The last straw: Creationists want to deny that the Earth revolves around the sun

[EstimatedProphet]

http://www.fixedearth.com/creationists%20door%20open.htm

Lots and lots of big $50 words here, that get thrown around so much it becomes hard to read. apparently the purpose of this page is to make the case that you can't be a true creationist and still believe the Earth revolves around the sun; and since we all know that creationism is completely true, inherently good, and perfect (just like its followers), then the sun must orbit the Earth.

Sometimes I feel like I've woken up in The Onion.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. I want to say this is a parody site, but...

A parody site would be reasonably well designed. Only a genuine ill-educated, delusional fool could come up with a website so consistently awful.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. A bit hard to read, isn't it?

Looks like they made it with Hot Dog.

[TheTimmer]

61. FrontPage 6.0

and it looks like it was done by a FP illiterate in 1994.

Registrant:
Fixed Earth
PO Box 566
Cornelia, GA 30531
US

Hint for ya Bubba, just because you *can* use all those different colors doesn't mean you *should*. Maybe they haven't discovered the "<flash>" tag to make it truly hideous.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

67. I live in Georgia...

Cornelia, GA says it all.

We have more fundy whackos here than any other place on Earth..

Or it feels that way sometimes..

[htuttle]

99. It's twue! It's twue!

[NeedleCast]

108. Had the same thought

That web site is a disaster and the author(s) seem to have no problem creating words. Big Bangism? Sounds vaguely sexual to me. :evilgrin:

[havocmom]

2. They are bound & determined to take us back to the 50s

...the 1050s

[IDemo]

35. I was thinking the year 50

[havocmom]

47. Nah, they wouldn't like it. Still plenty of classical period knowledge about that year

Dark ages suit them so much better. After the great library at Alexandria was long gone and disease knocked holes in the will to travel and communicate would be more their cup of swill.

[shraby]

4. Even the Catholic church has finally admitted

that the earth revolves around the sun.

[seemslikeadream]

50. yea it took awhile though - 1992!!

[unpossibles]

72. yeah, but those guys are practically Satan himself

I mean come on - they have a WOMAN in their cult. Puh-lease.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Everything from Copernicus on has got to go. Back to Ptolemeic astronomy! W00t!!!!

[MiniMe]

6. That has to be one of the worst designed websites I have ever seen

My dog could do better than that!

[Clark2008]

9. I sell computer training, including end-user applications and media

training.

Maybe I should contact these people and sell them on a few Dreamweaver classes? :)

But, then again, they may not believe in the science that "creates" computerized technology. ;)

[charlie]

25. It's a Frontpage site

Somehow, that seems fitting.

[sharp_stick]

7. Who the hell is that?

It's unbelievable that there are people that could actually buy this load. Then again I've been getting emails from a "chemtrail" proponent that I used to think was relatively normal.

[Clark2008]

8. !!!

:rofl: :rofl:

BTW, I happen to believe in a mix of creationism and science. I can see how the two can perfectly co-exist. I don't know why the fundie types can't (I don't know why the pure science types can't either, for that matter). But, then again, I take the Bible as a series of parables and not literally.

[n2doc]

14. There is nothing wrong with believing that "let there be light"= Big Bang

But this site, oh lord, what a bunch of fruitcakes!. I guess all those space probes must be programmed by the Devil!

[EstimatedProphet]

16. I've got no argument with that

I see no conflict with God as Creator. But these people literally want to deny what we know to be facts, in order to hold onto an interpretation of God as Creator. It's like saying that driving a car is only possible if you paint your face blue.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. "I don't know why the pure science types can't either" - care to explain what you mean by that?

I'm a "pure science type". I've never said that religion and evolution -or other science facts- can't coexist in some people's heads- obviously, they can, and do.

People say, "well, you're an atheist"- I say, hardly any two people on this planet agree on what the word "God" means.. so how am I supposed to nail down exactly what it is I don't believe in? The Anthropomorphic "God" of the Bible? No, I don't. I've seen AA people who think God is a doorknob or a tree. I believe in doorknobs and trees. Some people think God is the Universe, or Love. I believe in those things.

"Pure science types can't accept creationism and science can co-exist" yeah, well... "Creationism" as it has been taught and promoted in this country is anti-science and there is NO scientific evidence to back it up. Evolution and the 4.7 Billion year history of the Earth are FACTS. No, they can't co-exist any more than dual "theories" about the Earth going around the sun and vice-versa can "co-exist" in science.

