BS: Gravity solved?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 11:07 AM

Oh dear. We had better consider Sydney Carter a heretic as well, hadn't we Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Rt Rev Musket
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:01 PM

Good old Keith. Let's all grasp Wikipedia in order to make a good point look suspect!   The case of Bruno is well documented and comparisons are made with that of Al Capone being incarcerated for tax fiddles.

Bad enough those who bring sky pixies into debate without invoking the suspect rambling of Wikipedia into it. I know many entries are factual as there is no reason for spin, but wherever superstition is in the text, I prefer to smile and look for better references.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:24 PM

Bishop,
It is not well documented, or documented at all, that he was convicted for his insight into the nature of stars.
His religious beliefs were more than enough to get him burnt. People burned for much less back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:42 PM

Confirming Wiki,
"The grounds on which Bruno was sentenced are unknown, for the processo, or official document containing the sentence, is irretrievably lost. It formed part of a mass of archives that were transported, by order of Napoleon, from Rome to Paris, where they were pulped. From the reports of the interrogations, it is, however, possible to form an idea of the drift of the case against him. To his major theological heresy, the denial of the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity, was added suspicion of diabolical magical practices. It was probably mainly as a magician that Bruno was burned, and as the propagator throughout Europe of some mysterious magicoreligious movement. This movement may have been in the nature of a secret Hermetic sect, and may be connected with the origins of Rosicrucianism or of Freemasonry. If any philosophical or cosmological points were included in his condemnation, these would have been inextricably bound up with his "Egyptianism."

The legend that the nineteenth century built around Bruno as the hero who, unlike Galileo, refused to retract his belief that the earth moves is entirely without foundation."

This article is based on my books, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago, 1964), and The Art of Memory (Chicago, 1966). On Bruno, Gilbert, and Bacon, see my essay "The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science," in Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, Charles S. Singleton, ed. (Baltimore, 1968), pp. 255–274.
Frances A. Yates.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Giordano_Bruno.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:45 PM

Isn't it the point that religious believers have ALWAYS been so confident of their basic 'truths' that they felt obligated to defend them against all attempts to suggest reasonable alternatives? Some centuries it's burning at the stake, sometimes it's just preaching on street corners.
   It's not about debating exactly why the clerics of the day decided Bruno was a problem... it's about getting clerics & their minions to leave everyone else alone!

" Freedom OF religion implicitly requires freedom FROM religion for those who wish it!"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 01:50 PM

it's about getting clerics & their minions to leave everyone else alone!
He was a Dominican Friar and an active and prolific theologian.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:04 PM

What the blazes is encyclopedia.com? I have never heard of it. However a glance at its featured subject today does not engender much confidence"

"socialized medicine publicly administered
system of national health care. The term is used to describe programs
that range from government operation of medical facilities to national
health-insurance plans. In 1948, Great Britain passed the National
Health Service Act that provided free physician and hospital services
for all citizens. The system was later amended, now charging a small fee
for th... "


Anything which does not realise that Great Britain is a geographical rather than a political entity, and yet calls itself an encyclopedia, really does not deserve to be trusted on more complex things.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:06 PM

".......more than a tad insulting......."    Are'nt we a bit sensitive stu!       That expression of an opinion is just that, and no reason to get all upset.   But , just supposing by a long stretch of the imagination , my words could be considered insulting, you certainly don't practise what you preach judging by the flowing accusations following. Step back a bit, surely you are not drawing a comparison between creationists expressing arguments and the violent excesses of Isis and of violence and bloodshed from centuries before. If you want to play that game there is more than enough blood on the hands of atheists and evolution believers , acting consistently with their belief.             Oh, and when was the "dark ages"?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:21 PM

Bill, you seem to be making the same comparison implying that not only has the church been guilty of atrocities in its history , but that Christians should,nt even interact with unbelievers (..every one else..)    Christianity is an evangelistic faith, I am afraid you will have to get over it. Not that most Christians I know will press the issue, but on here it is the atheists that want to press the issue .               Dave, keith cited two other sources , you will have to try harder if you want to discredit the information.    Seems to me atheists want to condemn the church for as much persecution of scientists as possible , but are , I think, selective with the facts , and secondly ,it was a long time ago. And thirdly , no one is excusing any said persecution anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 05:11 PM

"Christianity is an evangelistic faith"

And it isn't helped in this by some, a small minority, of Christians labelling themselves as "evangelical", spouting utter, palpable nonsense of the type which comes from places like Answers in Genesis, and telling people who might otherwise have some time for the Christian message that said nonsense is central to the Christian faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 06:39 PM

I can't help noticing, Pete, that you tend to ignore awkward questions. Take the the stuff you wrote about "group think" above and my response to it, i.e.

