SHEEPEOPLE

[Davian]

I didn't say it was "invisible"...and it's not. I said, you couldn't see it. That's different. But since we are talking about other-worlds, why would you expect the "other" to be the same. It's not. But that does not mean you can see it, it just means you have to learn to see it...like any new language. This is why Jesus was quoted as saying: "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

How am I to delineate between evidence that, by every measure available, appears to be non-exisitent, and evidence that you may only imagine to exist?

 

[Davian]

Well, I'm not emotionally attached to converting you if that's what you're insinuating.

So what is your point here? Do you just have to get the last word in?

And to think you accuse me of using strawmen. You've got a whole army burning away over there.

No straw-man. You alluded to his Nobel prize, and how he might get suspended at Cosmoquest, as if that put you in his ranks, rather than him in yours.

I don't have to scan your brain to see how you keep avoiding the key questions and dodging the key points.

Nice dodge yourself. You fail at telling me how I think.

False. I'm arguing physics.

From wiki: Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greekπᾶνpân ("all"), ἐνen ("in") and ΘεόςTheós ("God")), also known as Monistic Monotheism, [1] is a belief system...

Looks like you are wrong.

No, you ignore the key points of my posts and fixate on burning your own strawman army (like your Nobel commentary).

You will need to point out actual misrepresentations of what you have said.

You wouldn't and couldn't pick out an actual mathematical flaw in Alfven's work.

Like that would matter.

Ok, I admit that was amusing.

An ode to Carl Sagan and his Cosmos series.

 

[Davian]

You were suggesting I should leave the country because I complained about the mainstream using my tax dollars to build monuments to their invisible sky thingies.

What other options have you?

 

[Michael]

What other options have you?

Change the system.

 

[Davian]

Change the system.

Go for it. Keep us updated on how it goes for you.

 

[Michael]

So what is your point here? Do you just have to get the last word in?

Me? I'm just here for the interesting conversation. I long ago gave up being attached to any outcome, particularly with YEC's and atheists.

No straw-man. You alluded to his Nobel prize, and how he might get suspended at Cosmoquest, as if that put you in his ranks, rather than him in yours.

What a ridiculous excuse for your silly strawman burning. The only thing that we share in common is that we're both EU/PC proponents, hence we're both "Against the mainstream" proponents, and therefore both likely to be burned at the heretical stake at Cosmoquest.

Nice dodge yourself. You fail at telling me how I think.

I'm not telling you how you think, I'm telling you how you *behave* during debate. It's like debating a strawman army that retreats at the first sign of difficulty.

From wiki: Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greekπᾶνpân ("all"), ἐνen ("in") and ΘεόςTheós ("God")), also known as Monistic Monotheism, [1] is a belief system...

Looks like you are wrong.

Wrong about what? Almost anything and everything would be a "belief system". Even Lambda-CDM is a "belief system". In fact the entire 'scientific method" is a "belief system".

You will need to point out actual misrepresentations of what you have said.

How about that Nobel commentary for starters.

Like that would matter.

Actually it does matter to me, and the fact that nobody can pick out any errors says volumes IMO.

An ode to Carl Sagan and his Cosmos series.

I like Sagan.

 

[Michael]

Go for it. Keep us updated on how it goes for you.

Well, the revelations of the past decade have been pretty good to me so far. Another decade like the last one, and Lambda-CDM is toast.

 

[Michael]

How am I to delineate between evidence that, by every measure available, appears to be non-exisitent, and evidence that you may only imagine to exist?

I would assume it would work the same as it works for Lambda-CDM. You only imagine there to be evidence of that theory.

 

[Davian]

Me? I'm just here for the interesting conversation. I long ago gave up being attached to any outcome, particularly with YEC's and atheists.

Or anyone else, it would seem.

What a ridiculous excuse for your silly strawman burning. The only thing that we share in common is that we're both EU/PC proponents, hence we're both "Against the mainstream" proponents, and therefore both likely to be burned at the heretical stake at Cosmoquest.

Where was the actual straw-man?

I'm not telling you how you think,

Not successfully, at any point.

I'm telling you how you *behave* during debate.

