Slashdot Mirror
Scientists/Actress Say They Were 'Tricked' Into Geocentric Universe Movie
EwanPalmer (2536690) writes "Three scientists and Star Trek actress Kate Mulgrew say they were duped into appearing in a controversial documentary which claims the Earth is the center of the Universe. The Principle, a film which describes itself as 'destined to become one of the most controversial films of our time', argues the long-debunked theory of geocentrism – where the earth is the center of the Universe and the Sun resolves around it – is true and Nasa has tried to cover it up. The film features the narration of actress Mulgrew, who played the part of captain Kathryn Janeway in Star Trek Voyager, as well as three prominent scientists."
Supposedly a large # of the actors in the film Innocence of Muslims were duped into appearing in the film and had their lines (sloppily) edited after the fact to be about Mohammed instead of generic desert villain.
Monstar L
in the Laimtre universe, the earth is as much the center of the unierse as any other point is.
It doesn't really affect the "Best Star Trek Captain" discussions (I always answer with the *vision* the creators had for the character not how it was acted)...but Kate Mulgrew is kind of a ditz
In interviews (like in The Captains film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... ) she was clearly just doing Trek purely as a 'gig' for a paycheck...she had no personal connection to science or space whatsoever and did not see her role as a way to educate herself or broaden her horizons to improve her acting
to her it was all just "technobabble" which angers me to no end as a person who advocates for women in science...but it's her life and career so I'm not judging her choices necessarily...i just think it's unprofessional and lazy...her performance in Orange is the New Black is equally as bad, IMHO...very perfunctory
Mulgrew read the ***narration*** of the whole film...how could she do that and not know the film as about the earth being the *actual* center of the universe?
answer is in the subject line
Thank you Dave Raggett
I believe her. I fell that Kate is totally capable of being tricked into making a movie with such claims. I'm not sure that she has much of an argument though. She was paid to do something really really stupid and she did something really really stupid, and likely something that she even believed at the time until someone else explained it to her. By her argument she seems to be claiming that she shouldn't be permitted to make any films (which I completely support). If she finds out that there really isn't any "Starfleet" will she go after the Trek franchise too?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
fuck, man! the bible disagrees WITH ITSELF. have you not read it? google 'bible errancy' and you'll find more inconsistencies than you'll ever want to see.
really a piece of shit for writing and 'ethics'. do this and you should be stoned to death. do that and you should be killed. god gets pissed off at his own creations and decided to go all murderous on them, then decided to forgive them for following his wishes!
such bullshit.
no thinking person can read that and keep a straight face.
no thinking person would even try to compare this book of fiction with scientific concepts.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
That's great, but where does it say this planet is the center of the universe?
The Genesis cosmography is a rip off of the Sumero-akkadian cosmography, which was most definitely geocentric. Why do you think by the Hellenic age even the Jews had stopped interpreting Genesis literally?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
you mean you DON'T believe in talking snakes and the fact that eve was made out of adam's rib; hence, she was made from 'cheap cuts of meat' ?
what's not to believe about that? sounds pretty legit to me.
(rolls eyes)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
the long-debunked idea of the Earth being the centre of the Solar System.
"...the long-debunked theory of geocentrism – where the Earth is the centre of the Universe and the Sun resolves around it..."
The linked clip never makes this claim.
This documentary appears to be about the modern theory of geocentrism, the idea among some creationist circles that the Solar System is somewhere near the centre of the universe - at these scales, of course, the Earth's movement around the Sun is negligible so the term "geocentrism" is reasonable.
I'm basing this partly by the appearance, in the linked clip, multiple times of a creationist (who I've met personally) who I know does not hold to the old "earth is the exact centre" view, but who has written some papers with evidence (red-shift patterns, I think - I'm not a cosmologist myself though) that the Solar System may be *near* the centre of the mass in the universe.
yeah I know what you mean...but we're techies so our definition of "technobabble" is more narrow than a non-tech, even one with a good education.
