What is Digg?217 Comments
- rft3rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12lol, Christians can be so stupid."
can be????
no no no no. ARE so stupid!
You can not lump all Christians in with this group dude. Come on! Anyone on any given day can be stupid (as is show by your comments above). Stereotyping is very dangerous my friend. Im not the type of Christian that trys to convert everyone and so on and so on... I refuse to be associated with this group like any true Muslim would not want to be associated with Al-Qaeda. Same stuff. - rft3rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This kind of garbage gives normal Christians like myself a bad name... Right up there with Pat Robertson and Bob Tilman idiot that did time for wire fraud. Much like L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology, this dude created this religion and has perverted Christianity much like radical Islamists have perverted that great religion.
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7He has been doing this since 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis - Jong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5James Randi, the notable skeptic and debunker noted this and has promised to offer $1,000,000 if anyone can prove the opposite, that the Sun revolves around the Earth:
http://www.randi.org/jr/062405silly.html
Touché - dbzer0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"CAI will be the sole judge of whether you have successfully proven your case."
...right - vckeating, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I should mention that this guy doesn't represent the official views of the Catholic Church, which doesn't have issue with the view that the sun is the centre of the solar system. It's why he has to reach back to papal decrees hundreds of years ago to justify his case.
- mrfloppy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5actually.... the onus of proof should be on them. Disprove the established scientific fact that the earth orbits the sun.
I dare you - redcard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Technically, he's right.
The Earth does not revolve around the sun. The definition of revolve is to move around in a curved path around a central point or axis. The Earth does not do that, as we are not technically revolving around a fixed point. As the sun is constantly moving, the end result is that the entirety of the system is moving, and thus we are more likely producing spirals that do not end at the same point they began.
It doesn't prove his geocentrism either.. but he will always have an out. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No one can prove it - how the hell do you prove that the earth goes around the sun? Scientists never "prove" anything - they simply theorize and agree on those theories. Religious people, however, can look up some vague entry in the bible to "prove" almost anything they want to. It's a stacked contest, and not worth your time.
- joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5the earth does revolve around the sun
the earth also does not revolve around the sun
it all depends on what your point of reference is. speed is all relative... relative to whatever you are comparing.
if you use the earth as your point of reference then everything is moving relative to their earth and you are measuring their speeds relative to the earth (considered standing still)
so it all depends on how you want to look at things.
now obviously the sun is exerting a large force on the earth causing it to 'revolve' around it... just depends on how you measure it all. - Bandito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Silly people. Don't you all realize that the Earth revolves around me?
tsk. tsk. - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To backup what I just said, from the wikipedia:
"If general relativity is true, then there is no way to prove that the Earth is not the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory."
this is from the modern geocentric article - kotatsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What is happening to the world?! We seem to be slipping back into the dark ages. Damn religious retards, come on evolution, these deviants shouldn't survive much longer.
What next? The return of the Spanish Inquisition? (you never expect them) - rimco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Isn't Galileo dead? How's he going to get his check?
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Considering the CAI page was written by someone who doesn't know the difference between "effects" and "affects," I wouldn't spend much time reading it seriously...
- IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's stop giving him the exposure he so desperatly wants.
- orangemarmalade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i'll hereby give $1000000000 to anyone who can prove that the sun revolves around the earth AND that god exists. really, im that daring.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's called "we want some attention" and 1000 bucks is a cheap way of getting it... And you morons are helping for digging this....
- silent1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll offer $1000 to anyone who can 'prove' the existence of GOD.
- ckohler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"By 'proof' we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive."
Come on guys! All they're asking for is someone to build them a spacecraft that will allow them to park by the sun for two whole years and watch with their own eyes as the Earth goes round. What's the big deal? - killtherat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This guy might not be such a wack job. It's all very devious when you think about it.
