to the rest of the stars also; he is glorious and pre-eminent, all-seeing and even all-hearing – this, I observe, that Homer the prince of literature held to be true in the case of the sun alone.”(2-1)

    Giambattista della Porta, the celebrated Italian alchemist and the first member of the Academy of the Lynxes, modern Europe’s first scientific society founded in Rome in 1603 published in 1569 his book Magia Naturalis in which he tried to show to the world the groundlessness of their accusations of magic being a superstition and sorcery. In the book he based all of the occult phenomena possible to man upon the world-soul which binds all with all, exactly like Newton’s gravity. The latests biographer of Newton titled his book Newton. The Last Sorcerer.

    Newton in his Principia based all his speculations upon the “soul of the world,” the great universal, magnetic agent, which he called the divine sensorium: “Here the question is of a very subtile spirit which penetrates through all, even the hardest bodies, and which is concealed in their substance. Through the strength and activity of this spirit, bodies attract each other, and adhere together when brought into contact. Through it, electrical bodies operate at the remotest distance, as well as near at hand, attracting and repelling; through this spirit the light also flows, and is refracted and reflected, and warms bodies. All senses are excited by this spirit, and through it the animals move their limbs. But these things cannot be explained in few words, and we have not yet sufficient experience to determine fully the laws by which this universal spirit operates.” In the final analysis all motion in the universe is dependent on the activity of a World Soul.

    Let me quote here a prayer to the World-Soul, the Famous Gayatri of the Rig Veda, “the holiest verse in the Vedas.” It runs as follows: “Let us adore the Supremacy of that Divine Sun, the Godhead, Who illuminates all, Who recreates all, from Whom all proceed, to Whom all must return, Whom we invoke to direct our Understanding aright in our Progress toward His Holy Seat.” (Sir W. Jone’s Works, XIII. 367. “His Holy Seat” suggests the thought that the state where He does not move is fixed.) Let me mention here that the term see denoting a district under a bishop’s authority, for instance Holy See, is derived from Old French sie, or sied which, in turn, is derived from Latin sedes, abode (sedere, to sit). According to Webster’s Universal Dictionary of 1936 see also denotes the seat of regal authority; a throne.. Copernicus’s sun god who rules his family of stars is seated on a royal throne.

    Plato represented the planets as moved by an intrinsic Rector, one with his dwelling, like “a boatman in his boat.” Aristotle called those rulers “immaterial substances;” though he rejected the gods as Entities. But this did not prevent him from recognizing the fact that the stars and planets “were not inanimate masses but acting and living bodies indeed…” As if “sidereal spirits were the divine portion of their phenomena, (ta theoitera pon phaneron)” (De Caelo. I. 9). Kepler “baptized” Plato’s Rector and called him angelus rector conducting each planet. In his third letter to Bentley Newton mentioned “agent, material or immaterial” as the cause of gravity and later identified gravity with the spiritual body of Jesus Christ.

    Well, possibly Newton with Pliny also believed that Spanish mares could conceive by turning their hindquarters to the wind (Natural History IV.35 and VIII.67). That’s what panpsychism is all about. In the erotic cult of the Mare-goddess children were believed to enter into women’s womb as sudden gusts of wind.

    We have similar synthesis of pagan ideas with Christian doctrine in the young K. Wojtyla’s Renaissance Psalter. The leading poem of this collection entitled Magnificat unites through imagery the pagan, the medieval, the Renaissance panpsychism and the modern. The ancient worship of the oak tree, becomes transformed into Christian belief without leaving behind the pagan symbolism; rather, it incorporates it. God is present in the ancient soil, in the rocks of the Tatra (like he is believed to be present in the Kaaba), and in the oaks.

    In Laws Plato also embraced a soul or souls as the cause of various phenomena:
    “Now consider all the stars and the moon and the years and the months and all the seasons: what can we do except repeat the same story? A soul or souls … have been shown to be the cause of all these phenomena, and whether it is by their living presence in matter … or by some other means, we shall insist that these souls are gods. Can anybody admit all this and still put up with people who deny that ‘everything is full of gods’?” Like those rocks of Tatra and oaks full of gods…

    Since time immemorial astrology went hand in hand with the theory of emanationism, philosophical and theological theory that saw all of creation as an unwilled, necessary and spontaneous outflow of contingent beings of descending perfection, from an infinite, unchanged primary substance. In conformity with this theory Kepler wrote about “species immateriata” (which corresponds to Aristotle’s “immaterial substances”) which flows out of the sun, inundates all the planets, including the earth, and sets them in whirling motion. Now his angelus rector became Plato’s “a boatman in his boat”

    Kepler said that he understood perfectly how the Pythagoreans could believe that all the globes disseminated through Space were rational Intelligences¸facultates ratiocinativae, circulating around the Sun. He wrote about anima telluris i.e. soul of the Earth. Copernicus wrote about divines mundi revolutionibus (I, 9). The publisher removed from the printed edition of The revolutions the expression divina corpora and replace it with corpora coelestia. Like Copernicus, also Kepler believed that the stars were born of the semen of the sun god (disseminated is derived from Latin semen, seed). Remember the Hindu sungod in the shape of linga (phallus)? In Hindu myth when the Desire (Kama) arose in it, “the creation” or rather emanation or emission of semen followed.

    Heliocentrism and Holocausts of Jews

    Philosopher M. Polanyi observed, “Newtonian physics and Darwin’s notion of the survival of the fittest were key elements both in the Marxist concepts of class warfare and of racial philosophies which shaped Hitlerism and scientific world view.”

    This enmity against Christianity rooted in the Hebrew Bible on the part of many cultured pagans was not a purely intellectual matter, but was deeply rooted in class prejudice. The “cultured and sophisticated” could not conceive the possibility that the Christian rabble could know a truth hidden to them. Their main objection was that Christianity was a religion of barbarians who derived their teaching, not from Greeks of Romans, but from Jews, a primitive people whose best teacher never rose to the level of Greek philosophers. If anything good is to be found in Jewish Scripture – they said – that is because the Jews copied it from the Greeks. So, the Biblical geocentrism which could not be proved to be copied from the Greeks or any other pagan belief was recognized as an invention of an uneducated, barbaric people. Rome was always heliocentric: “Sun…the leader, the prince and the steerman of the other stars, the soul and the ordering principle of the world, so large that it enlightens and fills up the whole universe…the orbits of Mercury and Venus follow him as his satellites.” This declaration of Cicero attests that the old Pythagorean heliocentrism was ever present in the minds of the enlightened circles of ancient Greece and Rome. Cicero proclaimed that the Jews who believed in the Biblical geocentrism were a nation born to servitude (nationibus nati servituti).

    Dio Cassius in his History reported: “Fifty of the strongest fortified places, and 985 of the best towns and villages were ruined. Very few Jews remained alive. 580,000 lost their lives on the battlefield or by the sudden attacks by the Romans, in addition to those without number who perished of starvation and pestilence or who were burned alive. The entire land of Judea was changed into a desolate wilderness” (69:14)

    The early Christian chroniclers wrote: “The populace in many other cities were slaughtered or sold into slavery. The multitude for sale as slaves was so great that their price was extremely low, yet there were no enough buyers. At Hebron a great slave market was held; subsequently, the huge remaining number was taken to the slave-market at Gaza, which now because of this became known as Hadrian’s Market. Those who could not be sold were shipped to Egypt. In Egypt they fell into the hands of their bitter enemies the Greeks; and instead of being purchased as slaves, many were slain.”

    Not long after Hadrian abolished the name of Judea with its potentially subversive overtones, and called the province Syria Palestina instead, he founded in Rome the school of philosophy, oratory and literature which he called Athenaeum, and which conducted the true psychological war against the Jews and their Holy Scriptures. You will grasp better the perennial policy of Rome vis-a-vis Israel when you recall that the goddess Athena was usually portrayed with her dress adorned with swastikas. She was the most beloved goddess of Adolf Hitler.

    Gen. John Bagot Glubb, the supreme commander of the Arab Legion in Israel’s War of Independence in 1948 regarded the creation of Israel as a crime. Glubb, like most of the British elites, was an unabashed anti-Semite, who firmly believed that the “unlikable character” of the Jews had provoked their persecution throughout history; that most Russian and East European Jews were really Khazar Turks with no connection to the promised land.

    You may recall that Darwin in his book castigated the Turkish people as belonging to an inferior race. So when Gen. Glubb put the Jews in the same racial category as Khazar Turks he continued A. Hitler’s racial crusade against the Jewish people. So, you see, Pope John Paul II knew very well what he was doing when he was rehabilitating evolutionism and heliocentrism, the “sciences” that were taught in Hadrian’s Athenaeum. Once a miniature Palestinian state is created the “civilized world” won’t stop there. Only when the last Jew is exterminated its mission civilisatrice will be regarded as fulfilled. Copernicus and Darwin blinded the world to dangers the secularists may encounter while executing this new Holocaust. Exactly, like they blinded A. Hitler.

    Hundreds of gravestones were toppled at a Jewish cemetery in New Jersey; hundreds of gravestones were knocked over, some broken from hitting each other. It looked like it was hit by a bomb. The Jews are the one and only people who are not allowed to rest in peace. When moral foundations are shaken, we unleash our instincts. But released instincts belong to the animal world. If we forget God our country is doomed.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — January 11, 2008 @ 12:49 pm | Reply

  1607. I have always known that it isn’t just the sun but rather the entire universe that revolves around the earth. I admire Sisyphus for being so bold in speaking the truth about these matters, but I really wish he would do more…anybody with half a brain knows that Jews (who feast on the flesh of Christian babies), Confucians (who mate with monkeys), and Hindus (who do unspeakable things with their mothers) are the cause of the problems in the world today. It’s time to bring it all out in the open. No more can we afford to tolerate these deviations from the one true way. It is a cancer in our society. Deviants must be eliminated, in the name of the one true God. Heliocentrics and evolutionists will be next.

    Comment by helpisonitsway — January 16, 2008 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  1608. Sysyphus, at comment 1585 I wrote a calm, kind reply to your post. I’m curious to know what you think of it, could you please let us know about it? 😀

    Comment by dandus — January 17, 2008 @ 9:53 am | Reply

  1609. Roman Pytel i dont agree with a lot of the stuff you write here. But i would love to get lost in your library—you certain are well read.
    I am fascinated by Newton. Much of what you site on him i have read elsewhere. I will check out the “last sorcerer”…objectively.

    Comment by cafedog — January 21, 2008 @ 5:16 pm | Reply

  1610. I was looking through this and thought this was some funny parady stuff written by like John Stewart or Steven Colbert.

    You are actually serious. Holy cow.

    If believeing crap like this is what it takes for me to be a Christian, then… wow…

    Anyway, look at the poles, you people are not going to win. Yippie!! I bet you are the same folks who back that Baptist preacher ninny who thinks IEDs and dead Soldiers are a good thing! 😉

    Comment by EzekielTBold — January 23, 2008 @ 5:38 pm | Reply

  1611. […] Mark Hoofnagle at the Denialism science blog says it best as he describes the article “Heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine” on Sam Brownback’s blog: I’ve just got to say, wow. I read it at first thinking, […]

    Pingback by It had to happen: "Heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine" « If not now, when? — January 24, 2008 @ 7:57 pm | Reply

  1612. The Biblical Calendar Belies Heliocentrism

    In his dedication to Pope Paul III (r. 1534-1549) Copernicus implored the Pope to silence all possible critics who, not being knowledgeable of mathematics, would dare criticize his book with Biblical quotations totally irrelevant, as he claimed, in the context of the revolving earth. In other words, Copernicus was intentionally contradicting the truth of divine revelation with his mathematical equations. The same arrogance lurks behind the title of Newton’s book; mathematical principles explained to Newton the workings of the universe better than ordinances of God.

    Saul Bellow once observed that a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. In the Renaissance Rome the need for mathematical illusion was unlimited. In ancient Rome ‘Babylonian’ was synonymous with ‘mathematician.’ The Babylonian astrologers called planets ‘wanderers’ or ‘sheep’ and they called the Sun, ‘The Shepherd’ which, of course, means a sun-centered system.

    Latium Latinus (the Roman form of the Greek Lateinos), and Lateo, “to lie hid,” all alike come from the Chaldee “Lat,” which has the same meaning. This is evident from the name of the fish Latus, which was worshipped along with the Egyptian Minerva, in the city of Latopolis in Egypt, now Esneh, that fish Latus evidently just being another name for the fish-god Dagon. Dagon was venerated by the Philistines whom the KJV turned into Palestinians. By order of emperor Hadrian the Holy Land was renamed Palestine.

    The founding fathers of the modern astronmy, like their ancient predecessors: “set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth. And they say, how doth God know? And is there knowledge in the Eternal God? – Ps 73: 9-11

    The ancient Jews also possessed sufficient knowledge of mathematical astronomy to fix the dates of festivals and holidays: “And the children of Issachar that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do” 1 Chron. 12:33. There is, however, a problem with this verse; we know from the Bible that it was Judah who was given authority over the calendar, so why does Scripture say it was Issachar that had “understanding of times.”

    We find solution to this problem in the Biblical mention of such important astronomical tool as sun-dial. And this is a very revealing mention: “And this shall be a sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that has spoken; Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degree which is gone down in the sun-dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.” – Isa 38:7-8

    This verse was supposed to be a caution to all ancient and modern scientists who trusted more in their tools and their mathematical reasonings than in God’s teachings. Unfortunately, in their arrogance they forget that it is God who rules the world and not their speculative laws expressed in mathematical formulas. The sons of Issachar were working out calculated calendars and prophet Isaiah wrote about the calendar which rested purely on the observation of the sun and the moon. Let me unmask for you the frightening superficiality of the heliocentric mind which ignored the profound teaching of the Hebrew Bible.

    The first commandment the Jews were given as a people is the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh, the New Moon: “And God said to Moses…in the land of Egypt … This month is for you, the head of the months. First it is for you among the months of the year.” – Ex 12:1-2

    This is a strange first commandment. You’d think the development of the calendar would only come after the establishment of the basic fundamentals like the Ten Commandments. And yet the Torah considers the process of establishing the new month as a major breakthrough in creating a nation. And what was wrong with the solar calendar that everyone else had been using? What is the significance of basing the Jewish calendar on the moon?

    Whereas the sun is the symbol of unchanging nature, rising in the east, setting in the west, day in and day out every day of the year, the moon changes and it seems to be telling us something. And her message thwarts all matematical calculations. The moon is mathematically unpredictable. By commandment of the New Moon which meant the rejection of Egyptian mathematical and godless science Moses consolidated his nation. Moses did, what this blog is trying to do. Let’s hope that the eye of the sun god Horus will disappear from the one dollar bill. Do you prefer One Nation under Horus?

    Jews calculated the month according to the phases of the moon, each month consisting of either twenty nine or thirty days, and beginning with the appearance of the new moon. It was impossible to know in advance whether a particular month would have twenty-nine or thirty days. The length of the moon was never determined until the thirtieth day actually arrived.

    Whe the Sages of Israel decided to adopt the Calculated Rabbinical Calendar to avoid further tragic political persecutions the Moon of that calendar became a mean or average moon moving uniformly, in the same way as the artificial moon of Hilarius (or Dr. Jarvik’s artificial heart), which is used in the Julian and Gregorian Calendars. The beginning and duration of the months depend on the moladoth (the times of the new moon) and the time which elapses from one molad to the next. The average figure given by tradition for this interval is 29 days and 12 hours and 793 parts.

    New Moon in Scripture, the visible crescent is not the same as the astronomical new moon (molad), which is not visible. molad is the moment that the moon passes between the Earth and the sun. It is the theoretical beginning of the new moon. molad is commonly used not for the actual time of New Moon, but for the computed time, which governs the commencement of each year and of each cycle, axactly, like Newtonian principia mathematica.

    This astronomical new moon enabled the mathematical astronomers to play the role of “God knowing good and evil, times and seasons.” Indeed, many ancient philosophers were venerated by illiterate people as “gods knowing good and evil” (The Biblical hieroglyph ‘good and evil’ denotes wisdom gained by dialectic, i.e. speculative philosophy) And indeed, most of them were familiar with practice of magic and divination which were forbidden by the Bible. Attempt to foretell events was guiding Copernicus’s endeavor. Kepler believed that man’s ability to understand the mathematical laws governing the universe enabled him to mirror God’s own thoughts and thus put him in special mysthical union with the Creator of the Universe.

    This is nothing else but the very well known ancient mathematical mysticism, or Gnosis against which the words of Prophet Isaiah are directed: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Is 55:8-9)

    God’s months begin with the new moon, mathematicians’ months begin with the calculated, theoretical conjunction of the sun, earth, and moon which occurs in the midst of what is generally 1.5 — 3.5 days of the moon being concealed. You won’t see the astronomical new moon even with the biggest telescopes, so the astronomers are on the safe side, nobody can contradict them if they made a mistake i.e. if their calculations don’t match the actual events in the heavens.

    This mathematical hoax was invented by the ancient Egyptian astrologers who used the time when the old crescent was invisible in the morning as the beginning of their month. This Egyptian custom of using the old crescent was embraced by our modern astronomers who also use the conjunction as the marker. And that also explains why the Torah considers the process of establishing the new month as a major breakthrough in creating a nation. The Jewish national uniqueness is reflected in their calendar which became the catechism of this nation. There is no room for flawed mathematical formula in Science of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew prophets did not express their teachings in the imaginary mathematical equations. The Biblical Calendar is the science of synchronicity between the heavens and the earth.

    Only God can expose heliocentrists’ pretentious ignorance and He actually did that to prove the Truth of His teaching. “Owing to inequalities in the rate of both the solar and the lunar motion in longitude, the mean conjuntion (molad) may precede or be preceded by the true conjunction.” (Cecil Roth, editor, Enc. Judaica, Vol.5, p. 46, article: Calendar.

    The Jews readily admit that the current calculated calendar in use, exactly like the Gregorian Calendar, is in error and needs reform. Here is a relevant passage from Enc. Judaica: “The present calendar system was expected to be replaced again by a system based on true values more akin to the earlier Jewish calendar in which New Moon and intercalations were proclaimed on the basis of both observation and calculation.” (ib.)

    In Jesus’ time the new moon was established by observation. What we know from first-century records is that the calendar was operated by observation and controlled by the Sanhedrin. If Jesus and the Church followed this habit, then Jesus accepted something that, as some are claiming, is unacceptable. Maybe that was the true reason that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. The Roman AUC (AUC stands for Ab Urbe Condita, meaning “from the foundation of Rome”) calendar was enforced, with capital punishment for non-compliance, throughout the powerful Roman Empire of the time. The Jewish calendar starts with the creation of the world. But creationism is so “unscientific”!

    The Roman persecution was so intense that Rabbi Akiva had to go to Babylon to declare a leap-year (Mishna: Yevamos 122A), because this was at that time not possible to do in any land under Roman domination (this was before Trajan conquered Babylon in the year 115 CE). And for that “crime” Rabbi Akiva was also crucified; he offended the offcial Roman sun god Sol Invictus. Tyndale who translated the Bible from Hebrew into English was imprisoned near Brussels and interrogated by theologians from Louvain; he was garroted and his corpse burnt in October 1536.

    As I mentioned earlier, the official Syrian translation of the New Testament Peshitta turned Jesus into a Jewish Copernicus thus contradicting the teaching of Col 2:8 : “Take care there is not someone who will carry you away as prisoners by means of his philosophy and idle fancies, following human traditions and the world’s crude notions instead of following Christ.” Let me remind here that reading the Bible was punishable by death in the Papal empire. In a Major Motion Picture Release Ben Stein exposes the frightening agenda of the “Darwinian Machine” in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

    On Jan 4, 2008 Peter Popham reported for the London Independent that the astronomical observatory that was a part of Castel Gandolfo for more than 75 years was dismantled.. The pope needs more room to receive diplomats, so the telescope must go.

    But it was the mundane question of the reform of the calendar that first induced the popes to give house room to star-gazers of the 16th century. “Pope Gregory ordered a tower to be erected in 1578 and to be fitted out with the greatest and best instruments of that time,” Pope Leon XIII wrote in 1891. “There he held the meetings of the learned men to whom the reform of the calendar had been entrusted. When touched by the rays of the sun that are allowed from above the designs demonstrate the error of the old reckoning.” Indeed, “Astronomy is the science of continualy correcting your earlier errors”. In other words, the mathematical straitjacket put by astronomers on God is bound to fail sooner or later, and the Gregorian calendar is no exception. The ecclesiastical Full Moon dates (Paschalia) is not the astronomical Full Moon – it is based on tables set up in 325 that do not take into account the full complexity of lunar motion. As a result, the date of an ecclesiastical Full Moon differs from that of true Full Moon.

    The telescope was one of the central instruments of what has been called the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. It “revealed” hitherto unsuspected phenomena in the heavens and had a profound influence on the controversy between followers of the traditional geocentric astronomy and cosmology and those who favored the heliocentric hoax of Copernicus. Long before Galileo, some people could see phases of Venus with the naked eyes.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — January 25, 2008 @ 2:33 pm | Reply

  1613. Sysyphus, at comment 1585 I wrote a calm, kind reply to your post. I’m curious to know what you think of it, could you please let us know about it? 😀

    Comment by dandus — January 25, 2008 @ 2:52 pm | Reply

  1614. I am amazed that the helioleftists constantly ignore a very important point:

    The Wright Brothers tried making their airplanes with “science”, but found that they were flukes. When they tossed out “science” and trusted the Lord, He delivered them with the knowledge to build an airplane.

    Of course, NONE of the Helioleftists even acknowledge Roman Pytel. You’re an inspiring man, Mr. Pytel.

    Comment by bobcorker — January 25, 2008 @ 3:56 pm | Reply

  1615. OK bobcorker… Those who are heliocenterist accept an athiest doctrine…I have read here about “Helio Fascist”. Fascism being right wing would be Helio rightist (i am guessing here?). Could you clarify what a “helio leftist” is?

    This is one strange helio (solar) system im learning about here.

    Comment by cafedog — January 26, 2008 @ 5:25 pm | Reply

  1616. “Those who are heliocenterist accept an athiest doctrine…I have read here about “Helio Fascist”. Fascism being right wing would be Helio rightist (i am guessing here?). Could you clarify what a “helio leftist” is?”

    Fascism is, technically speaking, left wing, because the government controls the economy quite significantly. (On social matters, it is also authoritarian, not conservative.) Libertarianism and conservatism, since they favor laissez-faire capitalism, are the only Right Wingers, and also the only viewpoints right, economically speaking.

