I doubt they can be reasoned with
from Catholic Apologetics International...
Quote:CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, we may up the ante in the near future.
It'll take place over 6 months, preferably using top-grade observatories around the world. Our proximity to other planets will change, other celestial distances will change, but our proximity to the sun won't.
if the sun orbits the Earth, then how can they account for the orbits of the other 8 (9?) planets? Are these guys for real?
Or let me guess, the other planets don't exist because there's no life on them and therefore nothing for the next great Crusade. :rolleyes:
What's next? The Earth doesn't rotate, the tides are caused by God?
Quote:Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.
and if I follow their "scientific thought", your proof better come from the literal words out of the bible.
Yeah I won't comment on this much, honestly I'm a heavy believer in the 'Big Bang Theory' and scientific proof of the universe and don't hold religion to the level that some do. Personally I feel that some religions are more like 'cults' then anything......
As mentioned above....
if the sun orbits the Earth, then how can they account for the orbits of the other 8 (9?) planets? Are these guys for real?
EXACTLY!!!
consider also that they've sent satellites to the edge of the universe which
a ) wouldn't even be possible if the basis of their calculations were wrong
b ) they have pictures looking into the center of our universe, and lo-and-behold, the planets, including earth always seem to be moving AROUND the sun.
The moonshot was a hoax. :ph34r:
Quote:Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.
That's right - you wouldn't want any "experts" weighing in on this.
So with this definition of "proof" - how they heck could you prove anything - including their own theory that the sun revolves around the earth? The answer is you can't.
What they're doing here is narrowing the definition of what constitutes proof to the point where no answer will be deemed acceptable ... and in doing that they can now claim that no one is able to offer "proof" that the earth revolves around the sun.
It's a classic positioning technique (spin) and an effective one ... I use it all the time.
I dunno, I think having pictures of the planets exactly where they should be based on current theories and models is pretty good proof.
EDIT: And personally, I don't think their definition of proof is too extreme, in all honesty that's what should be demanded of for proof.
f***tards pure and simple
ZTWsquared,Feb 15 2006, 12:17 PM Wrote:Quote:Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.
That's right - you wouldn't want any "experts" weighing in on this.
So with this definition of "proof" - how they heck could you prove anything - including their own theory that the sun revolves around the earth? The answer is you can't.
What they're doing here is narrowing the definition of what constitutes proof to the point where no answer will be deemed acceptable ... and in doing that they can now claim that no one is able to offer "proof" that the earth revolves around the sun.
It's a classic positioning technique (spin) and an effective one ... I use it all the time.
[right][snapback]170636[/snapback][/right]
That's why I said use multiple observatories, over a period of 6 months or so. You can't deny mathematical data from multiple sources, over and over again.
Frost__2001,Feb 15 2006, 04:07 PM Wrote:f***tards pure and simple
[right][snapback]170697[/snapback][/right]
hey, don't desecrate the name.
they are asshats :lol: