I guess this was inevitable

“Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine”.

I’ve just got to say, wow. I read it at first thinking, “hey, this is hysterical satire”, then I read the comments and thought, “wow, these guys are dedicated – this is pure performance art!” Finally, I started going through the archives with a sinking feeling, “holy crap, these guys are for real.”

I really think they’ve fallen for these cranks line about a fixed earth, and all I’ve got to say now is please, please, please tell everybody about this. If there ever was a better example of the universality of crank thinking, this is it, and of course they would support Brownback before any other candidate.

I’m sure if one of these guys was in line for tenure at ISU the DI would be screaming their heads off if the university wisely decided not to extend tenure. After all it’s academic freedom! We must teach the controversy over Copernicus!

Thanks Coturnix!

20 thoughts on “I guess this was inevitable”

  1. I can’t believe that crank has enough braincells to sustain his own life. Someone please introduce him to the ‘clue bat’ for a ‘ping lesson’ before someone wastes any more time posting on his blog.

  2. a little off topic, but i once encountered a guy, who believed that nothing can leave the earth’s van allen belt, which is at 30km height (sic), and protects us from the intense ultraviolet (sic) radiation of the sun. he stated that ISS must orbit below this 30km, and scientists only lie its height is 400km. of course, moon landings are fake. more to the above, the sun does not radiate visible light at all. only UV. and this UV is converted to visible light by the van allen belt. so the source of sunlight is actually 30km above our head.

    can someone recognise this bullshit? there are a website of this specific type of crankery?

  3. Man, you know they’re desperate when they have to quote-mine Answers in Genesis. Four paragraphs down, he cites AiG about the equivalence of reference frames, pointing out that even today astronomers use a geocentric reference frame for some observations, when convenient.

    The referenced Answers in Genesis article though is arguing that geocentricism is crazy, and that the Bible passages which suggest geocentrism are just written in the most reasonable idiom—after all, living on Earth, it’s more convenient to think of things moving around us rather than vice versa.

    Naturally, the possibility that Biblical references to the “creation” of life is similarly an idiom appropriate for an ancient book flies right past them unnoticed.

  4. I still can’t accept that this isn’t a joke site. I’ve gone through their archives, looked at their comments etc., they’ve been consistent the entire time with this shrill adulation of everything Brownback. Everything from loving Coulter’s eulogy of Falwell (points to satire) to announcing Brownback events and mocking his primary opponents is done with a consistent voice. The replies to comments are amazing as they troll their own threads! It’s just so bizarre.

    Some of the scibloggers have been talking about it too (in our super-secret materialist atheist plotting forum), they mostly seem to think that it’s a joke too, but I don’t know. It’s amazingly consistent. If it’s a joke it’s pure genius.

  5. It should be amusing to go back to that blog after Brownback has been completely crushed in the primaries and see how he rationalizes the defeat. Probably all part of the Darwinist/Heliocentrist/Leftist/Galileoist conspiracy to stifle God’s Inerrant Word.

  6. I think that there are a lot of signs that it’s a parody, for example the phrase “right-thinking people” which I’ve heard on Monty Python but never in a church or conservative context. The science is also too ingenious for any of the denialists I’ve ever run into.

  7. Well, back when I wrote this for Conservapedia, someone had to point out to me that Dr. Richard Paley wasn’t real after “he” left some comments on the discussion page. That’s twice now that he’s yanked my chain.

    Anyway, whether it’s a satire or not, I don’t think it’s as telling as the fact that there is disagreement over whether it is a satire or not. It’s become plausible that there are geocentrist interest groups out there, and that’s horrible.

  8. Im blocked from conservapedia. Strange circumstances – all my subtle jokes and inconvenient questions didn’t get any response. I was blocked because I said that life travels at, well, the speed of light.

    One of the admins, username Conservative, threw a tantrum over it – and this has apparently happened before. It appears that he is a young-earth creationist who believes that light either used to or still does travel instantainously – his solution to the problem posed by being able to see objects further away than light could have traveled in the proposed age of his ‘young universe.’ Anyone who doesn’t agree with this bit of nonsense gets blocked.

  9. can someone recognise this bullshit? there are a website of this specific type of crankery? [In reference to the van Allen belt crankery]

    Moon landing hoaxers. And yes, they do have websites. I believe The Angry Astronomer sometimes fisks them.

    – JS

  10. I don’t know, the setup seems way too elaborate if this is the punch line. I’m inclined to think this is real… but then, your guess is probably better than mine.

    If nothing else, this is the best example of Poe’s Law in action that I’ve seen in a while.

  11. I think this is the funniest bit of all:

    “Trying to give Jon Swift a run for his money?”

    Who is Jon Swift?

    Comment by Sisyphus ? May 18, 2007 @ 2:01 pm

    Well then, there really is nothing left to say, is there?

  12. It’s a satire. How many Christian evangelicals are going to name themselves ‘Sisyphus’?

  13. Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large numbers. On the other hand how many people this ignorant could there be?

  14. Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large numbers. On the other hand how many people this ignorant could there be?

  15. Two words for you folks: Autodynamics and Setterfield.

    The guy behind Autodynamics is sufficiently clever as a rhetorical denialist to make up the bogus physics cited in that Brownback blog. Bad physics and bogus proofs, but a very good debater who is monomaniacally against relativity.

    Setterfield is an example of how to manipulate data to argue that light speed has decreased from infinite to c over the past 6000 years or so. His fit uses a data “point” found by taking the mean of data over several hundred years. That’s right, he assumes light speed is constant in his analysis.

Comments are closed.