    Anyways, all conservatives know that the Earth does not move, although thanks to Copernican propaganda, many do not admit it. (Libertarians are also Helio believers, but to be Conservatively Correct, they should be called Heliolooneys.) Other than the off-the-charts libertarians, the blasphemers are Leftists. Thus, you are a Helioleftist, unless you are a libertarian or a Georightist.

    Comment by Bob_Corker — January 26, 2008 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  1617. FYI
    “Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism.”

    cite wiki here for its convience.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    Defined in the Fascist Manifesto, Fascism is the sovereignty of the State acting as the full “will of the people”. this is Right wing. It requires homogenized “people” to act out this this will…
    Or for the state to force a society to be homogenized, (Hitler was attracted to this).

    As one who is a card carrying Libertarien, i will point out your need to label me (with your own invented word “helio leftist.) is
    you trying to control and trying to homogenize what you cannot control.
    Usually starts when one cannot control things within him.

    I suggest reading Greek Stoicism, for starters. You are miles from understanding libertarianism .

    Comment by cafedog — January 29, 2008 @ 7:54 pm | Reply

  1618. Oh by the way Bob. I did compliment Roman Pyle by saying he was very well read.

    So i geuss “helioleftists” did “Acknowledge Roman Pyle”.

    Your not very smart at all are you.

    Comment by cafedog — January 29, 2008 @ 8:02 pm | Reply

  1619. “cite wiki here for its convience.”

    Please cite from locked Conservapedia articles or ask Mr. Schlafly rather than using Communist Wikipedia, which anyone can edit.

    “As one who is a card carrying Libertarien, i will point out your need to label me (with your own invented word “helio leftist.) is
    you trying to control and trying to homogenize what you cannot control.”

    I don’t take any credit at all for the term “helioleftist”, my friend. I could control you just as much by calling you an idiot as well (ie not at all), so I don’t get what you are blathering about.

    “Oh by the way Bob. I did compliment Roman Pyle by saying he was very well read.”

    Sorry, I didn’t go through every single comment. You must admit, however, that most people ignore him or throw simple slurs his way. At least you acknowledge his brilliance.

    “So i geuss “helioleftists” did “Acknowledge Roman Pyle”.”

    Didn’t you say you were a Libertarian? Didn’t I say that Libertarians are helioloonies?

    “Your not very smart at all are you.”

    LOL! There’s no way this is a typo. There is also bad grammar in this post, and there are many, many misspellings in your other posts. I can only understand this error if you are a foreigner, in which case you really shouldn’t be here 😀

    Comment by Bob_Corker — January 29, 2008 @ 9:23 pm | Reply

  1620. LoL I’m finally convinced this post is satire.

    Comment by cafedog — January 30, 2008 @ 6:47 pm | Reply

  1621. hey mr corker. A quote from your conservapedia.

    Fascism is at the extreme right of the political spectrum. [1]
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Fascism

    I left the the quotations out, because i know you love my grammar.

    Comment by cafedog — January 31, 2008 @ 8:04 pm | Reply

  1622. “Please cite from locked Conservapedia articles”

    Please read my quote before arquing. Fascism, requiring government intervention and discouraging local government, is on the left end of the spectrum.

    “I left the the quotations out, because i know you love my grammar”

    Since all foreigners are likely going to hell, it doesn’t really matter.

    Comment by bobcorker — January 31, 2008 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

  1623. Good thing that i’m at least four generations American and a Patriot!(so im not going to hell?)
    Yes… i even have family in Tennesee. You are no Bob Corker.

    BobC I’m actually just pointing out how you think to other readers.

    you talk of getting rid of other groups, A religious war, even it were against those pesky Scientologists you don’t like.(around the web)

    Well, jihadists like you draw attention. You are always welcome to visit my neighborhood. better bring your avatar.

    Comment by cafedog — February 1, 2008 @ 8:14 pm | Reply

  1624. “Good thing that i’m at least four generations American and a Patriot!(so im not going to hell?)”

    Yes, you are, for lying. This post shows serious problems connecting a subject to a direct object. No patriot would pervert the language spoken by Jesus this much.

    “Yes… i even have family in Tennesee. You are no Bob Corker.”

    I am not Sen. Bob Corker, but my name is Bob Corker, I am his third cousin, and I admire his family values very, very much, second only to Sen. Brownback. Sen. Corker should either be Assistant Monarch or head the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories.

    “BobC I’m actually just pointing out how you think to other readers.”

    I think the way Scripture tells me to think, treefrog. The Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move. It makes it clear that humankind is at the center of the universe, not the Sun. The LORD would never have those made in His image revolve around the stars ‘scientists’ like that pervert Carl Sagan says we are made of. Considering that the other Helioleftists and spherofascists here all think that the Marquis de Lafayette was the main financer of the American Revolution (no, the money came from the British East Tea company ships our patriots kidnapped), I could care less what they think.

    “you talk of getting rid of other groups, A religious war, even it were against those pesky Scientologists you don’t like.(around the web)”

    Don’t tell me you actually support Scientology’s right to exist. Your sentence is worded in such a way that it seriously sounds like this is what you mean.

    “You are always welcome to visit my neighborhood. better bring your avatar.”

    You are a complete pervert.

    Comment by bobcorker — February 1, 2008 @ 9:18 pm | Reply

  1625. “No patriot would pervert the language spoken by Jesus this much.”

    No person on Earth perverts the words of Jesus as much as you do, Corker.

    Comment by Arn — February 1, 2008 @ 9:27 pm | Reply

  1626. “I think the way Scripture tells me to think, treefrog.”

    As much as I’d like to point to every place in the Bible where love and peace and compassion are stressed, I know you only read the one that said “KILL EVERY BLACK MAN AND WOMAN, AS IS SAYETH”.

    Of course, the Bible doesn’t really say this, but Corklover scribbled it in pencil to justify his racism, sexism, and homosexuality.

    Comment by Dio Brando — February 1, 2008 @ 9:47 pm | Reply

  1627. The Marvels of the Moon

    It would be nice to pretend, as the so-called theistic evolutionists do, that the study of evolution can be carried out without having any effect on religion. The heart of the matter is that evolution is, by definition, a story of origins, like the myth of Tammus, or Mithra and of many others. This means that it really does supersede another creation story – in particular, the creation story as the very core of Judeo-Christian narrative.
    Indian religious philosophy regards the universe as resulting from a non purposive manifestation of, or emanation from, an absolute unity that is not personal in any strict sense.
    In the Assyrian inscriptions we find recorded the Chaldeo-Babylonian idea of an evolution of the universe out of the primeval flood or “great deep,” and of the animal evolution out of the earth and sea (cp. Darwin’s “warm pond”.
    The general idea of evolution in Nature, transmitted from the Chaldeans through the Phoenicians, took strong hold upon Greek thought and was developed in many perverse ways; Aristotle sometimes developed it in a manner which reminds us of modern views.
    Hand in hand with evolutionism goes the idea that the Universe is built of four basic elements. In ancient Greece, at the very dawn of philosophy itself, a group who are now called atomists (particularly Leucippus and Democritus) postulated that all matter was formed of “atoms”, which were small, hard and indestructible. They taught that the atoms moved in a void, and that it was in eternal fallings and collisions of them that creates everything in the world (in modern Science, these fallings and collisions were initiated by “Big Bang”). By postulating the void that all atoms “fell” with relation to, they were perhaps the first explicit absolutists in history. They inspired Newton’s absolute Space. He speculated, If ever Space had not existed, God at that time would have been nowhere.
    Before the end of the 16th century, Galileo has begun expexperimenting with inclined planes and pendula, and had come up with some remarkable results, including that all objects “fall” (or roll down the inclined plane) at the same rate, regardless of their mass or the steepness of the slope.
    Let me remind here that Galileo, using his telescope, claimed that he saw the detail of the moon that is invisible to the naked eye. This claim was consistent with the fundamental heliocentric dogma that the earth is one of heavenly planets and in this sense the title of Copernicus’s book is to be understood, The Rebvolutions of the heavenly bodies.
    Galileo’s renderings revealed the moon shadows as craters, hills and valleys. Identifying such Earthlike topography in a heavenly “body” was an important step toward the conclusion that later put him at odds with the Catholic Church: that Earth was not the center of the universe.
    Do they see rains on the Moon with their telescopes?
    T. Campanella in his Apologia pro Galileo (Frankfurt 1623) was well aware that Galileo’s inspiration for seeing the detail of the moon that is invisible was derived from the same source as Muhammad’s claim about billions upon billions of virgins inhabiting the “heavenly bodies” built of four philosophical elements. He wrote:
    “Galileo also says that water exists on the moon and the planets which cannot be. These bodies are incorruptible, for do not all scholastics contend with Aristotle that they endure without change throughout all time? He describes land and mountains in the Moon and other celestial globes, and not only vilifies immeasurably the homes of angels, but lessens our hope regarding Heaven.
    “If the four elements which form our world exist in the stars, it follows from the doctrine of Galileo that, as Muhammed declared, there are many worlds with lands and seas and with human inhabitants. In Surah Fatiha Allah is called the “Lord of the Worlds” (plural). However, Scripture speaks of only one world and of one created man, so that this belief is opposed to Scripture. I pass without comment the opinion that Galileo has revived the heresy that Christ must make atonement for the men who inhabit the stars and die there again; just as formerly it was said that Christ must be crucified a second time in the antipodes, if the men living there were to be saved as we have been saved. In other words, Galileo’s Christ was a perpetual pilgrim, like John Paul II was.
    Muhammad, for political reasons, rejected the idea of the Biblical Eden planted by God in earth and embraced instead the idea of the Garden of Immortality that the Babylonian myth placed in Heaven. Unlike the Biblical Adam who was simply “sent forth from the garden of Eden” (Gen. 3:23), the Koran’s Adam was “sent down from the Garden” (Sura Ta-Ha 20:123). Similarly, in the so-called Gospel of Marcion Jesus was sent down, maybe from a hanging, heavenly garden,” like a certain Clark Kent who can live in Smallville, like huris can live up there:
    In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,
    Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,
    Jesus descended (out of heaven) into Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
    and was teaching (in the synagogue) on the Sabbath days,
    And they were astonished at his doctrine (3:1/4:31)
    Muhammad, like the Babylonian godman Etana ascended to heaven on the horse called Buraq. And remember all those killers on the way to the Virgins.
    Newton took both impenetrability, and the lawlike behavior of bodies, to be essential features of our conception of body. Inspired by Galileo’s idea of “Fall” he imagined the planets are falling to their common center of gravity like apples are falling to the ground of earth.
    The first telescopic observations of the moon on record were carried out by the Englishman Thomas Harriot (c. 1560-1621), on the evening of July 26, 1609. However, based on his extant correspondence as well as entries in his notebooks, as in the case of sunspots Harriot did not appear to have drawn any particular physical significance from what he saw.
    We know that some people can see phases of Venus with naked eye and maybe Moses was one of them.
    One cannot help but wonder, is the moon a heavenly body (like a material girls, or huris) in the Copernican sense, or is it a light serving as a sign: “And God said,. ‘Let there be lights in the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.” (Gen 1:14)
    We learn from the Mishna Treatise Rosh Hashana 2:8 that “Rabban Gamliel had a chart of moon shapes on a wall, and he would show this to the people, and ask: Was it like this one? Like that one?” And that’s exactly what the word ‘sign’ means.
    The Russian Professor of astronomy A.B. Arkhipov in his book Nyerazgadannye Tainy Vsyelennoy (The Unsolved Secrets of the Universe) published in Moscow (2004 ISBN 5-94538-446-1) among the lunar marvels mentions the following astronomical events described in ancient chronicles:
    1048 The Armenian Chronicle of Etaum Patmich of the 13th century reads: “In that year, on May 14, in the early night during the New Moon a star was visible on the disc of the Moon. According to Armenian astronomers Barsegyan and Parsamyan an attempt to identify this star with the supernova of 1054 means stretching the truth.
    1064 “In those days a star of unusual brightness appeared within the circle of the moon after a few days following her moving away from the sun. J. Malvesius Chronicon (Muratori L.A. Retum Italicarium scriptores. Lib. 14. Milan, 1729, p. 873)
    1540 W.S. Cameron’s Lunar transient phenomena catalog (NSSDC/WDC-A-R&S 78-03, Greenbelt: NASA, 1978, p. 109) describes a strange engraving depicting a star which appeared On November 26 on the black part of the New Moon
    The same catalog mentions that on March 5, 1587 many people saw a star within the circle of the Moon “exactly between the edges of her horns.”
    On page 136 of Prof. Arkhipov’s book you’ll find two copies: one representing a Byzantine coin depicting a star inside the horns of the New Moon (see the flag of Turkey and of other Muslim states) and a similar event as depicted by the pre-Columbian astronomers of Peru.
    Cultural blindspots prevent people from seeing things that are perfectly obvious in other cultures. Furthermore, even within a culture that is capable of perceiving something, individuals usually cannot see things until they are educated to them (like the Gestalt Psychology does). Exactly, like Moses was educating his people by giving them the ordinance to look out for the New Moons.
    So try it for yourself and you’ll see with your naked eyes. You’ll see the blue sky through the “cutout” of the new moon, and sometimes the black part of it, which, obviously blocks the view of the blue sky, but not always, contrary to Galileo’s claim. And then, you will be bound to ask yourself the question, is Venus a body too if I can see blue sky through the cutout of its crescent. And then, maybe, you will admit that the earth created by G-d as our homeland is totally unique in the Universe. Exactly, like the Torah claims. Everything up there is to remind us of times, and seasons, and years and of other events important for our lives. And then you’ll find easily the answer to the question why God created the heaven first: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — February 8, 2008 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  1628. Roman Pytel- still the smartest man in the thread.

    “LoL I’m finally convinced this post is satire.”

    Wrong.

    “Sysyphus, at comment 1585 I wrote a calm, kind reply to your post. I’m curious to know what you think of it, could you please let us know about it?”

    I think Kepler was even worse than Galileo and Copernicus, Einstein was a Hippie flake, and all of them made gross assumptions about “outer space” and the nature of our planet’s shape, and of the celestial bodies. Assumptions with which I staunchly disagree. If you read some of the other posts I’ve written, it will become apparent why.

    Comment by Sisyphus — February 8, 2008 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  1629. If you read some of the other posts I’ve written, it will become apparent why.

    …you’re an idiot?

    Comment by Dio Brando — February 8, 2008 @ 4:33 pm | Reply

  1630. As far as I understod, the principal reason for you to reject Einstein, Newton and Kepler is that the calculations could be convenient either considering the earth as moving or thinking of it as still, as motion is relative. Did I get this well?

    If so, I must make you notice that STRAIGHT UNIFORM motion is relative: that is, the only relative motion is the one at constant speed and in a straight line (or constant velocity, if you prefer: velocity is the speed plus the direction of movement).

    But while something is rotating then its motion is not straight, and thus it is possible to tell wheter or not you are moving. Once, when I was at the science museum in Paris, i entered a room which (after the people got in, of course) started spinning around its axis. The room had no windows, so you couldn’t see what was outside. As the room was spinning, we didn’t see anythyng which could have made us think we were spinning, but we did feel like if there were a force pushing us towards the walls of the room, increasing as we got closer the walls: it was the centrifugal force.

    If you feel centrifugal force, you bet you are rotating. You can sense the same thing if you spin very fast holding a rope with a weight ( a yoyo will do), because you would see the weight rising in the air as you spin.

    Besides, like this you have answered me on the first point of my (and your) list. Could you tell us about the others as well?

    Comment by dandus — February 9, 2008 @ 7:10 am | Reply

  1631. What requires more faith? Believing in a Creator, or in the philosophy of Oops? Is “oops” the best that materialism can come up with? Is oops truly a more rational conclusion than design? It would take more faith than I could possibly muster in order for me to accept that the universe is simply a product of oops. Especially in light of modern scientific discoveries that continually point toward a supernatural explanation. While evolution is indeed a fact, Darwinism grows ever more faint. Materialists cling to the corpse of Darwin, using not science or reason to hold their position, but rather sophistry and rhetoric.The Earth however, does indeed move.

    Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.

    Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.


    From Darwin to Hitler:Ideas Have Consequences

    From Darwin to Hitler:Ideas Have Consequences

    Comment by madcap — February 13, 2008 @ 6:25 am | Reply

  1632. “accept that the universe is simply a product of oops”

    No one says such a thing. darwinism says that the lifeforms who survived didn’t survive because of “oops”, but because they were the more apt to life, the ones which fitted more in environment.

    “in light of modern scientific discoveries that continually point toward a supernatural explanation”

    I don’t even know what you are taking about. what discoveries point towards the supernaturals?

    Comment by dandus — February 13, 2008 @ 9:54 am | Reply

  1633. “Once, when I was at the science museum in Paris,”

    Well Hell boy that’s your problem! You were in the homosexual capital of Europe, the center of poofdaism and you were in a temple of atheist darwin worship at that!

    what do you expect to happen but that demons would come and push you around. What you felt was not these imaginary “forces” but the hand of Lucifer! ‘

    You had better get on your knees and pray God dosen’t throw you over the side of the Earth

    Comment by Marty McPain — February 13, 2008 @ 10:09 am | Reply

  1634. “What you felt was not these imaginary “forces” but the hand of Lucifer!”

    (wordless)

    (still wordless)

    I hope you are being sarcastic. 😐

    Build a room like the one I described (a very fast carousel will do, if you put curtains on the perimeter so that if you are inside can’t see what’s outside and viceversa), and you can bet your life it feels the exact same way in arkansas, in Jerusalem or in Bagdad.

    Besides, if you spin holding the rope of a yoyo in your hand it still raises.

    And you feel the “hand on lucifer” even when you are in your car and take a sharp curve.

    Comment by dandus — February 13, 2008 @ 11:46 am | Reply

  1635. “Build a room like the one I described ”

    You must be insane! Why would I build a temple to the Devil? You may want to be Satan’s boyfriend but I sure don’t.

    You have some strange ideas.

    Comment by Marty McPain — February 13, 2008 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

  1636. I’m not sure wether a revolving room is automatically a temple to the devil…

    Look, just drive in a curve and you’ll feel like if someone is pushing you away from . That one is centrifugal force.

    Comment by dandus — February 13, 2008 @ 2:04 pm | Reply

  1637. holy [spit]…. why are Americans so stupid?

    Comment by swede — February 19, 2008 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

  1638. The Renaissance Paradigm Shift

    When emperor Hadrian captured Jerusalem, he changed the name of the city of David to Aelia Capitolina, erected there altars to all the gods and forbade the Jews to observe the rite of circumcision. In Ad 135 emperor Hadrian founded in Rome the school of philosophy, oratory and literature which he called Atheneum. The unique status of the goddess Athene, the patroness of Athens is implicit in the story of her motherless birth – she was born directly from Zeus’s brain, so she could be called Logos! With the help of this school the Roman emperors will try to transform the Christianity of Jerusalem into Catholicism at Rome.

    During most of his political career, Constantine seems to have thought that the Unconquered Sun and the Christian God were compatible – perhaps two view of the same Supreme deity – and that the other gods, although subordinate, were nevertheless real and relatively powerful. Thus, on occasion, he would consult the oracle of Apollo, accept the title of High Priest, or Pontiff that had traditionally been the prerogative of emperors, and partake of all sorts of pagan ceremonies without thinking that he was thus betraying or abandoning the God who had given him victory and power. The ancient gods were far from forgotten. Christianity had made very little progress among the old aristocracy and the rural masses. There were in the army many followers of Mithra and other gods.

    GALILEO’S CIRCLET

    Using his method of squaring circle Kepler turned Copernican circles into ellipses. Newton who embraced Kepler’s method adopted also his ellipses. But Galileo rejected Kepler’s “improvement” and retained Copernicus’s circular orbits.

    Galileo’s own drawing of the heavens, published in his Dialogue in 1632, explains why he retained circular orbits. The circle in the middle of the zodiac is not the sun; it is the orbit of the sun, which is marked by the circlet on the circumference. Galileo, exactly like Copernicus, viewed the sun as the mythological sun god driving his chariot in a circle.

    Consider these lines by Shakespeare:

    Hark, Hark! The lark at heaven’s gate sings,
    And Phoebus’s gins arise.

    Middle English ginne was short for Old French engine. Gin-horse moves in a circle or track.

    The Academy of Athens and the Museum of Alexandria, the two great centers of learning of the time, were devoted to the study of ancient pagan wisdom. An imperial decree could not undo all this – not yet, anyway. And in any case the emperor himself, who saw no contradiction between the Unconquered Sun and the Incarnate Son, was not inclined to issue such a decree. And this tradition endured for centuries. Renaissance Pope Pius II (1458-64) believed that the Roman Empire had fallen because the scholars had deserted paganism for the Papacy. After Giovanni di Medici was elected Pope Leo X (1475-1521) a lampoon was posted on the Pasquino Navona to the effect that Giovanni might make a good Pope if only he believed in God. Rome greeted death of Pope Adrian VI’s after only one-year pontificate with great joy. Some believed that he was poisoned by his physician. Rome does not tolerate a Christian Pope.

    Statements of speculative philosophy were termed by Latin writers: decreta, scita, placita, axiomata, enunciata, effata. Cicero replaced all these terms by one: dogmata. Inquisition was not an invention of the Catholic Church; already Plato wanted to defend his dogma with help of such institution.

    Galileo turned his telescope to Saturn and wrote to J. Kepler: “Altissimum planetam tergemium observavi” (I have observed that the farthest planet is threefold). The last word of Galileo’s solution is especially revealing. He does not advocate his conclusion by stating “I conjecture,” “I infer,” or “it seems to me that the best interpretation is…” Galileo simply said: I have observed it; I have seen it with my own eyes.

    In 1975 Prof. S. Sambursky, a friend of Einstein’s introduced Copernicus to the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities as “the man who initiated this era of modern science…as the man who by the sheer force of imagination broke the chains of sense perception, the ingenious discoverer of a scientific truth involving one of the greatest revolutions in man’s view of the world.” (See, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, vol. V, No. 11).

    Truth is that “astronomers can see nothing” beyond the “shell of radiation”. What they claim to see is fabricated and computer programmed, as this scientist who is beginning to smell a very big rat notes: “It is well to remember that a great deal of modern cosmology, especially when its practitioners are trying to predict its destiny and retrodict its origin, is sheer mathematical manipulation and evolutionary philosophical imagination. ‘It ain’t necessarily so!” 

    Consider the case of the planet Saturn as seen by Galileo. When he turned his telescope on Saturn in 1610 he saw Saturn to be not a single star, but three together, which almost touch each other, he wrote. His telescope was magnifying just 20 times, so it showed the rings but made them appear as lobes on either side of the planet. Galileo was puzzled when the lobes vanished a few years later.

