SHEEPEOPLE

[lesliedellow]

Then I'll tell you the same thing I told the others.

Show me that one plasma laboratory experiment where they treated plasma gravitationally and not electromagnetically

What the hell does that mean? Gravity is there, and it affects everything, without anybody needing to "treat" anything "gravitationally".

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's why I said "what evidence" do you rely on for "your belief" it is not sufficient to justify "a belief" in God?

Non-belief is the default position, or null hypothesis to any claim. Rejection of a belief does not require justification when the belief in question is not supported by evidence.

Treating 95% of the universe like a state of matter it is not?

How is this relevant? The existence or non-existence of dark matter has no bearing on my theological views.

Asking I believe that birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are separate species?

Um, what?

That's why I asked what evidence you rely on for this belief of yours? I've yet to see any for either one of those claims by cosmologists or evolutionists.

As for your cosmological idea, pretty well any astrophysicist would agree dark matter at this point is an unproven hypothesis. As for your evolution statement, I don't think any evolutionary biologist thinks that birds mate and produce separate species. The only people that push that idea are Christian fundamentalists. If that's what your idea of evolution is, you don't know what evolution is.

But to echo what I said above, both dark matter and evolution have no bearing on my theological views. So I'm not even sure why you are bringing them up to me....

 

[lesliedellow]

If that's what your idea of evolution is, you don't know what evolution is.

Creationists take great pride in not knowing anything about the subjects they hold forth about with such great authority.

 

[dlamberth]

But they are incorrect to do so...

Religions need to adjust to what science brings, especially when it comes to the Creation Story. The Biblical Creation story no longer offers a functional cosmology. It doesn't work in today's world. A new Creation story is being offered by science, and it's up to us Lovers of God to weave a functional cosmology from the window that science offers into God's Creation.

...because God and the truth are immovable.

I'm in total agreement with you. But I suspect with a slight difference. When it comes to God's Truth of this Creation, that can be found with in life itself. And science is opening up that window. It's up to us to see, experience and bring to life the sacred and the Divine presence that we see through that window into Creation.

Alternatively, those who actually know the truth and are not just in religion for the social benefits, are attempting to simply be honest, tell the truth: God's creation story is accurate, and science is only correct on bits and pieces.

Hang on to it as you will, but the world is moving on. The Biblical Creation story is no longer accurate or even relevant in today's world. A new cosmology is taking it's place. The question left hanging is how are religions such as Christianity going to work with the new cosmology so that they stay relevant into the future?

.

 

[Michael]

Again you talk as if you are completely unfamiliar with the theory.

Bah. I read his first paper in the 80's. It's been decades at this point. Apparently you're projecting again. You never did answer my question. Why do you suppose that Alan Guth got to name his invisible friend?

Go ahead and post them, so we can check them out.

Here's a few....

https://www.google.com/search?q=hub...oTCIrK0qL18sYCFVUviAodyXAAzA&biw=1920&bih=913

 

[Michael]

And then applies methodologies to weed out the false positives. It may be that all you have are those false positives.

An example of a "false positive" that needs to be weeded out, is basing the entire dark energy claim on the concept of a 'standard candle', only to discover that they aren't actually standard at all. Ooopsy?

Nobody doubts that accuracy is required as well as pattern recognition, but pattern recognition is an integral part of science, not something to be ridiculed. Without it, there is no scientific progress to start with.

 

[Michael]

Indeed. Why else would you compare such dissimilar subjects such as personal gods and cosmology?

Well, probably because I support Panetheism for starters. It's a package deal.

 

[Michael]

It's your credibility on the line, not mine.

Pffft. If a Nobel Prize, and Alfven's credibility meant nothing to the mainstream, who cares about the credibility of some random programmer from Mt. Shasta anyway? I think you take the internet far too seriously.

After all the revelations about stellar miscounts, LHC, LUX, PandaX, the electron roundness tests, the standard candles that evidently aren't standard after all and that BICEP2 fiasco last year, I think the mainstream needs to be concerned about it's own credibility.

The credibility of EU/PC theory ultimately rises and falls upon the credibility of empirical physics, and the computer that you're using demonstrates the credibility of empirical physics.

 

[Michael]

You did not address my question.

Sure I did, but then you'd actually have read Alfven's work to fully answer your own questions, and we both know that you're not about to lift a finger to educate yourself to Alfven's work. Suffice to say it's all about the application of circuit theory to plasmas and objects in space.

 

[Michael]

Well, not really... it was pretty conclusively demonstrated to be expanding long ago.

By whom? Hubble himself supported a static universe, and an inelastic scattering/tired light solution to photon redshift.

There aren't any legitimate scientists I know of that would seriously argue that idea.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Perhaps you might consider expanding your circle of friends?

 

[Michael]

What the hell does that mean? Gravity is there, and it affects everything, without anybody needing to "treat" anything "gravitationally".