But if what you mean by "creationism" is people who say, yes, obviously evolution occurs but "God" (whatever that word means) is behind evolution- such a statement can't be proven or disproven scientifically, so I think you'd be hard pressed to find a "pure science type" who would even bother to weigh in on such a thing.

If you're asking why "pure science types" don't ALSO accept the Bible as some kind of legitimate scientific source about the nature of reality-- well, shit- do YOU accept that the Yanomamo Creation Myth may be "partially true"? How about the Book of Mormon? Maybe 'various interpretations' of Zeus's creation of the other gods should be introduced in science textbooks. I don't see why you pure science types can't accept all of them.

Here's why: Because there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for any of it. If people can reconcile their religious faith with scientific FACT, bully for them. But to say "well, fair is fair, science people should accept religion for themselves, too" What the hell kind of argument is that?

[gilpo]

98. Well said! n/t

[Enthusiast]

95. Clark2008, said.............

"TW, I happen to believe in a mix of creationism and science. I can see how the two can perfectly co-exist. I don't know why the fundie types can't (I don't know why the pure science types can't either, for that matter). But, then again, I take the Bible as a series of parables and not literally."

I don't object to what anyone believes. But let's please don't present it as science in the classroom. Our students already lag far behind in science without introducing fairy tales.

[Beausoleil]

96. My tenth grade Dominican biology teacher

Father Robinson believed in evolution. He saw nothing inconsistent in believing in evolution and the allegorical truth of the Bible simultaneously. In this line of thinking, when apes evolved into humans, God infused an immortal soul into humans.
He knew that taking Genesis literally was idiotic.

[cgrindley]

10. Well, relativistically, that's an option isn't it?

sure the math might be a lot more complicated, but as everything is relative, the earth could indeed be stationary to an observer and the rest of the cosmos could swirl around us in an exceedingly complex manner...

[0rganism]

51. that's certainly our apparent frame of reference, but it's a lousy working model

which is often what science is all about: finding the best model to enable predictions.

[TahitiNut]

80. Nope. We're talking Newtonian scales ... not near-light speed or subatomic.

It's simply a case of orbital mechanics ... compounded. While there is no visible/tangible frame of reference, we can INDUCE a static context from the comparative mass and distance between orbital bodies.

In a hypertechnical sense, any two proximate bodies both move in relation to the other - at least 'wobble' - but the enormously different masses of the sun and the earth make it obvious that the sun's 'wobble' is almost wholly within the space it occupies itself.

The cosmological ("big bang" or expanding Universe) considerations have no practical relevance to such orbital mechanics.

[iamahaingttta]

11. Wow! The "Heliocentric Concept of a rotating Earth orbiting the sun!"

I wonder how these freaks would try to explain away the seasons?

[frogcycle]

59. the lord moves in mysterious ways n/t

[mudesi]

12. Should I respect their beliefs?

Time and again, I have encountered this question. It's what they believe, so shouldn't we be "tolerant"?

Even if they don't push those beliefs on others (which they do, but that's beside the point), I simply cannot bring myself to respect these people.

But then I bring up other beliefs that "more" people have, (ie. Jesus walking on water), and how I cannot respect those beliefs either, and because I am outnumbered in that case, things get much more complicated.

I just don't see why false assertions should be tolerated, regardless of how many people believe them. It's dangerous and frightening that in a democracy, where supposedly the majority rules, that a majority still hold false assertions as truth. See the number of people who believed Iraq and 9/11 were connected for an example of how dangerous it can be.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Stupid people are the ones who tend to insist on such tolerance...

... seeing as how they're the ones who stand to benefit from it.

[jgraz]

15. Not even a little bit

Respect the person if you want, but beliefs without evidence deserve zero respect. Even if a billion people share them.

[n2doc]

17. No, because they want to change us.

If someone wants to be delusional in the privacy of their own home, ok, so long as no one gets hurt. But as soon as they cross over into advocacy, they are fair game.

[mudesi]

19. I would like to take that view, but these people VOTE

If enough people believe the same delusion, it takes only one of them to run for office and win. I don't think I need to go far to find an example of how utterly devastating that can be. Hint: His first name is George, his last name is Bush, and his middle name starts with "W".

