Evolution just doesn't make sense

[Fred the musician]

Sometimes something that's supposedly generally known actually isn't true.

Do you have any evidence for the claim? Or do you just believe it because you think lots of other people do?

Yes I do. Google "Spanish inquisition" or "Galileo Galilei"... or both.

General knowledge needn't be true. No, you're right. 1+1=2? Can you prove it?

 

[erowe1]

Yes I do. Google "Spanish inquisition" or "Galileo Galilei"... or both.

General knowledge needn't be true. No, you're right. 1+1=2? Can you prove it?

So you're saying you don't know of any evidence at all that the Church ever taught the earth was flat?

I don't see how this relates to the Spanish Inquisition or Galileo.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] the church taught us that the earth was flat [...]

No it didn't.

FTA: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/07/thomas-woods/the-flat-earth-myth/

The Flat Earth Myth

[...] After all, didn’t the Church teach that the world was flat?

Actually, no. Essentially no one during the Middle Ages believed the world was flat. Of the many myths about the Middle Ages this one is perhaps the most widespread, and yet at the same time the most roundly and authoritatively debunked.

In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that refuting this myth is like refuting the idea that the moon is made of cheese.

[...]

Much more at link.

 

[Fred the musician]

Christopher Columbus was the first person ever, convinced enough of a round earth, that he was willing to prove it by sailing west to India. He could not find any men to go with him because everyone was convinced they would fall off the earth if they reached the end. Therefore prisoners were assigned to him.

The belief that the earth was flat led to the discovery of America. How ignorant can you be!!!

By the time America was founded, the flat earth dogma was gone. And (obviously) Americans think "if it never happened in America, it never happened".

 

[Scrapmo]

Christopher Columbus was the first person ever, convinced enough of a round earth, that he was willing to prove it by sailing west to India. He could not find any men to go with him because everyone was convinced they would fall off the earth if they reached the end. Therefore prisoners were assigned to him.

The belief that the earth was flat led to the discovery of America. How ignorant can you be!!!

By the time America was founded, the flat earth dogma was gone. And (obviously) Americans think "if it never happened in America, it never happened".

Neg rep for being purposefully obtuse and willfully ignorant. There is literally no truth in your post. Since Pythagoras, in the 6th century B.C., proved the earth was round, very few scientists in the western world had questioned this fact. By the time Columbus sailed in 1492 it was a given. He did not sail to prove the earth was round. He believed sailing west to India would be quicker then sailing east.

I cant tell if you are trolling or if your really this dense.

 

[erowe1]

Christopher Columbus was the first person ever, convinced enough of a round earth, that he was willing to prove it by sailing west to India. He could not find any men to go with him because everyone was convinced they would fall off the earth if they reached the end. Therefore prisoners were assigned to him.

The belief that the earth was flat led to the discovery of America. How ignorant can you be!!!

By the time America was founded, the flat earth dogma was gone. And (obviously) Americans think "if it never happened in America, it never happened".

That's a myth. It was common knowledge for many centuries before Columbus that the earth was round.

Furthermore, Galileo was more than a century LATER than Columbus, and many decades later than Magellan's circumnavigation.

If you really are so confident in what you're saying, why are you having so much trouble finding even a scrap of evidence for it?

 

[Fred the musician]

Galileo Galilei challenged another dogma: he said the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice versa, and he said that the moon didn't produce light but merely reflected it.
That's why I mentioned him: dogmas, dogmas and more dogmas that the church taught us but which were not true.

 

[Fred the musician]

Mark Twain said: "It's much easier to fool people than to convince them that they were fooled". And he was right. Only people living in the infamous bible belt (which exists both in Europe and America) still believe the biblical creation story.
A few posts ago I proved beyond doubt that the story in genesis 1 can't possibly be accurate.
By the way, I attended both public and christian schools, but although christian school still taught creation, they admitted that the church had been wrong several times (flat earth & sun revolving around the earth).

 

[erowe1]

By the way, I attended both public and christian schools, but although christian school still taught creation, they admitted that the church had been wrong several times (flat earth & sun revolving around the earth).