    He abjured nothing about his previous observations, or about the righteousness of the empirical method in general. He merely made a classical allusion to the myth about the planet’s “bodacious” eponym:

    “But in the past few days I returned to it and found it to be solitary, without its customary supporting stars, and as perfectly round and sharply bounded as Jupiter. Now what can be said of this strange metamorphosis? That the two lesser stars have been consumed? … Has Saturn devoured his children? Or was it indeed an illusion and a fraud with which the lenses of my telescope deceived me for so long?”

    Most likely, the threefold body of Saturn as seen by Galileo was inspired by the classical depictions of the planet in which the two snakes driving the chariot of the god Saturn match the delusional vision of Galileo. Possibly, there is a direct link between Galileo’s observations and a fancy dress worn by Elizabeth I, Queen of England as depicted in her portrait preserved in Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York.

    Einstein himself admitted, “When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.” The word “fantasy” equates, of course, with such things as: “delusion, illusion, misconception, trick, fool’s paradise, self-deception, hallucination, false light, figment of the imagination, something unsubstantial, thin air, mockery”, etc.

    Benedict XVI vs. John Paul II

    In the 1980s pope John Paul II started the process of rehabilitation of Galileo. He convened a commission of scientists, historians and theologians to review the case. They reached the amazing conclusion that the judges who condemned Galileo had been wrong. By 1984 it seemed that the Catholic Church was ready to admit that the Bible may not be the most reliable guide to the way the universe actually works. John Paul acknowledged that the Bible should not be taken literally because “the intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach how to go to heaven and not how to get to the heavens.”

    But on March 15, 1990 speaking at La Sapienza, the then Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the church had been quite right to try and punish Galileo and he quoted the Austrian philosopher Paul Feyerabend, who said: “At the time of Galileo the church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just.” Obviously the current pope wants to retreat from John Paul II’s position.

    The authorities at La Sapienza University had invited Pope Benedict XVI to come and speak at the inauguration of the new academic year, but the physics department mobilized in protest and the pope was forced to cancel his appearance.

    The controversy began when in November 2007 an emeritus professor of physics, Marcello Cini, wrote an open letter to the rector of La Sapienza, published by the communist newspaper Il Manifesto. In this letter Cini launched a ferocious attack on the rector for having invited the pope. Cini claimed that pope Benedict’s right to speak would signal a leap backwards of at least 300 years. Cini attempted to discredit the pope’s conviction that reason and faith are compatible ,because in his opinion this idea is merely the continuation of the battle against science which was fought by the inquisition and would serve no other purpose than to impose religious dogma and pseudo-scientific methods.

    In the opinion of the former Vatican spokesperson Navarro-Valls, particularly emblematic was one of the slogans put up by a protestor, who offered the saying: “science is secular!” Indeed, because the use of an adjective such as “secular” is quite curious in defense of a value that’s been sacrosanct for at least seven centuries, which is the autonomy and freedom of research in the university. What is the exact meaning of the secular humanism?

    During the Enlightenment, Gnostic Luciferianism was disseminated on the popular level as secular humanism. All of the governing precepts of Gnostic Luciferianism are encompassed by secular humanism. This is made evident by the philosophy’s rejection of theistic morality and enthronement of man as his own absolute moral authority. While Gnostic Luciferianism has no sacred texts, Humanist Manifesto I and II succinctly delineate its central tenets. Whittaker Chambers, former member of the communist underground in America, eloquently summarizes this truth:
    “Humanism is not new. It is, in fact, man’s second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil: ‘Ye shall be as gods.'”

    I doubt that Cini and his co-religionists throughout the world would ask a Muslim religious representative to issue a “mea culpa” for the persecution of Averroes, a vile heliocentric atheist before setting foot in “La Sapienza.” According to the well-known psychological rule, the thoughtless multitude of the Buddhists turned the atheistic Buddha into their new god and according to the same rule the learned world venerates Copernicus, Galileo, Newton as new gods ruling supreme over Science. This Science is personified in front of La Sapienza by the statue of the goddess Minerva, a Roman counterpart of the Greek Athene who was depicted in a dress adorned with swastikas. (Google Images of Athene)
    Quite recently La Sapienza took the responsibility not only for hosting and organizing the worldwide meeting of university rectors, but above all for making the complex proposal for the development of a “new humanism for the third millenium.” Or Global Science for the Third Reich of the Third Millenium.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — February 22, 2008 @ 1:54 pm | Reply

  1639. […] our national discourse. Even better, this site has a post called, I kid you not once more, “Heliocentrism Is An Atheist Doctrine,” along with a rambling diatribe about demons taking up snowboarding. Once again I find […]

    Pingback by “And Yet It Moves” « A Tale Told by an Idiot — February 22, 2008 @ 6:24 pm | Reply

  1640. This is hilarious…

    Comment by God — February 24, 2008 @ 3:52 am | Reply

  1641. “but above all for making the complex proposal for the development of a “new humanism for the third millenium.”

    Roman Pytel, humanism is linguistically a “false friend”, that is a word that in English has a meaning and in another language has another. THe pope himself has stated he waits for the humanism to be listened everywhere in the world, as in Italian it means simply the proprierty of being “human”, that is compassionable, reasonable, thinking et cetera.

    “Or Global Science for the Third Reich of the Third Millenium.”

    Im sorry, this is a plain lie, in iItaly apology of fascism and nazism is illegal. Besides, why should we praise the individuals who brought us ruin and shame?

    Please do some research before copy-paste your poems.

    Comment by dandus — February 27, 2008 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  1642. […] a poster of the Ptolemaic System on my wall. My sarcasmometer has completely broken while reading this blog. Where to begin… how about… THE BEGINNING! What’s even worse than the debate raging […]

    Pingback by Baneverything.org » I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…. — February 29, 2008 @ 9:05 pm | Reply

  1643. “Using his method of squaring circle Kepler turned Copernican circles into ellipses.”

    Kepler, like many, many people, may have tried squaring the circle; it wasn’t proved impossible until 1882. However, squaring the circle has nothing to do with ellipses.

    “Newton who embraced Kepler’s method adopted also his ellipses.”

    Newton realized, and proved, that an inverse-square attractive force causes objects to move in elliptic paths. He embraced Kepler’s reasoning on the motions of planets because it was correct.

    ############

    On quite another topic:
    Folks, when are you going to drop this nonsense? Not only has Brownback given up, but Saint Huckabee (who, it would seem, would like to make the USA into a theocracy) is out of the running too. There’s no one left for you to support, apparently. Stop wasting your (and our) time!

    Comment by L'Ingénu — March 5, 2008 @ 4:17 am | Reply

  1644. The Fake Passion of Galileo Galilei

    Cicero, popularizing the Pythagorean heliocentrism in his Dream of Scipio, speaks of the sun as “the Lord,. Chief and Ruler of the other lights, the mind and guiding principle of the universe.” Invicta Roma was the empire of Sol Invictus or Kosmokrator (Ruler of Cosmos) and as such was “destined to rule the whole world” (Virgil).

    When Rome succumbed to Jesus it did not embrace him as a Jewish teacher, a Rabbi, but as the sun god Helios (Apollo) whose halo used to symbolize the divine rank of Roman emperors as it now symbolizes the rank of sainthood. In other words, Jesus was naturalized as a Roman Catholic.

    For centuries the Roman propaganda, especially Cicero’s, proclaimed that the Jews were “a nation born to servitude” like all other “barbarians.” Therefore, from the historical Jesus of the Jews Rome wanted to disassociate itself once for all, or to replace him by Santa Claus. The first step in this direction was made when the basic notion of the heliocentrism and evolutionism were introduced into the “Ciceronian” Latin Vulgate. The notions of heliocentric jargon are ever present in Schoolmen’s works, including Thomas Aquinas’s.

    Naturally, three years after publication of Copernicus’s The Revolutions the Vulgate was recognized as “authentic” during the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent.. A. Hitler grasped the full meaning of this “recognition” when he mocked the Hebrew Bible as “Jewish folklore and therefore contemptible nonsense. And his ideologue, A. Rosenberg proclaimed to the whole world that “the earth-entered Jew lacks the soul.” Because for the Romans, slaves, like animals, were deprived of souls.

    Sola Ecclesia vs. Sola Scriptura

    There is this key event which unmasks the papal policy behind the promotion of the pagan heliocentrism and, at the same time, unravels all behind-the-scenes manipulations leading to what now can be perceived as the Galileo Show Trial of which the real purpose was to turn this ham mathematician into the True Martyr and the Idol of future generations of heliocentric scientists. Keep in mind that the protagonist of heliocentrism in Galileo’s Dialogues who fronts for Galileo himself is called Salviati a variant of Salvator or Savior.

    The main object of the Council of Trent was to face the religious challenge to papal authority expressed in the famous slogan Sola Scriptura. For the Reformation the ultimate authority which should be taken into consideration while disputing the problems of faith was to be the Bible and not the papal encyclicals or decrees.

    This challenge was dealt with at the last opening on the 18th of January, 1562, all hesitation was set aside: Gaspar de Fosso, the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed circumcision into baptism, Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion was destroyed, and it was declared that tradition does not signify antiquity, but continual inspiration. (http://biblelight.net/bssb-1443-1444.htm)

    So the letter of Cardinal Schoenberg printed together with Copernicus’s book meant just that: the Church has the authority to reject the Biblical geocentrism and replace it with pagan heliocentrism. Sure, such a statement was never proclaimed officially but the church officials were well aware of the feeling of superiority of the Church over the Bible.

    Using the language of Archbishop de Fosso we could say: Circumcision, Sabbath and Geocentrismn have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching (for he says that He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the Church. You see, you have to believe in heliocentrism not because it is the truth but because the Church says it is the Scientific Truth.

    Also arising from the council was a greater concern regarding decorum in art; the Council recognized the positive function art could serve, such as inspiring devotion. These concerns as illuminated by the Council of Trent and subsequent publications sponsored by the church all played a factor in the reception of Michelangelo’s work.

    Michelangelo included references to Dante and paganism, such as the mythic boatman Charon. In Dante’s De Monarchia the “divine predestination” of the Roman people as the world ruling power is derived not from interpretations of the Hebrew prophets or from the appointments of Peter but proved from the genealogical tree of Aeneas and Creusa. Race and not religion is the decisive thing for Dante.

    The Mind of the Pope who allegedly persecuted Galileo

    Urban’s lasting legacy was the Latin hymns of Catholicism, which were revised and rewritten, not only under his orders, but also with his active participation. The early Church chose to favor biblical canticles and psalms for its liturgy. One commentator on Urban’s “improvements” has wisely observed that “Ambrose and Prudentius took something classical (i.e. pagan) and made it Christian; the revisers and their imitators took something Christian and tried to make it classical (pagan). The result may be sometimes perhaps poetry; but it is not piety.”

    It was totally in the style of the English so-called Leda Bible which was so named from the decoration in the initial at the Epistle to the Hebrews which is a startling and incongruous woodcut of Jupiter visiting Leda in the guise of a swan. This and other decorations in the New Testament were taken from an edition of Ovid’s “Metamorphoses!” The Leda Bible also known as the Bishops’ Bible became the backbone of the King James Version.

    In harmony with the perennial Roman tradition Pope Urban VIII turned to magic and astrology for protection. He had astrologers cast the horoscopes of cardinals resident in Rome to find out when they would die; the details of his own horoscope were common currency in every street. Urban also ordered T. Campanella to perform a magical ceremony to protect him from the effects of an imminent lunar eclipse. Campanella, who had been arrested and imprisoned in 1589 for promoting classical communism and defending Galileo, had been released only a short time before the pope sent for him at the beginning of 1628.

    In a ritual which Campanella seems to have devised for the occasion, a room in the Lateran palace was sealed; its walls were hung with white silk and sweet-smelling herbs and other substances were burned. Two large lamps represented the sun and moon, while other signs of the zodiac were present and astrological music, relating to Jupiter and Venus was played by people immune to evil astral influences. The intention was to create an alternative model of the heavens with favorable conjunctions of the stars and planets, whereby the malign effect of the lunar eclipse would be negated. The magical ceremony which Urban ordered T. Campanella to perform to ward off harm from a lunar eclipse and which incorporated the signs of the zodiac into an elaborate, far-from-Christian ceremony had been devised by Galileo when he taught mathematics at the University of Padua.

    Astrology was built on the premise that the supralunary world of celestial bodies in constant motion influenced terrestrial events through the transmission of rays of light imparted with divine power. The human body was presumed to be a microscopic representation of the larger macrocosm of the universe. Celestial motion, combined with the qualities of individual celestial “bodies”, affected the four humors of the human body by imparting these light rays. In this way, celestial influence was held to be one of the most important determining factors that doctors considered when attempting to deal with human ailment.

    If a doctor found that his patient’s horoscope predicted an early death, he could be more relaxed about the treatment because it would be ultimately useless. In 1608, the grand duchess of Tuscany, Christina wrote to Galileo asking him to cast a horoscope for her ill husband, Ferdinand I. Galileo wrote back on Jan 16, 1609, predicting a long life. Ferdinand died 22 days later. And that explains why Urban had chosen Campanella over Galileo to perform the magical ceremony.

    That explains why Christian intellectuals considered astrological beliefs to represent an irreconcilable conflict with God’s omnipotence. This was one of the issues for Parisian theologians who were involved in formulating the 219 Condemnations of 1277.

    In 1301 the French astrologer Arnaud de Villeneuve prescribed the use of an astrological image for pope Boniface VIII’s kidney stone. Campanella’s two large lamp representing the sun and moon belong to the same department of astrology. Both de Villeneuve and Campanella were educated on the Arab astrologer Thabit’s De imaginibus, a work articulating methods one may use to harness and direct celestial influence. The same method was used by the Queen of the British witches Sybil Leek while she was lecturing the NASA astronauts on her “scientific” astrology. Well, St. Thomas Aquinas went so far as to suggest that all terrestrial events depend upon celestial influence.

    As late as 1799 the professor of astronomia at the University of Bologna was still required to produce an annual almanac for medical use. Professor Bernard Capp in his book English Almanacs 1500-1800: Astrology and the Popular Press (Cornell University Press, 1979) examined the contacts between members of the Royal Society in England and astrologers, and the concomitant continuing perception of astrology as a valuable academic discipline in 17th-century England.
    Despite the religious opposition it encountered, a system of astrology based on Greek learning was quite attractive to the sophisticated intellectuals of the eighth and ninth -century Arabic world and those who employed them, because it promised to explain the universe in terms of a well-defined structure of interrelated “bodies” interacting in a predictable and logical fashion. Astrologers associated God not with the God of the Bible but with the Aristotelian Prime Mover or a huge engine setting in motion machina mundi.
    Prime mover imparts motion to the sphere of Saturn, which in turn imparts motion of the Sphere of Jupiter and so forth, all the way down to the terrestrial realm, where earthly creatures receive the influence of the Prime Mover, altered by passage through each of the planetary spheres. The planets in this system could be best described as “cog-wheels”. In this way astrology was not far removed from modern mechanistic theories that are attractive, in part, because of their regularity and ability to explain the universe in a consistent mechanical manner. Let me remind in this context Dr. Jarvik’s cold mechanical heart for a robot which can never replace the warm human heart. We cannot eat clock-work oranges. Can we?
    Astrologers supplemented these mechanistic principles by ascribing characteristics to each zodiacal sign and planetary body based upon Egyptian and Roman mythology.
    Another Arab astrologer, Al-Bitruji’s book De motibus caelorum can be credited with with effective undermining of geocentric astronomy of the Bible. He postulated the existence of a set of poles for each planet, thus taking into account individual planetary rotations, rather than the single set of poles for the rotation of the universe around the Earth.

    We may say that pope Urban VIII shared a folk belief in the ancient Mediterranean which was branded by the Bible as a superstition. Divination or “prophecy” through reading the signs and portents of the sky became also part of the state religion at Rome. There was a group of official priests known as augurs whose functions included reading omen in the sky. It turns out that Christianity did not eliminate the appeal of astrology to superstitious masses but actually reinforced it by establishing chairs of astrology in the centers of learning such as, for instance, La Sapienza.
    In the world where Copernicus’s sun god (Prime Mover) reigns supreme the Palestinians replaced the Jews as a “new chosen people”. They are showered billions of dollars for just being there and exterminating the “backward, superstitious Jews” who refuse to believe in Arab astrology embraced by the learned world as par excellence Science. The ancient wisdom warns, One of God’s (not Prime Mover’s) side is a majority. And that explains why the Jews are still with us and surely will survive a new flood of anti-Semitic propaganda and violence here and elsewhere.
    Otherwise, we would be living in a cruel and inhuman world of Virgil’s heliorobots “sacrificing” their own children:
    I see…humanity in deadly sleep…
    For Bacon and Newton, sheath’d in dismal steel,
    Their terrors hang
    Like iron scourges over Albion…
    …cruel works
    Of many wheels I view, wheel within wheel, with cogs tyrannic
    W. Blake, Jerusalem

    Comment by Roman Pytel — March 8, 2008 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  1645. “It turns out that Christianity did not eliminate the appeal of astrology to superstitious masses but actually reinforced it by establishing chairs of astrology in the centers of learning such as, for instance, La Sapienza.”

    This might be true (though I doubt it; please cite your sources) but is for sure no more than a half-truth. We, the students of La Sapienza, never had a professor of astrology since, at the very least 200 years. Probably when your country was founded we had already stopped studying astrology (not to be confounded with astronomy, which are two different things) at university. Maybe astrology had already been banned when Cristoforo Colombo showed the world your country existed at all.

    @ Sisyphus: please, tell me more of the experiments that prove that there is no earth movement, I am waiting to learn more about them.

    Comment by dandus — March 9, 2008 @ 9:42 am | Reply

  1646. Heliocentrism is Astrology

    G.J. Von Lauchen aka Rheticus was the only pupil of N. Copernicus. After having spent two years with Copernicus in Frauenburg (Frombork) he went to Danzig where he published his Narratio Prima or the First Report (1540) which is still considered to be the best introduction to Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. In 1542 Rheticus traveled to Nuernberg to supervise the printing of the Copernicus’ book by Johannes Petreius.

    A short passage in his Narratio (p. 465,12; 462,22,35) is the best key unlocking the astrological taproot of De revolutionibus. In this passage he refers to the sun not only as God’s steward of nature and king of all distinguished with divine Majesty, but also explains that the sun, like the heart in a body, guides the stars: like a ruler who does not need to go to various towns in order to execute his official duty, so the heart does not have to go to head, to feet, or to other part of the body in order to sustain life. This was a perennial mantra of all heliocentric astrologers throughout the ages. Let me decode this passage for you

    Vedic Astrology is called “Jyotish” in Sanskrit Jyoti = Light + Isha=Lord = “Lords of Light” or “Science of Light” i.e. Heliocentrism. Jyotish i.e. Astrology was considered the most important part of the Vedas. In Hindu Pantheism the universe is evolving from the central Sun, the POINT (puru, like that of Big Bang), the ever-concealed germ. The central Sun is Deity – the World Soul. It is also the Chakra or circle of Vishnu.

    The Babylonian astrologers were describing the sun as the fiery heart of the world, which vivifies the whole of this great organism, and as the stars obey its command, it reigns supreme over the universe. The radiance of its splendor illuminates the divine immensity of the heavens, but at the same time in its brilliance there is intelligence; it is the origin of all reason, and, as a tireless sower it scatters unceasingly on the world below the seeds of a harvest of souls. Our brief life is but a particular form of the universal life…

    Ancient Egyptians expressed the same dogma as follows: “The heart is the center, its vessels lead to all the members; whether the doctor…lays his finger on the forehead, on the back of the head, on the hands, on the place of the stomach, on the arms, or on the feet, everywhere he meets with the heart (i.e. pulse) because its vessels lead to all the members.” The heart was therefore called also “the beginning of all the members.”

    ‘As Above, so Below’ proclaimed the basic, Hermetic dogma of astrology and the Greeks expressed the same idea in two corresponding terms: macrocosm and microcosm that suggested the same patterns were reproduced in all levels of the cosmos, from the largest scale (macrocosm or universe-level) all the way down to the smallest scale (microcosm, or sub-sub-atomic level). Now you better understand why the model of the atom mirrors the structure of the solar system.

    In the dialogue Philebus (28d-30d), Plato argued that human beings and the universe are both composed of an elemental body and a rational soul, and that just as the human body derives from the universe’s body, the human soul must derive from the universe’s soul. The universe is, therefore, not only an orderly system but an intelligent organism as well. Plato expounded this theme at greater length in the Timaeus (29d-47e), where he explained how the structure of the human being parallels that of the universe through certain correspondences in body and soul. Just as the body of the universe is spherical, and its soul is composed of orbits along which the planets wander, so too the soul of the human being is composed of orbits along which its emotions rove.

    It was possible to envision the zodiac as a great man lying in a circle with his head at Aries and his feet at Pisces (exactly like the Hindu purusha). And because of the astrological associations of planets with the zodiacal signs, the correlation of the heavens with man was both anatomical and psychological. For since the planets had definite temperaments, the zodiacal man had not only control over the various parts of our bodies but the planets influenced our souls as well.

    In one of the Hermetic fragments preserved by Stobaeus (5th century AD), we find that the planets are actually in us. That is why we breathe, shed tears, laugh, grow angry, beget children, sleep, speak, and have desires. For tears come from Zeus, speech from Hermes, anger from Ares, sleep from Luna, desire from Aphrodite, and laughter from the Sun.

    In the 17th century French representation of the chakras, human body is viewed as a reduced solar system in which heart (nous) corresponds with the sun (nous). In Descartes’s philosophy heart is a hot vessel, kind of ionization chamber setting in circular motion (Cp. Bohr’s model of the atom) electrons and ions within the nervous system to originate a thought within the brain. Tantric Buddhists use practices known as chandali to let energy rise through the chakras to help towards enlightenment symbolized by aureola around the head.

    The sun placed on the chest of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fra Angelico in his portrait of the Doctor Angelicus expresses the same idea which Rhetikus formulated in words in his Narratio. The astrological correspondence between the sun and the human heart was always present in Greek language in which the noun nous has double meaning: sun and heart. Accordingly, the astrologers Vettius, Valens, Rhetorius, Proclus referred to sun as φώς νοέρόν (intelligent light which may produce intelligent design).

    Biblical Medicine vs. Heliocentric cardiology

    The event that caused the title “father of modern biology” to be bestowed upon William Harvey was his discovery, in the early 1600s, that the ordinary engineering principles that govern the pumping and flow of liquids are capable of accounting for the functions performed by the heart, an organ that had previously been thought to belong in the realm of unknowable.