1) Make absurd claim that strikes most people the wrong way, and do so with the air of a wackjob
2) Offer to listen to peoples evidence disproving your idea, but demand that the only way for you to listen to them is pay $1000
3) Hope that you infuriate the geek population
4) When somebody actually does pony up the money, dismiss any of their claims by saying 'well that phenomena could be explained by magic elves'
5) Profit!!!!!!!!!!! - drdewm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They will never pay up. Whatever proof you bring they will discount.
- WrecksTXP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If the Earth revolves around the Sun - and is not static in space - then it must be true that over the course of a year say, we observe differences - for example in:
i) the stars that appear at the same time in the night sky
ii) the altitude and azimuth (position with respect to the horizon's N, S points) of the Sun.
The first is easily verified, say over the course of obseving the night sky at the same time (say, 8 p.m. local time) each night. You will therefore see a procession of different stars, objects as time goes by.
This is the first indicator that Earth must be moving through space and not stationary.
A further observation to reinforce this is *revolution* and not merely linear displacement is obtained by repeating said observations *year after year* and making notes of the objects seen.
In the same 6-month period, therefore, you ought to see the same objects in the night sky at the same time.
This implies repetitive motion, and hence that the Earth is not merely linearly moving in space, but returning time and again to the same relative position in space (e.g. in it s orbit)
Second, the position, altitude of the Sun. If you do the same thing for the Sun, you will note its changing positions both in altitude - at specific calendar dates - and its rising (and setting) positions along the horizon.
Thus, it ought to be obvious - again, say over a 6-month period of observation - that these are changing.
Again, if you repeat them *year after year* you will see the exact same positions duplicated, suggesting that the Earth is returning to its same position in space relative to the Sun. (The seasons, of course, are also indicators of this)
Of course, you can refine measurements - say of the Sun's changing altitude - through the use of an instrument like an astrolabe (which can easily be made using a lead bob attached to a string, and affixed to a wooden or cardboard protractor)."
From: http://experts.about.com/q/Astronomy-1360/earth-revolves-around-sun.htm - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh yeah, and John Paul II decreed that the Catholic Church was wrong in persecuting Galileo... that the earth indeed revolves around the Sun.
- drn666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The real reason this is on Digg is because people like to rant about religion - and people in America and Europe especially like to rant against Christianity and anything associated with it - despite the fact that this claim has nothing do with Christianity anyway."
This is probably because "Christianity" is constantly ranting about everything else and is often due it's fair and just returns. - apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The sun is fake!! Anybody here see the truman show? HELLO!!
- gekkokid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this article is offensive to my Catholic beliefs, this one person is making us look more stupid than we are, lets go crazy and start a pius bellum
- ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is an apologist who disagrees and refutes Mr Sungenis... http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p92.htm
Note that half of Sungenis' madness is his devotion to the sayings of a long-dead Pope. Not to make and ad hominem type fallacy, but... - LoafDog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Next they'll be asking that someone prove that the earth isn't flat. These people aren't the lunatic fringe, they're the idiot fringe. Ignore them, don't have sex with them and let evolution weed them out of our gene pool.
BTW, some of my friends are into Christianity and I don't believe these inbreds represent mainstream Christianity. - Valence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Heh. I've just reviewed these comments and so, so few have actually RTFA.
I remember taking a discrete math course a couple years ago. The instructor, quite a brilliant guy, couldn't remember how to spell a word, so he asked the class, but before anyone could raise a hand to answer, he shrugged his shoulders and said, "Eh, it doesn't matter, it's not like anyone knows how to write English properly anymore anyway." Then, he wrote the incorrect word on the board.
At *lot* of the people on this board are like him. They may be otherwise intelligent, reasonable people, but proffer a religious argument or viewpoint on any given topic, and their eyes turn into swirling vortexes and steam blows out their ears. How is this like the math instructor? Well, they don't listen. They accuse religious pundits of not listening even as they, the accusers, run around with their fingers in their ears going, "LA LA LA LA LA LA!"
