20 Jun 12
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMost probably not correct. The point in crucification is to make the person suffer. To crucify somebody upside down would beat that purpose.
Peter the Apostle who was hung upside down.
.
I know of course that the legend should show the modesty of Peter, but it is ill conceived IMHO.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
20 Jun 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34I'm afraid that's a myth. Not only did Darwin not single-handedly invent the theory of evolution (he nicked lots of ideas from French and German biologists), but he wasn't all that controversial at first. It was only when the Victorian era got to its stuffiest that more than a handful of troublemakers started calling him names.
I think the lad who really went against the grain and set himself up for ridicule was Charles Darwin. His was a really revolutionary concept and it definitely went against the grain of the thinking of the time. It still does.
Richard
20 Jun 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueSo you were there, & know this as FACT? 😛
I'm afraid that's a myth. Not only did Darwin not single-handedly invent the theory of evolution (he nicked lots of ideas from French and German biologists), but he wasn't all that controversial at first. It was only when the Victorian era got to its stuffiest that more than a handful of troublemakers started calling him names.
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by PonderableYes, and it's surprising how many modern-day "scientists" don't understand this principle, and just continue to spread the Darwin-was-God myth.
Actually this is well documented. You need not be eyewitness. Darwin as a good scientist gave his sources.
Richard
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by PonderableHow can we believe everything we read?
Actually this is well documented. You need not be eyewitness. Darwin as a good scientist gave his sources.
If you want to go there probably wikipedia will be already of help.
The bible is not believed by many, & was documented long before Darwin was gleam in his father's eye.
21 Jun 12
Originally posted by rookie54Come on rookie, who else are GB's threads about, apart from himself or contrasting himself with others he feels he is superior too. He is the epitome of narcissism.
i had not thought of it until reading this...
but,
now i have a great amusing upwelling of laughter within my belly that ole grampy considers hizzelf amongst the elite who "go against the grain"...
only one way to truly tell...
and nobody yet haz gotten a straight answer outta him...
HA!!!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
23 Jun 12
By the way, if you want a real controversial scientist, who went against the grain, was ridiculed and ignored by his contemporaries, and is now considered to have been basically correct by everybody except a few nutjobs: Alfred Wegener, the guy who discovered plate continental drift. He published the book of that title in 1912, was generally thought to have had an interesting but unlikely idea - he had a few adherents, but most scientists were sceptical, and in the USA the establishment was actively and occasionally vituperatively hostile - died in 1930, and was not recognised to have been correct until the 1950s and '60s.
Richard
23 Jun 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI spy a crusader, earnestly at work.
By the way, if you want a real controversial scientist, who went against the grain, was ridiculed and ignored by his contemporaries, and is now considered to have been basically correct by everybody except a few nutjobs: Alfred Wegener, the guy who discovered plate continental drift. He published the book of that title in 1912, was generally thou ...[text shortened]... died in 1930, and was not recognised to have been correct until the 1950s and '60s.
Richard