    According to Encyclopedia Americana W. Harvey whose description of the circulation of blood through the body established the first principle of modern physiology and medicine, was a staunch follower of Aristotle and adopted his basic vitalism. His views on the circulation of the blood reflect the Aristotelian theories of the central, sunlike, monarchical role of the heart. In other words, Harvey viewed human heart as the Aristotelian prime mover and thus promoted mechanistic thinking in biology. And although the concept of the heart as a pump is absent from Harvey’s great work Anatomical exercises concerning the motion of the heart and blood in animals, the idea does occur in a set of his lecture notes on anatomy.

    We have two competing views on human life: “The life of all flesh is the blood thereof” (Lev 17:14; Dt. 12:33) and Bushnell’s view that “The life of man is his heart” which was inspired by the Harvey doctrine of the heart. It is easy to prove the superiority of the Biblical insight into functioning of human body. We influence the composition of our blood in two ways: by inhaling the mixture of gases called air and by taking in our daily foods. You’ll grasp the paramount import of the Biblical dietary laws while reflecting on a simple case of one of diseases caused by an acute deficiency in the amount of glucose in the blood. Hypoglycemia which causes nervous syndromes such as psychastenia, neurasthenia, muscular asthenia, migraine, petit mal, narcolepsy, epilepsy, and psychosis can be cured very fast and easily by observing a simple diet. We can slow down or speed up movements of our hearts by taking various foods or drugs.
    If we inmhale a polluted air and take in poisonous foods we can even damage our internal organs including heart (think about alcohol and liver). And the heart of the cosmic man (purusha) won’t fix the failures of our hearts.
    Interestingly the term “Magisterium” denoting the teaching of the Catholic Church also means “philosopher’s stone.” Following the tradition of Aristotle who was raised by Th. Aquinas to the rank of a Church Doctor the medieval alchemist believed that man’s body, like all other material things, was composed of four elements, earth, air, fire and water. Each individual had his own particular mixture of these – his temperamentum, as they called it. This was determined at conception and birth by the influence of the constellations and planets. The aptitudes, weaknesses and chances of success or failure of each human being sprang from his elemental composition. Since no one had been properly mixed since Adam, the problem emerged of discovering some sovereign remedy – secretum maximum – which would cleanse and rectify man’s composition and so produce a superman, full of physical and mental vigor and enjoying a life prolonged through many joyous centuries. Hence the persistent search for the Elixir, or philosopher’s stone, which should produce these marvelous results, as well as transform the baser metals into gold, which, in ancient Egypt, was known to be the flesh of the sun.

    A popular encyclopedia of medieval heliocentric astrology compiled by M. Capella was titled The Marriage of Mercury and Philology (De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii). The celestial marriage described by M. Capella inspired two best-known scientists of the Renaissance era: Girolamo Fracastoro (1478-1553) physician and poet, and N. Copernicus (1473-1543) also physician, poet and astrologer. In his long poem, Fracastoro argues that the infecting semina of syphilis may arise from poisonous emanations sparked by planetary conjunctions. He even invokes a linguistic parallel between transmission of syphilis by sexual contact (coitus) and the production of bad seeds by planetary overlap in the sky, for he describes the astronomical phenomenon with the same word, as “coitum et conventum syderum” (the coitus and conjunction of stars), particularly our three most distant bodies: Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars. In other words, Fracastoro was led in his speculations by the perennial astrological principle: “As Above, so Below”. And so was Copernicus. I wonder, are there gay planets too? Possibly, that would, heliocentrically speaking, explain the cause of AIDS.

    Coipernicus’ expression “family of stars” suggests what Fracastoro described as “coitum et conventum syderum” and what follows logically polytheism! In one of the Thanksgiving Psalms from Qumran caves, God is addressed as “the Prince of the gods and the King of the venerable ones, and the Lord of every spirit, and the Master of every work.” This god whose rays the Essenes avoided to offend while defecating is the same sun god whom Copernicus describes as “sitting on the royal throne and reigning the surrounding family of stars.” E. Halley found the same astrological belief in Newton’s work. In his preface to the first edition of “Principia” he wrote some complimentary verses in Latin, ending in the line, “Nec fas est proprius mortali attingere divos” (it is not allowed to any mortal to come closer to the gods).

    Let me contrast this pagan teaching with Christian lore as expressed by Tatian, a zealous young Syrian convert in his “Address to the Greeks”, which begins by attacking Greek philosophy and religion, and ends by denouncing Roman government and law. Tatian wants to show the Greeks – which he takes to mean “pagans” – their demoniacally induced delusions. Tatian says that baptism breaks the bonds that once bound us to destiny and to nature. Now, he says, we are superior to destiny, and instead of worshiping planets and daimones, we have come to know one Lord. We do not follow the guidance of destiny; rather, we reject those daimones who established it. Don Quixote, conceived initially as an elaborate parody of the “false and absurd” romances of chivalry is actually the parody of Jesus Christ fighting demons. Natural force of moving air driving windmills would be identified by the ancient philosophers as demon formerly known under the name Hera.

    There seems to be a broad Jewish-Christian consensus on the following historical findings: that Jesus was born the son of the carpenter and Miriam; that he grew up with several brothers and sisters; that he had himself baptized by John; that he broke with his own family, his mother, brothers and sisters, and gathered a group of disciples around himself; that already in Galilee he found himself embroiled in a deepening conflict with the Jewish authorities; that as a result he found less and less response from the people. The Gospel of Mark says that when Jesus “went home his family went out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is insane (or beside himself)’” (3.21) The wording of the Greek text of Mark indicates that it was Jesus’ family (hoi peri autou) who went to seize him (3:21) and his family who were saying that he was insane (3:22). Many translators, however, apparently finding the obvious reading objectionable, have worded their translation in ways that avoid attributing such acts and beliefs to his family. The Revised Standard Version, for example, adds several words that suggest that his family intended to protect him from the hostile suspicions of outsiders: “When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind’”. But such a translation misses the point. What Mark wanted to point out in this passage was the fact, that Jesus’ mother true to her Jewish roots was highly alerted by her son’s acceptance of the pagan belief in demons. Possibly she knew that Socrates was charged with atheism because of his belief that all the gods Homer praised were actually evil energies (daimones) that corrupted people, “seducing women and sodomizing boys,” and terrorized people into worshiping them as gods. Interestingly, in the same Gospel (Mk 10:18) Jesus emphatically denied that he was God and even reminded the Ten Commandments to prove that he was true to his and his mother’s Jewish religion. But later he was converted by Roman hierarchs into astrology. They even tried to convert the whole Jewish nation by praying during the Good Friday service of Easter Week:
    For the conversion of Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness.
    And I wonder, who is the God they try to convert the Jews to?

    Comment by Roman Pytel — March 21, 2008 @ 4:48 pm | Reply

  1647. Which rational being would choose to believe a more-than-two-millenia-old book on an issue that has been resolved and PROVEN to be otherwise by simple observation and excercise of logic centuries ago? That is a question I ask myself after reading Sisyphus’ article.

    Comment by Peter Nosko — March 30, 2008 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

  1648. Peter, basically this post was given up on long ago, they can’t prove a thing they say here so they moved on, now this post remains as an open forum for Roman Pytel to post his endless and mindless copypasta from books written four and five hundred years ago.

    Comment by Arn — March 30, 2008 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  1649. @ Sysiphus: if I don’t receive an answer, I’ll believe no such experiments exist. For one last time, please tell me where can i find info on these new theory.

    Comment by dandus — April 2, 2008 @ 8:07 am | Reply

  1650. Galileo’s Recantation in the Bigger Picture

    Tibetan fire god Avalokiteshvara was called the “First Word” and his “bible”- Kalkachakra Tantra promotes an obsessive solar and fire cult. The interpretation which the Russian buddhist N. Roerich and his wife Helena Ivanovna give to this book in their numerous publications may be described without any exaggeration as a “pyromaniac obsession” Isn’t the theory of Big Bang an imagination of another pyromaniac?. For them, fire becomes an autocratic primary substance that dissolves all in its flames. All other elements, out of various admixtures of which the variety of life arises, disappear in the flaming process of creation. Only after a “baptism of fire” do all the righteous proceed with “flaming hearts” to the “empire of the fiery world” in which there are no shadows.

    The shrines of the fire cult stood in the Himalayas in the distant past. Beyond the Kanchenjunga are old menhirs of the great fire cult. Beyond the Kanchenjunga is the birthplace of the swastika, sign of solar fire.

    In order to describe in general terms the Buddhocratic form of lamaist state, a term was introduced which became widespread in the relevant literature: “galactic politics” or “mandala politics”. As in a solar system, the chief monasteries of the Land of Snows orbit like planets around the highest incarnation of Tibet, the god-king and world ruler (chakravartin, lit. wheel turner, cp. Aristotle’s Prime Mover) from Lhasa, and form with him a living mandala.In Thomas Digges’ English translation of The revolutions the sun is “like the king in the middest of al who reigned and geeveth lawes of motion to ye rest.” As a solar symbol, the swastika is properly thought of as spinning and thus setting in motion the wheel of law. The Indian Nazis considered Hitler an incarnation of Vishnu, as expression of the force preserving cosmic order.

    Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, forms the cosmic center of this galaxy. Two magnificent city buildings symbolize the spiritual and worldly control of the Dalai Lama: the cathedral (the Jokhang temple) his priesthood; the palace (the Potala) his kingship. Obviously, the Fifth Dalai Lama ordered the construction of his residence on the “Red (i.e. Fiery) Mountain” (Potala). The Potala was also known as the “residence of gods”. In the heliosystem all stars and planets are being sired by the sun god and they are his “family.” The legitimate question which “gods” (planets) did not exist from the beginning can be turned around and applied to the sungod “himself”. In heliotheology, like in every polytheistic system, the term ‘god’ acquires quite a new meaning. In Hinduism, as in Jainism and Buddhism, it is possible for human beings to be spiritually superior to the Gods.

    Two Sun Kings (Le Roi Soleil) of the Galileo Age

    Historians agree that the Tibetan state was the construction of a single individual. The golden age of Lamaism begins with Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682) and also ends with him. He organized all the significant religious forms of expression of his country about himself as the shining center.

    The Great Fifth shone out at the same period as Louis XIV (1638-1715), the French sun king, and the two monarchs have often been compared to one another. Both lived from the same “divine energy”, the all-powerful sun. The god-king from Lhasa saw himself as a solar “fire god”, as the lord of his era, an incarnation of Avalokiuteshvara. The year of his birth (1617) is assigned to the “fire serpent” in the Tibetan calendar.

    The visions in which Avolekiteshvara appeared to him were frequent, and just as frequently he identified with the “fire god.” With a grand gesture he dissolved the whole world into energy fields which he attempted to control magically. Like Newton, he was considered a “grand sorcerer.”

    The pre-tantric Chakravartin (Ashoka) was believed to control the cosmos, but the Tantric world ruler is (e.g. the Dalai Lama) the cosmos itself. This equation of macrocosmic procedures and microcosmic events within the mystic body of the tantric hierarch even includes his people – he is them. The saying l’etat c’est moi (“I am the state”) rings true for both potentates of the 17th century: the Great Fifth and Louis XIV. Against such monarchic dictature we have “We people”.

    The Buddhist concept of kingship has developed into its fully autocratic form which is referred to by historians as “Caesaropapism.” In King Kanishka (2nd century E.E.) the attributes of a worldly king and those of a Buddha were completely fused with one another. Even the “coming” Buddha, Maitreya and the reigning king formed a unit. The ruler had become a savior. The Dalai Lama does not represent Buddha on earth, nor is he an intermediary, nor a reflection – he is the complete deity himself. He is a Kundun, that is, he is he is the presence of Buddha, he is a “living Buddha.”

    The Heliocentric Buddhism as the Justification for the Extermination of Jews

    At the center of the Buddhist missionary in Russia Dorijev’s activities stood the construction of the Buddhist temple in St. Petersburg. The inauguration took place in 1915, an important social event with numerous figures from public life and the official representatives of various Asian countries.

    The architects came from the West. A painter by the name of Nicholas Roerich, who later became a fanatic propagandist for Kalachakra doctrine, produced the designs for the stained-glasswindows. In the central hall various main gods from Tibetan pantheon were represented. It is of interest that there was a swastika motif which the Bolsheviks knocked out during the Second World War. The US planes in WWII were adorned with swastikas and so were the early Bolshevik ruble-bills.

    Interestingly, Dorijev along with many famous Russian orientalists, was convinced that Communism and Buddhism were compatible. He publicly proclaimed that the teaching of Shakyamuni was an “atheistic religion.”, which is correct, and that it would be wrong to describe it as “unscientific.” Long before pope John Paul II he rehabilitated Copernicus. Men in the immediate neighborhood even went so far as to celebrate the historical Buddha as the original founder of Communism and to glorify Lenin as an incarnation of the Enlightened One.

    Perhaps it is also the reason why the Bolsheviks later housed an evolutionary technology laboratory in the confiscated Kalachakra shrine of St. Petersburg and performed genetic experiments before the eyes of the Tantric terror gods. Similar experiments were also performed in this country and in the Nazi Germany.

    The Roerichs proclaimed that those who fight for Shambhala are the precursors of a new race who take control of the universe after Armageddon, “after the wheat has been separated from the chaff”. That is, to put it plainly, after all the inferior races have been eradicated in a holocaust. When they said that the purification of evil is performed by fire, they anticipated the fires of the Auschwitz crematoria.

    The sexual, tantric magic of SS was connected with racial experiments. According to a well-known Chilean neo-Nazi M. Serrano such experiments were conducted in the Wewelsburg, the occult center of the SS ; “Laboratories of lefward magic” for the re-creation of the original, pure Aryan race were to be found there. But these were nothing more than the above-ground branches of corresponding establishment in subterranean Shambhala. In Shambhala they attempted to produce a mutation of their kind which would allow them to return to that which they were before their interbreeding with the sons of man, when they still had a white, almost transparent body and blond hair i.e. like Avalokiteshvara who can appear in countless forms, 108 of which are iconographically fixed. In an official prayer, he is described as a puer aeternus (an eternal boy): “Generated from ten million rays, his body is completely white…” (maybe like that of transfigured Jesus).

    In the near future, the Fuehrer will ascend to earth from the subteraanean Shambhala for a second time, with a powerful army of UFO in fact, or, on a white horse, like the Rudra Chakrin. The “last avatar” (Hitler) will plunge the planet into a terrible apocalyptic war between the forces of light (the hyperborean Aryan race) and the powers of darkness (the Jewish race). The Jews, who “currently rule the world,” will be exterminated to the last one and the Nazis will found the Edidat Dorada (the “golden age”) and the “Fourth Reich,” the homeland of Walts and Mearsheimers.

    The Book entitled Hitler, Buddha, Krishna by Victor and Victoria Trimondi (Vienna. 2002) sets out the biographies and ideas of important Nazi ideologists, highlighting the Asian and in particular the Buddhist influence on their thought and vision.

    Religious fundamentalism and fascist totalitarianism have many things in common and tend to join forces. Acutely topical concepts such as “divine warrior,” “theocracy” and “war of religions” are also present in the neo-Nazi model. The sources of inspiration for these concepts stem less from the “Semitic” religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) than from Asian faiths.

    H. Himmler is said to have always carried a copy of the Bhagavad Gita on his person. He compared Hitler with the god Krishna who features in the poetical work. The Chilean diplomat Serrano revered Hitler as the 10th avatar of the god Krishna/Vishnu. He believed in second coming of Hitler when he will reappear as “avenger” to bestow global supremacy of the Aryan race in an apocalyptic war. Remember the Beatles’ Hare Krishna?

    The Bhagavad Gita was read like a catechism for the SS. Consequently many of the Nazi ideologues referred continually to it as the Indian war manual. The Bhagavad Gita’s philosophy is used by righwing extremists after the war to legitimize Auschwitz.

    A. Hitler’s Mein Kampf was a German Bhagavat Gita

    Thutpen Gyatso or the Thirteenth Dalai Lama said of Hitler: “The inji (honourable foreigner) is assisted by Krishna for some high purpose in his life.” Among the many European books the Dalai Lama had translated was Mein Kamp. He filled his copy with enthusiastic annotations and underlining of his favorite passages on virtually every page.
    He also believed there to be a synchronicity for the swastika being the symbol of both Nazism and the ancient Bon-Buddhism of his warrior monks.

    A Galileo of Potala

    The Fifth Dalai Lama took his self-elevation to the status of a deity and his magic practices just as seriously as he did his real power politics. For him, every political act, every military operation was launched by a visionary event or prepared for with an invocatory ritual. It is against this framework that the Fifth Dalai Lama introduces his autobiography (Secret Biography) with an irony which undermines his own life’s work in the following verses:

    The erudite should not read this work, they will be embarrassed.
    It is only for the guidance of fools who revel in fanciful ideas.

    Like those fools who revel in the Harry Potter series. In Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” the killer’s imagination alone creates a dagger in the air before Duncan’s murder. Looks like Shakespeare was a tantrist too, because such creative imagination belongs to the Tibetan magic known as tulpas. In Every Which Way But Dead by Kim Harrison, ‘Tulpa’ is the focus word used to create a three-dimensional circle in the main character, Rachel Morgan’s imagination, and is used to hold an overflow of power.

    Up until recent times the Secret Biography had not been made public, it was a secret document only accessible to a few chosen. One of the few handwritten copies is kept in the Munich State Library. There it can be seen that the Great Fifth nonetheless took his “fairy tales” so seriously that he marked the individual chapters with a red thumbprint.

    We are told that Buddha gained enlightenment by conquering the five senses i.e. enlightenment of a corpse. Some enlightenment, like that of Euclid and his imaginary geometry of which the world of maya is built.

    I wonder, what’s wrong with reading old books? The Torah which has been translated into over 2000 languages was written more than 2500 years ago.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — April 5, 2008 @ 12:11 pm | Reply

  1651. Senator Brownback is probably right with this. For more information see http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/

    Comment by Robert M. Stockmann — April 5, 2008 @ 5:33 pm | Reply

  1652. Wow, 1652 all read, what can i say?

    Well – DPS, Sisyphus, Bobc – educate yourselves, really – you do no good to the Christian cause by spouting such plainly delusional nonsense. Even the Pope himself disagrees with you.

    Roman, no harm i reading old texts, but to disprove modern science with antiquated arguments is daft.

    The argument and discussion has evolved greatly in the last 30 years, enhanced computer power has lead to our enhanced view of the cosmos.

    The earth moves – you argument against this doesn’t have any basis, other that whats held in your mind – you may argue that its god – i argue that you have a serious mental condition that requires medical help.

    Many people have requested that you provide some sort of data to back up your (spurious) assertions – i see you have yet to supply anything.

    and for those that equate science with religion.. its not, science is open to debunking and critical assessment, anyone can take part (its democratic too) all you have to do is supply proof.

    Dogma is not proof.

    BTW – Obama for prez, someone who is not a wingnut.

    Comment by Andrew Murray — April 8, 2008 @ 8:01 pm | Reply

  1653. […] America and the world.  The curtain was pulled back and things would never be the same.  “Heliocentrism Is an Atheist Doctrine” would soon be a rallying cry for conservative Christians on college campuses across the […]

    Pingback by The Very Best: A B4B Retrospective (Part I: The Beginning) « Blogs 4 Brownback — April 9, 2008 @ 9:00 pm | Reply

  1654. Isaac Newton Unveiled – Pt. 1

    Christianity as a religious structure rests upon two fundamentally different and directly hostile “views of existence”: upon Jewish historical faith and upon Indo-European symbolical and metaphysical mythology. The kernel of the Christian religion is the conception of “redemption of man”: this idea has always been and still is strange to the Jews; it absolutely contradicts their whole conception of religion. On the other hand, it is the central idea in all Indo-European religious views; they all revolve around the longing for redemption; the hope of salvation; nor was this idea of redemption strange to the Hellenes; we find it in their mysteries, and in Plato, in the 7th book of the “Republic”, it is clearly recognizable. The idea of redemption embraces two others; that of a present imperfection and that of a possible perfection by some supernatural or transcendental process: the one is symbolized by the myth of degeneration (See, O.Spengler, The Decline of the West), the other by that of gracious help bestowed by a higher Being. The Carirarka-Mimansa considers all living beings as “in need of redemption.” I. Newton, as a member of the British privileged class was enthralled by the Ario-Christianity and its aristocratic principle of nature.

    A. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world.” Well, I guess that the CEO’s who work day and night to maximize profits of their companies read the Talmud like the priests read their breviaries.

    In a now famous passage from De Gravitatione,Newton wrote: “Space is an affection of a being just as a being. No being exists or can exist which is not related to space in some way. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere, and body is the space that it occupies; and whatever is neither everywhere nor anywhere does not exist. And hence it follows that space is an emanative effect of the first existing being, for if any being whatsoever is posited, space is posited…If ever space had not existed, God at that time would have been nowhere” (Janiak, A. Newton: Philosophical Writings,Cambridge University Press. 2004, 25). Is space an emanative effect of the first existing being or rather is the first existing being an emanative effect of space. This contradiction was never resolved by Newton.

    To the kabbalists, Space is “the unknown container of all, the Unknown First Cause.” The Zohar teaches that the primordial elements – the trinity of Fire, Air and Water – the four cardinal points, and all the forces of nature form collectively the Voice of the Will (Memrah) or the “Word”, the Logos of the Absolute Silent All. The indivisible point, limitless and unknowable” (like that of Big Bang) spreads itself over the endless space, and thus forms a veil which conceals this Absolute point.

    Philo wrote: “The Chaldeans were of the opinion that the Kosmos, among the things that exist, is a single point, either being itself God or that it is God, comprehending the soul of all things (Migration of Abraham, 32)

    The Puranas insist on the identity of Vishnu with Time and Space. And Vishnu, like Chuang Tzu’s absolute Tao, is a kind of absolute void (Shunyata). The Jewish Pythagoreans or kabbalists, or Essenes recognized numbers as prima materia. Their “Genesis” proclaimed: In the beginning nothing (zero) blew up. Amen! In the Hindu philosophical speculations nothing turns into something. A modern Israeli poet in one of his poems wrote a line about “time siring bats in the heart of caves.”

