The Flat Earth Myth

[Merlin]

they were vehemently opposed to the notions that the Earth orbits the Sun .

the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun
it's a myth

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

For Febble: there is a link at the buttom of the OP.


I read the article... and he never does say anything that can even remotely be interpreted as that. The point he makes is that people like White and Draper use Darwin´s then new theory and the opposition of the Church against it as evidence for their "struggle between religion and science" views.

Then why does Gould mention Darwinism within the context of the Flat Earth Myth?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The theory isn't about the shape of the earth, or about theories about the shape of the earth.

Apparently it is because Asimov relies upon The Flat Earth Myth as his argument.

Asimov did no such thing. If he is wrong that the Sumerians were the first to figure out that the earth was spherical, then it's a mistake, not a lie.

Asimov didn't say the Sumerians were the first to figure out the Earth is spherical. Asimov perpetuates the Darwinist Flat Earth Myth and then launches into a tirade about creationism.

The reality is that creationism says the Earth is a sphere.

"The orb of the Earth is seen...." -- Vishnu Purana, Book I, Chapter IV

However, Asimov deliberately perpetuates the popular Darwinist fallacy and lie of the Flat Earth Myth.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

For Febble: there is a link at the buttom of the OP.


I read the article... and he never does say anything that can even remotely be interpreted as that. The point he makes is that people like White and Draper use Darwin´s then new theory and the opposition of the Church against it as evidence for their "struggle between religion and science" views.

You must have missed the part where he talks about the Darwinist Flat Earth Myth.

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Darwinian revolution directly triggered this influential nineteenth-century conceptualization of Western history as a war between two taxonomic categories labeled science and religion. White made an explicit connection in his statement about Agassiz (the founder of the museum where I now work, and a visiting lecturer at Cornell). Moreover, the first chapter of his book treats the battle over evolution, while the second begins with the flat-earth myth." -- Stephen J. Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack, Late Birth of a Flat Earth, 1995

 

[Febble]

Apparently it is because Asimov relies upon The Flat Earth Myth as his argument.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't even mention what Gould refers to as the Flat Earth Myth, and appears to be something started in (IIRC) the 18th century, and referred to by White in the 19th. Asimov reports the calculation that the earth is round being done by the Sumerians (who lived several millenia BC) and the results being summarized by Aristotle in 350 BC. Asimov clearly does not subscribe to any myth that pre-17th century societies regarded the earth as flat, and the date is irrelevant to his argument anyway - he merely points out the gradual refinement of the radius of the earth over time.

Asimov didn't say the Sumerians were the first to figure out the Earth is spherical. Asimov perpetuates the Darwinist Flat Earth Myth and then launches into a tirade about creationism.

He attributes the the calculation to the Sumerians. They are the earliest people he cites. The next is Aristotle.

The reality is that creationism says the Earth is a sphere.

I have no problem with that. Nor does Gould. Nor does Asimov. Nor does any scientist I know of. It has no bearing on Darwinian evolutionary theory anyway, and if creationists say that the Earth is a sphere, that is a point on which it seems we can all happily agree.

"The orb of the Earth is seen...." -- Vishnu Purana, Book I, Chapter IV

However, Asimov deliberately perpetuates the popular Darwinist fallacy and lie of the Flat Earth Myth.

No, he doesn't. He merely traces the timeline over which the true radius of the earth was calculated, from infinite (flat earth) to present day measurements. He does not allege that creationists of thinking the earth is flat. Nor does anyone as far as I know.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

No, he doesn't. He doesn't even mention what Gould refers to as the Flat Earth Myth, and appears to be something started in (IIRC) the 18th century, and referred to by White in the 19th. Asimov reports the calculation that the earth is round being done by the Sumerians (who lived several millenia BC) and the results being summarized by Aristotle in 350 BC. Asimov clearly does not subscribe to any myth that pre-17th century societies regarded the earth as flat, and the date is irrelevant to his argument anyway - he merely points out the gradual refinement of the radius of the earth over time.

Sigh.

Reading comprehension fail.

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat

Flat Earth Myth...

He does not allege that creationists of thinking the earth is flat. Nor does anyone as far as I know.

LOL. Please read the Gould paper before you opine.

 

[Febble]

Sigh.

Reading comprehension fail.

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

Ah, you are right. It's a while since I read it in detail, so it's also a memory fail. Yes, he attributes the realisation to the Greeks.

Flat Earth Myth...

Are you saying it is a myth that the Sumerians thought the earth was flat?

That's not what Gould is saying. Where is your evidence that the Sumerians believed it was spherical?

