On 2/15/2026 10:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 14:03:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/9/2026 6:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:14:27 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:56:19 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/15/2026 10:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:this really isn't about origins. Maybe you two could take this to a
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 14:03:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/9/2026 6:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[...]
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:14:27 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >> >
religion group? or recognise no-one is budging an inch.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 13:56:19 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/15/2026 10:58 AM, Martin Harran wrote:this really isn't about origins. Maybe you two could take this to a
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 14:03:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/9/2026 6:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[...]
On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 12:14:27 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
religion group? or recognise no-one is budging an inch.
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times]
Church was wrong or right; I don't care.
It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating yourselves. Let it go.
On 2/23/2026 2:52 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times]
Church was wrong or right; I don't care.
It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating
yourselves. Let it go.
This is the same type of Biblical denial that you repeatedly address
with the Biblical creationists that are left posting. There really
isn't any difference. Just think about it for a minute. Harran doesn't >want the Bible to have been wrong about anything. He wants to make
believe that it has always been faulty interpretation, but the >interpretations have always been faulty because the Bible is just wrong >about a lot of things. MarkE is anti-evolution because he doesn't want
the Bible to be wrong about nature. Stick still wants to believe some
of the young earth nonsense because he doesn't want the Bible to be
wrong about those things. Sticks has enough on the ball to understand
that the earth and universe are a lot older than the Bible has been >interpreted it to be, but he still wants the Bible to not be wrong about >some of the young earth claims about the creation.
Harran still wants the Bible to be correct about the creation, so he has
to deny that it has always been shown to be wrong about what we could
figure out for ourselves. None of them can accept that the human
authors of the Bible just did not fully understand what the creation >actually was, and just like all the Church fathers they wrote about what >they thought that they understood, but it was obviously wrong. None of
them can deal with the fact that there isn't a single god-did-it
Biblical claim that has been verified by science or what passed as
science in the past. They understand that there has been 100% failure
for their efforts because if they had any successes they would be
crowing about those instead of wallowing in denial like Harran and the >others. The denial is all that they have left.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:22:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 2:52 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times]
Church was wrong or right; I don't care.
It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating
yourselves. Let it go.
This is the same type of Biblical denial that you repeatedly address
with the Biblical creationists that are left posting. There really
isn't any difference. Just think about it for a minute. Harran doesn't
want the Bible to have been wrong about anything. He wants to make
believe that it has always been faulty interpretation, but the
interpretations have always been faulty because the Bible is just wrong
about a lot of things. MarkE is anti-evolution because he doesn't want
the Bible to be wrong about nature. Stick still wants to believe some
of the young earth nonsense because he doesn't want the Bible to be
wrong about those things. Sticks has enough on the ball to understand
that the earth and universe are a lot older than the Bible has been
interpreted it to be, but he still wants the Bible to not be wrong about
some of the young earth claims about the creation.
Harran still wants the Bible to be correct about the creation, so he has
to deny that it has always been shown to be wrong about what we could
figure out for ourselves. None of them can accept that the human
authors of the Bible just did not fully understand what the creation
actually was, and just like all the Church fathers they wrote about what
they thought that they understood, but it was obviously wrong. None of
them can deal with the fact that there isn't a single god-did-it
Biblical claim that has been verified by science or what passed as
science in the past. They understand that there has been 100% failure
for their efforts because if they had any successes they would be
crowing about those instead of wallowing in denial like Harran and the
others. The denial is all that they have left.
Ron, disagree with me if you like but please stop TELLING LIES about
me.
On 2/24/2026 9:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:22:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>You are the one quote mining in order to remain in denial of reality.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 2:52 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times]
Church was wrong or right; I don't care.
It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating
yourselves. Let it go.