    Newton asserted: “Each particle (!) of space is eternal, each indivisible moment of duration is everywhere.” (Principia III, 42). To express what is now called pantheism, Virgil writes, “All things are full of Jupiter.” No doubt Newton was inspired by another native of Grantham, one of the Cambridge Platonists Henry More who elaborated a philosophy of spirit which explained all the phenomena of mind and of the physical world as the activity of spiritual substance controlling inert matter. More conceived of both spirit and matter as spatially extended, but defined spiritual substance as the obverse of material extension: where body is inert and solid, but divisible; spirit is active and penetrable, but indivisible.

    As an example of not-material extension he proposed space, within which material extension is contained. He went on to argue space is infinite. More also argued that God who is an infinite spirit is an extended being. There are, therefore, conceptual parallels between the idea of God and the idea of space, a view which he elaborated in Enchiridion metaphysicum, where he argues that the properties of space are analogous to the attributes of God (infinity, immateriality, immobility etc). H. More was a Cambridge Yogi.

    The Hindu religious dogma proclaimed, “All beings are of the same substance, they end by absorption into the bosom of the absolute being (Brahma), which is the metaphysical bond (gravity) of the universe” This Aryan dogma became the base of all European theories of emanationism. According to Plotinus, the first emanation is Logos. It is the unity of forms. When it is radiated forth, its separation from its source produces a turning back or yearning from its source. This yearning is encountered in the neoplatonic interpretation of the Eros or the love for the source of existence (Recall the Source in the series Charmed), which leads everything back to its ultimate origin. Big Bang’s contraction will bring us back to Nirvana. The Germans translate Nirvana as Nullpunkt (null point)

    Josephus (Antiquitates, XIII) tells us that the Essenes (Jewish Pythagoreans or the Jewish Buddhists, presently called Bu-Jews) held the souls to be immortal: according to them souls descended into bodies, in aerial form, from the highest region of the air (called aether); they are carried back there by a violent attraction.

    In the paper entitled De Aere et Aethere Newton wrote: “Just as bodies of this earth by breaking into small particles are converted into air, so these particles can be broken into lesser ones by some violent action and converted into yet more subtle air which, if it is subtle enough to penetrate the pores of the glass, crystal and other terrestrial bodies, we may call spirit of the air, or the ether. The incorporeal ether which facilitates gravitation is actually the body or spiritual form of Jesus Christ,” in the Seneca words “ab aethere lucidissimo … in terram usque diffusus est.” In the Newtonian physics the difference between matter and spirit is that of degree of condensation. The Jesus-Gravity attracts, obviously, rather in virtue of the substance than of weight. In other words the force of attraction of a planet does not depend on its mass.

    The 1997 Luc Besson movie, The Fifth Element, inspired by Newton’s identification of gravity with the spiritual body of Christ portrayed the perfect being (played by Milla Jovovich) as a fifth element (quintessence or aether), whose powers were awakened by Love.

    Long before Newton, philosopher Anaximander proclaimed similar dogma, “The heavenly bodies have come into being from earth, because mist rose from the earth and was rarified and produced fire (ether), and the heavenly bodies are composed of fire when it is afloat.” Heraclitus had a lofty vision of Fire when he described it as the basic stuff the world is made of, meaning “the purest and brightest sort that is as of the eternal and divine thunderbolt.” That’s why two thunderbolts became the symbol of the Nazi SS. The unrepentant French author who converted to Buddhism and wrote under the pen name Savitri Devi put the following dedication on her book The Lightning and the Sun: “To the god-like Individual of our Times, the Man against Time, the greatest European of all times, both Sun and Lightning.” (www.gnosticliberationfront.com/lightning_and_the_sun%20book.htm)

    In Opticks Newton wrote: “I do not know what this Aether is,” but that if it consists of particles then they must be “exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even those of Light: The exceeding smallness of its Particles may contribute to the greatness of the force by which those Particles may recede from one another, and thereby make that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastick than Air, and by consequence exceedingly less able to resist the motions of Projectiles, and exceedingly more able to press upon great Bodies, by endeavoring to expand itself. In this passage Newton speaks almost like Descartes whose idea of gravity was not expressed by ‘attraction’ but by ‘pressing’.

    But what is more interesting here is the historical background of his identification of aether with spiritual body or form of Jesus Christ. The word aether is derived from the Greek αίθήρ, from a root meaning to kindle, burn, or shine.. It was believed to be the substance filling the upper regions of space.

    According to Hindu teaching, Deity in the shape of Aether (Akasa) pervades all things and it (!) was called therefore “the living fire,” the “Spirit of Light,” and sometimes Magnes. It was the highest Deity itself which, according to Plato, built the Universe in the geometrical form of the dodecahedron; and its “first begotten” was born of Chaos and Primordial Light (the Central Sun). This “First-Born,” however, was only the aggregate of the host of the “Builders,” the first constructive forces, who are called in ancient Cosmogonies the Ancients and the “First Point.” Therefore Aether is also considered “the immortal gods who gave birth and life to all.”

    The ancient Vedic seers described the original creative process as “the churning of the milky ocean” Maxwell wrote in Encyclopedia Britannica: “Aethers were invented for the planets to swim, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic affluvia…Accordingly, it was believed that aether had to be a fluid in order to fill space whereby fields of subtle substance became condensed into gross matter a view that is now widely accepted today in energy-field physics research.” This “churning” is represented geometrically in Tantric ritual as a four armed cross within a circle and the cross is meant to be imagined as oscillating backwards and forwards as in a churning motion.

    Later Stoic philosophers “demythologized” the old myths and reinterpreted the gods themselves as personifications of the natural universe (i.e. matter. Hera represents the air, Zeus the lightning and thunder (i.e. fire) and so on. The Stoic philosophy based on material pneuma, and fiery substance providing rationality is nothing but a European variant of Buddhism.

    In Buddhism consciousness shares the qualities of the fifth element, space. Like space, it is the subtlest of the five and pervades them all. It is the first and the last, their source and their culmination. Consciousness is luminous like aureoles around Saints’ heads. In essence, it is the Buddha Viarochana, the Illuminator. He embodies the knowledge of totality, the all-encompassing dimension of truth, the sphere of all phenomena as they really are. Awareness expands into infinity, no longer self-centered, because the distinction between subject and object is transcended.
    Consider the following story about the Chinese Zen master Hogen. To the question “What is Buddha?” one of the disciples responded “Hei-tei-dji Rai-gu-ka” (“the deity of fire seeks fire”). The Stoics were like the Buddist “jamad-agni”, or those who knew the identity of god and fire. In Stoic philosophy human souls are rational seeds of God (Logos, Zeus, Creative fire) and the conflagration is the event in which all souls return to the pure substance of creative fire (pur technikon), Zeus, which is totally in the spirit of the Hindu religious dogma: “All beings are of the same substance, they end by absorption into the bosom of the absolute Being, which is the metaphysical bond (gravity) of the universe.
    The Christ expressed the basic Stoic belief in his phrase: “I am come to send fire (i.e. rational seeds of logos, logos spermatikos) on the earth…(Lk 12:49). We remember that the Pentecostal tongues of fire that sat on Apostle’s heads are considered as the true beginning of Christianity, the reign of the Holy Spirit.
    It is the same pantheism which inspired the words of John the Baptist: “I baptize with water, but one who is much greater than I is coming…He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” According to the New Roman catechism “fire” symbolizes the transforming energy of the Holy Spirit, the same fire which Paul urged the Thessalonians not to extinguish (cp. The undying fire of the Vestal Virgins) – for it is none other than the Holy Spirit Himself (# 696).
    J. Goethe vs. I. Newton

    In Goethe’s play Faust Part 2, set in classical Greece, the philosophers Thales and Anaxagoras debate the relative power of Water and Fire. Goethe clearly sides with Thales’ non-violent Water and Anaxagoras, the more violently-inclined proponent of Fire, fond of volcanic eruptions, suffers defeat. Today the aether is regarded as a superseded scientific theory.
    We have two contradictory sources regarding John the Baptist’s death. According to canonical Gospels John the Baptist was beheaded because he dared condemn Herod’s marriage to Herodias, the wife of Herod’s brother Philip (Luke 3:19; Matthew 14:3-5; Mk 6:24, 27).
    But Josephus Flavius in his Jewish Antiquities stated that Herod killed John to preempt a possible uprising: “Herod feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (For they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise).” Unlike Jesus, John the Baptist would not advise his fellow Jews to “render unto Caesar…”
    From the Royal Budget for Jesus

    “And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him. And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward (Chuza was King Herod’s business manager and was in charge of his palace and domestic affairs), and Susanna, and many others, who gave him of their wealth for his needs. “ (Mark. 8:1-3)
    The book of Acts portrays the disciples of John as eventually merging into the followers of Jesus (Acts 18:24- 19: 6), a development not reported by the Gospels except for the early case of Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:35-42)

    Interestingly, for Mandaeans, a tiny Christian sect living to this day in southern Iraq and Iran, John the Baptist called Yahya is a divine prophet but Jesus is a false prophet.

    The Chugu-ji temple at Nara, Japan, contains a contoured wooden image about 4 feet 3 inches in height, dating from 650 AD, now generally identified as a representation of Maitreya (Miroku in Japanes), “The Buddha of the Future.” On a disk-shaped halo behind his head cloven tongues of fire are clearly recognizable.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — April 18, 2008 @ 10:20 am | Reply

  1655. Hey guys!

    Comment by Alex — April 27, 2008 @ 2:07 pm | Reply

  1656. How do I get outta this chickensh*t outfit that America has turned into!?

    And don’t talk to *me* like I’m stupid, I *have* a God already. Only He’s not one who inspires such drivelling balderdash as yours.

    Comment by Julian — April 29, 2008 @ 2:38 am | Reply

  1657. Isaac Newton Unveiled
    From I. Newton to H. Himmler
    Philosopher M. Polanyi observed, “Newtonian physics and Darwin’s notion of the survival of the fittest were key elements both in the Marxist concepts of class warfare and of racial philosophies which shaped Hitlerism and scientific world view.”
    Newton’s identification of gravity with spiritual body of Jesus Christ inspired the following genocidal passage in Guide to the Vatican Museums (Gestione Vendita Publicazioni Musei Vaticani, Citta del Vaticano. 1979, o. 12): “ It was this spirit which inspired the creation of two of the most illustrious of the humanistic institutions of the Holy See: the Vatican Library and the Vatican Museums. Both were the outcome of a vision of Graeco-Roman culture as the perfect, almost timeless expression of human creativity at its highest levels – thought and art – and as the precursor, at times almost the prefigurement, of Christanity, above all in the West.” People who write like that must believe in Second Coming of A. Hitler. John Paul II’s rehabilitation of heliocentrism and evolutionism should be decoded in the context of the above observation by M. Polanyi. The desire to create a Palestinian state on the ruins of the Jewish state dictated John Paul II his double rehabilitation. Periodically a pope weeps that there is still no Palestinian state and US peace makers rush to the Middle East to create one.

    M. Palmieri in his book The Philosophy of Fascism, (Chicago 1936).argued : “The triumph of the idea of Order, of Authority, of equal justice under Law, saw the Empire of Augustus and of Trajanus give to mankind (!) for the first and only time in human history the life-enhancing blessing of political unity. The triumph of the Catholic Idea of salvation in Christ and through Christ and His Church saw the Empire of the Church give to mankind the life-inspiring blessing of spiritual unity. A spiritual power generated from those great Italian spirits who have been in the past the assertors of Rome’s immortal and eternal right to Empire, and the prophets of Rome’s third form of Empire, is the leaven which has brought about that fermentation of spiritual forces called Fascism… Providence chose the Italian land for this high destiny, nourishing a spark of divine truth in it “ab antico” and molding there a race wonderfully adapted in genius and intelligence for subjecting the whole world in Christian obedience…Italy is the priestly nation among the great body of redeemed peoples…Nor did the inhabitants of this peninsula give to other peoples merely divine gifts, but also every other civil and human good, and all the great intellects of Europe, who enhanced in any measure the glory of their countries, lit their lamps at the living flame of Italian genius.” Which means that the Christianity prefigured by the classical culture is perennial fascism.

    Amazingly, H.H. Chamberlain in his “Foundations of the XIXth Century” observed, with an unprejudiced consideration: “Nothing will be falser than to regard the Jewish influence in the creation of Christianity as merely negative, destructive and pernicious. If we look at the matter from the Semitic standpoint, which with the help of any Jewish religious doctrine we can easily do, we shall see things in exactly the opposite light: the Helleno-Aryan element as the undoing, destroying force that is hostile to religion as we already observed in the case of Pelagius who tried to emancipate man of God by free will. An unprejudiced consideration will show us that the Jewish contribution is very important and almost indispensable. Nothing entitles us to assume that Hellenic speculation, Egyptian ascetism and international mysticism, without the fervor of the Jewish will to believe, would have ever given the world a new religious ideal and at the same time a new life. Neither the Roman Stoics with their noble but cold, impotent moral philosophy nor the aimless, mystic self-negation of the theology introduced from India to Asia Minor, nor the opposite solution found in the neo-Platonic Philo, and Hellenic thought, deformed by senility – none of these, obviously, would have led to the goal. The Jewish religion is disinclined to all conversion, but the Gentiles, impelled by longing for faith, went to it in crowds.”

    Perverted minds of the Nazis concluded in the light of this passage, that in order to get rid of religious faith, the Jews must be exterminated to the last one. They called H.H. Chamberlain der Seher des III Reichs (the prophet of the III Reich).

    Obviously, John Paul II was not impelled by longing for faith. His poetry, philosophy, science, mysticism, mythology testify to an unworldly, speculative tendency of mind, which produces in the case of all philosophers that proud contempt of life which makes it possible for the Indian sage to lay himself while still alive in his own grave (like John Paul II’s beloved hero now saint M. Kolbe), and which received monumental expression in the 19th century in Schopenhauer’s doctrine of the negation of the will to live embraced by the Palestinian “Martyrs’ Brigades”.

    In Hindu Pantheism the universe is evolving from the central Sun, the POINT (puru, like that of Big Bang), the ever-concealed germ. The central Sun is Deity – the World Soul. It is also the Chakra or circle of Vishnu.

    Newton wrote his formula for the pull of one mass on another under the assumption that each mass is concentrated in a point. It’s as if God took the sun and the planets in His mighty hands and squeezed them as small as He could. This assumption is, of course, an idealization because point masses do not exist, but it greatly simplified Newton’s task because it eliminated the need to deal with the dependence of the force of gravity on the sizes of two interacting bodies.

    The Jesuit R. J. Boscovich who was 16 when Newton died validated Newton’s assumption by reducing atoms to dimensionless, structureless mathematical points, surrounded by forces. Boscovich’s atom reached out into space via forces radiating from it. In one of his poems Cardinal K. Wojtyla wrote: “I became a channel, unleashing a force called man.” Maybe, like that of a Godzilla. A rabbi unleashed a force called Golem, but only in a legend.

    In the Gospel of John Jesus is Logos, the term the Greeks used for Hercules, who was the “Force called man.” Quarks are Boscovich’s particles without dimensions. Whereas leptons make up our earthly bodies, quarks make up our astral or etherical bodies or souls. Boscovich’s Atomic Physics prepared the abrogation of the decree of the Index Expurgatorius against the Copernican system (1757) An “apostle” of Boscovich, the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin called the cyclotrons “wombs of change” or evolution.

    Newton’s Jesus-Gravity is a variant of Hercules in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. Cleopatra imagines Antony’s body extended universally from the heavens, just as the extensive pneuma (aer) of the Stoics. Antony’s Herculean trunk joins a new heaven and earth. Hercules’s bow symbolizes the tautness of the universe, his arrows the pneuma which penetrates everywhere.

    Newton’s gay lover and disciple, Fatio de Duiller transformed those Herculean arrows into the “gravific corpuscules” that penetrated material objects which are almost entirely transparent. As you may recall Jesus-Logos-Gravity’s body composed of “gravific corpuscules” could have penetrated material objects such as, for instance, a door.

    Another “apostle” of Boscovich Abbe George Lemaitre (1894-1996), a Catholic priest and Belgium’s most famous astronomer who explained away Einstein’s “cosmological constant” argued, Supposing you just stayed with the mathematical model of a gently expanding universe. This would mean that the expansionary force would counter the gravitational force, and so all the matter in the universe could stay separated. Not only that; if the expansionary force slightly exceeded the gravitational force, then the universe would continue to expand and become bigger tomorrow than it is today. That would also mean that it had to be smaller yesterday than it is today, in order to expand to today’s size. The universe would therefore have to be progressively smaller the further back in time you went. And that meant that at some point, very long ago, the universe would have been at its smallest possible size i.e. Boscovich’s atom, a dimensionless, structureless mathematical point. Indeed, Lemaitre’s universe was derived from a story of the Indian Upanishads.

    From the Hindu Tree of Life to Newton’s Vegetable Action

    A Tree of Life represents creative forces in the universe. Sunbirds sit on the branches; a five-headed cobra, symbolizing water, rises from the trunk. In the middle of the tree the sun is placed reminiscent of the heliocentrically conceived universe in which energy (Brahma) plays the most important creative part like the creative fire of the Stoics The word Logos of Jn. 1:1 was a Greek counterpart of the Indian Brahman, a neuter noun which means “energy”. The Tree of Life is said to be standing at the axis of the cosmos, and is a common feature of salvation mythology.

    In conformity with this vision of the world as a Tree of Life Manu wrote: “Man will traverse the universe, gradually ascending, and passing through the rocks, the plants, the worms, insects, fish, serpents, tortoises, wild animals, cattle, and higher animals. . . . Such is the inferior degree”

    “These are the transformations declared, from the plant up to Brahma, which have to take place in his world” (Book I, sloka 8). The Nordic counterpart of the Hindu Tree of Life was called Yggdrasil.

    What did I. Newton mean by “action at a distance?” Some sort of “force,” like “gravity”, affected “matter” through space yet with no observable mechanism or medium involved. To contemporaries who found the idea of attractions across empty space unintelligible, he conceded that they might prove to be caused by the impact of unseen particles. Newton turned to Alchemy for a possible answer. The Alchemists had developed a concept called “active principles”: Spirit might be able to act upon matter. There was, thought Newton a “spirit of nature.” He called it “vegetable action”, which was “an exceeding subtle & unimaginably small portion of matter diffused through the mass which, if it were separated, there would remain but a dead & inactive earth.” (White Michael. Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer).This “vegetative spirit” was called by alchemists “the pneuma,” a mysterious, holy energy from Gods. Newton’s matter diffused through the mass is strongly reminiscent of Jesus’ kingdom of heaven which is like unto leaven that leavens the whole (Mt. 13:33 and Lk. 13:20). Michael Maier’s alchemical text Arcana arcanissima is a lengthy allegory of Hercules as the all pervasive spiritus. There can be no doubt that alchemy influenced Newton’s concept of gravity and of force in general. Newton owned a total of 1752 books of which 369 were about alchemy and 170 books were on what was called “practical magic.”

    The alchemist manipulated spirit and matter to manifest the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of eternal life, an allegorical substance or formula based on occult myths. Newton apparently took the myths seriously, like Eva in the Gan of Eden who ignored God’s warning (“Ye shall not eat of it…lest ye die”) and instead believed the serpent who said: “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen 3:4). Newton sought to reconcile Greek mythology with the Bible.

    Cerridwen, the Celtic goddess of wisdom and witchcraft in ancient legend is “the keeper of the Black Cauldron of Immortality.” This is the Cauldron from which one sip could bring incredible insights, wisdom and supernatural power.” Cerridwen is another name for Venus which is another name for Lucifer. She is the principal of the school attended by Harry Potter.

    The Twilight of the Gods

    I. Newton’s “vegetable action” inspired the above mentioned H.S. Chamberlain’s thesis Recherches sur la sève ascendante (Studies on rising sap) which did not culminate with a degree. The main thrust of the dissertation is that the vertical transport of fluids in vascular plants via xylem can not be explained by the fluid mechanical theories of the time, but only by the existence of a “vital force” (=vegetable action) that is beyond the pale of physical measurement. He summarized his thesis in the Introduction:

    Without the participation of these vital functions it is quite simply impossible for water to rise to heights of 150 feet, 200 feet and beyond (Redwoods grow to 275 feet high and often have trunks that are 8 to 12 feet in diameter; they pump tons of water upwards), and all the efforts that one makes to hide the difficulties of the problem by relying on confused motions drawn from physics are little more reasonable than search for the philosopher’s stone.

    Physical arguments, in particular transpirational pull and root pressure have since been shown to adequately explain the ascent of sap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain). In other words, transpirational pull and root pressure joined forces to defeat Jesus-gravity. Let me make my point, I. Newton had predicted that Jesus would return 49 years after the establishment of Israel in Palestine. The 20th-century Rosicrucian psychic, Edgar Cayce, had predicted the return of Jesus immediately after the discovery of the so-called “Hall of Records” in 1996-98; note that 1948 plus 49 years lands smack dab between those dates, in 1997. My, my is gravity still with us?

    Comment by Roman Pytel — May 2, 2008 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  1658. I have a good question for Sisyphus from a respectful believer.

    When the Bible explains that the Earth is “fixed,” what is it fixed to? With respect to what reference frame is the earth not moving?

    Surely, it’s not stationary with respect to the sun, or to the planets, or even to the stars (which we see to move slowly over time). The Earth isn’t even stationary with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation.

    From Earth, everything seems to be moving all at once in various directions. Nothing is really “fixed” to anything else. We can choose reference frames for calculations, sure, but those are only temporary conveniences. Reference frames don’t tell us anything about the nature of the universe.

    Just like being in an airplane, you can have relative motion and not feel it. We can only feel acceleration (changes in motion). Closing your eyes and claiming to feel ‘still’ only means that you are not accelerating and that you are stationary with respect to the Earth. Depending on what you choose to be your reference, we can say that the Earth is moving at any number of speeds.

    The only other option is that Earth is fixed with respect to the Heavens or perhaps to God. Neither is really a meaningful conclusion as God exists everywhere in all time. He isn’t really in one place nor can He exhibit motion; He is omnipresent. The Heavens is a spiritual location above Earth; to say that the Heavens are fixed with respect to the Earth is meaningless. The Heavens is not a specific identifiable location other than “up there”.

    It seems that it’s not possible to claim that the Earth is “fixed” or “unmoving.” You need a reference frame for this.

    Whether or not the Earth is the center of the universe is an entirely different question that can be addressed some other time.

    Comment by Sean — May 5, 2008 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

  1659. Your children should be taught heliocentrism so they’ll have to opportunity to debunk it, just like what you did.

    Comment by Paul — May 9, 2008 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

  1660. Sean, you seem to cherish the philosophical idea of ‘pantarei’. You don’t see any difference between a moving thing and an unmoved one. Galileo thought along these lines.

