And yet you have failed to provide the word. You seem to be stuck on a toy that you think could have been used but wasn't.<quoted text>
And FFS they had the term. You simply don't like the term.
They could have done a number of things, but because they did not do something how you wanted them to does not in any way mean anything you say it does. This is not third grade recess and your sub Nancy Drew level of logic does not fit reality.<quoted text>
One more time, what is the geometric name for the shape of a ball?
If they thought the word was spherical but could not say it they could have always said that the Earth was round like a ball.
This is only true if you approach the subject insisting the earth it flat. You see, if you take that away, then it easily become a sphere with the same terminology. In science, they call this confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is something you have went through great trouble to achieve these past couple days.<quoted text>
Funny none of them state that and all verses apply better to a flat earth than to a spherical Earth.
Evidently you do not know much about Galileo, Urban VIII did not attack Galileo on the grounds of his heliocentrism but on grounds of personal attacks against the church in which Galileo made statements about the leadership of the church. As for Galileo's continuation of Copernicus' works, the church only said that the theory couldn't be proven or disproved and ordered him to not teach it as fact. Galileo continued to discuss it as theoretical mathematics until he insulted the leadership of the church and was forced into house arrest.<quoted text>
Yes, I have heard of Galileo retard. I was specifically asking which canon Urban based his attack on Galileo on.
Is everything you believe to be true only supported in your head? I mean this is documented crap we are talking about here. There is no reason for you to pretend to know something then present it completely wrongly. Galileo had no problem with his heliocentric models outside the lack of scientific support for them until he made derogatory comments about the leadership of the church. That is like you claiming the world is round, cussing out a cop and then claiming your subsequent arrest was for the claim of the world being round. No, it was because of you cussing out the cop. But don't take my word for it, open a freaking history book that isn't a cliff notes version.<quoted text>
Oh my, we have a real Kool-Aid drinker here.Though the interaction between Galileo and the church was complex they did base their judgement against Galileo oh his works on helio-centrism.
So not only can you not keep your Bible straight you cannot keep your history straight either.
I certainly would. Gravity is one of the most least understood products of nature. We have several theories on why and how it works but no clear answer outside of anecdotal Newtonian understandings.<quoted text>Would you accept a physics books with a disclaimer that said "Gravity is only a theory"?
Because you are a fool and I do not agree with the foolishness you spout does not make me dishonest. It makes you incorrect, ignorant, and searching for a way to save your fictitious worldview.<quoted text>
And you purposefully misread my post. I did include the disclaimer "near perfect". You obviously do consider it near perfect and therefore your whole last post is void.
You may not be a Bible thumper. But you are very dishonest.