"What you seem to be implying is that a few (?) some (?) many (?) evolutionary biologists are really closet creationists - but they are too intimidated by "groupthink" to step out of line and 'unshackle' themselves from an "evolutionist agenda".

So, Pete, what percentage (roughly) of scientists, working within the field of evolutionary biology, do you believe are closet creationists too intimidated by group think to speak out? What, if any, evidence do you have to show that any such browbeaten closet creationists exist?

In addition, do you believe that modern science is a vast anti-religious conspiracy? If it isn't a vast anti-religious conspiracy, but just plain wrong, why do so many institutions and governments devote such vast resources to it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 07:06 PM

Makes Wikiballs seem sensible...

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 08:18 PM

If it isn't a vast anti-religious conspiracy, but just plain wrong, why do so many institutions and governments devote such vast resources to it?

Obviously because its God's will.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 09:13 PM

Oh, *this* thread got fun in a hurry.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 09:58 PM

"Bill, you seem to be making the same comparison implying that not only has the church been guilty of atrocities in its history ,..."

No! I absolutely am not saying any such thing! Evil is done by greedy people who want power & money & such. Some of them happen to be atheists, some claim to be religious. The problem is, the religious ones have an easier excuse built in! "Oh, those we did away with were heretics and deniers of the faith!"

The atheists can't say much beyond "it was us or them, so get over it!"

An evangelistic faith? Oh indeed! "It says right here in our Book that we should go out and convert the heathen! What? You don't believe in our Book? Well, that's the point! We get to harass you until you do! It says so ...right here in this Book you don't believe in! Here.. I'll read you some verses out of that Book you don't believe in until you surrender or until we get enough power to make you sorry you resisted!"
   That worked pretty well with some ignorant tribes who already were superstitious and ripe for a story better than the Fish God they worshiped, and moderately well with half-way educated groups which found it easier not to argue when burning stakes were seen occasionally...... but not 'quite' so well with well-educated folks who knew enough history & philosophy to judge for themselves how to evaluate religious claims.
   Now, the basic urge to evangelize is still on auto-pilot with some sects, even as various states allow their citizens to think for themselves.

Get over it? No... I don't think so. Just keep on "preaching to the choir"... but if you knock on MY door, be prepared for an interesting discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 02:37 AM

You guys comparing religion to God, is like comparing political stances to science....apples to oranges....and probably too shallow to think it through...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 03:23 AM

Comparing steering wheels to cars again Goofus? (Or autos, as they say in foreign climes.)

There's a fair bit we don't quite get yet. Sure, there's the odd hypothesis surrounding most areas but the problem with getting God to fill in the gaps is that said God becomes smaller, insignificant and irrelevant as time goes on.

Oh....

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 03:39 AM

Dave, my quote was an extract from an article by Yates, an historian of the period.
Do you challenge its authenticity or veracity?

he says "This article is based on my books, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago, 1964), and The Art of Memory (Chicago, 1966). On Bruno, Gilbert, and Bacon, see my essay "The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science," in Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance, Charles S. Singleton, ed. (Baltimore, 1968), pp. 255–274.
Frances A. Yates.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 03:56 AM

"A historian of the period."

Well you would challenge it yourself Keith, surely? Is said historian eminent, alive, writing in the last twenty years and reflecting a consensus of his peers? I believe that's the Acheson criteria?

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:06 AM

No idea Keith, I have no access to her books, or the article. So I cannot verify whether that is indeed what she wrote, nor can I read the context in order to estimate how credible she was. Wikipedia states that she argued that Bruno was burned for espousing Hermeticism rather than Heliocentricity. But that is not so very different, as Hermetic thought had a huge influence on Medieval science, certainly on Newton, and possibly on earlier figures such as Roger Bacon. The killing of Bruno was an attack on all science, not just one aspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:14 AM

Musket, you demand that your assertions be given consideratiom without your having to produce anything to support them.
Just your "say so."
You then criticises me for only supporting my assertion with a Wiki page, even though I only used a direct quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy!

Now you reject a quote from this person as somehow inadequate.

