The Moon is within Earth's atmosphere.
Nope.
The Moon is within Earth's atmosphere.
Nope.
You must remember that the moon landing hoax believers are in par with the flat earth believers.
They have absolutely no knowledge about anything that Kepler, and all the other scientific giants during our last 500 years, tried to teach us until we eventually managed to catch up with what the Christian Church managed to
destroy during almost two millennia.
Now we are back almost to where we were 2000 years ago. Unfortunately it seems like we're once again back to stale mate thanks only to the global patent system. There will be no more scientific progression until we, like we managed to defeat the priests, defeat the patent trolls.
Well, Kepler himself was a theologian, like Newton and many others. The science they did can only be understood properly in the light of their religious beliefs.
Not only Kepler; most of the leading scientists in the 16th century were monks or priests, often Jesuits,
and the Catholic Church underwrote many of
the scientific discoveries of the day.
Bjorn has an anti-religious bias
Really? Like who?
those that did were burned at the stake
Furthermore, the advent of protestantism also led to a significant rise
of natural (and other) sciences.
other significant scientists who were also religiously
devout Christians.
BTW, do you really regard e.g. popes, cardinals, bishops and even saints(!) to be significant scientists? Then I understand -- you simply have another definition of a significant scientist than I and many with me.
How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in imaginary deities?
You must remember that the moon landing hoax believers are in par BF>withthe flat earth believers.
As someone who was educated in the sciences you could also add that there's
a difference between "believing" and "knowing".
The Moon-landings are a scientific fact, no belief required.
BTW, do you really regard e.g. popes, cardinals, bishops and even
saints(!) to be significant scientists? Then I understand -- you simply
have another definition of a significant scientist than I and many with
me.
How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in imaginary deities?
As someone who was educated in the sciences you could also add that there's
a difference between "believing" and "knowing".
The Moon-landings are a scientific fact, no belief required.
Oh, I agree. I totally agree. However, none of those so-called
landings were manned. Everybody knows that.
And look how many were deceived.
And look how many were deceived.
And look how many hundreds of thousands of people involved that managed to keep a secret for more than half a century. Impressive.
Usually it takes only three persons involved for a secret to eventually be revealed.
Have you seen any of these deities? Did you take a photo with your
phone? Care to post it?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists>
How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in
imaginary deities?
How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who employs ad hominem fallacies?
other significant scientists who were also religiously
devout Christians.
Don't forget Albert Einstein, whose religious belief made him waste the last
half of his life trying to prove that quantum mechanics was a hoax, because
"Gott wrfelt nicht".
BTW, do you really regard e.g. popes, cardinals, bishops and even saints(!)
to be significant scientists? Then I understand -- you simply have another definition of a significant scientist than I and many with me.
Have you seen any of these deities? Did you take a photo with your
phone? Care to post it?
*chortle*
You got any photos of Middle C?
How much does it weigh?
What's its temperature?
Does it have a birth certificate?
No? Then how about mathematical evidence of the existence of cats?
Sysop: | altere |
---|---|
Location: | Houston, TX |
Users: | 60 |
Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
Uptime: | 12:14:37 |
Calls: | 516 |
Files: | 7,043 |
D/L today: |
1 files (12K bytes) |
Messages: | 289,316 |