to Mulgrew, anything "science-y" was "technobabble"
this is the problem, Star Trek had mixed results with scientific accuracy...in that sense it is "technobabble" because it is fictional science in a future setting they are using...however, depending on which series at which time, the quality of the science dialogue was educational
I **liked** the fictional future science of the later series...it wasn't completely believable, but they definitely had a science advisor and you could see the consistency
It was educational...in the sense that it exposed me to new ideas & motivated me to ***actually look up the real science***
one thing Trekkies overlook is that today its mostly **teens** who watch Trek...average, everyday teenagers...I know this from my teaching experience, I'd have cheerleader type chicks mention Trek in papers
Thank you Dave Raggett
without the Pope renouncing God or the bible
nuns could run bald through Vatican halls, pregnant, pleading Immaculate Conception; and they'd still not renounce god or the bible.
never let them see you sweat. even if they don't believe their own BS, they won't ever admit it. bad for 'business'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It isn't a matter of what it looks like, it rips off the entire crystal dome notion. I don't know why that would bother you an more than the fact Hebrew is a Canaanite dialect written in a script that originates in Egyptian and Sumerian sources.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." - Psalm 104:5
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." - Ecclesiastes 1:5
I believe at one point god makes a circle with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30, which is a hell of a trick even for YHWH.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I can just see that press conference now.
Pope declares: "Turns out this 'god' thing was a load of crap. Sorry everyone. You can all go home and get real jobs now."
The bible does not disagree with reality.
Let's start with talking snakes.
An apple filled with knowledge.
Everybody is related to Adam and Eve, and completely inbred.
Two of every animal fit into a single boat, and none of them ate each other.
All the animals are inbred, back to the ark.
The bible does not disagree with reality.
Really?
But the Earth is the center of the universe! Look at your general theory of relativity! Any object can be consider the unmoving center of a frame of reference. Earth is at (0,0,0) and not rotating. Of course this implies large gravitional fields to keep the sun and the planets and the stars rotating around the Earth every 24 hours, and complex stuff like that. But that just makes the math more complicated. It is still a valid frame of reference.
But hey, why stop there? *** I *** am the center of the universe! All you people rotate around me! No need to bow down...
Oops, Wrong article. You were looking for :
The Amoeba That Eats Human Intestines, Cell By Cell
Or, Maybe Not.
Draw it on a globe.
The earth is the centre of the visible universe and thanks to Einstein's relativity, everything moves around us. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with the geocentrist idea, it just complicates the orbital mechanics equations when you want to fly a space ship to Mars somewhat, that's all.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Oh good grief you're going to a part of scripture that is literally poem, and looking at a psalm where the context is about the scale of God's power. Its not making a cosmological argument about the status of the earth.
And if you really want to be pedantic about it, the earth IS stationary relative to the people writing about it. Movement is relative to context, and as the context is the earth, the author is technically right even though thats completely not what he was talking about.
And Ecclesiastes? The whole book is about the repetitive nature of the world and how nothing seems to ever change. It too is using poetic language; as if you've never heard of the sun rising and setting.
...are you being serious?
I have to wonder how the folks here got through middle school lit if terms like "sun rises" and "earth's foundations" are presenting problems for them.
It's worth noting that the Ecclesiastes verse is not in the context of astronomy, but rather highlighting the relative impermanence of human works. Humans and their ambitions come and go, but the days keep coming and the wind keeps blowing.
There's no reason to think it isn't referring to the apparent position of the sun, relative to an Earth-bound observer.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I believe if one reads that particular passage you'll find that the measurement hit ~3.1395.
I believe Genesis 1 talks about the creation of a large number of celestial objects, including the sun, moon, and stars.
I like how people defend this stupid bullshit by saying that it's not meant to be taken literally. Guess what? Even if it's not meant to be taken literally, it's still just as retarded as ever.
And if it's not meant to be taken literally, then why do idiots buy into *any* of it? Why not just become atheists and admit it's all a fairy tale, since it's obviously rife with stories that aren't literal. Many times, when science advances, the religious move the goal posts and start claiming that the parts of their books they took literally before weren't meant to be taken literally. It's pathetic. Just give it up already.
The Biblical authors were simply advanced in their understanding of proper measurement technique.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Hebrew is in fact one of the Cannanite languages, which in turn is part of the Northwest Semitic branch of the Semitic family. Akkadian, on the other hand, belongs to a different branch of Semitic, namely East Semitic. See here for the subgrouping under Semitic, which has been the mainstream for many decades now.
Yeah, because we all know that by choosing a party affiliation, you suddenly become scientifically literate!
