|
Author
|
Topic: Scientific errors in the Bible
|
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7599 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: 12-10-2001
|
Don't do it doctrbill! You have a duty to preserve diversity and geocentrists are one of the most threatened minorities out there. It would be a shame to disabuse one of his beliefs.
|
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2786 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: 01-08-2001
|
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
. . .it appears that you refrain from providing proof simply because you have no proof. Please correct this possible misconception of your character and present proof of the errors in the geocentric view found in the Bible.
The geocentric view found in the Bible is a result of writers who perceived it that way. If you think geocentrically, then arguing with you is like arguing with the Inquisition - --------------------------------- a waste of time.--------------------------------- [edited for typo's] db [This message has been edited by doctrbill, 10-25-2002]
|
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2786 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: 01-08-2001
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Don't do it doctrbill! You have a duty to preserve diversity and geocentrists are one of the most threatened minorities out there. It would be a shame to disabuse one of his beliefs.
Sorry buddy. Too late. Didn't see this until after I posted. I'm all in favor of preserving endangered species but . . . shouldn't they be muzzled and placed in safe-keeping? db
|
Brian
Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: 10-22-2002
|
|
Message 49 of 163 (20817)
10-25-2002 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
10-25-2002 9:22 AM
|
|
I would say "Oh My God" but this would be taken by some as proof that god(s) exist, so I wont say it. Thanks for taking th etime to reply Percy Bria ------------------ Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Percy, posted 10-25-2002 9:22 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6129 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Don't do it doctrbill! You have a duty to preserve diversity and geocentrists are one of the most threatened minorities out there. It would be a shame to disabuse one of his beliefs.
Allow me to repeat myself. It appears that you refrain from providing proof simply because you have no proof. Please correct this possible misconception of your character and present proof of the errors in the geocentric view found in the Bible.
|
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7599 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: 12-10-2001
|
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Allow me to repeat myself. It appears that you refrain from providing proof simply because you have no proof. Please correct this possible misconception of your character and present proof of the errors in the geocentric view found in the Bible.
There was a rather good discussion of the onus probandi in exactly this case (heliocentrism) on the Objectivist discussion board ... http://www.wetheliving.com/...ek-of-Mon-20020603/029692.html I thought the following particularly apt: In short, if someone were to demand that I provide evidence for the heliocentric theory, I would first inquire whether he was honestly unaware of *any* of the evidence for this belief. And in the unlikely event that he answers yes -- unlikely at least for an educated adult -- I might then be willing to help him locate relevant information on the Internet or in a library, especially if I were dealing with a child. So taking this excellent advice - are you honestly aware of any of the evidence for heliocentrism. If not, I can help you find it. If you are aware of it, and as it is generally uncontroversial in the field of science, perhaps you would like to say if you reject it and, if so, why.
|
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7599 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: 12-10-2001
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
[B][QUOTE]You appear to be proposing that the falsity of the geocentric theory is proof of the errancy of the Bible. However, I have not as yet discovered conclusive proof of such falsity. Could you please provide such proof as necessary to explain how the geocentric view held by the Bible is wrong?[/B][/QUOTE] If anyone does feel like presenting evidence to w_f you might also like to present it to the following oddballs - they will even give you $1000 if you can prove it. Of course, their definition of "proof" may be somewhat taxing. I think their standard of logic can be judged from the fact that even when they offer a $1000 dollar prize, they manage to include the line "But the $64,000 question is: Are they right?" For $64000 I would give it a go, but me, I don't get out of bed for a mere $1000.
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6129 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
So taking this excellent advice - are you honestly aware of any of the evidence for heliocentrism. If not, I can help you find it. If you are aware of it, and as it is generally uncontroversial in the field of science, perhaps you would like to say if you reject it and, if so, why.
Doctorbill has claimed that the falsity of the geocentric view as evidence of error in the Bible. All I have done is ask for proof of that claim. If no evidence can be presented in support of that claim, then doctorbill's statements regarding error in the Bible are themselves erroneous.
|
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7599 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: 12-10-2001
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry: Doctorbill has claimed that the falsity of the geocentric view as evidence of error in the Bible. All I have done is ask for proof of that claim. If no evidence can be presented in support of that claim, then doctorbill's statements regarding error in the Bible are themselves erroneous.[/B][/QUOTE] You miss the point, which is not whether evidence can be produced to support the claim, but where the burden of proof - the onus probandi - lies. I am suggesting that given (a) the uncontroversial nature of doctrbill's claims about heliocentrism and (b) the unlikelyhood of your not being aware or having considered the evidences for these claims that it is really up to you to preent your reasons for rejecting that which the overwhelming majority would regard as "presumptive evidence." No doubt it seems unfair, but that is the lot of the non-conformist in all societies. As for what you are to make of doctorbill's unwillingeness to provide evidence - you can read nothing more into it than disdain.