Dame Frances Amelia Yates DBE FBA (28 November 1899 – 29 September 1981) was an English historian who focused on the study of the Renaissance. In an academic capacity, she taught at the Warburg Institute of the University of London for many years, and also wrote a number of seminal books on the subject of esoteric history.
Her books Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (1964), The Art of Memory (1966), and The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (1972) are major works.

In 1971, Yates was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of East Anglia, which was presented to her by Angus Wilson,[70] and in the New Year Honours 1972 Yates was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for services to Art History.[71][72] In October 1973, she was awarded a £5000 Wolfson Award for her wider oeuvre,[73] and in January 1974, Yates delivered four Northcliffe lectures at University College London (UCL). They would subsequently be published by Routledge in 1975 as Shakespeare's Last Plays: A New Approach.[74] She was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1975.[75] That same year also saw the publication of Astraea: The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century, which collected together lectures that she had presented in the 1950s.[76] In February 1976, Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts offered Yates the Kennedy Professorship, which she declined.[77]

Yates was promoted in the Queen's Birthday Honours 1977 to Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) for services to Renaissance studies.[78][79] In 1978, the University of Pisa awarded her the Premio Galilio Galilie for her contribution to the study of Italian history.[33] In March 1979, the British Academy awarded her a £2000 grant so that she could continue to travel from her home to London in order to conduct research.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:21 AM

Dave,
The killing of Bruno was an attack on all science, not just one aspect.

What evidence do you have that his execution had anything to do with his scientific theories.
His theological theories, including the non-divinity of Jesus, would have seen him executed many times over without any reference to his science at all, so why invoke it?

No idea Keith, I have no access to her books, or the article. So I cannot verify whether that is indeed what she wrote, nor can I read the context in order to estimate how credible she was

Why assume it is all lies Dave.
Why not at least look her up first?
That is what "an academic" would do.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:27 AM

Keith, you did not support your assertion with a Wikipedia page, but one from a different online encyclopedia which none of us seem to have heard of, and which posts patent bollocks in its "subject of the day". However, about Yates, definitely a she, seems a reasonably well regarded historian with a post at the Warburg Institute which is affiliated with the University of London, has been dead for 35 years. She clearly divided opinion, and Trevor-Roper was on her side, which is not a good sign. You would need to read the biography by Marjorie Jones in order to understand better her veracity. But you quote one paragraph out of a whole book Keith, who knows what the rest of the book says.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:39 AM

I have looked her up Keith. Which is why I knew she was a she, despite your post.

"His theological theories, including the non-divinity of Jesus, would have seen him executed many times over without any reference to his science at all, so why invoke it?"

According to Wikipedia, which isn't perfect either I grant you, that isn't what Yates thought though. It says:

"Yates suggested that the itinerant Catholic priest Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for espousing the Hermetic tradition rather than his affirmation of heliocentricity."

The Hermetic tradition was pre-Christian, and said nothing about the divinity of Christ.

Presumably the person who wrote the Wikipedia article has read more of the book than just one paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:41 AM

Keith, you did not support your assertion with a Wikipedia page,

Yes I did. I gave this quote from Yates' Wiki page,
""According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When [...] Bruno [...] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[61] "

That was itself a quote from but one from a different online encyclopedia which none of us seem to have heard of, and which posts patent bollocks in it

Does it matter if you are familiar with the site?
The article was by a recognised expert on the subject. Why is that not enough?

Have you heard of The Warburg Institute, University of London, School of Advanced Study Dave?
http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/library/digital-collections/giordano-bruno/yates-brunos-mnemonics/

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:50 AM

I missed your reference to Warburg Dave.
Sorry.
What is wrong with me saying,
"His theological theories, including the non-divinity of Jesus, would have seen him executed many times over without any reference to his science at all, so why invoke it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 04:52 AM

I rejected it? Err.. Are you sure?

I think you'll find I was bemused that your criteria of what constitutes a credible historian seems to have flown with the birds when it suits your somewhat tenuous assertion.

Something about petards and hoisting.....

Wot Dave said..

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:08 AM

I regard Yates as a credible historian, and fail to see why you and Dave question her without producing a anyone who disagrees with her views on this.

I made an assertion, backing it first with a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and following up with an extract from a lengthy article by Yates, with a link to the whole piece so it could be seen in context.

Dave says that is not enough to show what Yates' views are on the subject!
What do you want Dave?