[yardwork]

54. They don't just vote. They build machines that steal our votes.

The guys who own Diebold and its spinoffs are extreme fundamentalists who believe this kind of crap. They think that GWB is the second coming, so they had no problem designing, building, installing, and running machines to steal elections for him.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

30. I Heart You

Dear Skynard-

I don't always agree with you but...

I love you for this post.

I am so on board with your post I am going to make a refrigerator magnet out of it...

[Beelzebud]

34. I refuse to respect idiotic ideas that attempt to bring us back to the dark ages.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Exactly. It's not nice to say that their belief is a container filled with excrement.

That wouldn't be tolerant™

[frogcycle]

60. ding ding ding

there is an expression that "even if millions of people believe in a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea" or something like that

[CT_Progressive]

68. People do not have the right to their own facts. -nt

[unpossibles]

76. why should I?

they obviously don't respect my beliefs, that Americans are allowed to not believe in their crazy voodoo.

[conscious evolution]

105. Jesus ain't the only person who walks on water

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:t6nwxdMiFLqD9M:

OK.So it's not exactly walking.

[cgrindley]

18. All kidding aside, that's schizophrenia writing that webpage

that's delusional stuff. You run into it every now and then on the internet. It's sad.

[unpossibles]

20. crazy, huh? I've also seen refutations of gravity

where people say that gravity is false since large things like elephants don't have small things orbiting them.

"Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is. "

http://www.fstdt.com/

I used to laugh at that stuff, then it made me sad, now it makes me mad. Respect them? Hell no. Respect is earned. I am fine with giving anyone the freedom to believe anything they want - you can believe that your butt produces flying monkeys for all I care - but the inch given them has become rationale for the mile they want, and trust me: they won't respect my beliefs at all if they ever got in power. More power, I should say.

So fuck it. Religion is no longer off bounds. Why? Because they started trying to shove it down my throat. Yes, I have a lot of rational friends who believe in God, and that's fine, but frankly I don't see how those people are not even more angry for giving them a bad name.

[EstimatedProphet]

22. That's genius!

That has to be someone pulling their leg! Man, what a great concept! Drop a rock in a zoo, and it will zoom towards the nearest elephant!

[BlooInBloo]

29. Just standard American stupid.

[frogcycle]

56. holy batshit, batman!

"The more sin, the heavier something is."

my head is going to explode

[LondonReign2]

66. "The more sin, the heavier something is. "

I knew it! Those good for nothing blue whales... :)

[Mz Pip]

75. Gravity doesn't exist

but the force of sin does?! What sin did the sun commit?

Man, these people are stupid.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[unpossibles]

77. see, you have it backwards

the sun has no sins because it floats in the æther. The earth has sin because (a) Satan lives here and (b) it's in the center. Of course, God made it so... wait. Now I'm confused again. How can an omnipotent being of complete Goodness create Evil and sin?

[EstimatedProphet]

78. HA!

What sin did the sun commit?

You're killing me here! :rofl:

[Mz Pip]

84. It must have been a whopper

I mean the sun is totally heavy.

Maybe the devil lives there and that's why it's so heavy. I knew there must be a simple explanation. That must be it. :eyes:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[EstimatedProphet]

88. Maybe that's why it's so hot too.

[knitter4democracy]

94. Wow. I thought I knew crazy people.

I mean, I went to an evangelical college, after all. That's just plain freakin' nuts.

[asthmaticeog]

21. They have a point.

In for a penny, in for a pound, no? It's why we laugh at homophobes who cite Leviticus in 50/50 polo shirts.

[EstimatedProphet]

24. Yes and no

Valid point, that if they are going to follow that path, they should follow it to the end. However, the end is ridiculous, so they shouldn't follow that path.

[asthmaticeog]

26. Egg Zackly.

:thumbsup:

[Squatch]

23. Well...they aren't wrong about that.

All motion is relative, however the cosmological proof for the existence of God holds that there is a fixed, prime mover upon which all other, relative motion can be based. That prime mover is God.

So, by saying that the Earth is fixed, it is, therefore, the Prime Mover, aka God. In essence, the creators of that site would be best classified as adherents to a religion that holds the earth to be the Mother Goddess...or Wicca.

QED

[EstimatedProphet]

27. Uh...I don't think that's what they are getting at, somehow.

Point taken that motion is relative, but I doubt they believe that either.

[BlooInBloo]

28. Oh boy.

[Squatch]

32. You gotta admit...pretty damned creative, no?

If it is a little clunky...I am not a philosopher by any stretch, I just happened to remember the three informal proofs for the existence of God.

[alfredo]

31. very infantile position. Everything revolves around us.

[BlooInBloo]

48. That's unfair. It *looks* to the eye as though it does.

[alfredo]

49. I was commenting on a baby seeing itself as the center of everything.

For a baby, that is normal and necessary. For an adult, that is odd.

[BlooInBloo]

55. It looks to the adult eye as though the heavenly bodies are revolving around us...

... It isn't infantile to theorize as though things are as things appear to be. Indeed, it's somewhat perverse to theorize to the contrary - that's why the Copernican revolution was so hardcore. Especially since his model didn't yield substantially more accurate predictions. The simplification (not elimination) of the epicycle/deferents proved to be enough for astronomers.

And calling Kant infantile is of course the highest form of idiocy.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

71. well, not really...

if you watch the local heavenly bodies, like planets, it is obvious from their motion through the heavens that (if their orbit were to be roughly circular) they are NOT revolving around us...

sP

[BlooInBloo]

86. Sigh. If only geniuses like YOU could've been there a couple thousand years ago...

... to set things right - instead of Ptolemy et al. It really is lamentable.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

109. and it also lamentable that people like you...

when faced with facts that contradict your 'theory' about it 'looking to the adult eye like they are revolving around us' react just about like the creationists do when faced with facts that contradict their theories...completely lacking in anything relevant to the discussion.

I gotcha...

sP

[alfredo]

73. I wasn't saying the early theories are infantile, it is those who have

benefit of centuries of science and still hold onto disproved theories who come off as infantile.

We're Number 1!! We're Number 1!! We're Number 1!!

[BlooInBloo]

82. Ah - gotcha!

[alfredo]

91. What's this gotcha shit?

[BlooInBloo]

100. A common word that's heard all throughout the United States, meaning "I understand".

It's formed from the words "I got you", where "got" has the sense of "to have or possess an understanding".

[alfredo]

106. Oh OK. Inflection is everything with that phrase, something

lacking on the internet.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

33. I found this

...website a year or two ago when I wrote an article about creationism and just how fruit-loopy they really are...

I had to laugh about it then... I laughed but it was through the tears of pain I felt...

They are right up there with the Heaven's Gate freakazoids....

[RB TexLa]

37. Ah yes, we have learned nothing past what the people who agreed on The Pentateuch knew.

That and the "literal" vs. "literalist" interpretation of scripture.

I love telling these people "As a Christian who takes the bible literally, the earth is probably about 5 billion years old." It creates great facial expressions and gasps from more fundamentalist Protestants.

Then two quick examples and I'm usually done with them.

Literal and Literalist "It rained cats and dogs"

Literal interpretation --- It rained very hard

Literalist interpretation --- Cats and dogs fell out of the sky

Then if they still want to go with a literalist interpretation I ask them which was created first? Animals or Man?

Genesis 1 (King James Version)

Man created last

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2 (King James Version)

Man created first

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


When someone tells you they "believe in the creation story of the Bible." You can honestly ask them "Which one?" Many people who profess to believing it don't even realize there are two creation stories in the Bible. If they actually did the research into it they would find out the two creation stories were essential to the acceptance of the Pentateuch by the various theological factions of the time. It's easy to see the reasoning for the two stories, one has man created as the grand finale of God's work, the other displays man's superiority over the animals and the Earth.

On a side note, I love using 1611 King James version to illustrate this for them as some refuse to believe any of the better interpations of scripture.

[krispos42]

38. Wow, it's all the Jew's fault, apparantly

This guy has gone off the deep end big time. Apparantly he can conceive of and believe of a massive Jewish conspiracy to deny the geocentric universe model going back to be fore Copericus, but I'm quite sure he would deny that Bush stole the elections of 2000 and 2004

<snip>

Later, Einstein’s Zionist/Kabbalist induced "thought experiments", alteration of word meanings, and relativity nonsense seemed to place the stars even further out of reach of such a nightly journey and prevent any attack on Copernicanism. Shortly after Big Al died, other theory-happy cosmologists (HERE) continued to inflate the size of the universe on their blackboards. By ‘65 Arno Penzias carried the "science" ball into the end zone and officially launched the Big Bang Origins Scenario with its concomitant Expanding Universe Concept (hypothesized earlier by De Sitter, Le Maitre, Freidmann, Gamow....HERE. pp.2,3,7,8).

