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.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Bj�rn,

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.

Au contraire.

The six manned moon landings belief is based on inconclusive
evidence, as none of the claims have been independently verified,
thus making those claims less than credible.

The extent of the Earth's atmosphere is established fact, and
has been noted and verified by scientists around the world -

https://apple.news/A8OgIHSfkRJK-UNdgWeaI3g

Since mankind has never left Earth's atmosphere, it has never
been to outer space. "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
is still going to take us a good while to get there ...

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.

How do you prove a claim that cannot be independently verified?
Especially if mankind does not have the ability to do what has been
claimed?

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.

There is something to that. The Birthday Song proves it.
Although long in the public domain, many people around the
world have been bilked having to pay royalties. But that's
another subject. :)

--Lee

--
Erections, That's Our Game

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

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. The origins of modern astronomy, for example, can be traced back to the Catholic Church's attempts to better fix
the date of Easter, and cathedrals served as the leading astronomical observatories of the era; while many engineering and architectural
advancements in the Middle Ages were made in service of building bigger and better churches.

Bjorn has an anti-religious bias that causes him to wax a bit
melodramatic at times.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Not only Kepler; most of the leading scientists in the 16th century were monks or priests, often Jesuits,

Really? Like who? Most that I think of were noblemen and similar. Anyway, all those were people that wasn't forced to work 14/7, so they had time to spend on their science.

Why they didn't officially turn their backs to the Church is obvious -- those that did were burned at the stake.

and the Catholic Church underwrote many of
the scientific discoveries of the day.

Only those that fitted their narrow minded perception of the world they lived in, proving that their God, his Son and the Holy Spirit existed.

Bjorn has an anti-religious bias

Who hasn't, considering all the atrocities that religion has, and still is, causing?



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Really? Like who?

Let's see...

Copernicus - priest
Mendel - Augustinian monk
Oresme - bishop
Nicholas of Cusa - cardinal
Steno - Catholic saint
Robert Boyle - theologian
Robert Gossetese - bishop
Pope Sylvester II
Pope John XXI
Albert the Great - bishop
Georges Lamaitre - priest
Roger Bacon - Franciscan friar (championed by Pope Clement IV)
Gothus - archiboshop
Lobkowitz - Cistercian

Descartes, Leibniz, Bayes, Euler, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, James
Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Edward Arthur Milne, Sir Robert Boyd, Georg Cantor and Lord Kelvin were other significant scientists who were also religiously devout Christians.

those that did were burned at the stake

(What was I saying about your tendency for melodrama?)

Nice CYA -- first act shocked that most leading scientists were churchmen,
then invent an excuse for it.

You can only point to two examples: Servetus and Bruno, both of whom were executed for their theological heterodoxy, not their scientific discoveries.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Furthermore, the advent of protestantism also led to a significant rise
of natural (and other) sciences.

True. The myth that religion and science are at war was a 19th century invention.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

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 w�rfelt 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.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 30/04/2019 09:41, 2:203/2 wrote:

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?

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in imaginary deities?

You are right, mate. I really should know better than to waste my time like that.




..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Ward,

You must remember that the moon landing hoax believers are in par BF>with

the 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.

Oh, I agree. I totally agree. However, none of those so-called
landings were manned. Everybody knows that.

--Lee

--
Stop Workin', Start Jerkin'

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello David,

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?

Who sez they are imaginary?

--Lee

--
As Good As It Looks

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 1/05/2019 05:24, Lee Lofaso -> Ward Dossche wrote:

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.

*Everybody*???

And how does everybody know that? Were they all standing there watching each of the landings?

In most cases we don't know shit - only what we are told....

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

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.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 2/05/2019 01:22, 2:203/2 wrote:

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.

I thought that a secret ceased to be as soon as a second person was made aware of it.

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

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?

Hmm. Maybe photographic evidence of quantum waves? Audio recordings of a rainbow? The heat signature of triangularity?

Nada? How about the breadth and height of love? Scientific evidence of the number 23? An algebraic proof for fire?

You don't got much, do you?

You need to google "category error".

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists>

Ah, look: Pope Sylvester II. And I'd carelessly omitted Pierre Teilhard de Chardin from my earlier list. And I hadn't forgotten, but hadn't yet
mentioned, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which "holds a membership
roster of the most respected names in 20th century science, including such Nobel laureates as Ernest Rutherford, Max Planck, Otto Hahn, Niels Borh,
Erwin Schodinger, and Charles Hard Townes." And further down, the page lists
at list 45 additional Nobel-Prize-winning members, including its two most recent presidents. Oh, look. Even Steven Hawking was a member.

Not too shabby for a Church which is supposed to be at war with science.

But I suppose there are those in this discussion who don't consider any of
the above names of much significance.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

On 1/05/2019 13:27, nathanael culver -> David Drummond wrote:

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?

As displayed by...?

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

Hello Bj�rn,

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 w�rfelt nicht".

Religiously devout Christians?

https://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/item/15861-betrayal-of-trust

Albert Einstein considered himself as being a cultural Jew,
not so much a practicing Jew. Kind of like Bernie Sanders, a
US politician who is running for president. I hardly believe
either Einstein or Sanders would ever do what has been written
about certain "religiously devout Christians" in the above
book (long out of print but reproduced in its entirety online).

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.

Not all men and women were/are saintly people. The church in
Paris that was almost completely destroyed by fire a few weeks
ago was built by rationalists, not religionists. Built over
a period of some 200 years, intended to last until the end of
time. Think about what this means.

Up until the middle part of the 20th century, most people lived
in mud huts or houses made of sticks or straw. This church was
built out of stone, and huge timbers that can never be replaced.
Even with modern technology, it cannot be repaired to what it
once was, certainly not in our own lifetime, and probably never.

If you were an adult living in a mud hut and walking to and from
work, this humongous cathedral would have seemed like heaven itself.
A monument to rationalism, what man could do when he set his mind
to it.

Had somebody told you the cathedral would be destroyed in a day,
you would either have laughed your head off - or slugged him for
being an infidel.

Long ago, a temple in Jerusalem was built. Wasn't quite finished
at the time, but very much in use. Jesus told his gang of teenagers
that the temple would be destroyed in one day. Nobody believed a
word of what he said, but we all know his words came true.

--Lee

--
I Take A Sheet In The Pool

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Nathaniel,

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?

Yes. One on my left. And one on my right.

How much does it weigh?

I hold it up in the air and all it tells me is the direction
as to which way the wind is blowing.

What's its temperature?

That depends on which end I place it in.

Does it have a birth certificate?

Yes, but I'm not telling.

No? Then how about mathematical evidence of the existence of cats?

Try dangling a piece of string with middle C to find out.

--Lee

--
Change Is Cumming

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)