Congratulations! Please obey all traffic laws and posted signs, and enjoy your new GPS navigation system.
I live in Thailand; I can't even READ the posted signs. But smile and wave to the police and there is no problem. I don't have a Global Positioning System, I only have a MPS (Me Positioning System). Works fine, but it makes me cross-eyed.
It was the basin in the temple - in Exodus I think. Diameter 10 cubits, circumference 30 cubits. To one significant digit, that is the correct value for Pi. On the other hand, remember that a 'cubit' is the distance from your fingertips to your elbow. You would be lucky if you used 40 men and got even one significant digit correct. They wouldn't use women in those days. If you used men for the circumference and women for the diameter you probably would get a value for Pi of less than 3.0.
The problem with sane Christians, (like sane Atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, Hindus, and pretty much any group you can think of) is they tend not to shout that loudly. That doesn't imply that they don't exist, or even that they may not be the majority.
If someone shouts too loudly, my suggestion is to ignore them, they will likely eventually go away.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Ah, yes, our own islamophobe-in-chief strikes again.
I don't claim to know whether IoM is truthful or not. I think it's unlikely to be 100% true or false. As any contemporary account of centuries-old events must be. I do know that its makers are not historians, or theologists, which kind of makes me think more false than true.
I'm not claiming that its 100% accurate, but the gist of it (violent religion based on teachings of a nasty sex-mad warlord) are true. Personally I have never heard any evidence that Muhammad and Umar had a gay relationship ... but the pedophilia, brutal killings, etc. are all spot on.
Well, you wrote "a film depicting the truth", unqualified. The qualification of Muhammad as a sex-mad warlord is, on both counts, not something that is readily apparent from scripture, or recorded historical accounts.
The alleged pedophilia is, it seems to me, a selective application of modern mores onto ancient history. If we did the same to Christendom or Judaism or basically basically any other -ism, I expect we'd find that in those circles back then it was (also) pretty regular practice to consider women adults (in the sense of ready for sexual relations) after their first menstruation.
Likewise, there is no shortage of violence and brutal killings in the history of Christianity and Judaism. And similar to Islam, there continue to be extremist, violent and racist, fringes to those religions to this day.
At any rate, the makers of IoM are not scholars and have no authority to make any claims in these matters.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Cosmologists say that when we look in the sky and all the stars and planets, we can see them escaping us. This explains that the universe is expanding. But if we can observe the same thing from every side of Earth, wouldn't it mean that we are in the center?
There is no description of the earth's foundations (and I'm sorry, but the original text is NOT the King's English anyway). For all we know, this "foundation" could be a reference to the orbit the Earth is set upon and a statement that the Earth cannot be moved from that foundation (not be moved by the readers, anyway). There's LITERALLY nothing there describing the "foundation" - not size, not shape, not composition, nothing. It's also true that land is often referred to as Earth, so it could even be a reference to that what supports dry land above the Earth's molten core. You can actually choose to take the Bible totally literally (even with a talking serpent) and still see that it is NOT an engineering or astrophysics text book with cutaway drawings, dimensions, etc. The texts (taken literally or metaphorically) simply lack details... and that's just FINE. Nobody complains when Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawkingwrites a book that lacks every little detail about the universe. I see no ammunition here for arguing pro/con this bit of scripture.
As for the sun, allow me to point out that we all (of all, and no, religions) use these expressions. Even those of us who fully understand celestial mechanics involved still say to our kids "be home by sunset" or "we'll be having dinner when the sun goes down" rather than "be home by the time this spot on the Earth's surface has rotated sufficiently away from the sun that it is no longer visible" or some other such nonsense. This is about as silly as when Bill Nye tried to slam the Bible as anti-science because it has a verse that refers to the moon as a light (and HE points out that it's not a source of light, just reflecting sunlight). Apparently in Mr. Nye's world, couples do not go out for a romantic stroll in the "moonlight", nobody goes for a "moonlight" swim, etc. The man's an idiot.