    Ch. Darwin vs. Human Rights

    “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” says the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “No one shall be held in slavery and servitude.”

    Kancha Ilayah in his article Caste and the U.N. Meet (The Hindu. Online edition of India’s National Newspaper. August 21, 2001) wrote: “The oppressive institutions, like the caste system, that came into operation through the process of civil societal structuring need the pressure of outside agencies such as the U.N., because it is more difficult to address the civil societal agencies than the Governmental agencies from within. The U.N. Human Rights charter has been worked out to serve that purpose also. It hence thought of addressing the civil societal oppressions that emanate from race, religion, language, gender and so on. Unfortunately, caste as an institution of social oppression was not included in the charter at the time even though caste discrimination has many traits of racial discrimination and, hence, must become part of the U.N. Human Rights charter. (www.hinduonet.com/2001/08/21/stories/05212523.htm)

    In a letter of 1830, Charles Darwin wrote:
    “Origin of man now proved … He who understands baboon would do more toward metaphysics than Locke.”

    The ancient Hindu version of Darwin’s Origin of Species was titled Ramayana — the Sanskrit epic poem of India, with its 25,000 verses describing the exploits of the god Rama, and the son of the King of Oudh. Hanuman, the monkey-god is over three feet tall, and black as a coal. The story of the birth of Hanuman goes thus: Vrihaspati, the preceptor of the gods, had an attendant called Punjikashtala. She was cursed to assume the form of a female monkey – a curse that could only be nullified if she would give birth to an incarnation of Lord Shiva. Reborn as Anjana, she performed intense austerities to please Shiva, who finally granted her the boon that would cure her of the curse.

    When Agni, the god of fire gave Dasharath, the king of Ayodha, a bowl of sacred sweet food to share among his wives so that they may have divine children, an eagle snatched a part of the pudding and dropped it where Anjana was meditating, and Pavana, the god of wind delivered the drop to her outstretched hands. After she took the divine dessert, she gave birth to Hanuman. Thus Lord Shiva incarnated as a monkey.

    Hanuman selected Surya, the sun god as his preceptor, and approached him with the request to teach the scriptures. Surya agreed and Hanuman became his disciple and as such he was wiser a metaphysician than philosopher Locke.

    This same Hanuman became the progenitor of the Europeans; a tradition which, being strictly Darwinian has to be accepted as scientific. The legend states that for services rendered, Rama, the hero and demi-god, gave in marriage to the monkey-warriors of Hanuman the daughters of the giants of Ceylon and granted them as a dowry, all western parts of the world. Their descendants are the present Europeans. Well, this myth explains why the most famous classical physician Galen was teaching human anatomy by dissecting the Barbary apes.

    T.H. Huxley, nicknamed Darwin’s bloody-fanged bulldog who also acted as the ‘official spokesman for the recluse Darwin’ with no apparent achievements to claim as his own, was made a Fellow of the Royal Society at the age of 26. He tutored H.G. Wells, who would later teach Huxley’s two grandsons, Julian and Aldous. H.G. Wells dreamed about a ‘scientific dictatorship,’ which he called a ‘Technocracy.’

    Half-cousin to Charles Darwin was Francis Galton, and he used Origin of Species in the way intended by its author, first to become an apostate, and then to attack Christianity. Evolution became “survival of the fittest,” and the Nazis came to use just that concept when seeking their superhuman race. Francis had said, “…it would be quite practical to produce a highly gifted race of men by judiciary marriages during several consecutive generations” (Britannica 1970 Vol. 8 pg. 815)
    Galton first introduced the concept of eugenics in Hereditary Genius, a racist polemic advocating a system of selective breeding for the purposes of providing ‘more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable’ (Galton, 24) Let me remind here that sordid traditions of selective breeding and inbreeding had long been practiced by the ruling class to maintain the ‘genetic purity’ of their future stock . Already Egyptians pharaohs used to marry their own sisters to keep the ‘purity of their royal blood’. Darwin himself followed in their footsteps and married the youngest granddaughter of his maternal father with catastrophic consequences for his offspring.
    Behind Darwin’s Idea of the Little, Warm Pond
    It is said that the Royals have blue blood in their veins, because according to legend their blood is copper based while ours is iron based. Sea creatures such as lobsters, octopuses, squids and horseshoe crabs have copper based blue blood. All royalty comes from the Merovingian bloodline. Now according to the legend their bloodline comes from the sea where creatures of blue blood live.
    Part of legend of Merovingian is that the beginning of the bloodline came from a sea creature that came out of ocean in Mediterranean called Merovee. Merovee was a semi supernatural figure worthy of classical myth. Cp. “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.” Rev 13:1.Princess Diana who was of the Merovingian bloodline died in a car crash on the 13th pillar.
    Unlike in the Torah, in the genealogies of the most powerful dynasties and families there is no divide between man and animal and, if we go further to the ancient Egypt and India we see gods in the shapes of all existing and mythic animals. This theozoology inspired the man who gave Hitler his ideas, a defrocked monk Joerg Lanz who evolved into a Baron von Liebenfels.
    Meditate in the context of Darwin monstrous and doomed marriage on his own statement which was inspired by his idolatrous deifying of nature: “natural selection picks out with unerring skill the best varieties.” As Ph. Collins observed, such statements reveal that ‘nature’ itself is a sentient sovereign deity acting as the ultimate arbiter of life and death. Unerring Nature, maybe like an unerring, infallible pope!
    Darwinism – the materialist religion of the U.N.
    Galton’s vision of a future utopia ruled by a genetically engineered elite became the ideological basis of a successful political movement. Aldous Huxley’s eugenically regimented ‘scientific dictatorship’ presented in his Brave New World drew closer to realization when his brother Julian was appointed the first director general of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and penned the organization’s manifesto in 1947 titled UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.
    Sir Julian Huxley once postulated: “The earth was not created; it evolved (like in Hesiod’s myth). So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.” (The Human Frame, 1961, p. 18).
    Biologist Richar Lewontin candidly admitted, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (“Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books. Jan 9, 1997, p. 31)I wonder, does water evolve too? Do the animals drink less evolved water?
    And Jim Keith provides a brief summation of the Royal Society’s role in years to come: ‘The British Royal Society of the late seventeenth century was the forerunner of much of the media manipulation that was to follow. This manipulation was to spread what Plato called Royal Lie.
    In 1977, author Claire Chambers clearly delineated the U N’s role as a global scientific dictatorship paralleling that of the Soviet Communist Party:
    Since its inception, the U.N. Has advanced a world-wide program of population control, scientific human breeding (i.e. Eugenics), and Darwinism. (Phillip Collins, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship. Part One and Two http://www.biped.info/articles/collins1.html). And that explains why caste discrimination did not become part of the U.N. Human Rights charter.
    Galton’s “Hereditary Genius was but a transplant of Indian caste system onto European soil. In the caste system, every human genus (and therefore every caste) is thought to have as the shared or corporate property of its members a particular substance (e.g. sarira, “body”, rakta, “blood”) embodying its code for conduct (dharma). Each caste’s inborn code enjoins it to maintain its substance and morality, its particular occupation, and its correct exchanges with other caste. The same idea was behind the hereditary monarchical dynasties. Indian thought does not separate “nature” and “morality” or “law”, so that castes are, in Western terms, at once “natural” and “moral” units of society. These units make up a single order, one that is profoundly particularized. (This philosophy is behind Calvin’s doctrine of the “salvation of the elect” “survival of the fittest”)
    To Plato, truth was a vital virtue; but he made one exception. The ruler of his model Republic should create and propagate an official mythology – a “royal lie” and “audacious fiction”: “Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the highest honor (In Egypt gold was known to be of the flesh of the sun…); others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And god proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. “

    In 1856, as Darwin was preparing the abstract for a paper that would present his theories, he received a communication from another scientist, Alfred Russel Wallace, with a sketch of a paper setting out exactly the same views. Darwin was ready to withdraw from the field. But his friend Lyell intervened, brought the two men together, and arranged for their work to appear as a joint paper, On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. The paper was published in the journal of the society for the year 1858. It caused no stir at all.

    But this was not the case when, in the following year, Darwin published his On the Origin of Species by Means of natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The book was a sensation: the first printing sold out in a single day. Two weighty expressions accounts for this success: preservation of favoured races instead of perpetuation of varieties and species and struggle for life instead of natural means of selection. But it was the term hereditary races which was crucial for the success.
    On Jan 3, 1866 Pall Mall Gazette proclaimed: “It was absurd to ignore all distinctions of race-character in governing them (Negroes)”
    “The worst white man is better than the best black man” – D. Hume
    “Seven million Negroes – their race-type unevolved.” – R. Kipling 1892

    Consider in this context the English verb ‘denigrate’ meaning to defame, to humiliate. The word is derived from Latin denigrare,blacken thoroughly from niger, nigri black.
    Darwin’s book inspired the following passage in F. Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals (first essay, section 7):
    “Whatever else has been done to damage the powerful and great of this earth seems trivial compared with what the Jews have done, that priestly people who succeeded in avenging themselves on their enemies and oppressors by radically inverting all their values, that is, by an act of the most spiritual vengeance. This was a strategy entirely appropriate to a priestly people in whom vindictiveness had gone most deeply underground. It was the Jew who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good/noble/powerful/beautiful/happy/favored-of-the-gods and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that “only the poor, the powerless, are good, only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned”… it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals, a slave revolt with two millenia of history behind it, which we have lost sight of today simply because it has triumphed so completely.”
    The Jews are Republicans. The Republic tending towards leveling has always been one of their most cherished aspirations. Not the Platonic Republic which affirms and consolidates the privileges of the possessors, but a Republic whose theoretic mission is to make most social inequalities disappear. For them the Republic is a constant progress; a slow but sure march towards the meeting of the heights and abysses, unification, individual, social, and political equalization. This Jewish ideal inspired the proclamation of Universal Human Rights.

    Comment by Roman Pytel — May 16, 2008 @ 2:04 pm | Reply

  1661. “Galileo, like Kepler his friend, a neo-heliocentrist, was probably an evolutionist.”

    Galileo: 1564-1642
    Kepler: 1571-1630
    Darwin: 1809-1882

    Nice one. Their friendship was so powerful is crossed over two hundred years of them not existing.

    Comment by Ben — May 21, 2008 @ 8:44 am | Reply

  1662. Ben, Quote ““Galileo, like Kepler his friend,” not “Galileo, like Darwin, his friend” Oops!

    Comment by Fourbrick — June 4, 2008 @ 9:31 am | Reply

  1663. Don’t even try to reason with this loon; it will only encourage him. That, by the way, would be the only difference between reasoning with him and a rock. Leaving him alone will cause him to self-deflate in one form or another.

    I have tried despirately as a physicist and engineer to explain the concepts of relativity and gravity to help people understand why heliocentrism is about as “stone-cold” a fact as they come, but despite literally hundreds of converging pieces of evidence to support it, some people (fortunately in the vast minority) continue to believe whatever they like in spite of that evidence. That is an extremely dark side of human nature.

    The irony of this whole thing is that by using the same basic physics that show us the world goes around the sun are more or less the same that are responsible for these computers we use on a daily basis. One will need to toss in some quantum mechanics and electromagnetics of course; but ultimately these use the same basic fundamental principles as gravity; does F=dp/dt ring a bell with anyone? Perhaps the author of this blog will next try to convince us that the computers we use to not actually exist?

    Comment by Tish Bunyen — June 5, 2008 @ 3:54 pm | Reply

  1664. I pity you. I really, really pity you, you know. Besides, one of the first things people learn in the first place when they start studying physics is that movements are relative – which means that, for an object to be moving, it has to be moving relatively to another object. So we can say that both the Earth and the Sun are moving, relatively to each other. Really, take some classes on physics before uttering non-sense. And take some philosophy classes as well, they would do you well.

    Comment by Murasaki Ayame — June 24, 2008 @ 7:06 pm | Reply

  1665. I’ve read a great many of these comments and most of the original post. Forgive me if I missed something, but I’d like to point out a common-sense observation. The sun is several(understatement) times more massive than the earth. Every observation ever made has shown that less massive objects tend to orbit larger mass objects(consider the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy). Then, is it not logical to conclude that since the earth is less massive than the sun, the laws of physics require the earth to be the one orbiting the sun? Would God create the universe with set laws, and then just kind of push them aside?

    Comment by Warren — June 26, 2008 @ 7:21 am | Reply

  1666. Holy Ghost vs. Heliocentrtic Gang

    At:
    http://www.intothelight.org/answers/jesus-as-the-sin-bearer.asp

    You’ll see that the Holy Ghost cannot land on the spinning earth!

    Comment by Roman Pytel — July 27, 2008 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

  1667. […] Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine […]

    Pingback by The scariest thing I’ve read « EnoNomi’s VanDeVerse — August 14, 2008 @ 10:38 am | Reply

  1668. Issac Newton, hugely religious and a Biblical hermaneutician, was the next scientific scholar after Copernicus to put forward the theory of Heliocentrism. He could hardly be called an atheist. He wrote Principia, upon which modern physics is based, when he was just 28 years old. He spent more time defining the chronology of the Christian world than doing science.

    Comment by Julie Zimmer — August 24, 2008 @ 7:44 pm | Reply

  1669. […] soon as possible. It’s an excellent satire that lampoons the devoutness of Nintendo fans and atheistic scientists towards their imbecilic doctrines. The episode is simple, but ought to be required viewing; what is […]

    Pingback by Hilarious South Park Episodes! « Calvinists 4 Conservatism — October 5, 2008 @ 10:19 pm | Reply

  1670. You said the founding fathers shared your delusions. No, they didn’t. Every one of them knew the sun was the center of the solar system and that the earth revolved around it. That information had been well established in the scientific literature at least a century before this country was founded. Maybe you should read a history book instead of telling others to. Copernicus preceded them by more years than Darwin preceded us. Oh, that’s right. You don’t believe in evolution, either.

    You do more for atheism than any atheist could, I think. Put up a few more sites.

    Comment by Brant — October 26, 2008 @ 4:29 am | Reply

  1671. Yes, Galileo recanted because people exactly like you were running the show. His choice was to recant or be executed, probably after being tortured. You long for those days to return, but they never will in this country.

    And I just noticed something in reviewing some of your responses to critical posts. I think it would be a great assignment for college students to go the this list of argumentative fallacies and see if they can find examples of you using at least 20 of them demonstrated in your replies to others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    Of course, I haven’t taken the time to see how many you have actually committed here, but I’ll bet the assignment wouldn’t be too hard. I’ll bet they could find at least 20 in your first 50 replies.

    Comment by Brant — October 26, 2008 @ 5:35 am | Reply

  1672. Oh, well, hell — what can I say? You state that “the metric system is pure evil.” Your most common strategy of argument against physical proofs is that they are the work of the devil and those who prove you wrong are deceived by Satan. I just wonder: how can you function in a society full of normal, rational people? How do you manage? You were just born in the wrong era or the wrong religion. You should have lived in the late 15th century. You would have made an excellent inquisitor under Pope Innocent VIII. Or if you had been born a Muslim in any of several countries and followed the Quran instead of the bible, you would surely have been a powerful mullah by now.

    My sympathies. Personally, I think suicide would be your best plan of action. Your work here is done. God wants you to come home now and help him pass judgment on incoming souls.

    Comment by Brant — October 26, 2008 @ 6:11 am | Reply

  1673. “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.”

    Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick…ARE YOU SERIOUS!

    Someone please tell me where geocentricism is the penultimate evidence of the existence of god (or God)?

    Someone show me FROM THE BIBLE where believing in an heliocentric solar system will send you to hell.

    If you cant do either of the above….the second one in particular:

    GIVE IT A REST AND GET A LIFE!

    Comment by Fig Newton — October 26, 2008 @ 9:04 pm | Reply

  1674. …Oh my god. Have you HEARD of Physics?

    Comment by Alice — October 29, 2008 @ 3:20 pm | Reply

  1675. I swear to God, you are an absolute idiot. Seriously. You obviously have NO idea what you are talking about, because if you did, you would…um, not have said almost all the stuff you did. So retarded.

    Comment by Jamehlove. — October 29, 2008 @ 4:30 pm | Reply

  1676. you do realize how hilariously wrong this is?

    for one, nearing the end of your petty excuse of a blog, it says that no one has proven that earth moves mathematically, or through any other means

    that is because you can’t prove something is moving, or not moving, therefore you cannot prove that it doesn’t move, just as much as we can’t prove that it does

    and the part of your blog where you state that we would feel it moving

    how many astronauts who went to the moon have stated in interviews that they could feel the moon moving underneath them?

    absolutely none

    logic and common sense, and a slight knowledge of physics makes your blog pointless

    AND i proved it without mathematics, or without a book like the bible, i’m amazing aren’t i?

    argue with me all you’d like, i would love to see how your idea’s stand up to my logic

    Comment by caleblicata — October 29, 2008 @ 7:56 pm | Reply

  1677. person who created this blog, i suggest you take the opportunity to regain some respect from people, and just turn this into a super elaborate rick-roll

    because you are currently the least respected thing in the universe right now..

    Comment by caleblicata — October 29, 2008 @ 8:30 pm | Reply

  1678. The Earth certainly moves, at least, in one one way or another. You say “If [the earth] moved, we would feel it moving. That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses”. Well, we certainly feel it moving during an earthquake, but, of course, that’s got nothing to do with the earth moving, or not moving, in space. However, you mention empiricism, which is the reliance on the human senses to find truth. You can’t use a secular doctrine to prove a religious point. That’s hypocritical. Anyway, as someone mentioned before, if you travel at a steady rate, in any vehicle, with the absence of friction, one feels nothing. Just as you feel nothing when you jump out of an airplaine and reach terminal velocity, but you’re definately still moving.
    Also, you cite the bible a number of times to “prove” your point:
    “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
    “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)

    The first two references say that the earth is firm and immovable, but what happens if the earth is hit by a giant asteriod? Will it not move then? The third reference says the earth’s foundation cannot be shaken, but what about an earthquake? Empirically speaking, the earth’s foundation shakes during an earthquake. My point here is that the bible is subject to interpretation. There are many versions of the bible, which proves that even christians dont agree on what the bible actually means. Obviously you think the bible should be taken literally. However, as you can see in my literal interpretation of Psalm 104:5, even literal interpretations of the bible can vary, because I’m sure you think that Psalm 104:5 means something entirely different.

    The references to Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Joshua 10, 12-13 dont prove your point at all. All the bible is saying is that the sun rises and it falls and that makes day and night. So what? All people refer to the sun as rising and falling even though most people believe that the earth is rotating on its axis which creates the illusion of the sun moving around the earth.

    You also mention the fact that astronomers use a geocentric model on which to base their calculations, but this is simply because they must do so to get an accurate picture of the stars from thier perspective or, as you put it, “frame of reference”, which is from earth looking out. It’s not because they believe the planets and stars revolve around the earth.
    You say ” it’s unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for using a geocentric model”. I disagree whole-heartedly. What is anti-scientific is attempting to equate the bible with scientific fact at all. Science is based on theories based on proof and dis-proof, not on statements made by someone’s written idea of “the word of god”. Also, speaking of trying to prove something. Try proving that there is a god in the first place, or proving that the bible is actually the word of god. We are much closer to proving that the sun is the center of our universe than we are to proving the latter. And when I speak of proof, I mean documented scientific proof, not faith or some very old book with no author or “translator”.

    Well that’s not all I have to say about that, but it’ll do for now. I have better things to do than to talk to myself. And that’s basically what I’m doing since I know that nobody so close-minded and backward, as to not believe heliocentrism, could possibly be persuaded to think otherwise.

    Comment by OnMyGrind24/7 — November 4, 2008 @ 3:07 am | Reply

  1679. […] Blogs for Brownback What’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. […]

    Pingback by Satire or not? « blueollie — November 25, 2008 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  1680. No one has ever you guys not to feed the trolls right?

    Comment by Annon — December 15, 2008 @ 7:24 am | Reply

  1681. I realize there is a logic flaw to your reasoning. If motion can be validly described from any reference of frame, then this entire issue depends on perspective.

    Let’s take the perspective that the Earth is our center point, the (0,0,0) point in a three dimensional Cartesian graph. If we use a visual perspective, a not too reliable one mind you, then everything would APPEAR to move around the earth. Please take note that all the geocentric theorists had was this view.

    If, instead of a visual reference, we were to use gravitic calculations on just our solar system, the true point of reference would be revealed as the most massive object in the system, the Sun, or Sol.

    We can also expand these calculations to the entire galaxy, revealing the center of our galaxy to be the most massive part, which would determine that everything revolves around that.

    One must also take into consideration that the effects of gravity decrease exponentially as distance increases, making for a most complex model of objects orbiting other, more massive, objects, while the smallest objects are still orbiting the medium ones.

    To clarify, think of three spherical objects floating in a vacuum. Object 1 is akin to large bowling ball, object 2 is akin to a grapefruit, and object 3 is much like a ping-pong ball. (Note: these objects and distances are not to scale, just a rough interpretation)If you put objects 3 and 2 a distance apart, object 3 will begin to orbit about object 2, much like the Earth and the Moon. If you now introduce object 1 at a greater distance (say 4 times the distance between objects 2 and 3), then object 2 will begin to orbit about object 1, while leaving object 3 in a slightly different orbit around object 2. This represents how the Moon orbits the Earth while the Earth orbits the Sun.

    If this explanation did not make sense to you, I am sorry for not being able to explain it more thoroughly.

    Either way, if we use a visual perspective, yes, it appears as though everything orbits the Earth. If we use mathematical models of the solar system, then everything revolves around Sol.

    Comment by LAZARUS_GUY — January 3, 2009 @ 1:07 pm | Reply

  1682. Whoever wrote this is an abysmally moronic shithead. Enough said.

    Comment by ThisArticleIsSHIT!!! — January 18, 2009 @ 2:58 am | Reply

  1683. FIrst of all…
    WOW!
    How could the earth NOT revolve around the sun?
    It does.
    Look at all the research surrounding this.
    Your claims are ridiculously wrong.
    I am no scientist, but I learned as a young child that the earth revolves around the sun, and that this is called the Heliocentric Theory. It made sense to me, and it should to you.
    Alike you I am a religious individual, who prays, goes to church, and celebrates the many holidays of the church. I believe in the heliocentric Theory. It is not an atheist theory. Therefore I believe in a legitimate concept in which the earth revolves around the sun. It is taught in school (alike the completely true evolution theory) and it should stay that way.