This is the same type of Biblical denial that you repeatedly address
with the Biblical creationists that are left posting. There really
isn't any difference. Just think about it for a minute. Harran doesn't >>> want the Bible to have been wrong about anything. He wants to make
believe that it has always been faulty interpretation, but the
interpretations have always been faulty because the Bible is just wrong
about a lot of things. MarkE is anti-evolution because he doesn't want
the Bible to be wrong about nature. Stick still wants to believe some
of the young earth nonsense because he doesn't want the Bible to be
wrong about those things. Sticks has enough on the ball to understand
that the earth and universe are a lot older than the Bible has been
interpreted it to be, but he still wants the Bible to not be wrong about >>> some of the young earth claims about the creation.
Harran still wants the Bible to be correct about the creation, so he has >>> to deny that it has always been shown to be wrong about what we could
figure out for ourselves. None of them can accept that the human
authors of the Bible just did not fully understand what the creation
actually was, and just like all the Church fathers they wrote about what >>> they thought that they understood, but it was obviously wrong. None of
them can deal with the fact that there isn't a single god-did-it
Biblical claim that has been verified by science or what passed as
science in the past. They understand that there has been 100% failure
for their efforts because if they had any successes they would be
crowing about those instead of wallowing in denial like Harran and the
others. The denial is all that they have left.
Ron, disagree with me if you like but please stop TELLING LIES about
me.
You should just stop lying about the situation and deal with reality as
it exists, and not what you want to keep believing about it.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:23:28 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 9:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:22:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>You are the one quote mining in order to remain in denial of reality.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 2:52 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times]
Church was wrong or right; I don't care.
It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating
yourselves. Let it go.
This is the same type of Biblical denial that you repeatedly address
with the Biblical creationists that are left posting. There really
isn't any difference. Just think about it for a minute. Harran doesn't >>>> want the Bible to have been wrong about anything. He wants to make
believe that it has always been faulty interpretation, but the
interpretations have always been faulty because the Bible is just wrong >>>> about a lot of things. MarkE is anti-evolution because he doesn't want >>>> the Bible to be wrong about nature. Stick still wants to believe some >>>> of the young earth nonsense because he doesn't want the Bible to be
wrong about those things. Sticks has enough on the ball to understand >>>> that the earth and universe are a lot older than the Bible has been
interpreted it to be, but he still wants the Bible to not be wrong about >>>> some of the young earth claims about the creation.
Harran still wants the Bible to be correct about the creation, so he has >>>> to deny that it has always been shown to be wrong about what we could
figure out for ourselves. None of them can accept that the human
authors of the Bible just did not fully understand what the creation
actually was, and just like all the Church fathers they wrote about what >>>> they thought that they understood, but it was obviously wrong. None of >>>> them can deal with the fact that there isn't a single god-did-it
Biblical claim that has been verified by science or what passed as
science in the past. They understand that there has been 100% failure >>>> for their efforts because if they had any successes they would be
crowing about those instead of wallowing in denial like Harran and the >>>> others. The denial is all that they have left.
Ron, disagree with me if you like but please stop TELLING LIES about
me.
You should just stop lying about the situation and deal with reality as
it exists, and not what you want to keep believing about it.
Yet more lies as demonstrated by the fact that despite you constantly
accuse me of quote mining, you have yet to produce a single example of
me doing so.
I have persevered here because I have always had respect for your
scientific expertise and I hated to see someone of your intelligence
making such an idiot of themselves. I now have to accept, however,
that the situation is irretrievable - your rationality is long gone
out the window along with any sense of moral decency. I will now
accept that and like just about everybody else here, simply ignore
your hysterical ranting and raving.
On 2/26/2026 3:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:23:28 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 9:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:22:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>You are the one quote mining in order to remain in denial of reality.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 2:52 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times]
Church was wrong or right; I don't care.
It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating >>>>>> yourselves. Let it go.