What it all really comes down to is something every person working Guidance and Navigation at the Johnson Space Center is quite familiar with: "Frame of Reference". If you set your frame of reference to the center of the sun, then everything (including all the other galaxies) goes around the sun. If you set your frame of reference to the center of the Earth, then everything, including the sun and the rest of the universe, goes around the Earth (and this is a common frame of reference used in orbital spaceflight). You could set your frame of reference to the center of the moon, or the ISS in Low Earth Orbit, or any other arbitrary point in space. It's all relative (in the basic geometric sense rather than the Einstein sense). Taking a Bible verse about sunrise and sunset an using it to claim that the book is wrong, would be like running down the street denouncing every person who speaks of sunrise or sunset - sheer lunacy. The biggest joke of all in this argument about taking the Bible "literally" is that most of those (both for and against the Bible) who claim to be taking it "literally" are actually NOT; they're almost always projecting lots of junk onto it that is plainly (literally?) NOT there.
Allow me to propose a simple rule-of-thumb for Bible readers (both "the faithful" and the skeptics) as follows: Do not criticize it any differently than you criticize every other book (i.e. use consistent standards) and do not take individual sentences out-of-context from ANY book. Bible "verses" are just sentences and they were NOT numbered in the original text (the numbers were added to aid in navigating the text). If person A gets to use individual Bible sentences, person B gets to use individual sentences from any other book. If person A gets to heap his own interpretations onto the clear text of the Bible, then person B gets to do likewise with other books.
>but the pedophilia, brutal killings, etc. are all spot on.
Perhaps - but hardly unique - exactly the same things were happening as standard fair in Europe among Christians at the same time. Hell Christianity would keep it up for at least the next 400 years - average marriage age for women didn't go past 16 until the early 20th century and age-of-consent laws weren't passed anywhere until well after that.
So whether it's true or not- it says absolutely NOTHING about Islam. There is nothing in there about Muhammed that wasn't also true of Richard the Lionhearted.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Wow there. You're not saying that the Bible is open to interpretation are you? Surely not the Holy Bible. This isn't some philosophical text. It is the word of the Lord. His very power guided the hands that put the words on the paper. Or so many people will have you believe.
As an aside I totally read your nick as Satan-X
>The obvious problem (unless you are one of those Muslims who think that anything that has ever been done by a non-Muslim at any time in history should be permitted for Muslims today) is that Muslims are still carrying out brutal attacks, raping women, etc today. Just ask the Hindus in Pakistan about the 'religion of peace'.
Christians are still doing that today as well. Ask the non-Christians in Nigeria, Sudan and Algiers a little about the religion of universal-brotherly-love.
Hell even in Europe you still see atrocities committed by people fueled by their Christian beliefs. Remember the Olso shootings a few years ago ? Man grabbed a gun and shot 12 kids because they were liberals and as a Christian he believed he ought to fight (literally) against liberalism !
You can't judge a religion on the actions of extremists. I live in a majority Muslim city - and I have never experienced any violence from a Muslim, indeed they are the most law-abiding demographic in this city.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Yeah, yeah, funny how money is usually behind being duped in cases like these. Mulgrew: I hadnt worked in ages, bill were piling up, thankfully I was duped and made the mortgage payment. I can aways SAY I was duped later. Scientists: Well, we needed some money and they said they had Kate Mulgrew. Who has to think about that? She was on Star Trek! Dupe me up, Scotty!
Which would hold unless Mulgrew had parts/work. Oh wait, she does! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
>Uhm you might want to look at the causes of these incidents. Typical Muslim reaction - try to eradicate non muslims then complain that they fight back!
Funny how you ignored the Anders Breivik example - suffice to say I think that these - like ALL wars have no innocent parties, both sides have equal share in the atrocity.
Why would I have a Muslim reaction ? I'm not a Muslim, I'm not a Christian either - I'm a completely neutral observer here, so accusing me of bias is rather silly.
That said - if Christians are "fighting back" that violates a tenet of their religion. Aren't they supposed to "love their enemy" and "turn the other cheek" ?
Funny how throughout history and to this day they all seem to revert to "eye for an eye" whenever they have a way to claim an eye.
Point: there is no such thing as a non-violent religion. Islamophobia is not rational because a phobia, by definition, is not rational.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>And since when do two wrongs make a right?
It doesn't - it was wrong when Christians did it, it was wrong when Pagans did it, it was wrong when Muslims did.
>Tu quoque is such a transparent line of reasoning...
It's only Tu quoque is you claim it excuses something - it's not Tu Quoque if you point out that this was the historical context - failing to view historical events through the lens of historical context is GUARANTEED to give you stupid answers.