You two are just arguing for the sake of it, with no actual challenge to anything I have said or quoted.
Just trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:32 AM

Ok. Alan Clark and Baldrick are too. Your objection is just trolling.

Remember that bit about petards? The historian Tony Robinson showed us what they were all about in a BBC documentary.

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:57 AM

I have no idea what I want Keith. You name a historian, you produce one quote from a whole book, you then make an assertion about Bruno being condemned for his views of the divinity of Christ, whereas your chosen quote from your chosen historian says

"It was probably mainly as a magician that Bruno was burned,"

You ignore Musket's pointing out that the said historian's date of death fails to meet your criteria for credibility on another thread, and in her defence you post a link to an article which says amongst other things:

"Scholarship has greeted Yates's views on Bruno and Hermeticism with considerable scepticism while less specialised literature continues to repeat her findings thanks undoubtedly to the greater diffusion of English language literature as much as to the outstanding clarity of her style."

You show no understanding of what Hermeticism actually is, and no evidence of your attempts to find out.

So, quite frankly, I don't think that I do want anything else from you, that is all that is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 07:34 AM

Dave, your minute extraction is insufficient.

Try this, as quoted by me earlier.

"To his major theological heresy, the denial of the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity, was added suspicion of diabolical magical practices. It was probably mainly as a magician that Bruno was burned, and as the propagator throughout Europe of some mysterious magicoreligious movement. This movement may have been in the nature of a secret Hermetic sect, and may be connected with the origins of Rosicrucianism or of Freemasonry. If any philosophical or cosmological points were included in his condemnation, these would have been inextricably bound up with his "Egyptianism."

The legend that the nineteenth century built around Bruno as the hero who, unlike Galileo, refused to retract his belief that the earth moves is entirely without foundation."

She refutes that he was tried for his science.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 07:39 AM

Re my view of historians, it is completely untrue that I reject the work of any because of when it was written.

Only in the specific case of WW1, where they has been a consensus on some issues that has only emerged in the last twenty years, did I say that it was fatuous to challenge that consensus with quotes from before it existed.

Again, you two are just arguing with me for the sake of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 08:03 AM

Dame Frances Amelia Yates DBE FBA (28 November 1899 – 29 September 1981)

Well she's DEAD fer chrissakes; LONG dead - by The Professor's own criteria she is to be totally disregarded.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 08:49 AM

No Greg.
I would not reject the work of any historian just because it was old or the author dead.

In the specific case of WW1, where there has been a consensus on some issues that has only emerged in the last twenty years, I did say that it was fatuous to challenge that consensus with quotes from before it existed.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 09:09 AM

I would not reject the work of any historian just because it was old or the author dead.

Your memory is failing you, Professor. You have done multiple times.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 10:43 AM

Not true Greg.
Only in specific reference to the history of WW1, where there has been a consensus on some issues that has only emerged in the last twenty years.

I said it was fatuous to challenge that consensus with quotes from before it existed.

It is your memory (or honesty) at fault Greg.

As three of you have now referred to the WW1 debate I will share this nugget with you.
In the iconic 1964 BBC series "The Great War" the young Max Hastings is listed on the credits of every episode with the historical researchers.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 02:25 PM

"Only in WW1"

The rest of the universe, history, politics, science and entries for the annual Bristol Stool Chart Awards work to other criteria.

Unless and until it suits him.
😹😹😹



🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 02:41 PM

"......utter palpable nonsense....."    Thank you Dave for your considered opinion of my beliefs.......however since you think it is nonsense , I invite you to point out to me where it conflicts with observable, testable , and repeatable science . And when you have done that I will gladly reciprocate by mentioning a few instances where evolutionism fails that test. It is easy to throw out insults,.....maybe harder to justify them!         And as for the suggestion that creation is a block to anyone becoming a Christian , perhaps you can cite a few instances of those who would have decided to become Christians were then turned away from that decision by creation .   I don't think I would have too much difficulty in finding testimonies of those who were not believers, who became Christians , after being exposed to the arguments of creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 05:47 PM

We have special homes for them. They can have a chat with Napoloen most mornings.

Dangerous brainwashing bullshit, preying on vulnerable people. Children should be protected from lying shits like you pete, they really should. The thought of fertile inquisitive minds being abused and closed in this day and age is sad, very very sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 05:57 PM

observable, testable , and repeatable science

Once again, pete, in your self-satisied ignorance, you don't know the meaning of the term.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:53 PM

Perhaps one day pete will tell us what is observable, testable or repeatable with regarded to any of the stuff he believes. Perhaps he could start by telling us about the evidence for his assertions and how he came upon it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 06:54 PM

with regard to. Soddin' iPad.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 09:19 PM

how he came upon it.