It's too bad, actually, for quite a few reasons, not the least of which includes the fact that when you dismiss things out of hand without taking into consideration *any* content or relevance they might have, then not only are you closing your mind in the same manner which religious pundits are accused of closing their own, but you're dismissing out of hand the opinions of many, many people who, again like many people here, may have their assumptions and beliefs about what matters in thought, but are otherwise reasonable, intelligent, people.
Now I realize that science pundits, unlike those from various humanities disciplines who purport to actually care about the human condition, have no obligation to give a rat's ass about humanity in general. But it would be nice if, since many take a superior attitude about their level of knowledge and the carte blanche extended to formalized observations, if they would also consider humanity, and therefore humanity's beliefs, to be of some paramount importance as well.
Just read many of the disparaging comments quickly jotted by reflex on this board, and you'll see what I consider to be a religious dismissiveness not unlike all those crazy right-wing Christians and Muslims.
I am, by the way, a mathematician. - rft3rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These people are on the same plain as any religious extremist group. ANYONE who quotes the bible and takes it literally, and then says that Louis the XIII said that you should take it literally as does the Vatican, is RETARDED!! What about the constant corruption of the bible by man. A book written 2000 years ago or so in a dead language that no one speaks is then translated into modern language so the word can be passed. Hmmm, perhaps a little judicious editing took place as to further promote the desired direction of the church, an undying organization governed by man "under the influence of God."
Anyone that places their life and trust in something such as the church or a book and thinks that this is a way to live and raise children is insane. Believing in God is good, having faith and ideas is good, but to be told those things and just accept them as a truth is ignorant.
A belief in God or a relationship with God should exist on a personal basis. You need not the direction of church, priests, etc... Just do what you feel is right, and if there is a God and you believe in him, then he will judge you on his own terms.
WELL SAID! I am a Christian and firmly believe that the Bible is opened to interpretation and you will get out of it exactly what you put into it. - drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3oh boy. Its sad what today's state of mind (and encouragement from false prophets) is allowing certain extremists to make-believe. Evolution, revolving around the sun being false or just "theory" etc. Yet they believe in an unprovable imaginary man in the sky? w-a-c-k-e-d. I'll give them a billion to prove God exists as they imagine God. Ok then, go start some more wars with your "moral" religion.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1let me clue you in. you can't be reasonable with these people. to allow them the technicallity that the earth and sun to some small at any one moment insignificant degree orbit each other is just going to back fire. that their conclusion fell within the margins of... well, maybe... doesn't change the faulty way they got there. but they will quote you to others... they will email it to some more. and another rung in the sham. portrayed like you agreed with them and supported them. and that their logic over powered you. bet.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The funny thing is the Church can't lose this one. Nobody can can prove anything - if you say centripital force, they could just say "prove centripital force."
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Umm, this is called "General Relativity", and Einstein pretty much sorted that one out a while ago.
Actually, in fairness, I suppose the correct answer is that the earth revolves around the sun and the sun revolves around the earth, depending on your point of view. An earth-centric model is possible if you assume the only fixed point anywhere in the system is the earth. The motions of the sun, moon, planets, galaxies, Ford Galaxys, etc. can then be described by some ackward but none the less correct mathematics.. If you make the model earth centric the models of the orbits of the other bodies in the solar sytem become quite bizarre figure eights and pinto bean shapes.. especially interesting is the "retrograde" action of mars and venus, which would, from the earth-centric point of view, stop going their usual direction for a time, go backwards, then turn around and go the other way for a bit.
The reason we visualize the solar system as Solar-centric is that the equasions we deal with on a solar-sytem level are easiest to work with in that model, and are nicely described by the mathematics / physics of Newton, Kepler, etc. But as someone pointed out earlier.. almost everything, if not everything, is really in elliptical orbit, not a round orbit as the word "Revolves" implies. - HoagieKat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's very simple, the earth must revolve around the sun, if the earth didn't, it'd mean there was a higher power at work, and would prove the existance of god, and if you prove the existance of god, people would no longer have faith in him as he would be proven to exist, and there are passages in the bible that state if you search for the existance of God you'd never find it... Q.E.D. and oh... black and white are the same color.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Proof: the seasons
- vmerc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A couple of issues here...