This is the same type of Biblical denial that you repeatedly address >>>>> with the Biblical creationists that are left posting. There really
isn't any difference. Just think about it for a minute. Harran doesn't >>>>> want the Bible to have been wrong about anything. He wants to make
believe that it has always been faulty interpretation, but the
interpretations have always been faulty because the Bible is just wrong >>>>> about a lot of things. MarkE is anti-evolution because he doesn't want >>>>> the Bible to be wrong about nature. Stick still wants to believe some >>>>> of the young earth nonsense because he doesn't want the Bible to be
wrong about those things. Sticks has enough on the ball to understand >>>>> that the earth and universe are a lot older than the Bible has been
interpreted it to be, but he still wants the Bible to not be wrong about >>>>> some of the young earth claims about the creation.
Harran still wants the Bible to be correct about the creation, so he has >>>>> to deny that it has always been shown to be wrong about what we could >>>>> figure out for ourselves. None of them can accept that the human
authors of the Bible just did not fully understand what the creation >>>>> actually was, and just like all the Church fathers they wrote about what >>>>> they thought that they understood, but it was obviously wrong. None of >>>>> them can deal with the fact that there isn't a single god-did-it
Biblical claim that has been verified by science or what passed as
science in the past. They understand that there has been 100% failure >>>>> for their efforts because if they had any successes they would be
crowing about those instead of wallowing in denial like Harran and the >>>>> others. The denial is all that they have left.
Ron, disagree with me if you like but please stop TELLING LIES about
me.
You should just stop lying about the situation and deal with reality as
it exists, and not what you want to keep believing about it.
Yet more lies as demonstrated by the fact that despite you constantly
accuse me of quote mining, you have yet to produce a single example of
me doing so.
Why lie? Just explain what you did above. It was obviously quote
mining. You took a bit of the condemnation to claim something that was
not claimed in the document. That is quote mining.
You have tried to make believe that what was in the first draft of the >document negated the reason why your source had been caught lying, when
it did no such thing. The Pope condemned heliocentrism and agreed with >placing the heliocentric writings in the Index and banning them as
heretical material. Your source was wrong about heliocentrism never
being condemned by except by the Inquisition. They lied to maintain
your side of the issue. Your side of the issue is the one that keeps
coming up short.
I have persevered here because I have always had respect for your
scientific expertise and I hated to see someone of your intelligence
making such an idiot of themselves. I now have to accept, however,
that the situation is irretrievable - your rationality is long gone
out the window along with any sense of moral decency. I will now
accept that and like just about everybody else here, simply ignore
your hysterical ranting and raving.
You have been dishonest and you have needed to wallow in a denial that
just does not matter. At this point in time science is only going to >determine how wrong the Bible is about the creation. For those that
believe that nature is the creation, it has already been determined that
the creation that exists is not Biblical. You acknowledge that some of
the early church fathers understood this to be true. Their faith was
not based on what the Bible claimed about the creation. For some stupid >reason you need to cling to the same denial that MarkE and Sticks have
to wallow in. The denial will never change reality. The Bible has been >"misinterpreted" about many things that we have been able to determine
for ourselves. That is just a fact. It can be "misinterpreted" because
it is just wrong about some things. Just like the church fathers wrote >about things as if the universe was geocentric, the authors of the Bible >obviously wrote about things as they understood them, but their >understanding of the creation was just wrong. They did not actually >understand what they were writing about. They did not know about
microbes. They were using a cosmology that they had gotten from their >neighbors that had been civilized for a longer period of time. The
world isn't flat, the universe is not geocentric, the universe and the
earth are very old, and life has existed on this planet for billions of >years. The Greeks had estimated the circumference of the earth a couple
of centuries before Christ was born and some of the authors of the New >Testament were likely flat earth creationists. The Bible can be >"misinterpreted" because it is just wrong about a lot of things.
You have never been honest in your approach to this issue. That should >change. There are still geocentric Christians for the simple reason
that they need to wallow in more denial than you do. They do not want
the Bible to have been "misinterpreted". The actions of the Pope and
the Inquisition in 1616 are totally justified because the creation is >geocentric.
