Talk:Did the Church ever teach a flat Earth?
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Two problems. 1. I'm not sure if a random claim like this is best addressed in a vaccuum. What are the odds that anyone is gonna search for this precise wording? 2. "Church" and "Earth" both take an upper-case letter. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 19:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's because they're copied over from EvoWiki that has a specific set style for this sort of thing. Could be merged into the relevant flat Earth article, though.
d hominem 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Merge this with Flat Earth. --BobSpring is sprung! 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is fucking shit[edit]
Someone should really delete it. Fallacy (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Or at least clean it up heavily, and change the title as well. Fallacy (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
heliocentrism[edit]
But didn't Galileo have a problem over heliocentrism? and, anyway, so what?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
delete tag[edit]
Added delete tag. Can't see much value in this which can be added to another article elsewhere. Aceace 20:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- > Forum:EvoWiki ports Blue (pester) 20:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I still say keep it. I've linked them to the "creationist claims" page, so they are like extensions of that page - since we don't actually do sub pages here. I'm going to state this over and over, but as a person who is not well educated in the science, but who does hear these arguments all the time, RW is my single best source for "this is why it's wrong". Articles written in such a way that I can either just link to, or steal from are a joy to me, cause if i actually have to look through "flat earth" to try to answer these "common claims" it's a bitch. I"m not by the way, saying this particular article is good or factual, as I really don't know the science side of these claims very well.
GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 20:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- This article isn't good & I'd be embarrassed to refer someone here as a counterargument to anything. It completely fails to address the question of when & to what extent Christian churches promoted the flat Earth worldview, and makes a load of unexplained comments about Darwinism. This might make sense on EvoWiki which deals specifically with biological evolution, but looks very odd here at RW in an article about the shape of planets. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- This article isn't good & I'd be embarrassed to refer someone here as a counterargument to anything. It completely fails to address the question of when & to what extent Christian churches promoted the flat Earth worldview, and makes a load of unexplained comments about Darwinism. This might make sense on EvoWiki which deals specifically with biological evolution, but looks very odd here at RW in an article about the shape of planets. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- I still say keep it. I've linked them to the "creationist claims" page, so they are like extensions of that page - since we don't actually do sub pages here. I'm going to state this over and over, but as a person who is not well educated in the science, but who does hear these arguments all the time, RW is my single best source for "this is why it's wrong". Articles written in such a way that I can either just link to, or steal from are a joy to me, cause if i actually have to look through "flat earth" to try to answer these "common claims" it's a bitch. I"m not by the way, saying this particular article is good or factual, as I really don't know the science side of these claims very well.