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6129 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
quote:
I am suggesting that given (a) the uncontroversial nature of doctrbill's claims about heliocentrism and
(b) the unlikelyhood of your not being aware or having considered the evidences for these claims that it is really up to you to preent your reasons for rejecting that which the overwhelming majority would regard as "presumptive evidence."
Your argument appears to be that the accepted position of yesteryear is wrong because it disagrees with the accepted position of today, but you have not given any evidence of error in the previously accepted position. Why do you claim that the geocentric model proposed in the Bible is evidence of error within the Scriptures?
|
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7599 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: 12-10-2001
|
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Your argument appears to be that the accepted position of yesteryear is wrong because it disagrees with the accepted position of today,
... which would be a gross error of logic. What I am saying is that doctrbill is justified in not providing evidence that the overwhelmingly accepted position is correct, because he has good reason to believe you and the others on the board are already aware of the evidence, or have easy access to it should be honestly unaware of it. On the other hand, I imagine he has no idea of what the evidence to the contrary is - I certainly do not. The one site I found describing the geocentric position had no evidence whatsoever presented on it except two a priori assumptions concerning Biblical and Papal infallibility. Being in the position of holding the unconventional evidence - the evidence that would challenge the "presumptive evidence" that the overwhelming majority would accept - the onus is on you to present yours. You may be uncomfortable with that position and I can understand that. But there you have it.
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
As Mister Pamboli has already stated, no one really believes you're unaware of the evidence for the sun-centric view, and so no one understands why you keep insisting that someone present it to you here. Next you'll be asking for evidence that objects actually fall or that water is wet. --Percy
|
Karl
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 58 of 163 (21024)
10-29-2002 11:44 AM
|
|
|
Exactly. There's nothing on the web addressing this argument because it's long dead and buried. But why not, eh.... Demonstrate why geocentricity has a better explanation of the retrograde motion of planets on opposition to the sun as viewed from the earth than heliocentricity does. Explain how parallax measurements of nearby stars against the background of distant stars is more in keeping with geocentricity than with heliocentricity. Explain the forces that keep the earth stationary whilst the considerably more massive sun orbits it.
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6129 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
quote:
What I am saying is that doctrbill is justified in not providing evidence that the overwhelmingly accepted position is correct, because he has good reason to believe you and the others on the board are already aware of the evidence, or have easy access to it should be honestly unaware of it.
Allow me to quote myself once again. In my first post on this thread I stated: "You appear to be proposing that the falsity of the geocentric theory is proof of the errancy of the Bible. However, I have not as yet discovered conclusive proof of such falsity." I am aware of much evidence which is claimed to support heliocentricity, but I am also aware of claims that the same evidence is in keeping with the geocentric model proposed in the Bible. What I have been unable to find is proof of the supposed falsity of geocentricity. Doctorbill appears to be claiming that the Bible is wrong because geocentricity is wrong. Thus he is not merely proposing a possible heliocentric view; he is proposing definite error in the geocentric view. It is proof of that definite error which I have requested, and it is proof of that definite error which has not been provided. I am not asking for evidence which may prove the validity of the currently accepted position. I am asking for evidence which might affirm the supposed falsity of the geocentric position. Without this evidence, one cannot say that the Bible is wrong because geocentricity is wrong.
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
I am aware of much evidence which is claimed to support heliocentricity, but I am also aware of claims that the same evidence is in keeping with the geocentric model proposed in the Bible.
What evidence and how is it in keeping with geocentrism?
quote:
What I have been unable to find is proof of the supposed falsity of geocentricity.
Ok. Define geocentric. I know this seems like an inane question but humor me. I can create a mathematical model showing that I never move, that instead the whole universe moves around me. Essentially, this is what astronomers did pre-heliocentrism-- until the math became so complex as to be absurd. Are you proposing something like this? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
™ Version 4.2