Your quote about Pope Francis indicates that he understands that the
Bible can be misinterpreted because it is written in such a way that it >needs to be misinterpreted. What the Bible claims is just wrong, and it >needs another interpretation. If we wrote the Bible today we can still
be wrong about some things about what actually exists as the creation.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:48:32 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:23:28 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 9:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:22:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>You are the one quote mining in order to remain in denial of reality.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 2:52 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times] >>>>>>>
Church was wrong or right; I don't care.
It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating >>>>>>> yourselves. Let it go.
This is the same type of Biblical denial that you repeatedly address >>>>>> with the Biblical creationists that are left posting. There really >>>>>> isn't any difference. Just think about it for a minute. Harran doesn't >>>>>> want the Bible to have been wrong about anything. He wants to make >>>>>> believe that it has always been faulty interpretation, but the
interpretations have always been faulty because the Bible is just wrong >>>>>> about a lot of things. MarkE is anti-evolution because he doesn't want >>>>>> the Bible to be wrong about nature. Stick still wants to believe some >>>>>> of the young earth nonsense because he doesn't want the Bible to be >>>>>> wrong about those things. Sticks has enough on the ball to understand >>>>>> that the earth and universe are a lot older than the Bible has been >>>>>> interpreted it to be, but he still wants the Bible to not be wrong about >>>>>> some of the young earth claims about the creation.
Harran still wants the Bible to be correct about the creation, so he has >>>>>> to deny that it has always been shown to be wrong about what we could >>>>>> figure out for ourselves. None of them can accept that the human
authors of the Bible just did not fully understand what the creation >>>>>> actually was, and just like all the Church fathers they wrote about what >>>>>> they thought that they understood, but it was obviously wrong. None of >>>>>> them can deal with the fact that there isn't a single god-did-it
Biblical claim that has been verified by science or what passed as >>>>>> science in the past. They understand that there has been 100% failure >>>>>> for their efforts because if they had any successes they would be
crowing about those instead of wallowing in denial like Harran and the >>>>>> others. The denial is all that they have left.
Ron, disagree with me if you like but please stop TELLING LIES about >>>>> me.
You should just stop lying about the situation and deal with reality as >>>> it exists, and not what you want to keep believing about it.
Yet more lies as demonstrated by the fact that despite you constantly
accuse me of quote mining, you have yet to produce a single example of
me doing so.
Why lie? Just explain what you did above. It was obviously quote
mining. You took a bit of the condemnation to claim something that was
not claimed in the document. That is quote mining.
You have tried to make believe that what was in the first draft of the
document negated the reason why your source had been caught lying, when
it did no such thing. The Pope condemned heliocentrism and agreed with
placing the heliocentric writings in the Index and banning them as
heretical material. Your source was wrong about heliocentrism never
being condemned by except by the Inquisition. They lied to maintain
your side of the issue. Your side of the issue is the one that keeps
coming up short.
I have persevered here because I have always had respect for your
scientific expertise and I hated to see someone of your intelligence
making such an idiot of themselves. I now have to accept, however,
that the situation is irretrievable - your rationality is long gone
out the window along with any sense of moral decency. I will now
accept that and like just about everybody else here, simply ignore
your hysterical ranting and raving.
You have been dishonest and you have needed to wallow in a denial that
just does not matter. At this point in time science is only going to
determine how wrong the Bible is about the creation. For those that
believe that nature is the creation, it has already been determined that
the creation that exists is not Biblical. You acknowledge that some of
the early church fathers understood this to be true. Their faith was
not based on what the Bible claimed about the creation. For some stupid
reason you need to cling to the same denial that MarkE and Sticks have
to wallow in. The denial will never change reality. The Bible has been
"misinterpreted" about many things that we have been able to determine
for ourselves. That is just a fact. It can be "misinterpreted" because
it is just wrong about some things. Just like the church fathers wrote
about things as if the universe was geocentric, the authors of the Bible
obviously wrote about things as they understood them, but their
understanding of the creation was just wrong. They did not actually
understand what they were writing about. They did not know about
microbes. They were using a cosmology that they had gotten from their
neighbors that had been civilized for a longer period of time. The
world isn't flat, the universe is not geocentric, the universe and the
earth are very old, and life has existed on this planet for billions of
years. The Greeks had estimated the circumference of the earth a couple
of centuries before Christ was born and some of the authors of the New
Testament were likely flat earth creationists. The Bible can be
"misinterpreted" because it is just wrong about a lot of things.
