Stu You are the one with the reading comprehension problem my "oh shit" had nothing to do with your "noshit. My "oh shit" sentence and logic stood by themselves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stu if you are correct that the Catholic church infallibly declared the world to be flat. I will leave the church and pronounce it right here. Otherwise I still saw a great deal of suspect and off point ranting and raving. What was the church's position at the time of Columbus? that was this issue. I will research your comment about Salamanca. That seemed to be your main on point statement. But outside of that you seemed to be missing clarity. Again I guarantee the church never declared the world to be flat. So you threw around a lot of church words and facts but they must be read carefully. You clearly do not know when the church declares itself to be correct. You seem to equlize the importance of councils and wings and church fathers and ex cathedra statements and dogma. It was a clever rant but specious and off point. (again I reserve judgment about columbus and the council of Salamanca) I am not even sure. Are you saying the church told Columbus the world was flat? Or did you just make a lot of noise. You again misread my position on the board of Ed. I think the Boards of Ed taught a lot of stuff that was part of a progressive agenda in the 70s and 80s. Not all of that agenda had to do with religion. A lot of it had to do with restructuring society. I will do some research and clear up some of your arguments. Or I will change my church. (By the way I am not saying I think it is great, I am very concerned about the priesthood, I just believe in the Bible and take John 6:53 to be one of the central points of Christianity.)
Stu, I think you got some of your quotes from a mid nineteenth century anti catholic preacher who seems to have no basis for his statements. My quick research indicates Columbus had a major ally at the Council of Salamanca. Also quick reserach shows Augustine to not be pro flat earth. Please produce some reserach. Again I know you are wrong regarding some things but if you give me cites I am willing to learn on others.
Me: >For me, gravity performs as expected each and every >time...after time after time. I can test it in the lab or in >my everyday life and it never fails me. TM: >Really? Yes. >Ok....drop a feather and a stone....do they both >land?... In the absence of wind currents, yes they both land as expected. With wind currents present they still both act as expected but results will vary widely. >is there more or less gravity in space then on earth? Less as expected. >not exactly constant is it? It's not expected to be constant, even on the surface of the earth. And your point is TM? You do have a point with that post don't you? JB
TM: >Show me a picture of Gravity.... By his comments and questions something leads me to believe that TM is a few bricks shy of a load when it comes to proofs. One can show pictures of the *effects* of gravity, wind, heat, etc. Since these have proven to be infinitely (so far) repeatable and accurately (to a pretty sharp point) predictable it gets pretty easy for even a skeptic to believe. JB