    Comment by Student — January 22, 2009 @ 3:49 pm | Reply

  1684. […] technology, many blindly refute its existence – or in some cases brand such discourses a “soulless, atheistic pseudoscience”. This aforementioned statement taken from a person under the nom de guerre of Sisyphus who uses […]

    Pingback by Creationism and Evolution. « craigknott.co.uk — January 30, 2009 @ 11:45 am | Reply

  1685. “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.”

    This argument is completely invalid.

    Do you feel yourself moving while your in a car or a train or an airplane? No, you dont, and you dont because there is no force acting against you, such as air resistance. Without air resistance the idea of being able to feel the centripetal forces acting against you arises, but there would be no way to feel these forces because one: because you have always felt these forces upon your body so you do not recognize them, and two: because the earth is moving too much too slow for you to feel the effects.

    Just thought people should know, but most people reading this already know this article is completely fabricated.

    Comment by Adam — February 25, 2009 @ 7:58 pm | Reply

  1686. I think everyone has pretty much summed up, more politely then someone like you deserve, your profound lack of understanding. It isn`t really worth saying anymore, just one thing…

    It was THEODORE ROOSEVELT who called Paine a “filthy little atheist”, Paine like George Washington was a deist. And if it were not for Paine and his writings, I am not sure our country would even exists. I guess you wouldn`t know much about it since in it obvious you have no desire to actually research anything.

    It is people like yourself that are determined to use all the advancements of science and rational understanding of our world to try to drag us back into the Bronze Age!

    Comment by DB — February 25, 2009 @ 8:16 pm | Reply

  1687. If the earth moved we would feel it? Do you understand any of the basic principles of the laws of physics? How about this, ever been in a car? How about a plane? PLEASE explain to me how it is that when you are in a plane you don’t physically feel like you are being hurled through the air at 500 miles an hour?is it that the plane actually never moves, and god picks up large metal containers full of people and transports them magically to where they intend to go?

    Comment by Sam — February 25, 2009 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  1688. Holy fucking shit. You people are the most ignorant and insane pieces of shit I’ve ever seen. Even 5 year olds understand that our Sun is the center of our solar system. Please, stop procreating.

    Comment by NoEffingWay — February 25, 2009 @ 9:24 pm | Reply

  1689. I cannot believe what I just read.

    Please be a troll, please.

    If not, I cannot express how much you are wrong, and how sad you life is.

    Comment by ToastyMallows — February 25, 2009 @ 9:56 pm | Reply

  1690. I’ve been on the internet since BBS days, and you are the biggest moron I have ever come across.

    Comment by Greg — February 26, 2009 @ 12:26 am | Reply

  1691. Thank God the bible doesn’t say the sun is being chased by the wolfs Sol and Skoll around the world, like the Norse Mythology does. Otherwise Sisyphus would have been writing essays on the scientific proof of wolfs chasing the sun right now.

    Comment by Ozymandias — February 27, 2009 @ 3:20 pm | Reply

  1692. This is probably a hoax. I just wanted to observe that the heat displayed by advocates of “science” seems inappropriate. Most people accept scientific “truths” in the same fashion that our anscestors accepted religious truths. The do so because someone in authority has told thme it is true.How many of of the believers in evolution or any other scientific theory have actually duplicated the experiments that lead actual scientists to believe these statements are true? The history of science is littered with theories that have had to be scrapped when they began to conflict with observations of nature.

    Of course very little scientific progress would occure if each generation had to repeat these experiments. But is is just as stifling to scientific progress to defend scientific theories with anything other that experimental results. The “Big Bang” theory for example is defended with all of the energy and passion as a religious doctrine but the fact remains that it is increasingly at varience with the observed state of the Universe.

    Comment by Joseph A Nash — April 10, 2009 @ 12:32 pm | Reply

  1693. HA HA

    You people are crazy as hell.

    Comment by Dead — April 12, 2009 @ 11:09 pm | Reply

  1694. […] that I can relate to and understand. When we look at the sky, we see the sun and clouds, and not a heliocentric conspiracy to deny the existence of God (and yes, I am aware that is a spoof […]

    Pingback by Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Speaking in Tongues — May 25, 2009 @ 11:03 am | Reply

  1695. Speed, revolution, centrism, all require a point of reference. Is there a definite center of the universe? If the universe is infinite in size and no definite boundary, then there cannot be a definite center. If there is not definite center then we cannot define a reference point anywhere in the universe. We can only relate movements of physical bodies. And since we always look at the simplest movement pattern, we assume that the sun is center of our solar system, but only from a point of relative movement. It we transition the earth to a point of reference and generate the movement of planets and our sun in relation the the earth, there is a valid pattern of movement or all the bodies, althought it is a more complex movement.

    Comment by Jimu — May 30, 2009 @ 9:07 pm | Reply

  1696. Wow… this post is… absolutely brilliant!

    Comment by Callif — June 1, 2009 @ 8:40 pm | Reply

  1697. […] is that the Renaissance was bad. It ended the Middle Ages, which were good, it led to the atheist doctrine of heliocentrism, which is bad, and God touching the hand of man and all that seems like proto-secular humanism, at […]

    Pingback by Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Wither the Renaissance — June 4, 2009 @ 4:38 pm | Reply

  1698. At first I thought this was some sort of parody website, and a great one at that. I read this thoroughly, before anyone accuses me of not toing so before commenting. I hope, but not expect, this to be taken without prejudice.

    I’m not wanting to pick a fight, so I not going to get rude with anyone.

    First of all, taking the Bible’s word for everything makes little sense. It is far from an authority on astrophysics of cosmology. Resting part of your argument on the premises of ‘the Bible says so’ is not only weak, but a fallacy (look up Ad Verecundiam). On that note: I’m not Catholic anymore, but when I was (and I was 11 and went to Church every Sunday) I was smart enough to realize that the Bible isn’t meant and never meant to act as an encyclopaedia to the universe. It contains metaphors. For instance, I also find it rather absurd for the Torah to be interpreted literally when it says that we should not eat lamb cooked in its mother’s milk (if I recall correctly): it is evidently an analogy saying that we should not act cruelly, or something along those lines. Equally, the Bible should be seen as what it was meant to be seen as: a moral code, not a scientific treaty or a compendium of literally-expressed objective truths.

    Galileo was forced to back down from his theories because the Church threatened him with burning him alive. Such is truth, and I’m sorry to break it to you.

    My last point, about empirical truth: the argument taht since we don’t feel the Earth moving it isn’t moving is nonesense. People once thought that bacteria didn’t exist because we couldn’t see it, until they saw them through microscopes. My point is, human perception is far from perfect. In this case it works like this: sit on a car or a bus and wait until it is going at a constant speed. You won’t feel it moving. This is because you feel movement when you accelerate, not when you move. Of course, you could say ‘then we would feel it turning’. I suppose that perhaps if humans were incredibly sensitive they would feel the change in direction as the Earth turns, but they don’t. The change in direction is so tiny in relation to our capacity to percieve acceleration that there is no way we could feel it.

    I could spend my time researching and proving these geocentrist arguments wrong -i would even find it entertaining- but I’ve got much to do. For those that will disagree with me -because, apparently, such people do exist- I hope that you adopt an objective perspective, read what I’ve left here and have an open mind, which never hurt anyone. I hope I’ve taught someone something. I also hope no one minds me picking un fallacies from here for a college project.

    Comment by Ferreyros — June 16, 2009 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  1699. Oh great, thanks, Ferreyros, what we really needed was another illiterate Sodomite to weigh in with a bunch of typos and blasphemy and mincing and fruiting around. We haven’t had enough of those.

    Comment by DPS — June 18, 2009 @ 9:20 pm | Reply

  1700. […] No, Palin won’t buy Blogs4Brownback I can assure you there is no truth to the rumor that Sarah Palin’s campaign nor any stalking horse or proxy is negotiating to get the rights and all material from Blogs4Brownback. […]

    Pingback by No, Palin won’t buy Blogs4Brownback « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub — June 21, 2009 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  1701. All of you are wrong! I’m right! Why?! Because I declare it to be so and I’ve written and posted it on here on the Internet. Now as to what I’m right about, I’m not saying. You’re simply not ready for the wonders I’ve figured out using my superior intellects.

    However, if you ask nice and no one flames me, I might consider letting a few of you know what I know. All you’ll have to do is pay a small shipping and handling fee.

    Comment by DAR — July 19, 2009 @ 12:10 pm | Reply

  1702. This is where I lose my faith in humanity.

    Say what you want about me and how I’m going to hell. Far much more nicer than being at the side of the universe’s most omnipotent asshole in heaven for all eternity.

    Say what you will about hell. At least they have tornadoes to wipe your ass for you.

    Comment by rapaxpringer — July 25, 2009 @ 6:36 pm | Reply

  1703. oh god…ooooooh god xD i am seriously laughing so much at this…this is the most retarded thing i ever read in my entire life. You know dear fellow… i don’t want to insult anyone, but you are in the same step as a fanatic Muslim, who drinks the words of the holy book like they are to be taken literally. Lucky no one believes in your crap, not even utter religious people.
    You are one of those guys who still believes you came from Adam and Eve…poor you, i hope you see the light one day. That’s not being conservative, that’s being massively stupid.
    This is when i think my conservative granny is a very liberal person, or maybe she isn’t American. She had an European education, and so i am glad to have had one as well.
    I am not Christian, but i tell you, i read all the bible, and they are just moralistic stories…nothing more, they want to transmit a message, they are not to be read like they really happened…
    So stop relying in your LORD…and learn what science proved to you thousands of time…or maybe what Fernão de Magalhães explained to you when he found out the earth is round…

    Comment by Manon — September 12, 2009 @ 12:37 am | Reply

  1704. […] abound – one particularly difficult-to-judge site claims that “Heliocentrism [the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the other way […]

    Pingback by The 10 Laws of the ‘Net | Rumerz.com — October 23, 2009 @ 10:54 am | Reply

  1705. The more I read, the more I expected there to be a punchline of some sort at the end. This is a joke, right? You seriously believe that the Earth doesn’t move? There is no way anyone can be that dumb short of having had a serious head injury.

    Folks, this is just one more reason that religion is bad. It makes people stupid.

    Comment by Flabbergasted — October 23, 2009 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  1706. […] mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalist beliefs for parody. Examples abound – one particularly difficult-to-judge site claims that “Heliocentrism [the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the other […]

    Pingback by The Internet Is For..... - Betting Forum - Betting Tips - The Daily Punt — October 24, 2009 @ 2:24 pm | Reply

  1707. […] abound – one particularly difficult-to-judge site claims that “Heliocentrism [the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the other way […]

    Pingback by The Most Well Known Internet Rules: « — October 24, 2009 @ 5:48 pm | Reply

  1708. […] abound – one particularly difficult-to-judge site claims that “Heliocentrism [the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the other way […]

    Pingback by Internet rules and laws | iancrossland.us — October 27, 2009 @ 5:31 am | Reply

  1709. http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html
    Read it and weep.
    If a theory is able to explain the trends of the universe, and its opposition isn’t, why would you so dogmatically follow a something that can’t explain it’s way out of a cardboard box?

    Comment by Nick — October 28, 2009 @ 8:39 am | Reply

  1710. http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html
    Read it and weep.
    If a theory is able to explain the trends of the universe, and its opposition isn’t, why would you so dogmatically follow something that can’t explain it’s way out of a cardboard box?

    Comment by Nick — October 28, 2009 @ 8:39 am | Reply

  1711. This is this funniest, yet saddest, thing I’ve read in years.

    The bible does not contain the words of god, it contains the words of men and the Old Testament is largely the verbal folk-history of the Jewish peoples.
    The USA is NOT a “christian” state, it is a secular state – or so your constitution-writers intended.
    Strange that one should deny science yet gladly accept the fruits of technology which is the child of science.
    Science constantly seeks to prove itself wrong so as to advance further. Fundamentalism, of any flavour, prohibits advancement.
    BTW, your god gave you a brain; why do you refuse to use it?

    “european zombie atheism” – hmm. A strange, xenophobic combination.

    Comment by minotaur — October 28, 2009 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  1712. Lay off the crack, you uneducated fuck.

    The Bible is essentially a religious, (for the most part philosophical), doctrine. It was written a long time ago. The Qu’ran is essentially a religious and philosophical doctrine, also written a long time ago. What do these two doctrines have in common? They are both misrepresented and taken all too literally by fanatical fucks like you. Both of them are there to serve as moral codes, intended to guide the more fallible among us through the perils of our lives. They are not there to set in stone the parameters of life.

    To take part of the Bible literally is to take all of the Bible literally. It is an all-or-none manoeuver, sir, not a thing that one can merely ‘pick and choose’ those parts that best support one’s opinion. (To do the latter is equivalent to using ‘selective hearing’ to win an argument).

    Following this, Scripture does not guarantee the ‘scientific proof’ of an opinion. Because the Bible says so does not make it true. Indeed – the Bible contradicts itself in several places and across several points of view, as any Biblical scholar will be aware. (Keep in mind that many different men wrote it, over a long period of time. Individual differences and variations of opinion are, therefore, present).

    To illustrate my point: take the fact that many stories found in the Bible were passed down from generation to generation before finally being recorded. It is possible that the original stories changed much, before being recorded as they are now.
    Take the fact that: rightfully, you should take your lesser man and make him your slave. You should stone your children to death for daring to disobey you. You should stone a rape victim to death simply for being raped and not screaming loud enough during the ordeal. You should, failing the former, force her to marry her rapist to maintain her purity. Imagine you have a daughter, who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work. Would you submit her to this sort of treatment? I sincerely hope not. Admittedly these come from the Old Testament, before Jesus came and told everyone to be equals, etcetera. Note too, your ‘proof’ also comes from the Old Testament.

    If I may refer to your “UPDATE II”: Galileo’s recantation of his theory does NOT prove his theory was incorrect. You forget that the Church persecuted him, threw him in gaol, tortured him. To save his life, he recanted. This does not mean his original ideas were incorrect. Recantation under duress does not imply that the original statement was false. It simply illustrates the effects of placing an individual under duress. The same can be said of the Witch Hunts of Europe. Women were forced to ‘confess’ to being a witch. It was a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ scenario. Whether they were in fact ‘witches’ or not is irrelevant as the unfortunate event of being accused was the same as being found guilty.

    Furthermore, what about the flat earth phenomenon? The Church didn’t take kindly to the heretic suggestion that the earth was NOT flat either. The Bible suggests that the earth is flat. And yet, further down the line we’ve realised that the earth is actually round. Do you see my point? Or are you also of the opinion that the earth is flat? If that’s your opinion too, I hope you sail so far that you fall off it you ridiculous fuck.

    Keep in mind: science has evolved an incredible amount since the authorship of all of the individual books within the Bible. Theories as to possible origins and explanations of things have been tested time and time again over the last several thousand years. The purpose of testing a theory’s validity is to attempt to disprove it – not to seek evidence to prove it. If the theory cannot presently be disproved, this only serves to increase the likelihood of it being valid – it doesn’t serve to prove that theory. Ten years, or even a hundred years from now, new evidence may be discovered to imply that the theory is invalid.

    Are you one of those who have never studied that which you condemn? Or, preferably, have you studied Heliocentrism in depth; considered the arguments, the evidence and the formulae for and against, and arrived at your unbiased conclusion? If the latter, then I suggest you go back over the evidence as you may have missed that which indicates the validity of Heliocentrism. If the latter, I suggest also that you apply for a scientific course at your local university. I’m sure you could find a Catholic, an Anglican or otherwise religious university to study the obvious fallaciousness of this ‘science’ thing that everyone keeps going on about.

    I’m amused that so many comments have been made and, for your intellectual sake and for that of your children, I sincerely hope this blog of yours is a satirical parody of religious endeavours and not a sincere consideration of serious beliefs. If the latter, please seek education and attempt to understand that your opinion is not the ‘one true’ of all opinions. There is no single opinion that serves as the ‘one’ ‘true’ opinion, ever.

    Good day.

    Comment by Well; — October 30, 2009 @ 1:49 am | Reply

  1713. This is obviously satire. Do you believe in spacecraft? Try sending a probe to Saturn with an Earth-centered reference frame.

    Comment by Bill — November 7, 2009 @ 11:48 pm | Reply

  1714. So, you mean to tell me that it just so happens that all the stars that we can visibly see at night (in fact, all the ones we cannot see, including distant galaxies) are all traveling at just the right speed according to their distance from Earth to make exactly one revolution around the Earth in exactly the same amount of time (24 hours) every day? That would mean the speed of light is not a limit at all, as the stars would have to be traveling many, many times the speed of light to make their way around the Earth, and there’s never been any question that that simply is not possible.
    Your (and others’) refusal to reject errant notions from an ancient (inaccurate) book does not make the errant statements true. You are blind to the realities of this vast and wondrous universe. One has to suspend reason and simple observation to believe the stories in the Bible, which must be why religion hates science so much. All science is, is a method of observation. Religion doesn’t want the truth to be seen, as it threatens the validity of the Bible, but then again religion is also black and white, thinking that if one thing is wrong in the Bible, it must all be wrong, since God is perfect, and we can’t have that now can we? At least science leaves itself open to evolve in its understanding of things as new observations are made and a more complete picture is assembled. As for religion, on the other hand, the Bible is “it”! The straight and narrow, and damn you to Hell if you question it. Science has no such threat if you choose not to follow it, except for the possibility of getting burned out of ignorance.

    Comment by Bill — November 9, 2009 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

  1715. Boring!!!

    Comment by Krissy — November 14, 2009 @ 7:41 pm | Reply

  1716. Hey, I know Him. he’s the guy from Finland, right? He made some good metal gore (thumb up).

    Comment by Michal, the Czech — November 22, 2009 @ 10:01 am | Reply

  1717. Heliocentrism is false. Whether you believe in the Bible is a matter of choice, yet one cannot deny that the Bible and Creation itself confirms exactly what we see. The first credential of science is observation; we observe the heavenly bodies moving in the vast vacuum of space along perfectly calculated paths. They were not put on these paths by “accident” or “chance”. Nor is a Ferrari designed and built by “accident” or “chance”. Furthermore, since interstellar space is near perfect vacuum, there is nothing to impede an objects motion.

    The fact that Earth is the only body in space with an atmosphere, water and abundant life should make one easily conclude the Earth truly is unique within our solar system.
    The burden of proof truly lies on the heliocentric believers. All of the failed experiments to try and prove a “spinning” and “wobbling” Earth are, and must be ignored. So the heliocentricist is left with only “theoretical math”, as true observation is and must be wholly tossed out the window. True geocentric math is, and must be used for all spaceflight.

    What is most interesting regarding this debate is the attitude of those who emphatically reject a non-moving Earth. Most are simply unable to defend the helio model and therefore only stoop down to character accusations with base language. This only displays ones ineptness to intelligently express ones viewpoint. If you disagree, simply state that and back it up. Otherwise, base language only solidifies that one has been utterly duped by diagrams and false science and reflects base thinking of evolution.

    Each and every one of us are accountable to God. You either accept Him, or reject Him as Creator and Savior. We are nothing more that fleeting observers in His Creation as there is no hiding from the Lord God. “Big Bang” and monkey-to-man “evolution” are nothing but Mickey Mouse theories that have truly retarded science for the last few centuries, but they are now being exposed for their lies and “mysticism” and are quickly running out of fuel.

    http://www.staticearth.net
    http://www.fixedearth.com
    http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception

    Comment by 6sidedraftwebers — December 9, 2009 @ 3:47 pm | Reply

    • I have some comments 6sidedraftwebers

      “The fact that Earth is the only body in space with an atmosphere, water and abundant life should make one easily conclude the Earth truly is unique within our solar system.”

      While you are indeed right that no life has been found, but nearly all the “bodies” in our solar system have an atmosphere. Water HAS been found on the moon and perhaps water is even on mars. While not in the vast quantities it is in on earth, there is no reason to ignore all information in this regard.

      One other question is if storms were created by god, much like the bible makes claim, why are there storms on an uninhabited moon orbiting saturn? Another conspiracy by NASA?

      Comment by christopher — May 16, 2010 @ 10:59 pm | Reply

  1718. This has to be the WORST case of pick and choose I’ve ever seen. How can you honestly READ the Bible, the ENTIRE Bible, including the parts which describe our (and GOD’s) SPIRITUAL nature, then spout off about things you truly have NO clue about?

    I see nowhere in Revelation where the new heaven and new earth (new land and new sky, perhaps?) will take this PHYSICAL, three dimensional plane of existance. Who exactly are you to speek for the ALMIGHTY? Who are you to tell HIM where he plans to reside for eternity?

    As to your “scriptural proof” of a still earth (which comes mostly from the Old Testament, at a time when humans had little understanding of our environment), you manage to take bits and pieces entirely out of context. I can’t even BEGIN to show where you’re missled. A) you’ve taken too much scripture out of context, and B) you don’t seem too keen on LISTENING to GOD HIMSELF, let alone a simple seeker like me.

    Further, you spend too much time on following this THEORY or that THEORY, and precious little time on what the WORD actually says. You see, according to the Gospel of John, chapter 4, God is a SPIRIT, and those who choose to follow Him must worship him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.

    Until you have actually been to space and have EXPERIENCED whether space is a vacuum (or whether it’s a form of Aether like Maxwell stated), please acknowledge that what you have is an OPINION, not TRUTH.

    Yes, I will answer to God for my beliefs. I will answer to God, having obeyed the teachings of His Son’s disciples, being baptized for the remission of my sins (Mark 16; Ax 2,8,9,10,11,18,19,22; Romans 6; 1 Cor 1,10,12,15; Gal 3).

    Please note, I’ve given you book and chapter. I REFUSE to take any portion of GOD’s word out of context. Pick up your Bible and read the preceeding chapters, in context.

    But only if you CHOOSE to do so.

    Comment by harris — December 28, 2009 @ 3:21 pm | Reply

  1719. Please familiarize yourself with the definitions of “truth” and “fact”.
    Truths are subjective and based upon opinion, where as facts are objective and based upon data.

    If your truth should ring true for you, thats nice. Find comfort in that.
    Please stop spreading your truth the masses who do not agree with your truth. We have found it to be false.

    Comment by Bob — March 4, 2010 @ 3:18 pm | Reply

  1720. what the hell u guys take the bible way to literately i mean i thought this was a wind up at first but u guys r actually serious!! couldn’t all those extracts from the bible just be saying ok the earths pretty important 2 us guys at least and lets not forget that the bible although meant to convey the word of god is actually written by maybe wise but not very well informed men what thousands of years ago when we still believed the world was flat. I mean hell u guys need 2 think of another way to read the bible without taking everything at face value cause everyone including me just thinks ur stupid. hell i’m only just ateenager and i can figuire that one out!!