<snip>

But there is so much about this hugely important issue that has nothing to do with science per se--and has everything to do with true religion and the true nature of God--that another model which Biblically and scientifically shrinks the size of the universe dramatically is required if the Kabbalist Universe is to be exposed and the Biblical Universe confirmed.

<snip>

Concerning the present emphasis on the assumptive basis of all modern cosmology, the following summary of the deceptive role of Talmudic /Kabbalic Judaism masquerading as "science" supplies an indispensable framework for understanding not only how the majority of the Jewish people, but the entire world has been deceived about the size and nature of the universe and the nature and plan of the God behind all of it:

1) All of the three props holding up the present cosmological Paradigm-- Relativity, Big Bang, Expanding Universe--represent the fulfillment of a "Creation Scenario" of Rabbinic writings in the anti-Christ Mystic Kabbala "holy book" of Pharisaic Judaism from the 1st, 12th 13th, and 16th centuries particularly. There are three possible explanations for those documented facts:

a) A handful of Pharisaic Rabbis (Rebbes) were supernaturally gifted to lay out a cosmological plan that would destroy the credibility of the Biblical "Creation Scenario"...and hence the credibility of the Biblical Jesus as the revelator of God’s Plan for mankind. These "sages" envisioned a cosmology that would progressively make the universe so vast and old, and the stars so distant that they could never get around the Earth nightly. This vision would destroy in one blow the Biblical Model of a non-moving Earth and lay the foundation for putting the stars so far away that only Kabbalist Big Bang Kosmology could explain it all...(but the explanation was to always be called "science" and never "religion", especially anti-Christ Phariseeism) ; or:

b) Impartial, purely altruistic truth-seeking secular-minded scientists have--with no religion-connected agenda influencing them--coincidentally and unwittingly brought to pass all the necessary elements of the Rabbinic evolutionary "Origins Scenario" from Copernicus through Darwin ,Einstein, Penzias, and NASA’s Sagan and Goldin, et al to the present hour...

<snip>

c) From Newton through Einstein and Communist physicists (HERE, p.9)--and now openly Kabbalist physicists such as Dr. Schroeder (HERE)--theoretical scientism has employed occult math and fraudulent use of technology to move the Kabbalic Kosmos toward its goal of erasing Bible credibility from Creation to Jesus;

d) By 1965 Arno Penzias’ micky mouse declaration that he had discovered 15 billion year old radiation from a Big Bang was pure Kabbalist Kreationism going to afterburners, but no one was making the connection (HERE p.7);

<snip>

f) Daniel Goldin took over NASA for nine years and boldly spent billions of tax money to direct all space efforts to "discover our cosmic roots" in a blatant Kabbala fulfillment agenda which he named the "Origins Program" (HERE, pp.3,4 - HERE);

g) Having surreptitiously nursed the Talmud/Kabbala "Creation Scenario" from Copernicanism to Big Bangism where both are now in the world’s textbooks disguised as "science", those who are knowingly behind this scam to end all scams are about ready to break out the champagne; and...

h) All that remains is for this apotheosis of deception to put real fake images of alleged discoveries of ice and moss and proto-evolving extraterrestrial life on your TV and computer screens. This ever-escalating Virtual Reality coup is calculated to end all lingering Bible creation talk and get the Biblical God out of the creation business once and for all.

<more>

http://www.fixedearth.com/Assumptions.htm

Boldface mine

There's a lot more on that page ranting about the Cabal of Kabbalas, but you get the idea.



I especially love this part...

1) Most of the stars in the universe must be thousands and millions and billions of light years away from the Earth in the Big Bang Model so that there is no conceivable way they could go around the Earth nightly as the Biblical non-rotating, non-orbiting earth model demands. The basis for these light year distance fantasies begins with the formula for measuring "nearby" stars. The hypothetical premise for measuring these distances is that the earth is orbiting the sun. This premise provides an assumed parallax baseline of 186,000,000 miles calculated on the baseless assumption of the diameter of the earth’s alleged orbit around the sun. This wholly assumptive mathematical premise automatically puts the stars 23,250 times further away than if the baseline of a never disproved non- orbiting earth of 8000 miles is used (expl. HERE, pp.5, 7).

http://www.fixedearth.com/creationists%20door%20open.htm

Okay, 15 billion light-years across is what that icky science says. But, apparantly, it's 23,250 times too great. So, 15,000,000,000 ÷ 23,250 = 645,161 light-years across.

