by peacefulpete 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    I stopped reading at this:

    Whereas for “theory”, we find: “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”

    That is the colloquial definition used in common speech, NOT the definition of a scientific theory. Either the writer is too ignorant to realize that, and therefore his conclusions based on ignorance aren't worth my time, OR WORSE, he is too dishonest to address the correct definition and therefore completely unworthy of my time OR respect.

  • ProdigalSon

    cofty said:

    How about the evidence that we can launch probes based on calculations of planets and distant moons millions of miles away and land precisely on target years later?

    Marshall Hall and others are saying that NASA bases their calculations for launches on a non-moving earth, because "the math is easier". Personally I can't vouch for that, maybe someone else knows more about how NASA does things.

    He also says that the only "evidence" that mainstream science offers 4th graders for heliocentrism is stellar parallax. Personally, I don't remember being taught anything else myself. It's just stated as "fact", probably because it just IS, and not many would challenge it these days. Except of course, for a Bible believer.

  • Gerard

    Sorry, peacefulpete , but that writter was in peyote (as all creationist writters are) Also, he is basing his ramblings on an erroneous meaning of scientific theory. AND YOU KNOW IT.His definition is: “theory”: “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.” "something taken for granted; a supposition". However, that is exactly what religion is: unproven assumptions.

    And regarding his assertion that the universe rotates around Earth..... the link is sh!t. And if you still think he is serious, please finish primary school.

  • bohm

    If the earth sit still (like this author claim, amongst other things, because he find the speed the earth goes around the sun to be ridiculously large) try to imagine how fast the stars must orbit around the earth -- much faster than the speed of light.

    But somehow that present no problem.

  • poopsiecakes

    This website is the perfect example of why I've come to hate religion and the whole 'my god is better than your god' stupidity...

  • jonathan dough
  • bohm

    thanks, JD, that answer my questions on heliocentrism exactly ;-).

  • peacefulpete

    Well, OK In my arrogance I thought the forum knew me well enough to know I wasn't actaully suggesting the geocentrist model was correct, I felt there might be value in analysing the argumentation. Guess I've been gone too long. Anyhow..Some of your comments made good points.

    The author begins with attaching a definition to words that support his position, in essence trying to suggest that his audience has only to open a dictionary to make the amazing discovery of the century, "Why it is a theory, and that proves it is unproven!"

    Not only that but the "theory" is only based upon other great manyunprovenassumptionssimply accepted when they are nothing more than conjecture. It's not scientific, not arived at by the scientific method ...The use of loaded language and an attempt to sound knowledgeable and concerned about the state of science being taught.

    A reference or two to 100 year old scientific experiments adds a scientific flavor. The experiments are actually discussed in 100 level college physics but most readers will not have heard of them and if they try to read about them the complexity of the actual explanations for the observations will likely lead to accepting the author's super simple conclusion.

    Those that believe the false science of heliocenticism willfully accepted the big liedespite SOLID evidence against it. This language wouldn't be used in scientific writing. There is such a thing as poor science and pseudoscience but the use of the term 'false' has a religious or journalistic tone. The author then imputes motives to all who accept the heliocentric model against clear irrefutable evidence as willfully sharing in a massive conspiracy either to discredit the Bible or be conformists and fit in.

    And finally the appeal to scripture and religious authorities, which though stratigically late in the article are actually the foundation for the article.

    The end notes suggesting a Masonic/ Jewish conspiracy to steal away your faith are an appeal to emotion, namely fear. Not many scientific articles suggest that by accepting an alternative view you will spend forever in Hell.

  • VoidEater

    There is too much observed evidence to support the notion that the universe revolves around the earth.

    There is much better evidence that our solar system revolves around the sun.

    I presume that "revolves around" is what is meant by "centric". I can't bring myself to read any more stupidity today. And yes I feel utterly confident in rejecting this particular bit of silliness without poring through it.

    Of course, heliocentric cannot possible refer to the center of the universe, just as geocentric can't be seriosuly thought of as the center of the universe. Simply looking at the shape of our galaxy and our position within it gives an intuitive insight into how wierd this would be.

  • peacefulpete

    I find very distubing that the Catholic webmasters while not necessarily agreeing with the author's every point said : "We find his research on geocentrism to be thorough and precise."

Share this