He does not allege that creationists of thinking the earth is flat. Nor does anyone as far as I know.

LOL. Please read the Gould paper before you opine.

Well, I can't find anything in that paper that leads me to believe that Gould thinks that creationists think/thought that the earth was flat.

Although given at least two reading errors yesterday, it's possible I missed it.

However, the point I keep making, and you keep missing, is that what some people think some other people once, or presently, thought about the radius of the earth has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinian evolutionary theory!

Far from being a "cornerstone" of it, it is totally and utterly irrelevant. Darwinian evolutionary theory is a theory about biology, and the diversity of living things. It is not a theory about the radius of the earth.

 

[3sigma]

We don't deny anything.
…
We are not denying science, just refusing Darwinism.

-staff edit-

You do it yourself right here when you say you are unwilling to accept “Darwinism” (which I presume is the usual religious believer’s misrepresentation of the theory of evolution). Do you accept the scientific explanation that humans evolved from earlier forms of life rather than being created fully formed in some supernatural being’s image from the dust of the ground? Do you accept the scientific knowledge that the universe, the Earth and life was not created in six days; that plants and animals don’t talk; that the Earth is over 4 billion years old; that the universe is over 13 billion years old; that there was no global flood within the last 10,000 years; that grown men cannot walk on water; and that people don’t come back to life after being dead for days and beginning to decompose? You may accept all of those—though I rather suspect you don’t—but there are literally billions of other religious believers in the world who deny one or more of those things or some other scientific knowledge that shows their religious beliefs are not true. To claim that religious believers don’t deny scientific knowledge is simply a lie.

-staff edit-

 

[3sigma]

the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun
it's a myth

I suppose you are going to say that the Earth and the Sun orbit a common centre of mass or point out some other pedantic distinction without a difference.

 

[Greg1234]

-staff edit- You do it yourself right here when you say you are unwilling to accept “Darwinism” (which I presume is the usual religious believer’s misrepresentation of the theory of evolution). Do you accept the scientific explanation that humans evolved from earlier forms of life rather than being created fully formed in some supernatural being’s image from the dust of the ground?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7500118-4/#post55732005

 

[Nabobalis]

I suppose you are going to say that the Earth and the Sun orbit a common centre of mass or point out some other pedantic distinction without a difference.

I think it was a joke.

 

[keith99]

I think it was a joke.

With the absurdidities and lies some on this thread are posting it is rather easy to jump the wrong way when some other poster makes a jest.

For this thread a wise reader looks at who the poster is and keeps that in mind at all times. (Pity the reader if ther eis a poster he is not familiar with).

 

[Zoness]

I have no idea what is going on in this thread. What does evolution have to do with geocentrism have to do with flat earth have to do with creationism?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea what is going on in this thread. What does evolution have to do with geocentrism have to do with flat earth have to do with creationism?

I think it's called argumentum ad derailmentum.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

I have no idea what is going on in this thread. What does evolution have to do with geocentrism have to do with flat earth have to do with creationism?

If you want to know what evolution has to do with geocentrism, the flat earth myth, and creationism, just ask a Darwinist or read the opening post.

 

[Gracchus]

I think it's called argumentum ad derailmentum.

And there speaks an expert!

 

[Zoness]

If you want to know what evolution has to do with geocentrism, the flat earth myth, and creationism, just ask a Darwinist or read the opening post.

Why do you use the term Darwinist, its not like its a religion or political movement lol

I think it's called argumentum ad derailmentum.

This board is disappointing.

 

[AV1611VET]

This board is disappointing.

I'm sorry to hear you say that.

You're not going to get people here to stay on topic in any thread for any length of time.

I'm speaking from experience here.

Even when I beg people to please limit the conversation to one chapter of the Bible -- they want to talk virtually every chapter, scenario and doctrine outside of that chapter.

Even simple YES or NO questions can generate pages and pages of multiple posting that never get answered.

Science doesn't deal in YES or NO -- science deals in woulda, coulda, shoulda, yadda-yak here-today-gone-tomorrow rhetoric and spin.

 

[Targ]

Why do you use the term Darwinist, its not like its a religion or political movement lol

Agreed, this has been pointed out a thousand times yet some people just don't seem to get it. Either that or they don't want to get it.

 

[Freodin]

If you want to know what evolution has to do with geocentrism, the flat earth myth, and creationism, just ask a Darwinist or read the opening post.

Hm. Each and every "Darwinist" that has answered here in your thread said that there is no relation between evolution and the rest of your list.

And the OP was made by you, who misinterpreted the cited text.

You are not helping.