You have never been honest in your approach to this issue. That should
change. There are still geocentric Christians for the simple reason
that they need to wallow in more denial than you do. They do not want
the Bible to have been "misinterpreted". The actions of the Pope and
the Inquisition in 1616 are totally justified because the creation is
geocentric.
Your quote about Pope Francis indicates that he understands that the
Bible can be misinterpreted because it is written in such a way that it
needs to be misinterpreted. What the Bible claims is just wrong, and it
needs another interpretation. If we wrote the Bible today we can still
be wrong about some things about what actually exists as the creation.
That's ok, Ron, keep convincing yourself because somehow I don't
reckon are convincing anyone else.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:23:28 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/24/2026 9:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:22:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>You are the one quote mining in order to remain in denial of reality.
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 2:52 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times]
Church was wrong or right; I don't care.
It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating
yourselves. Let it go.
This is the same type of Biblical denial that you repeatedly address
with the Biblical creationists that are left posting. There really
isn't any difference. Just think about it for a minute. Harran doesn't >>>> want the Bible to have been wrong about anything. He wants to make
believe that it has always been faulty interpretation, but the
interpretations have always been faulty because the Bible is just wrong >>>> about a lot of things. MarkE is anti-evolution because he doesn't want >>>> the Bible to be wrong about nature. Stick still wants to believe some >>>> of the young earth nonsense because he doesn't want the Bible to be
wrong about those things. Sticks has enough on the ball to understand >>>> that the earth and universe are a lot older than the Bible has been
interpreted it to be, but he still wants the Bible to not be wrong about >>>> some of the young earth claims about the creation.
Harran still wants the Bible to be correct about the creation, so he has >>>> to deny that it has always been shown to be wrong about what we could
figure out for ourselves. None of them can accept that the human
authors of the Bible just did not fully understand what the creation
actually was, and just like all the Church fathers they wrote about what >>>> they thought that they understood, but it was obviously wrong. None of >>>> them can deal with the fact that there isn't a single god-did-it
Biblical claim that has been verified by science or what passed as
science in the past. They understand that there has been 100% failure >>>> for their efforts because if they had any successes they would be
crowing about those instead of wallowing in denial like Harran and the >>>> others. The denial is all that they have left.
Ron, disagree with me if you like but please stop TELLING LIES about
me.
You should just stop lying about the situation and deal with reality as
it exists, and not what you want to keep believing about it.
Yet more lies as demonstrated by the fact that despite you constantlyOf all the posters here, Harran is the least qualified to speak for
accuse me of quote mining, you have yet to produce a single example of
me doing so.
I have persevered here because I have always had respect for your
scientific expertise and I hated to see someone of your intelligence
making such an idiot of themselves. I now have to accept, however,
that the situation is irretrievable - your rationality is long gone
out the window along with any sense of moral decency. I will now
accept that and like just about everybody else here, simply ignore
your hysterical ranting and raving.
On 2/26/2026 3:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Yet more lies as demonstrated by the fact that despite you constantly
accuse me of quote mining, you have yet to produce a single example of
me doing so.
Why lie? Just explain what you did above. It was obviously quote
mining. You took a bit of the condemnation to claim something that was
not claimed in the document. That is quote mining.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:48:32 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
Yet more lies as demonstrated by the fact that despite you constantly
accuse me of quote mining, you have yet to produce a single example of
me doing so.