>Also, check your history knowledge - in the 1st half of the 7th century, a large portion of Europe wasn't Christian in the first place
I was reffering specifically TO the parts that WERE - and also pointed out that these REMAINED Christians standards all the way up to the early 20th century !
>The majority, in fact, if I recall correctly.
I doubt this. The first Christian king of Poland was crowned in the 7th century.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Revenues from that are pending, meanwhile the bills had to be paid and she didnt want to get money on Hollywood Blvd.
Dont you PLAN your cash flow?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The qualification of Muhammad as a sex-mad warlord is, on both counts, not something that is readily apparent from scripture, or recorded historical accounts.
Seriously, you know that little about what's in the Qur'an? How can you be so ignorant on the subject? Muhammad was quite literally a warlord. An army leader. The "sex-mad" part is of course a subjective appreciation, but it suffices to say his proposition and practice of polygamy was non-standard at the time.
The alleged pedophilia is, it seems to me, a selective application of modern mores onto ancient history.
Irrelevant. He was either a pedophile or not. By the accounts of the Qur'an he was. Next thing you know you're gonna deny that slavery was practiced in the United States and you're gonna insist that we call it something else lest we have a "selective application of modern morals onto ancient history". Facts are facts, you can be more or less judgemental of them depending on how flexible your moral code is, but that doesn't change the underlying truth.
If we did the same to Christendom or Judaism or basically basically any other -ism, I expect we'd find that in those circles back then it was (also) pretty regular practice to consider women adults (in the sense of ready for sexual relations) after their first menstruation.
You're severely confused. Aisha's marriage is supposed to have happened before womanhood. That's part of the islamic teachings. And the source for many islamic authorities' teachings that girls can be given into marriage as early as 2 years young. Not only morally dubious by the standards of the day, but the source of hideous moral atrocities today, in parts of the world where Sharia is the law, the only law
In addition I never shy away from casting moral judgement on past events using modern standards and I think nobody should. Slavery was wrong then. is wrong now. It matters less what religion commended it.
Likewise, there is no shortage of violence and brutal killings in the history of Christianity and Judaism. And similar to Islam, there continue to be extremist, violent and racist, fringes to those religions to this day.
Islam's violence is far from a fringe phenomenon. Please feel free to condemn all violence equally but do not take me for a fool and tell me that Islam's teachings are equally dangerous to Christianity. At the very core they're all equal, but Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming into something that's closer to the 21st century than the middle ages where vast portions of Islam still reside.
All that being said, IoM is a pile of steaming crap. I doubt anyone here disagrees. But it's not a pile of crap because of any major historical errors or for misrepresenting islam (by much). It's complete crap because it lacks any artistic value.
At any rate, the makers of IoM are not scholars and have no authority to make any claims in these matters.
Yes. And you should not speak on IoM because you are not a filmmaker or film historian and you should have no say in the matter. How about that?
How about judging the message less than the messenger? A pile of crap, or a masterpiece, is either one or the other irrespective of it's author.
"She is but 14 years old"
"And younger than her are happy mothers made"
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliette.
That's Renaissance England - and it remained common until the early 20th century. The REAL reason it changed was World War 1- with most of the young men gone to war for several years, women had to take over the work-force and do so without many potential suitors around.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Funny how you ignored the Anders Breivik example
he never claimed that Christianity had anything to do with his attacks. If even if he did there would not have been thousands of Christians celebrating and saying what a good thing it was and christian priests encouraging others to do the same.
None of the 35 million Muslims in my city have ever celebrated an atrocity, none of their priests have ever encouraged anybody to do the same. In fact - you walk into a Muslim owned shop here you will see signs on the walls that say things like:
I
Shall
Love
All
Mankind
Encouraging each other to live in peace with the non-muslim community here ( which is only slightly smaller at around 30 million the vast majority of whom are protestant Christians and who have their shops decorated with signs that spread the same message in the name of Jesus instead) - these communities live among each other, with each other, in perfect peace and harmony - both are convinced that the other's religion is wrong but neither group thinks violence is justified or allowed and in fact both groups spend most of their time trying to convert the other by competing over who can do the most charity for the poor population of the city !
