Page 1 of 4
					
				Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:15 am
				by Rokcet Scientist
				Incredible as it may seem, 400 years after geocentrism was revealed for what it was, namely wishful thinking, there are still plenty of believers (besides Arch). Witness this conference on this coming 10th of November: 
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/.
It may be entertaining to see who attends.
 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:29 am
				by kbs2244
				WOW!
That is about a days drive from me.
It would almost be worth it to attend.
14 hours is a long day though.
They did pick a good location.
South Bend is where Notre Dame University is.
It is one of the largest, if not the largest, Catholic schools in the US.
I wonder if there will be a “Second Annual?”
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:04 pm
				by Minimalist
				This popped up on Atheist Forums a day or two ago.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-4717.html
Astonishing.
 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:36 am
				by Rokcet Scientist
				kbs2244 wrote:WOW!
That is about a days drive from me.
It would almost be worth it to attend.
14 hours is a long day though.
Are you considering attending?
If so, what do you expect to learn?
 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:28 am
				by kbs2244
				I doubt I will attend.
It would be a 3 day affair.
Plus the cost.
I might have some interest in the proceedings report though.
Reason?
Morbid curiosity, I guess.
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:13 pm
				by Minimalist
				They should do a double bill with the Flat Earth Society.
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:07 pm
				by kbs2244
				Actually,
Wasn't that the doctrine of the day?
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:17 pm
				by Minimalist
				If the "day" was the 13th century.
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:39 pm
				by Rokcet Scientist
				kbs2244 wrote:Actually,
Wasn't that the doctrine of the day?
No, they had officially left the 'flat earth doctrine' after Christoforo Colombo, commissioned by their Most Catholic Majesties the King and Queen of Spain, had proved the world was round by sailing to India in 1492   
 
At least that's what everybody thought for 25/30 years until Fernão de Magalhães' expedition of 1519-1522 actually completed the first global circumnavigation in modern recorded (but seriously flawed, imo) history.

Fernão de Magalhães
Geocentrism was – eventually succesfully – questioned and disproved by astronomers Copernicus, Galileï, and Kepler in the second half of the 16th century.
Though a lot of people apparently 
still haven't received the memo.
 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:11 pm
				by Minimalist
				but seriously flawed,
Yes...in the sense that he didn't make it all the way.
 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:32 pm
				by dannan14
				kb, if you do decide to go send me a pm. i grew up in the Bend and can point you towards restaurants, bars, sights, etc.
EDIT: lol, i just caught up to the subject matter. i just saw South Bend and ND and piped in. i'm a little surprised about the location. Maybe they picked that hotel since nestled between Notre Dame and St Mary's campuses. Maybe they think that will lend some credibility to the conference. My guess is the televangelist on the south side of town set this up. Side note, the televangelist's dome/church/temple thingy is right across the street from a golf course. We used to tee off to try to hit the roof of his building 

 Unfortunately, we never found out how much damage we caused.
 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:57 am
				by Rokcet Scientist
				Minimalist wrote:but seriously flawed,
Yes...in the sense that he didn't make it all the way.
 
But his expedition did, and that was the point (his and mine).
The 'seriously flawed' comment was meant to indicate there were many circumnavigations and ocean crossings long before De Magalhães' expedition that were not recorded/recognized by 'the west', and still aren't, but actually happened none-the-less!
Leif Erickson's around 1,000 AD was one, and the Irish monks' around 600 AD another one that we actually know about but still don't officially recognize. Most people and the science establishment are blissfully unaware of the Phoenician/Carthaginian and Chinese BC circumnavigations in the 1st and 2nd millennia BC, or of the Solutrean crossing(s) of the Atlantic around 18,000 BC, or of the proto-indian crossings from Asia before that, or even less of the HE circumnavigation/trek to the Americas via Asia a half 
million years before 
that.
 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:00 am
				by uniface
				Copied from another post (The Elephant in the American Livingroom)
Despite the predictable weak and superficial rebuttal by the wiki mentality, Las Lunas is solid evidence of Phoenician presence in the American Southwest. One decent account :
http://www.truthontheweb.org/comstone.htm 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:48 am
				by Rokcet Scientist
				uniface wrote:Copied from another post (The Elephant in the American Livingroom)
Despite the predictable weak and superficial rebuttal by the wiki mentality, Las Lunas is solid evidence of Phoenician presence in the American Southwest. One decent account :
http://www.truthontheweb.org/comstone.htm 
In the "American Southwest"?
Min, have you dug up your yard yet?
 
			 
			
					
				Re: Headstrong, stupid, or both?
				Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:30 pm
				by Minimalist
				Nope.  The nazi sheriff we have would assume I was digging a tunnel for Mexicans.