@smeck, you are indeed correct, i'm getting weak in the ways of physivs...

Physical excercise, the harms of spending to much time online.

"Anyone can become an expert by reading the relevant Wiki articles before entering a debate."

Clearly somebody has been talking to Semck.

"Is there anything that forum members know nothing about?"

Forum members know nothing about civil conversation.

"'Anyone can become an expert by reading the relevant Wiki articles before entering a debate.'

"Clearly somebody has been talking to Semck."

Not something I believe, putin, and one can generally spot a wiki expert. On the other hand, when discussing something on which one is not expert, a few minutes in wikipedia can occasionally prevent one from making a fool of oneself with elementary errors. You should try it sometime.

"Not something I believe, putin"

That's news to me.

" and one can generally spot a wiki expert."

Yes, spotted you a mile away.

"On the other hand, when discussing something on which one is not expert, a few minutes in wikipedia can occasionally prevent one from making a fool of oneself with elementary errors"

Not in your case. At any rate, you've demonstrated your reliance on wiki even when you purport to be an expert on topics. It's really hard to keep track of your Draugnar-esq story-telling and narrative maneuvering sometimes.

"you should try it sometime."

Try what? Purporting to be an expert on why a source is discredited based on blurbs I read on the supposedly *more* credible wikipedia? No thanks. I do not possess your astounding tolerance of cognitive dissonance.

semck and Putin
sittin' in a tree

OK, well. I'm not going to derail this thread when we already have another one derailed on the same topic -- if you want to pick it up again, post again there. Meanwhile, I'm confident that any intelligent and honest forum members who are actually interested in our discussion of flat-earth belief among medieval churchmen (and let's face it -- that's probably just me) can go check out the rational-belief thread and see for themselves that your accusations are groundless.

This was a silly thread to begin with, smeck. Derail it all you like.

Thanks, jamie. I would, but as I say, there's already substantial space in another thread devoted to this very argument, and I find it somewhat annoying when arguments spill into two threads at once. People who can't get enough of putin and me going at it are already in luck as it is.

You and Putin.
Going at it.
Pwhoar.
That's hot.

"(and let's face it -- that's probably just me)"

Shameless grandstanding. You have a grossly inflated opinion of yourself.

"can go check out the rational-belief thread and see for themselves that your accusations are groundless."

Belief in a solid firmament is incongruous with a spherical earth. Belief in a disc-like flat surface over which a tent-like firmament dome exists does not entail believe in the sphericity of the earth. In fact I can't find a single sentence in which Aquinas mentioned anything about the earth being a sphere. He says it is "round" in his discuss of science, but all flat-earthers claim the earth is round, like a disc. Unless you're going to claim discs aren't round.

There isn't a single image anywhere of a firmament dome and a spherical earth. It makes no sense as a concept. Luther's bible has a flat disc-earth with a dome over it, as all depictions of the firmament do.

*belief; *discussion

"Belief in a solid firmament is incongruous with a spherical earth. Belief in a disc-like flat surface over which a tent-like firmament dome exists does not entail believe in the sphericity of the earth. "

It certainly doesn't entail it, but it doesn't contradict it, either -- the firmament doesn't HAVE to be merely a half-sphere, though early conceptions of it were. It can be a sphere just as easily. I have already shown you that Aquinas did believe in the firmament as physical, and also in a spherical earth. You try to evade it, as follows:

" In fact I can't find a single sentence in which Aquinas mentioned anything about the earth being a sphere. He says it is "round" in his discuss of science, but all flat-earthers claim the earth is round, like a disc. Unless you're going to claim discs aren't round."

Let's quote exactly what Aquinas says, shall we? From question 54:

"The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth."

There are several big problems with your attempt to suggest that Aquinas meant "round" as in "like a disk." The biggest are that astronomers of that time did not believe in a flat earth; that there are no astronomical proofs for a disk-shaped (round) earth if one does believe in a flat earth; and that "movement of heavenly bodies toward the center" is a clear reference to a spherical earth and Ptolemaism.

You said before very explicitly that Luther believed in a flat earth (I can go find the quote if you wish), and say so again implicitly here. The opposite is true. Here, in his commentary on Genesis, he very clearly lays out the Ptolemaic system, even chiding Augustine for not wholeheartedly adopting it. He also refers explicitly to "the firmament or eighth sphere." Start reading on page 64, though things get clearest on page 68.

www.martinluthersermons.com/luthergenesis_chap_1.pdf‎

I'd just like to take this moment to congratulate semck on his infinite patience dealing with Putin. It's kind of fun watching you keep a level head until he realizes you aren't going to be rattled, remembers his "pressing business" and scampers off.

Does anyone know anything about human eyelid thickness? When I close my eyelids and there are lights on in other rooms, it irritates my eyes. If I can't get away from the lights, I have to wear an eye mask to get some decent rest.