Why lie? Just explain what you did above. It was obviously quote
mining. You took a bit of the condemnation to claim something that was
not claimed in the document. That is quote mining.
Yet again you accuse me of something of which you cannot produce even
a single example.
On 3/2/2026 10:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:48:32 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
Yet more lies as demonstrated by the fact that despite you constantly
accuse me of quote mining, you have yet to produce a single example of >>>> me doing so.
Why lie? Just explain what you did above. It was obviously quote
mining. You took a bit of the condemnation to claim something that was
not claimed in the document. That is quote mining.
Yet again you accuse me of something of which you cannot produce even
a single example.
Why keep lying? You are the one that lied about running from your
source being wrong about the church condemnation of heliocentrism. Your >source was found to be unreliable, and you ran. You kept lying about >running, and you had to confront what you had run from, and in order to
try to make believe that your source was still reliable in the face of
the opposite being true, you tried to quote things from the link that
did not matter, and you quote mined the document ordered to be produced
by the Pope.
You know what you did because you have run from doing it and just keep
lying about what you did.
QUOTE:
They declare that "the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the
Revolutions of Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended
until corrected".
I've given details of the required corrections to Revolutions in a
different post to Harshman and they are all minor edits - not one of
them makes any change to the core principle of heliocentrism. A rather
weird declaration of heresy that allows Copernicus's book supporting
it to be published with minor edits that don't undermine his
proposition.
END QUOTE:
This is what part of what you did in order to weasel out of the fact
that your source had lied about heliocentrism never being condemned
except by the Inquisition. Heliocentrism had been declared to be
heretical by the additions to the Index. You understood that, but
wanted minor edits to claim otherwise, but the minor edits did not apply
to all the banned and condemned literature.
This is what I wrote demonstrating that you had quote mined the document.
QUOTE:
The Books by Copernicus were never corrected and republished, so his >writings were banned until removed from the index centuries later. I
see that you left out the book that could not be corrected and would be >permanently banned. Why did you do that? Isn't this quote mining? >Heliocentrism was condemned and heliocentric writings were added to the >Index. End of that story.
QUOTE:
Decree
of the Sacred Congregation of the Most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy >Roman Church especially charged by Our Holy Lord Pope Paul V and by the
Holy Apostolic See with the Index of books and their licensing,
prohibition, correction, and printing in all of Christendom, to be
published everywhere.
In regard to several books containing various heresies and errors, to >prevent the emergence of more serious harm throughout Christendom, the >Sacred Congregation of the Most Illustrious Cardinals of the Holy Roman >Church in charge of the Index has decided that they should be altogether >condemned and prohibited, as indeed with the present decree it condemns
and prohibits them, wherever and in whatever language they are printed
or about to be printed.
END QUOTE:
This is no quote mine, but you can find your quote in the following >paragraph:
QUOTE:
This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and
acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether
contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is >motionless, which is also taught by Nicolaus CopernicusrCOs On the >Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zu|#igarCOs On Job.
This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite >Father whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Antonio
Foscarini on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the EarthrCOs
Motion and SunrCOs Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (Naples: >Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615), in which the said Father tries to show that
the above-!mentioned doctrine of the sunrCOs rest at the center of the
world and of the earthrCOs motion is consonant with the truth and does not >contradict Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not >advance any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation
has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of >Spheres) and by Diego de Zu|#iga (On Job) be suspended until corrected;
but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be >completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which
teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the
present Decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively.
END QUOTE:
You ran from what you did and failed to address what you did. Just go
back up a few posts and relive what you did. You did not own up to
quote mining the document, nor did you deny doing it.
The Jesuits are pretty matter of fact that this was the only instance of >Papal condemnation of heliocentrism, and that your source lied to you.
You are the one that has had to resort to quote mining in order to
support your unreliable sources.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 18:12:55 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,632 |