You went to a Christian school that taught that the Church used to believe in a flat earth?

Did they back that up with any evidence?

 

[otherone]

You went to a Christian school that taught that the Church used to believe in a flat earth?

Did they back that up with any evidence?

Why would a Christian school need to provide any evidence other than having it written in some book?

 

[erowe1]

Why would a Christian school need to provide any evidence other than having it written in some book?

If it's written in some book that the Church used to believe in a flat earth, I'd like to know what book.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Galileo Galilei challenged another dogma: he said the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice versa....

So what do you think; does the Earth revolve around the Sun, or does the Sun revolve around the Earth?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Christopher Columbus was the first person ever, convinced enough of a round earth, that he was willing to prove it by sailing west to India. He could not find any men to go with him because everyone was convinced they would fall off the earth if they reached the end. Therefore prisoners were assigned to him.

The belief that the earth was flat led to the discovery of America. How ignorant can you be!!!

This is complete and utter bullshit. If you really believe this, then YOU are the ignoramus.

Everyone knew that the Earth was round. Especially sailors. (They could see the proof with their own eyes every time another ship, a lighthouse or land came into view over the horizon - from the top down.)

What set Columbus apart from others was his (erroneous) conviction that the circumference of the Earth was much smaller (by about 6,000 miles) than what everyone else thought it was. THAT is why sailors were afraid of trying to sail west from Europe in order to reach Asia. Everyone thought that it was so far away that it was impossible to make the trip (by sailing west) without running out of food and water long before reaching Asia. But Columbus was wrong - he thought that the circumference of the Earth was only about three-fourths of what it actually was - and that Asia was close enough to reach. What no one knew was that there were two large continents between Europe and Asia - namely, North and South America. That fact is probably the only thing that saved the lives of Columbus and the crews of his ships. Columbus died thinking that he had found a new route to Asia - never knowing that the had in fact discovered a "New World."

FTA: Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus [emphasis added]
http://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html

1. Columbus set out to prove the world was round.

If he did, he was about 2,000 years too late. Ancient Greek mathematicians had already proven that the Earth was round, not flat. Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C.E. was one of the originators of the idea. Aristotle in the fourth century B.C.E. provided the physical evidence, such as the shadow of the Earth on the moon and the curvature of the Earth known by all sailors approaching land. And by the third century B.C.E., Eratosthenes determined the Earth's shape and circumference using basic geometry. In the second century C.E., Claudius Ptolemy wrote the "Almagest," the mathematical and astronomical treatise on planetary shapes and motions, describing the spherical Earth. This text was well known throughout educated Europe in Columbus' time. [Related: Earth Is Flat in Many People's Minds]

Columbus, a self-taught man, greatly underestimated the Earth's circumference. He also thought Europe was wider than it actually was and that Japan was farther from the coast of China than it really was. For these reasons, he figured he could reach Asia by going west, a concept that most of educated Europe at the time thought was daft — not because the Earth was flat, but because Columbus' math was so wrong. Columbus, in effect, got lucky by bumping into land that, of course, wasn't Asia.

The Columbus flat-earth myth perhaps originated with Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus; there's no mention of this before that. His crew wasn't nervous about falling off the Earth.

 

[Fred the musician]

I did some research... Very interesting, because many websites say how this "flat earth myth" came into existance. I have some ideas on how this myth might not be a myth, but due to lack of evidence I'll drop the subject of round/flat earth.

But... I did find documents proving that Galileo Galilei had a quarrel with the church when he said that the earth revolved around the sun, while the church said that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei also said that the moon didn't give light; it only reflected sunlight.
So of the 3 dogmas that I mentioned before, only 2 remain... and in both cases the church was proven wrong.

So here we are where we left the original subject: scientists vs church. If the dogma were correct (all animals created at the same time) then how is it possible that the fossiles in the different earth layers prove otherwise? I mean: if humans were created when the earth was 6 days old, we should be able to find human fossiles in the layer where we really find animals that were extinct before man evolved.
Also, if the universe were only 6000 years old (give or take a few hundred years) as creationists believe, then how can we see stars that are 10000 lightyears away from us? Their first light shouldn't have reached us yet.