This is not a debate. I am only here to observe.

It's like debating a strawman army that retreats at the first sign of difficulty.

You will need to do more than just use the word over and over again.

Wrong about what?

Nothing about physics on that wiki page.

How about that Nobel commentary for starters.

What about it?

Actually it does matter to me,

Whatever.

 

[Davian]

Well, the revelations of the past decade have been pretty good to me so far. Another decade like the last one, and Lambda-CDM is toast.

Just around the corner, for sure.

 

[Davian]

I would assume it would work the same as it works for Lambda-CDM. You only imagine there to be evidence of that theory.

If you could, would you say that to Carl's face?

 

[Davian]

Stop hallucinating.

... says the guy that claims to see things that, by every objective measure, are not there.

 

[Michael]

If you could, would you say that to Carl's face?

Yep, and I'd hand him the results from LHC, LUX, PandaX, those electron roundness tests, and studies that show that 'standard candles' aren't actually 'standard' at all.

 

[Michael]

Just around the corner, for sure.

Meh. It's all relative.

 

[Michael]

Or anyone else, it would seem.

Nah. I've convinced some folks of various ideas over the years, and I've changed my opinions based on debates too. I'm just not emotionally attached to something that I don't personally control in the first place.

Where was the actual straw-man?

The part where you twisted the meaning of my statements and implied I was making some comment about *me* having a Nobel Prize. You do stuff like that all the time too.

Not successfully, at any point.

Like I said, I'm only pointing out your behaviors.

This is not a debate. I am only here to observe.

You sure do a lot of typing for a guy that's just here to observe.

You will need to do more than just use the word over and over again.

I just think it's more than a tad ironic that you whine about my use of strawmen while you burn a whole army of your own.

Nothing about physics on that wiki page.

I'll bet that you saw references to cosmology/astronomy however. Even the scientific method is a "belief system', so your argument is moot.

What about it?

I never claimed to have a Nobel. You did that all on your own. Burn the strawmen!

Whatever.

In other words, you're a sucky mind reader.

 

[Davian]

..


In other words, you're a sucky mind reader.

Yet another straw-man. I don't claim to be one.

 

[Michael]

Yet another straw-man. I don't claim to be one.

Like that would matter.

It turns out however that it does matter to me in spite of your insinuation to the contrary. No strawman involved.

 

[Davian]

It turns out however that it does matter to me in spite of your insinuation to the contrary. No strawman involved.

Does it matter to anyone else that it matters to you?

 

[ScottA]

I am not sure what you are talking about. As I said previously in this thread, I have no intention of putting down the beliefs of others, but it may be that there is no polite way of critically assessing the personal beliefs of others.

Okay, we'll call it "critically assessing" remarks.

What position of authority? You are only a member of this forum, like me, or anyone else here.

I am a king, the son of a King.

Now you are infallible. Yet, inconsistent with other "infallible" believers. How does that work? I already explained. Don't make be me be critically of your ability to follow along. You know, the Tower of Babel story? Language has been confused...we all simply define the words different. Remember now?
I think that I will side with history, and work with the tentative conclusion that any individual, such as yourself, that declares themselves infallible is wrong until proven otherwise.

Good. History attests that what I tell you is true.

True, as in your opinion of it.

No. A story from history (believed or not) that comes true thousands of years later...is called historical evidence, or prophecy. The story of the Tower of Babel is now a reality right here on this forum, as you have confirmed that the same words from a multitude of sources all mean something different and do not agree.

I am only here to observe your actions. If you are only going to be argumentative, are we done here?

Perseverance may indeed result in arguments, but we're only done if you quit.

 

[ScottA]

How am I to delineate between evidence that, by every measure available, appears to be non-exisitent, and evidence that you may only imagine to exist?

Good question. First don't trust what you see (or don't see)...you're doing good so far. Then, look around and see the reaction of others. If everyone reacts the way you do, as if there is nothing to see: You are correct. If millions and millions of people see what you don't, and millions and millions don't see: At the very least, you have good reason to take another look. But...

BUT...if you do the same thing over again expecting a different response: Then...stop questioning others, and question yourself.