Posted on 02/03/2015 7:20:44 AM PST by dennisw
Once your own self importance just fades to nothing... then so will the pushback you get. From many, not just me. You are an insufferable prig.
.
Thanks for your mirror chant anyway.
You have described your self perfectly in one sentence.
.
Dinosaur farts?
5.56mm
You quite do describe yourself that way.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
.
You embarrass all of us with your childish nonsense.
.
.
>> “Dinosaur farts?” <<
.
No, Barney Rubble didn’t have a catalytic converter on his convertible.
.
That is well said about you. You really are quite lazy and make it quite easy to demolish your front.
.
So far all you’ve demolished is your non-existent credibility.
.
In medieval times, there were very few scientists in Western Europe. The folks who were saying the world was flat were Catholic clergy.
That is history done with all the rigor of global warming science.
If you open up St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, on the very first page he speaks of the differentiation of the sciences, explaining how the same fact may be shown by different sciences, and the examples he uses are how both the astronomer and physicist demonstrate that the earth is round, but by two different means. That work, written ca. 1270, was the standard work for training Catholic clergy for centuries.
When Columbus proposed setting sail for the new world, he did run into opposition from the clergy, not because they thought the world was flat, but because they had a fairly good idea of the circumference, as well as the location of the eastern edge of Asia—and if you put those two things together you need a great deal more water and food than Columbus was capable of carrying—sort of like setting out for the moon with a two-day supply of oxygen. Columbus argued that the circumference was actually much smaller. Columbus was wrong, but was fortunate enough to run into the new world.
Where did the flat earth myth come about, you may wonder? Washington Irving set out to write a popular history of Christopher Columbus, and found that the actual events were too complicated and too pro-Catholic—so he made up something that he thought would fly. Andrew Dixon White, first president of Cornell University (my alma mater) either bought into it or found it convenient, and between the two of them, it has become an impossible to eradicate myth. A quite convenient myth, in that it allows one to adopt an intellectual position that doesn’t have to bother with anything before the enlightenment.
If you want more details, read Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
In medieval times, there were very few scientists in Western Europe. The folks who were saying the world was flat were Catholic clergy.
That is history done with all the rigor of global warming science.
If you open up St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, on the very first page he speaks of the differentiation of the sciences, explaining how the same fact may be shown by different sciences, and the examples he uses are how both the astronomer and physicist demonstrate that the earth is round, but by two different means. That work, written ca. 1270, was the standard work for training Catholic clergy for centuries.
When Columbus proposed setting sail for the new world, he did run into opposition from the clergy, not because they thought the world was flat, but because they had a fairly good idea of the circumference, as well as the location of the eastern edge of Asia—and if you put those two things together you need a great deal more water and food than Columbus was capable of carrying—sort of like setting out for the moon with a two-day supply of oxygen. Columbus argued that the circumference was actually much smaller. Columbus was wrong, but was fortunate enough to run into the new world.
Where did the flat earth myth come about, you may wonder? Washington Irving set out to write a popular history of Christopher Columbus, and found that the actual events were too complicated and too pro-Catholic—so he made up something that he thought would fly. Andrew Dixon White, first president of Cornell University (my alma mater) either bought into it or found it convenient, and between the two of them, it has become an impossible to eradicate myth. A quite convenient myth, in that it allows one to adopt an intellectual position that doesn’t have to bother with anything before the enlightenment.
If you want more details, read Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
It’s not just historians, it’s archeologists, too. In the 1800s, the consensus among the “smartest guys in the room” was that Icelandic sagas about Greenland were fairy tales. Why? Because where the sagas said there was a farm in a valley around 900AD there was only a glacier in the 1800s.
The warming in this century caused the glacier to recede. Guess what they found under it? A Viking-era farm. Disprove that, please.
Ok, where did all the oil come form on top of the word? In the Arctic? How is that? Was their a prehistoric jungle above the arctic circle? How hot was it millions of years ago? Did T-Rex drive an SUV?
.
Not warming in this century!
Warming in the 19th century.
That warming ended in 1933.
.
.
By the early 1950s we had already used more petroleum than could possibly have been ‘biogenic.’
.
I was trying to do three things at once yesterday and shouldn’t have been posting here.
My first degree was actually in history, and in my mind, alongside 10 other things I was doing at the time, I was mixing up Galilean heliocentric science and flat earth theories. Neither which had much to do with one another.
I’m well aware that mapmakers in the days of Columbus and especially those of Prince Henry the Navigator were well aware that the world was round due to Arab (old Caliphate maps) and Greek maps obtained by trade with the Byzantines and Venetians, and/or by the so-called “Reconquista” of Portugal and Spain.
In short, I shouldn’t attempt to multitask. I’m terrible at it and always have been. You are a 100% correct. The early 15th century argument was over the circumference - not the shape of the earth.
Thanks. The ancient Greeks had actually calculated the circumference fairly accurately, but I do not know what manuscripts were known where when. Given Thomas’ arguments, I would guess that they were known to him, and were commonly available.
Galileo is another interesting case that is also often butchered. His tidal argument was up there with man-made global warming (yes, the relationship with the sun in the end does have something to do with the tides, just not something that was actually measurable at the time, and ignored the moon), and stellar parallax was not much better (again, not measurable by the science of the times). At any rate, back to work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.