 

[erowe1]

I did some research... Very interesting, because many websites say how this "flat earth myth" came into existance. I have some ideas on how this myth might not be a myth, but due to lack of evidence I'll drop the subject of round/flat earth.

But... I did find documents proving that Galileo Galilei had a quarrel with the church when he said that the earth revolved around the sun, while the church said that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei also said that the moon didn't give light; it only reflected sunlight.
So of the 3 dogmas that I mentioned before, only 2 remain... and in both cases the church was proven wrong.

So after all that derision of people who questioned you to back up your story about the Church saying the earth was flat, saying that it was common knowledge, and everyone in Europe knew it, and we were just dumb Americans, and so on, this is it? That specific question of the church teaching a flat earth was the precise question people challenged you on. Nothing else. And that specific question, and only it, was your basis for talking down to people.

And then you try to turn around and bring up Galileo vs. the Church on heliocentrism, which actually is something that all educated people are already familiar with, as if you just now found out about it.

You're not ready for this discussion yet.

 

[Fred the musician]

So just because I brought up 3 dogmas of which 1 was common knowledge when I went to school but seems(!) to be nonexistant, after which 2 dogmas stay up as part of the discussion, you say I'm not ready for the discussion yet?

First of all no one ever replied to the post in which I placed a link to a movie that proves beyond doubt that the bible is NOT an accurate history book. Some people claim that it must contain the pure truth because it was written by God... well, it wasn't. It was written by primitive people who didn't know anything about science and therefore wrote down a lot of bullshit. Prove is presented if you dare to click the link.
But no, either you didn't click the link because you didn't want to risk having to admit you're wrong, or you watched the movie and decided to pretend you didn't or else you would have to admit you're wrong.

The fact that the movie was ignored by all of you, gave me the right to call you ignorant.

 

[Scrapmo]

"concerning upstarts: We don't care to eat toadstools that think they are truffles."
-Mark Twain

 

[erowe1]

So just because I brought up 3 dogmas of which 1 was common knowledge when I went to school but seems(!) to be nonexistant, after which 2 dogmas stay up as part of the discussion, you say I'm not ready for the discussion yet?

First of all no one ever replied to the post in which I placed a link to a movie that proves beyond doubt that the bible is NOT an accurate history book. Some people claim that it must contain the pure truth because it was written by God... well, it wasn't. It was written by primitive people who didn't know anything about science and therefore wrote down a lot of bullshit. Prove is presented if you dare to click the link.
But no, either you didn't click the link because you didn't want to risk having to admit you're wrong, or you watched the movie and decided to pretend you didn't or else you would have to admit you're wrong.

The fact that the movie was ignored by all of you, gave me the right to call you ignorant.

You had a chance to prove you weren't an idiot. Don't expect people to trust your judgment on what qualifies as a convincing movie after you failed that test.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I did some research... Very interesting, because many websites say how this "flat earth myth" came into existance. I have some ideas on how this myth might not be a myth, but due to lack of evidence I'll drop the subject of round/flat earth.

I provided a link to an article in which historian Tom Woods describes in detail "how this 'flat earth myth' came into existence" (see post #163).

The fact that the movie was ignored by all of you, gave me the right to call you ignorant.

So since you ignored the Tom Woods article, what does that give others the right to call you?

But... I did find documents proving that Galileo Galilei had a quarrel with the church when he said that the earth revolved around the sun, while the church said that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei also said that the moon didn't give light; it only reflected sunlight.
So of the 3 dogmas that I mentioned before, only 2 remain... and in both cases the church was proven wrong.

The basis of the quarrel between Galileo and the Church was NOT just that "the Earth revolves around the Sun." That issue was being openly discussed and debated by a LOT of other people - not just Galileo. It was the (non-"scientific") theological suggestions and implications that Galileo seemed to make or suggest that got him into trouble with the Church. Galileo (intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly) called into question the validity of some Church doctrines on the basis of his discovery. THAT is what the Church went after him for (in addition to Vatican court politics) - NOT the discovery itself.