Why, god handed it to him, of course. Probably graven upon stone tablets.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Feb 16 - 11:37 PM

"......perhaps some day Pete will tell us........."       Steve.                                                   Well Steve , I have done so a number of times over these threads, and I shall be happy to do so again but not till we have dealt with Dave's assertion that what creationists believe is "......utter palpable nonsense..."    So, just to remind you....show me how believing in creation is contrary to observable, testable, repeatable science?    And just to clarify, since it looks like you are trying to shift the goal posts, I said I shall be happy to demonstrate how evolutionism Fails the test, not how I would appeal to the scientific method as such . I admit the faith factor ......unlike the evolutionist!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 12:48 AM

.....perhaps some day Steve will tell us........What part of eternity is the moment of 'Now'...perhaps any of you can tell us what part of ALL things, are we not a part of. Perhaps some one can tell us what part of the origin of life, is only limited to 'life as we know it'. Perhaps someone can tell us if Love, light, consciousness, are not a collective whole, in which theorizing about the evolution of modern day man, consistently leaves out. Perhaps someone can explain, whether or not, those same invisible forces, are evolving...leaving those who refuse to acknowledge them behind.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps....

OR....

Let's be small and nothing, and powerless..and at the mercy of the dictates of a theory that ignores the obvious, and says they don't exist.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 03:59 AM

Musket,
"Only in WW1"

Yes.
I would not reject the work of any historian just because it was old or the author dead.

In the specific case of WW1, where there has been a consensus on some issues that has only emerged in the last twenty years, I did say that it was fatuous to challenge that consensus with quotes from before it existed.

You people denied that consensus, but could find no historian outside it.
You just kept irrelevantly quoting work from before the consensus because you had nothing else.

I would then point out how fatuous it was to quote long dead historians, or pre-consensus work, as evidence against a fairly recent consensus.

And here you are still ploughing that same old fatuous farrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 04:46 AM

I do not have to "demonstrate" that to you, especially since there is no way you would listen. But there is so much palpable nonsense here, here, here, and here to be going on with. I would invite readers to look at each of these links and make up their own mind. The last is my subject, on that I could produce many peer-reviewed journal papers to refute every one of the "14 natural phenomena". But I am not going to because nobody takes this stuff seriously. I could produce a whole list of dreamtime legends, and ask you to produce a scientific paper refuting each one, but it would be a waste of time because people reading this do not take them literally.

Now, Pete, I did not say anything about your faith, I said that the stuff produced by a particular organisation, that one, was palpable nonsense. Are you saying that you sign up to their claims? Because no mainstream Church does.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 04:47 AM

I note you're still ignoring my questions, Pete. But just in case you missed them on 17th Feb, here they are again:

"I can't help noticing, Pete, that you tend to ignore awkward questions. Take the the stuff you wrote about "group think" above and my response to it, i.e.

"What you seem to be implying is that a few (?) some (?) many (?) evolutionary biologists are really closet creationists - but they are too intimidated by "groupthink" to step out of line and 'unshackle' themselves from an "evolutionist agenda".

So, Pete, what percentage (roughly) of scientists, working within the field of evolutionary biology, do you believe are closet creationists too intimidated by group think to speak out? What, if any, evidence do you have to show that any such browbeaten closet creationists exist?

In addition, do you believe that modern science is a vast anti-religious conspiracy? If it isn't a vast anti-religious conspiracy, but just plain wrong, why do so many institutions and governments devote such vast resources to it?"

Oh yes, about your tiresome mantra: (Real)observable, testable, repeatable science is NEVER based on the Bible ... or any other work of fiction!

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 04:53 AM

Shimrod, that is exactly what these charlatans do. If you follow my links, you see they format and structure their statements like a scientific paper, but the evidence base is a mixture of observations and bible verses. It has no place in science and it has no place n religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Gravity solved?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Feb 16 - 05:16 AM

"....knock on my door .....interesting discussion.." Bill.    Well, bill, we are already having those discussions , but when it comes to these threads it is the atheists who are knocking. I just opened the door and addressed their ...er...concerns.   And it just goes to show, that at least as far as I am concerned , the talk of aggressive evangelism is not relevant.   Straw man anyone !