Is this because my eyelids are less thick than other folk? Or my eyes more sensitive?

Have there been any studies on eye sensitivity when eyelids are closed? For example having a light blinking on and off with different light levels when on and have the person whose eyelids are closed indicate when they detect the light change and seeing how much variance there is from person to person.

Your link doesn't work.

"The biggest are that astronomers of that time did not believe in a flat earth"

I'll have to take your word for it.

" that "movement of heavenly bodies toward the center" is a clear reference to a spherical earth"

I do not get how this is a reference to a 'spherical earth'.

"You said before very explicitly that Luther believed in a flat earth"

He believed in a solid firmament, yes. He also said that any physical evidence that contradicts scripture should be thrown out, and no one would deny that the OT scripture describes a flat round earth. (Isa 40:22; Ps 104:2). There are constant references to "stretching out the earth above the waters", and also a reference to the ability to see the farthest points of the earth from a tall tree in the center.

You say:

" the firmament doesn't HAVE to be merely a half-sphere, though early conceptions of it were. It can be a sphere just as easily."

How could it "just as easily" be a sphere? The firmament is alternatively described as a tent, something that is "spread out". The idea that a "vault" or "tent" could be globular is ludicrous.

"It's kind of fun watching you keep a level head until he realizes you aren't going to be rattled, remembers his "pressing business" and scampers off."

Really how did I scamper off? How long must I commit to a debate to get your effusive praise, YJ? And how is calling someone a psychopath an example of keeping a level head?

Nevermind I figured it out, YJ is really S.E. Cupp.

Anyway I am willing to accept, at least in the instance of the earth's sphericity, White overstated the case. However, when it comes to everything else - opposition to the antipodes, geocentrism, etc, he does not exaggerate in the slightest. And all in all, his discussion of sphericity is pretty sparse. The only reason people are harping on it is because that's all they have read of the book.

Well, there you go Maniac, apparently no one knows anything about eyelids. Or they just got tired of reading the standard political stuff and didn't see my eyelids subject/questions.

RE: eyelids

Humans evolved to sleep at night and wake at dawn. Eyelids are plenty thick to block moonlight, which is all they had to do for most of humanity's existence. They are thin enough to help us wake up when the sun rises.

And light sensitivity can be from more than simple eyelid thickness.

@putin,

Sorry for the delayed response. Traveling. Anyway. You said my link doesn't work. I'm having weird problems myself with it. Make sure there are no characters on the end, and if you get a 404, try again after deleting any terminal characters on the URL. It should then work.

Once you see it, you'll note that Luther did believe in a spherical earth as well as a firmament.

"Anyway I am willing to accept, at least in the instance of the earth's sphericity, White overstated the case."

Cool.

"However, when it comes to everything else - opposition to the antipodes, geocentrism, etc, he does not exaggerate in the slightest. And all in all, his discussion of sphericity is pretty sparse. The only reason people are harping on it is because that's all they have read of the book. "

Well, I think they harp on it because it's a better studied and understood issue than most, and he gets it very wrong, painting controversy where there is none. To harken back to the Ronald Numbers quote (which, yes, I found on wikipedia), this is characteristic more of propaganda than of careful history. Painting an incorrect picture using tendentious verbs, and damning with faint praise where strong praise is due (for example, for the fact that there is no recorded educated churchman of the era who believed in a flat earth) are hallmarks of unreliable scholarship. It's easy to say, "But he gets everything perfect on the more obscure issues!" But why should we trust him on them? He screwed up the easy stuff and showed himself to be quite biased in his narrative. I know no reason to trust him on the less known things. And, with respect, you've demonstrated enough confusion on these topics yourself that I don't put much stock in your claims (e.g., you've just been arguing that nobody believed in a spherical earth and waters above a firmament, something that has been resoundingly falsified). This is especially true when the book has a crap reputation among professional historians of science (which neither of us is, manifestly).

And no, I'm not saying that nobody is fighting for any form of the conflict thesis anymore. Some do, with greater subtlety. But I'm not aware of any historian of scientist who is still arguing that White's book has any merit. Perhaps you are. Or perhaps you don't think that the opinion of modern academic historians matters. I think it does, and while I'm always willing to entertain arguments that the academy has got it wrong on some issue (though I don't often have the time to really form that judgment if it's far outside my areas of expertise), I don't think you're off to an auspicious start on this book.

Bovine dentistry.

Pro-tip:

no one knows anything about anything

So Thucy - How does that work. You know nothing yet feel qualified to say you know we k ow nothing. Wouldn't that mean you knee something and thereby I validate your claim that nobody knows anything?

Forgive the typos. I've yet to master the cell phone soft keyboard.

The appeal of cave diving

Invictus...it's peaceful, as long as we're talking about underwater caves. Not much of a subterranean spelunker.