The deadliest religious atrocity we have are pot luck dinners ! The worst problem we face is that these two religions are VERY happy to cooperate on the things they agree on - which means a constant stream of political jockeying against our laws allowing gay marriage and legal abortions which is funded and attended by both groups. A current law banning corporal punishment is being vehemently opposed by religious leaders- FROM BOTH religions, working TOGETHER.
These aren't good things to be doing -but it's interesting that they are quite happy to put aside their differences and lobby collectively for the things they agree on (even when those things are wrong).
I LIVE among the proof of how wrong you are.
The only thing I can conclude from your Islamophobia is that you don't actually, personally, KNOW a single Muslim. Not really *know*.
Like all discrimination - Islamophobia can ONLY exist in ignorance.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It has to be said though, Mohammed got started early. Married Aisha at 7, pregnant by age 9. Must have ejaculated insider her pretty much the first time she had her period. In the literal sense of the word he was a paedophile, a lover of children, who from historical accounts treated her fairly well, showed her affection and love and got a boner who he saw her naked pre-pubescent body.
He kept slaves, he waged wars, he was illiterate and a general douchbag in many ways. That wouldn't be such a problem if the book he dictated wasn't supposed to be the literal word of god, or if he lifestyle wasn't held up as an example of the best way to live to keep god happy. It's more of a problem than, say, the Bible which is acknowledged to be written by third parties or Jesus who generally behaved quite well.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"She is but 14 years old"
"And younger than her are happy mothers made"
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliette.
That's Renaissance England
By the way, even a cursory glance at Wikipedia would demonstrate your error regarding Shakespeare's time:
Still, in most of Northwestern Europe, marriage at very early ages was rare. One thousand marriage certificates from 1619 to 1660 in the Archdiocese of Canterbury show that only one bride was 13 years of age, four were 15, twelve were 16, and seventeen were 17 years of age while the other 966 brides were at least 19 years of age at marriage. And the Church dictated that both the bride and groom must be at least 21 years of age to marry without the consent of their families; in the certificates, the most common age for the brides is 22 years. For the grooms 24 years is the most common age, with average ages of 24 years for the brides and 27 for the grooms. While European noblewomen married early, they were a small minority and the marriage certificates from Canterbury show that even among nobility it was very rare to marry women off at very early ages.
Keep in mind that Romeo and Juliet, while written by an Englishman, was set in Italy. The lines you quoted were probably meant to be either a joke or intended to shock the audience, as a jab at young aristocratic marriage ages (which were particularly associated with Catholic countries like Italy).
and it remained common until the early 20th century. The REAL reason it changed was World War 1- with most of the young men gone to war for several years, women had to take over the work-force and do so without many potential suitors around.
Also, after poking around a bit, I discovered my previous post was slightly in error at least for the U.S. -- the lowest median age for first marriage according to census data, apparently occurred in 1956, with women marrying then on average at age 20.1 years.
So the theory about WWI -- not true either.
Why are they dumb?
The earth IS the center of the universe. To say any other point in the universe is the center of the universe is equally as dumb, if not more so.
We can observe from here that the earth is the center of the universe. If we measure the expansion of the universe, EVERY SINGLE THING IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE IS MOVING AWAY FROM THE EARTH AT ALMOST PRECISELY THE SAME RATE AS EVERY OTHER THING. This is because the universe is expanding.
Allow me to illustrate. This is what it looks like from Earth. If point A is Earth, and point A is where you are, that's what the universe looks like. See?
By contrast, This is what it looks like from Alpha Centauri Bb. If point B is Alpha Centauri Bb, and point B is where you are, this is what the universe looks like. See?
Because we are only able to measure from fairly close to "on the Earth", the only observable reality is that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Do you get it now? Or does a more compact diagram help?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
None of the 35 million Muslims in my city have ever celebrated an atrocity
There's no city with 35 million Muslims in the world. In fact, there's no city with 35 million people in the world.
Ezekiel 23:20
Which would hold unless Mulgrew had parts/work. Oh wait, she does! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
And I'm sure that she is being well paid in a timely manner by the most ethical industry in the world so she will never have to worry about not having a steady income.
The big problem is that bashing christianity with statements-- whether true or not-- invariably is "popular" as measured by upvotes or moderations on whatever forum you happen to be on. Apologetic refutations are invariably less popular.
Perhaps if people want less "insanity" they should stop upvoting it.