    Comment by georgina — March 5, 2010 @ 2:24 pm | Reply

  1721. Yum yum, that’s good troll-feed.

    Comment by The Schwarzenator — April 13, 2010 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

  1722. Lol I was reading this and thinking to myself how is it possible for anyone to be so detached from reality, but the more I read the more I’m convinced this is just a mock article. Sysiphus, are you sure you’re not Stephen Colbert?

    Comment by Pedro — May 13, 2010 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

  1723. I’ve got one observation…What about all the solar systems out there besides our own? Why are they heliocentric, but only ours is geocentric?

    It would only make logical sense that a planet would revolve around an object that is larger than itself; much in the same way the moon revolves around us. To ignore the basis for physics and all the other sciences, is to ignore the fact that they work. True, you can shoot holes in some theories such as newtons laws, but they are still in effect at the macroscopic level and before einstein barely any work had been done to predict how atoms work.

    Because you’re reading this right now it is proof, at least to some degree, that einstein was right. His theories helped us create the nuclear bomb, lcd screens, computers and many other technologies we enjoy today. Yes, even he has been proven wrong, his famous theory of relativity doesn’t work with quantum mechanics, but like newtons laws, it works well enough to use it to predict much of the world we interact with today.

    Please consider the possibilities.

    Regards,
    Christopher

    Comment by christopher — May 16, 2010 @ 10:48 pm | Reply

  1724. This is satire, right? Certainly nobody could be this dogmatic, especially in the face of all the evidence for the heliocentric model.

    Comment by Sean — May 23, 2010 @ 5:37 pm | Reply

  1725. Harris/1720 said: “As to your “scriptural proof” of a still earth (which comes mostly from the Old Testament, at a time when humans had little understanding of our environment).” Your quote implies that man has increased in knowledge; that is, that those unto whom God revealed his oracles and directly spoke to were ignorant folk who “…had little understanding of our environment.” Really? That is the exact same dribble that evolutionists spout forth; that is, that man is climbing higher and higher on the evolutionary ladder and the people “back then” were ignorant, nomadic people who knew nothing. Funny thing because most people today cannot even add two numbers in their head.

    As far as the Bible, it preaches the exact opposite; this being that man had greatness unto whom God directly revealed truth but in time lost this due to sin and worshiping the creature instead of the creator (how else do you explain the incredible accomplishments of the ancient civilizations like the Aztecs, Mayans, Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.? Many accomplishments for which modern man cannot explain let alone reproduce. Think for a moment about Noah building of the ark. An ark where he received direct revelation from God on all of the specifics to accomplish this engineering marvel. Amazing what an ignorant nomad could do without CAD/CAM, cranes, and other such technological inventions.

    Whether you agree or disagree with the poster of this article, there is no other way to take the sun referencing verses as they are written – that is that the sun moves. For this is exactly how God’s people read them and believed them for thousands of years. It is only since modern science has come along that men must now declare that those verses really do not say what they say or to make excuses for them as you have done. The same science I will reminder you that has taught there never was a literal flood, the Red sea was never parted, Jericho was not destroyed by people walking around it for 7 days, Jesus either didn’t exist or certainly did not rise from the grave, evolution is truth and creation is a lie hatched by people who had little understanding of their environment, there is no sin, only sickness that doctors/shrinks can heal without God/Jesus (i.e. no such thing as a drunkard, but rather alcoholics, no fornicators but rather sexual addicts, no sodomites/perverts, but rather genetically predisposed homosexuals, etc.)

    This is why many in the church bend knee to theistic evolution, promote psychology and not Jesus Christ, and hail modern science as the tonic to free us from those damnable fundies who take the Bible literally.

    Unto those who believe that lightning stuck the primordial ooze some billion or so years ago which started the most incredible chain reaction of positive mutations to create man from mud, there is not much I can say to convince you of the absolute foolishness of such fantasies.

    And finally, to the author of the article, stand firm in what you believe and don’t shrink back.

    Comment by Mike — May 29, 2010 @ 10:20 pm | Reply

  1726. Foucault Pendulum, try to explain that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

    Comment by Nico — May 10, 2011 @ 2:49 am | Reply

  1727. Brilliant brilliant brilliant. I can’t believe that I had not seen this blog before. Bravo for keeping this up for so long.

    Also, as someone who does not live in the US, what I find so telling is the the number of people who are taking this seriously. You guys must be surrounded by some serious wackos on a daily basis.

    Comment by Bobo — June 27, 2011 @ 10:22 am | Reply

    • You have no idea. Just keep in mind that as an American I think this guy is a fucking moron.

      Comment by Adam — October 9, 2011 @ 9:37 pm | Reply

  1728. After it gets going do you feel the movement of a car going forward? No. If the earth is at a relatively constant speed revolving on its axis and around the sun then we would not feel it since we are and have been traveling with it since birth. The scriptural references saying the earth is “fixed” and “unmovable” probably mean fixed on a path and unmovable from that path. They do not specifically say that the earth is fixed in space.

    Comment by Michael — October 6, 2011 @ 4:39 pm | Reply

  1729. Troll of the Century Award Goes to This Blog, with over 1000 lulz in reply to your post. Good Work.

    Comment by dbogaj — October 30, 2011 @ 11:39 am | Reply

  1730. Didn’t you know? The bible, and it’s thousands of incarnations by very fallible HUMANS is always right? According to the bible too, incest is the way to go. Oh, this same guys probably doesn’t know that according to the bible, the devil isn’t the ruler of hell, Jesus didn’t have blonde hair, and angels look very freaky, and something that most Christians would run away from. This is a great joke!

    Comment by Chris — November 28, 2011 @ 5:54 pm | Reply

  1731. This is so freaken stupid! I couldn’t even read the whole article. I thought heliocentrism was proven about 200 years ago and unquestionably proven by the time we went into space. I have seen a lot of stupid crap on the internet, but this is by far the dumbest.

    Comment by Andrew — January 28, 2012 @ 5:20 pm | Reply

  1732. […] Mars Distance from The SunPluto FactsMayan AstronomyPlanet Mnemonics – A Device to Remember the Order of the PlanetsHeliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine […]

    Pingback by Order of Planets from The Sun | The information about Hood Voices — February 17, 2012 @ 12:16 pm | Reply

  1733. Wake up you stupid and arrogant fool! What seems so obvious to you might not be the truth at all! We laugh at you because you live with your close circle mind sets and don`t realize that the world has already changed and heliocentrism is widely accepted model, it has been scientifically proven and all the astronomical data speaks in favor of this model!
    How long you are going to ignore this and waste your resources and emotions on that nonsense about “Earth stands still”? What a self-indulged mind fuck!

    Comment by EEE — June 20, 2012 @ 2:37 am | Reply

    • can you give us a proof that the earth moves and stop with your verbal diarrhea?

      Comment by onecloser — March 7, 2013 @ 11:59 am | Reply

  1734. You, Sir, are a genius! 🙂

    Comment by skeptichamster — September 17, 2012 @ 5:22 am | Reply

  1735. You have got to be Kidding! What in the world are you spreading this type of ignorance? Science has proved a long time ago that the sun is the center of our universe and planets and other objects orbit around it. Where have you been? There is plenty of proof to verify this fact. And by the way, this scientific fact has nothing at all to do with religion or atheism. If Conservatives believe in this nonsense that you are spewing, then I would classify them as a party faction of ignorant fools.

    Comment by William Phifer — February 5, 2013 @ 1:59 pm | Reply

    • William Phifer…You mean the center of our solar system, don’t you? After all, our Sun sure the heck isn’t the center of the universe 🙂

      Comment by Kay — February 8, 2013 @ 7:49 pm | Reply

      • Dear Kay,

        It was either a misprint or words were left out. I am fully aware that the sun is the center of our universe. People that lived more than 2 to 3 thousands of years ago did not know this. The scholars and writers of the Bible at that time did not know this fact. The writers of the Bible had to rely on the knowledge of that time. They often implied that the earth was at the center and the sun, the moon and stars revolved around it. The Bible is not a scientific factual book. It may have never been written to act as one. Creationists and others who believe that the bible must be taken literally, are ignoring proven scientific facts of today, I hope that this clears up any errors in my first statement and that you now understand where I stand on this issue.

        William

        Comment by William Phifer — March 8, 2013 @ 7:35 am

    • yes!

      Comment by Michael — February 25, 2013 @ 12:14 pm | Reply

    • William Phifer, I REALLY don’t think you understand what Kay was saying. Go back and read it slowly and carefully and then hopefully you will understand what she was pointing out to you

      Comment by Wesley — December 28, 2013 @ 3:29 pm | Reply

      • Dear Wesley,
        I will assume that I was not clear or erred in a statement that I made some time ago or you simply misunderstood what I was saying concerning science and the cosmos. However, I am not ignorant! The sun is the center of our ‘star’ system, with eight planets, satellites and other smaller objects orbiting the sun, which is a star. The ‘Universe’ consists of many stars, black holes, star systems, and other objects that orbit and/or pass through it over a millennium of time and space. In ancient beliefs, it was assumed that the earth was the center of everything and that everything, including the sun revolved around it. Ancient biblical and/or cultural beliefs support this. Modern science has proven that these assertions were untrue. Now, if there is anything in the statement that is wrong or misleading, please let me know.
        William Phifer

        PS: Heliocentrism is not an atheist doctrine. It is a fact!
        PS2: You can reach my blog at: http://billp47.wordpress.com/

        Comment by William Phifer — February 2, 2014 @ 11:13 pm

      • I will assume that I was not clear orerred in a statement that I made some time ago or you simply misunderstood whatI was saying concerning science and the cosmos. However, I am not ignorant! The sun is the center of our ‘star’ system, witheight planets, satellites and other smaller objects orbiting the sun, which isa star. The ‘Universe’ consists of many stars, black holes, star systems, andother objects that orbit and/or pass through it over a millennium of time andspace. In ancient beliefs, it was assumed that the earth was the center ofeverything and that everything, including the sun revolved around it. Ancientbiblical and/or cultural beliefs support this. Modern science has proven that these assertions and beliefs were untrue. Now, if there is anything in the statementthat is wrong or misleading, or deserves further details, please let me know. William Phifer

        You can reach me at williphif@aol.com or at my blog: http://billp47.wordpress.com/

        Comment by William Phifer — February 2, 2014 @ 11:30 pm

  1736. I don’t know which to laugh harder at, your lovely piece of writing or the people that think this was serious.

    Comment by asvogler — February 11, 2013 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  1737. wonderul,praise God!

    Comment by onecloser — March 7, 2013 @ 11:57 am | Reply

  1738. Furthermore, there is really no product that can completely
    prevent perspiration and sweating for life.

    Since I couldn’t remove it by ripping on it quickly, it left a little bit of the wax gel stuff behind. Often, different methods are better suited for different areas. Waxing is supposed to leave you with soft hair free skin from four to eight weeks.

    Comment by Dirk — March 20, 2013 @ 10:16 pm | Reply

  1739. My brother suggested I might like this website.
    He was totally right. This post actually made my
    day. You cann’t imagine just how much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

    Comment by hcg diet blog — May 7, 2013 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  1740. yay i’m the last to comment….big smile…

    Comment by Chamhembe — May 10, 2013 @ 6:44 pm | Reply

  1741. Science proved the sun is fixed and the earth moves? Bzzt. Not even the modern scientists will grant you such a ridiculous certainty. Heliocentrism and Geocentrism remain theory. Which begs the question. The pooh poohers here act as if science as they know it is a god they must defend. That anyone who entertains zetetic inquiry into a subject must be ridiculed until they stop it. Such hew and cry suggests something much deeper is afoot. They act like pupils of indoctrination. Because not one of the heliocentric advocates crying foul and slinging “stupid” around can prove anything except to run to their grammar school texts and youtube videos and point to cartoon pictures of the Copernican model. Sorry, folks. Not good enough. Graduate grammar school if you want to discuss something beyond your scope.

    Comment by Marayna — May 28, 2013 @ 11:18 am | Reply

    • <>
      Which question?
      <>
      Whereas the religious have acted as if their gods, as they know them, are gods they must defend (sounds familiar) for a lot longer and with a lot less justification.
      <>
      But the priests of your religion (any religion) forbid you to think logically.
      <>
      I did – that’s why I realise that that makes no sense.

      Comment by Minotaur — June 19, 2013 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  1742. Dude, you shoud consult to psychiatrist. And take clozaril as you medicine.
    May your god bless you.

    Comment by ALpacino — June 15, 2013 @ 10:43 pm | Reply

  1743. Women existed before men. That’s why men have nipples and they’re testes are over-developed ovaries. Evolution is occurying in real time. Humans hyper-evolve bacteria and virus’s to suit specific needs regularly. A pride of lions in Africa are triple the size of the average lion and are quickly taking over, as our grandchildren will see, it will even conquer the mighty church in a quest for free thought. To give you perspective, the sun orbits around the galactic center of the Milky Way and has completed 1/1250th of a rotation since the dawn of man. Read the book of Mary Magdelan, and of Jesus children. Read the books of Enoch, because that fundamental Christianity.

    Comment by Mattt — July 7, 2013 @ 2:41 am | Reply

  1744. What’s up to every body, it’s my first go to see of this web site; this weblog
    contains awesome and genuinely good material in support of readers.

    Comment by sallywqcq.jux.com — July 31, 2013 @ 1:03 pm | Reply

  1745. I drop a comment whenever I especially enjoy a post on a website or I have
    something to add to the discussion. It’s caused by the fire communicated in the post I looked at. And after this article Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine | Blogs 4 Brownback. I was actually moved enough to drop a thought 🙂 I do have 2 questions for you if it’s okay.

    Is it simply me or do some of the comments come across like they
    are written by brain dead people? 😛 And, if you are posting
    on other sites, I would like to keep up with you. Would
    you make a list all of all your public pages like your
    twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

    Comment by jaket distro — August 9, 2013 @ 8:46 am | Reply

  1746. […] will often mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalist beliefs for parody. Examples abound – one particularly difficult-to-judge site claims that “Heliocentrism [the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun, rather than the other way […]

    Pingback by Top 10 Laws for Life | John Rentoul | Independent Eagle Eye Blogs — August 12, 2013 @ 9:32 am | Reply

  1747. Holy crap! This blog is so ridiculous, even The Telegraph couldn’t tell if it was a poe. Of course, me, however, being from Kansas — still living in Kansas — busted up hysterically the moment the top banner finished loading and I saw the word “Brownback”. Yes. He *is* that stupid. I know this far too well, especially since 2009, when he took over the Governor’s Office because of Obama’s appointment of Kathleen Sebelius. *drops to knees* *sobbing* I want my old babysitter back! Please! I miss you! I love you! Not that Brownback this stuff, mind you. That would require him to work. However, if someone recited it to him in submission for approval, he’d say, “Ummm, yeah,m that sounds about right. Go with it.”

    Comment by Paul Lynch — October 8, 2013 @ 3:54 pm | Reply

  1748. And the Earth is flat…. or at least that is the model I used when I built my last swimming pool.

    Comment by Pat hackett — October 27, 2013 @ 10:02 am | Reply

  1749. Foundation and so real love designed for your meals are
    while long-standing for men and women; various nationalities because physical locations will vary associated with supper guidelines.
    After a while many people see relating to diet data connected to these
    people consume food, and thus, the call to eat healthy food choices has grown.
    The customer respond to these are actually the fabled The paleo diet.

    Comment by paleo plan — November 1, 2013 @ 2:03 am | Reply

  1750. HOW I ALMOST LOST MY EX FOR ANOTHER WOMAN

    Thanks to this great man of spirit called Dr UNOKO which I don’t know how to thank him for the good work he has Done for me and family which I want to share my testimony with to you all so I was married to Hassan Moel and my name is vanell, for six years now he left me with two kids with know reason which I don’t know what to do.so one day i was in my friends place when I exposed my pain to her about my depression which I have be looking for who to help me out of it then my friend called me closer to her self telling me on how she got this great man of spirit who helped her found her way to get her husband back then I ask of his contact she quickly go and get her computer and gave me his Email ID and his number so,that is how I contacted him for a help. And now am so happy with my family and with a happy home if you are in such pain kindly Via Email DR.UNOKOSPELLTEMPLE30@GMAIL.COM or call +2348103508204 have faith in him and he will help you

    Comment by Vivian Heather — December 5, 2013 @ 12:50 am | Reply

  1751. If the earth is rotating at 1000 km/hr, why cannot one simply hover in a helicopter for half an hour and come down to reach his destination? If the atmosphere is indeed rotating WITH the earth, how else would planes be able to keep up with this rotation? If the earth is truly tilting and rotating around the sun, why does the North Star remained fixed? People need to research more about the laws (Newtonian and other Physics) that are violated when we apply a heliocentric model to our system. They need to re-evaluate mass, distance, and other components by plugging them into the laws of Physics, to see whether or not they agree. Each time a law is broken, the heliocentric proponents will fabricate any reasoning they can come up with just to cover their grounds, even if it disagrees with other physical laws. The sun-worshipers and Mithra occultists would have us believe that the earth revolves around the sun — this is why we have adapted a solar calendar, Sunday for worship, and their imagery is littered throughout television, music, and media. Just as the Egyptians worshiped the sun, the Church elitists do likewise. Everyone wants to talk about Galileo’s criticism, but do not mention how happy the Pope was to receive Copernicus’ idea during his time. Start from scratch, do your research, and you will see that we are all under a cloak of deception — NASA and the government will keep lying to people — the moon landing, UFOs, advanced technology, etc. They would have you believe that the ancients were dumb, hiding the fact of advanced civilizations and ancient technology. They would have you believe that they were dumb because they believed that the “world” was flat — but if you were to look at the galaxies from their side view, what would you see — a flat disc, or a round circle? Google image search Ptolemy’s orbital diagrams, compare it to planetary nebulae systems, and then ask yourself if we really live in the galaxy that so many photos erroneously portray us in — a photo that apparently was taken millions of light years away. Come on — think people — stop being told what to believe and what not to believe, and do your own critical research of mainstream science.

    Comment by Joseph Cek — February 11, 2014 @ 4:16 pm | Reply

    • 1. Because you and the helicopter both not only originated from, but also comprise Earth, i.e. you’re not merely from Earth; you *are* Earth. Everything in you contributed to the Earth’s formation 4.5 billion years ago, just like everything else on Earth. Thus, you have all the same angular momentum around Earth’s core. If you wanted the Earth to spin underneath you, you would have to spend a ton of energy to *slow down* which is basically what’s going on whenever anything ─ like an airplane, for example ─ moves toward the west, and

      2. when that airplane moves to the east, it was already moving as fast as the rest of the Earth, but now it’s spending energy to make itself go even faster to the point where now, the *Earth* can’t keep up with the *airplane*. Nothing ever needs to keep up with the Earth, because it, inevitably, already *is* keeping up with the Earth.

      3. Because the North star is 431 light-years away which is so distant that even if you moved 185 million miles to the left, it would still appear in the same spot.

      Question 4: Dude, a flat disc *is* a round circle. What are you trying to ask?

      Comment by Paul Lynch — March 4, 2014 @ 12:26 am | Reply

    • The ancient Phoenicians and Greeks knew that the earth revolved around the sun.
      The Catholic church insisted that the opposite was true else WE would not be “special”.
      The church also insisted that all planetary motions were perfectly circular.

      Comment by minotaur — March 4, 2014 @ 3:50 am | Reply

  1752. […] The clues are fairly blatant. He’s anti-abortion and pro-war clearly to curry favour with his new mas­ter who wants to see suf­fer­ing. The web­log shows him bar­ing his teeth in a satanic grin through a van­dal­ised American flag charred with brim­stone. And now he’s arguing that chil­dren should be taught that the uni­verse revolves around Satan. […]

    Pingback by Is the Heart of the Universe is Satanic? | AlunSalt — July 14, 2014 @ 11:23 am | Reply

  1753. […] Heliocentrism (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; 14 September 2010)2. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (Blogs 4 Brownback; 18 May […]

    Pingback by Defining ‘Heliocentricism’ (Updated) | My great WordPress blog — September 26, 2014 @ 2:03 am | Reply

  1754. […] 14 September 2010)4. EJ Hill. Defining Heliocentricism (Ejays; 14 September 2010)5. Psycheout. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (Blogs 4 Brownback; 18 May 2007)6. Dr. David P. Stern. The Round Earth and Christopher Columbus (4 […]

    Pingback by Heliocentricism (Updated) | My great WordPress blog — September 26, 2014 @ 2:16 am | Reply

  1755. […] Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? (Christian Answers; 14 September 2010)5. Psycheout. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (Blogs 4 Brownback; 18 May 2007)6. Modern geocentrism (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; 14 […]

    Pingback by The Geocentric Flat Earth Theory (Updated) | My great WordPress blog — September 26, 2014 @ 2:16 am | Reply

  1756. […] April 1999)2. Modern geocentrism (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; 14 September 2010)3. Psycheout. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (Blogs 4 Brownback; 18 May 2007)4. The non-moving Earth and anti-evolution web page of the Fair […]

    Pingback by The Geocentric Static Earth Theory (Updated) | Hillside — September 26, 2014 @ 3:03 am | Reply

  1757. […] April 1999)2. Modern geocentrism (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; 14 September 2010)3. Psycheout. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (Blogs 4 Brownback; 18 May 2007)4. The non-moving Earth and anti-evolution web page of the Fair […]

    Pingback by The Geocentric Line of Sight Theory (Updated) | Hillside — September 26, 2014 @ 3:03 am | Reply

  1758. […] 10 September 2010)30. Aristotle (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; 10 September 2010)31. Psycheout. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine (Blogs 4 Brownback; 18 May […]

    Pingback by Natural Selection (Updated) | Hillside — September 26, 2014 @ 3:04 am | Reply

  1759. If your reference frame is the Terra-Luna system then Earth is the center. If your reference frame is the deepest part of our star system’s gravity well then that is a point near but outside the sun. If your reference frame is the galaxy then the center is a supermassive black hole. If your reference frame is the universe then the center is in the middle of nowhere and everywhere.

    Comment by hoodaticus — November 5, 2015 @ 9:50 pm | Reply

  1760. Thanks a lot, this really is a truly awsome article! People need to research more about the laws (Newtonian and other Physics) that are violated when we apply a heliocentric model to our system. They need to re-evaluate mass, distance, and other components by plugging them into the laws of Physics, to see whether or not they agree. I also can be helpful here 🙂 Just look at the service“https://goo.gl/EyHQaY”. Its pretty easy to use. I think you can get a free trial if you ask for it.

    Comment by MYUNG ROSATI — October 1, 2016 @ 4:13 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a reply to Sisyphus Cancel reply