That would seem to contradict this:

d)...when you realize that: There is a New Geocentric Model of the Universe that provides a viable scientific mechanism for a Biblical Universe no more than 1/2 to one light day thick??

Hmmm... 645,161 light years versus 1 light-day (I'll be generous). That's 235,483,871 light-days versus 1 light-day. So this model still has, what, EIGHT orders of magnitude to correct for?

And I'm awaiting how the Sun, which must be, logically, much smaller than the Earth in order for it to orbit us rather than vice-versa, can burn essentially unchanged since 4,000 BC.

[EstimatedProphet]

41. Bbbbbbbbbbb.....

That's great. I love the logic. In effect:

Stars under relativistic models would be too far away to orbit the Earth, therefore relativity must be wrong so that they can still orbit the Earth.

[yardwork]

57. I noticed the antisemitism, too.

[sampsonblk]

39. It gets worse

I have fundie friends. Talking to them is like talking to a wall.

This stuff ain't new.

[DrDan]

40. you have to admit, it is hard to refute their case

there are 67 references in the bible to the sun moving about the earth, so it must be true.

Such as . . . ."the sun sets" and "the rising of the sun" and "the sun ariseth".

Pretty much proves it for me . . .

[krispos42]

46. And don't forget...

pi is exactly equal to 3


II Chronicles 4:2

[BlackVelvet04]

89. I guess when the weather man

says sunrise and sunset he means the sun rotates around the earth.......or then again maybe it's a friggin' expression.

Would they rather the Bible had said...."and the earth rotated in such a manner as for it to appear that the sun is rising."

[DrDan]

90. yes - obviously the weatherpeople get it

"sunrise" and "sunset" obviously indicate that weatherpeople understand the true relationship between master-earth and subservient-sun . . .

as does Tevye . . .

[Jack Rabbit]

42. The last straw?

What will you call it when the creationists declare that the earth is flat?

[EstimatedProphet]

44. They already have

[tomreedtoon]

43. In truth, nothing "revolves around" anything.

The way my old physics teacher explained it, "You could say that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But the mathematics are simpler if you assume the Earth revolves around the Sun."

In other words, just for the sake of believing everything is centered around us, God's supposedly chosen sentient race, the Christian Right has to do hard and complicated math to explain the motion of the spheres.

[-..__...]

45. Apparently deep space doesn't exist either..

it's a deception/illusion created by NASA using mirrors and computers...

Old telescopes brought far away things up close. Old cameras faithfully took pictures of things just as they were (albeit inverted).

Not any more! Space Age computer-programmed simulation technology in the service of NASA has changed all that. Leaving camera development for later, here are some strange features of Space Age Telescopes in use in the late 20th century and presently.

Whether small or huge, mirrors are the heart of a telescope. The image one sees is determined by the mirrors that reflect it. Look at the caveat on the rear-view mirror on the passenger side of your car. It has this warning: "Objects In Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear". Think what can be done with this simple principle in making close stars appear far away! But that is child's play compared to distortions of reality that NASA is using in its space telescopes! The new NASA computerized telescopes embody "conical foil X-ray mirrors...affixed in a Broad Band X-Ray Telescope" and "spherical mirrors and a field flattening lens" and "pyramidal mirrors" and "parabolic mirror's effects" and "aluminized mylar thermal covers...over the mirror aperture" and "reflectivity tests on sample foils" and "tests on small mirror segments" and "back scattering from adjacent reflectors".... "Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG)...allows us to simulate perfect mirrors".... "reflective and refractive materials are used for the mirrors and lens...to make a real world simulation".... "CSG...computer code...CONSTRUCTS 3D worlds"....

These kinds of contrivances (and an alphabet soup of other telescope features) are designed and computer programmed to produce simulations. They are employed on the Virtual Newton Telescope, the William Herschel Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope, etc. (Hubble repairs in Dec. '99 included "the installation of a new 'brain'...swapping its old computer for a new one." Now we can oooh and aaah at the simulated images programmed into it to prepare us for the pre-planned super dazzling virtual reality "discoveries" of evolving life forms from "out there". Reports of Hubble discoveries "as distant as galaxies 10 billion light years away' (Give us a break, please!) are products of pre-programmed Saganesque hallucinations, i.e., lies. Viewing computer prepared objects produced by funny mirrors and spectroscopic ultra violet tricks may be cool, but it ain't real.