1. In their article they state that math is just theories, and that tells me that if you attempt to use math as your proof it immediately gets shot down. How can these so-called truth-speakers make such a completely false statement such as "math is just theories" Last time I checked 1+1=2 (when dealing strictly with real-world objects), and there is no other truth more fundamental than that.
2. They have basically distilled the whole thing down to "you can only use your own senses, and you can't use the only fundamental tool to make any sort of theory of your own because math is not proof." This is a glaring indicator of how primitive these people are. They can only argue based on looking, hearing, touching, and tasting.
3. They say that you must prove your theory with: "By 'proof' we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive." This pretty much blows the entire religion out of the water. If they can prove even one thing in the bible based on their own rules I would probably grow wings and fly to heaven. - WrecksTXP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is why the world thinks Christians are fools. We have people like this representing us.
- omegaworks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1God cannot exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox - ashika, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it isn't a stupid contest at all. lots of people can't explain how the phases of the moon work. if you didn't figure it out yourself, you accepted it on another's word. that's the point they are trying to make.
- aeiou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like how he says that there is no scientific basis for either theory until you bring the Bible into the picture. He then proceeds to say nothing of any scripture that supports that the sun revolves around the earth. The reason? There is no support. He would probably say something about the scripture that says that the sun stood still (Joshua chapter 10). That proves nothing. Of course it would appear to be standing still from the human's point of view- they did not know the science of the matter at that time. Do you really think that God would inspire something like that to be so complicated for something so simple that they wouldn't understand what was going on? Of course not. There was no reason for that. From the Israelites point of view, the sun was standing still, even though it was actually the sun.
This is the same idea as Jesus speaking of mustard grains being so small in his illustrations. He knew that there were smaller seeds than the mustard grain, but his followers didn't. He kept it simple for them to understand. - aaronwolfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Check out this guy's rebuttals:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/case.htm
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/case2.htm
He guy has no idea what science is.
vhold said: "you take it on faith that the theory of the earth revolving around the sun is correct. What's pretty ironic there is that faith in the theory without repeatable proof isn't too far removed from faith in the word of scripture."
Is heliocentrism a theory? What scientist doubts it? - Supernova36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a heap of *****. How about i give him $1000 to prove God exists.
- longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you missed the end of that quote
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Arguing with Robert Sungenis appears to be like arguing with a sign that is misprinted. Since he throws out observational astronomy you might as well get him to prove that wood isn't made of fire trying to escape. Geo-centricism is not falsifiable, so like many things it is not even valid theory (although, considering non-inertial frames of reference, it isn't necessarily false), if one holds to the classical definition of the scientific method. Plus, it looks like they all believe in ether... shh, don't tell Michelson or Morley. The sad thing is that people give him the time of day.
- KeithThePirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hey wonder how many hits this site is getting? i mean honestly come on this is what they wanted, go to their site out of spite and then read all their info, possibly gettin people interested. thats a lot of advertising for only $1000. im a Christian and wouldnt fall for this junk, gives us a bad name
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a cheap publicity stunt. They're just want to drive traffic to the website in hopes of scoring a convert or contribution. I doubt VERY much that anyone will ever collect that reward.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's ridiculous, however you guys should know that we still don't know what causes gravitational force which is responsible for making the Earth revolve around the Sun (and many other things). They're probably going to say that it can't be proven if you can't fully explain gravity.
Either way, it's still pretty dumb. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OK. Can some people start to bury this story? I mean, really. Its hurtful to see something THIS IGNORANT make the front page of Digg. Then look at more of the site in question, especially under Science. Look at all the rants and slander against homosexuals. The Digg community jumped all over PriceRitePhoto, but we're collectively letting these people get away with this nonsense and even promoting it to the front page? I'm ashamed to even *be* a Digg user right now, and that shame won't go away till this story is gone.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 213 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is