If Galileo had been more circumspect in his theological ruminations and/or more adroit in his rhetoric (for example, by not seeming to make mock of Pope Urban VIII by putting the Pope's words into the mouth of foolish Simplicio in the Two Dialogues), the whole "Galileo vs. the Church" incident would likely have never happened. Heliocentrism would have been argued over by astronomers and scientists - and, yes, even churchmen (and note that in many cases, the astronomers and scientists involved actually were priests & churchmen) - and eventually incorporated into Chuch doctrine (just as it eventually was). There were plenty of churchmen who were perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that the Earth might not be the center of the universe (including the Roman Inquisition itself - see below). For example, Cardinal Ceasar Baronius, an acquaintance of Galileo, said, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (This quote is often falsely attributed to Galileo himself - after all, we can't allow it to look like priests are capable of being reasonable, now, can we?)

FTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Baronius

[Cardinal Ceasar Baronius] is also known for saying, in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This remark, which Baronius probably made in conversation with Galileo, was cited by [Galileo] in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615).

FTA (emphasis mine): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact. Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.

So just because I brought up 3 dogmas of which 1 was common knowledge when I went to school but seems(!) to be nonexistant, after which 2 dogmas stay up as part of the discussion, you say I'm not ready for the discussion yet?

They were NOT common "knowledge" - they were (and still are) common "anti-religion propaganda & indoctrination talking points." The other two "dogmas" you talk about are nothing more than grossly over-simplified caricatures of what the whole Galileo controversy was really about. Although the situation with Galileo is more complex - because (among many other things having nothing to do with "science" per se, such as politics) he actually was made to explicitly renounce heliocentrism - in the end, it is really NO different than the "Chuch said the Earth was flat" bullshit that so many ignoramuses swallow hook, line & sinker (without ever wondering if it might not actually be as simple as that).

If you want to criticize the Church because it went after Galileo for his perceived philosophical/theological deviations or his rhetorical clumsiness or Vatican politics, that's fine. I'd be with you on that. But those who ignorantly misrepresent the situation as the Church going after Galileo merely because of his empirical/physical observations and theories (and nothing else) are just regurgitating anti-religion talking points that are no more valid than the "Earth is flat" nonsense.

IOW: If you think that merely chanting "Flat Earth" or "Galileo" somehow proves your thesis, then you are NOT, in fact, "ready for the discussion yet" ...

Important Note For The Record: I am NOT a religionist. I reject (so-called) theism, atheism and agnosticism. I am an igtheist/ignostic/theological non-congnitivist. I have zero interest in either defending or attacking religion in and of itself. But I also have zero patience with people (almost always atheists) who imagine themselves to be rational and well-informed who nonetheless prattle about "Christians believed the Earth was flat" or "the Church persecuted Galileo merely because of his scientific theories." People who uncritically spout such ignorant and uneducated nonsense - for NO other reason than the fact that that is the propaganda they have been indoctrinated with - have NO business trying to claim the mantle of reason or rationality or "science" or what-have-you.

 

[Fred the musician]

Very well then... Here is proof that the story in genesis 1 can't possibly be true:

There is no sound in a vacuum.

Vacuum? Yes, because according to genesis the sun was created after the earth. So up to that moment there were temperatures close to zero Kelvin, meaning that even hydrogen was liquid. So it was impossible to say "let there be light". Conclusion: the "water" over which the spirit of God is hovering (genesis 1:2) is not really H2O (because that's ice) but liquid oxygene, liquid nitrogen etc.

Here's another one:

The dinosaurs lived less than a day.

According to genesis, the first land animals were created on the sixth day. Man was created by the end of the sixth day. But by that time the dinosaurs were extinct.

And last but not least: I didn't "just chant" things. I made a point. The point is: time after time when science and church collided, the church lost. So why should that be different this time?