:crazy:

http://www.fixedearth.com/nasas_hanky-panky.htm

[frogcycle]

53. I KNEW it!

they do it with mirrors!

:rofl:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

63. Wow...

I am joining up with these free thinking God Loving Scientists!

They equate the rear view mirror of a car with deep space telescopes... I mean, why didn't I think of that???!!!

Never mind that the reason that the warning on the mirror of the car "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear" is because that mirror is intentionally distorted to give a fish-eye view....

Man... I am trying to laugh.

Yes! We are the center of the universe. My imaginary friend told me so.

[DS1]

52. Wrong. It revolves around me.

[Philosoraptor]

58. I REJECT your science & reality & substitute it with my own...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

70. Myth...busting would be appropriate here... n/t

[slackmaster]

62. I got a brochure in the mail from that group

They are for real.

[frogcycle]

64. so to summarize their message...

Creationists aren't half as stupid as we are!
Just look at what batshit-crazy stuff we can come up with!

:rofl:

[gollygee]

65. OmG that is scary and hilarious at the same time

To these really right-wing fundamentalist types, the true measure of how much a Christian you are is how willfully ignorant you're willing to be.

[EstimatedProphet]

74. Actually, yeah

My sis is a fundie. I've seen how they all act when they get together. It sometimes becomes a pissing match to see who can be more extreme in their rejection of reality. Everyone tries to outdo each other.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

69. If THEY want to believe that, okay but....

If the creationists want to believe that as their own personal religious belief, I've got no beef with that. Just as long as they don't attempt to teach it as a scientific theory in public schools.

That's always been my position on the creationist argument.

[unpossibles]

87. I used to agree

until they started acting on their cumpulsion to spread the word....

[porphyrian]

81. I wish they could believe whatever they want without forcing it on everyone else.

I don't care how batshit crazy the things other people believe are, until their madness starts affecting my life.

[BlooInBloo]

83. Yup - *anyone* whose religion or spirituality infects his/her governance needs to go.

[bridgit]

85. i will not even wish them luck on that one...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. Well, They're Somewhat Right. The Earth Doesn't Revolve Around The Sun.

It revolves around me. MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

[Larry Ogg]

93. I have got to start reading my bible again,

I know there has got to be something in there that will convince these fundamentalist to go jump of a cliff or start swimming towards the center of the ocean. Although it would require a really good bullshit artist!

I know this sounds crazy but it could possibly work if something like the following was done.

First you got to get them to the place ware there going to meet god and then you have to convincingly hold a straight face, say these words, and send them on their way.

Fear not my children, for God has commandedeth a testeth of ye faith, (and for gods sake don’t forget the next part because they know god doesn’t work for free) and god doeseth hereby commandeth that ye to puteth all ye gold and jewels and money into my hand and step ye of the edge of this holy mountain into the hands of Jesus halleluiah… O8)

Or maybe this one would work better:
All ye children of the most divine, the lord thy god has opened the gates of heaven far beyond the horizon of this great ocean,(Again don’t forget to make them pay or they will know some things up) and he has commanded that you place all your gold and money in the back of my brand new F350 Ford pickup, because that wealth will only testith ye faith and drageth ye down. Take with ye not no boat nor raft or any typeth of lifeth preserverith for the lord is all you needeth to keepeth thyn ass afloateth. And have ye faith ye chosen children of he who hath choseneth ye, that weneth thow approacheth the gates of paradise ye will be walking in the spirit of the lord amen… Now go ye all… Swimith in the name of the lord… Swimith and don't looketh backeth… Halleluiah amen…O8)

And then there’s the possibility of using a combination of both, lets say a really high cliff overlooking the ocean…

[burythehatchet]

97. I truly regret having clicked on the link. It will not happen again.

[leeroysphitz]

101. Well have you actually flown to several million miles above the plane

of the Solar System, centered yourself above Sol's north pole and actually observed the Earth orbiting with your OWN EYES?

Until you do (and until everyone else on Earth does as well because you could lie and video can be altered) It's just a theory. :sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

102. lol! Actually, that still wouldn't settle it. (And what way is north on the Sun anyways?)

[leeroysphitz]

103. Magnetic North. In a polar (as in magnetic poles) kind of sense.

And you, of course, are right. There are those who would still disbelieve even after seeing it with their own eyes.

[BlooInBloo]

104. That works - thanks!

[xxqqqzme]

107. Did they get an 'F' on that paper?