I think the point is that plasma is particularly sensitive to EM influences, and gravity isn't the "be-all-end-all" of physics even in Lambda-CDM, otherwise the universe wouldn't be accelerating.

Let's be real. The reason that that mainstream needs supernatural gap filler is directly related to the fact that it attempts to minimize the influence of EM fields on objects and structures in space. Peratt demonstrated that galaxy formation processes involve EM fields, not *just* gravity.

The EU/PC community doesn't treat plasma *only* by stuffing it's net mass into a GR formula. That's the key difference.

 

[Michael]

Non-belief is the default position, or null hypothesis to any claim.

Actually, only ignorance is a "default position". The decision to believe any idea or withhold belief is a mental choice that is distinct from pure ignorance of concept.

Rejection of a belief does not require justification when the belief in question is not supported by evidence.

Define the term 'evidence'. I suspect we're about to debate the difference between "scientific evidence" vs. empirical evidence. They aren't one and the same standard.

How is this relevant? The existence or non-existence of dark matter has no bearing on my theological views.

It does however have a bearing on the concept of "evidence" since there is no empirical cause/effect evidence to support dark matter theory, yet it's still a "popular" scientific theory.

As for your cosmological idea, pretty well any astrophysicist would agree dark matter at this point is an unproven hypothesis.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

Aug. 21, 2006
RELEASE : 06-297

NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.

Apparently NASA disagrees with you, however several errors in their mass estimates of galaxies and stars in that Bullet Cluster study have been revealed since 2006:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=922c39d9eeb9be674f5971e6a22606f8

 

[ScottA]

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate?

How am I to know you (or someone else) did not simply fabricate that story?

The demon-stration is the world. The handwriting is on the wall, and has been, all through history (His story). If you want to "know" you have to ask...with sincerity, with hope, and he will answer. On the other had, if you are not hungry and do not thirst for God, for more than the world has to offer...then you will not reach high enough, and will not hear. It is either in you to do so, or it is not.

 

[ScottA]

I had a similar experience as a teenager, which is when I decided to become a follower of Jesus. However, later in life I came to understand other dynamics of my experience and the incredible power of the human mind. I met others who had these apparently supernatural experiences. Even later in life, I learned how to manipulate others into having "supernatural" experiences. This causes me to re-narrate the earlier experiences, as I know see the play within the play as serving a much different purpose.

Anyway, I don't require empirical evidence for every claim. I may suspend belief, but I am definitely open to a variety of evidence. Yet, for highly specific claims that should be testable, I do require evidence. If you were to claim that you had an "out of body" type experience, I would be willing to accept this. When you claim that you met a god in this experience who was the author of the bible, this raises questions. Which bible? The Orthodox one with the most books considered canon or the Catholic one with apocrypha or the Evangelical one that rejects the apocrypha? When you say this god was the author of this text, what, exactly, are you claiming? Did he dictate? Inspire? What about the copies of the texts that don't agree and the problems with translation into English? You are making quite a claim there that you personally encounter a being that authored this ancient book, and that kind of claim does require evidence. Your claim also breeds questions about the nature of this being. If you told me you saw a unicorn, I would not doubt that you believe you saw a unicorn. But if you told me this unicorn wanted me to you $50, I would need more evidence. Also, if you claimed you saw a square circle, I would likely refute you on this matter. Either you have redefined the terms "square" and "circle," or you are confused about what you saw, or else you will need much more evidence to convince me than you would with the unicorn since what you are suggesting defies our current understanding.

You do not get to require anything. You do not know God.

 

[ScottA]

I have just demonstrated that you don't have access to infinite knowledge then. Therefore, your claim is refuted.

Says you.

 

[ScottA]

Cite your evidence please

Infinite evidence cannot be contained within a finite setting or mind. You must change, or remain below the horizon where what you ask cannot be perceived.

 

[ScottA]

Religions need to adjust to what science brings, especially when it comes to the Creation Story. The Biblical Creation story no longer offers a functional cosmology. It doesn't work in today's world. A new Creation story is being offered by science, and it's up to us Lovers of God to weave a functional cosmology from the window that science offers into God's Creation.

I'm in total agreement with you. But I suspect with a slight difference. When it comes to God's Truth of this Creation, that can be found with in life itself. And science is opening up that window. It's up to us to see, experience and bring to life the sacred and the Divine presence that we see through that window into Creation.

Hang on to it as you will, but the world is moving on. The Biblical Creation story is no longer accurate or even relevant in today's world. A new cosmology is taking it's place. The question left hanging is how are religions such as Christianity going to work with the new cosmology so that they stay relevant into the future?

.

You don't know what you are talking about. You and science are attempting to re-write history and creation...and what you obviously don't even have a clue about...is "It is finished." The park closes at midnight.

 

[Davian]

Bah. I read his first paper in the 80's. It's been decades at this point.

You have forgotten what you read?

Apparently you're projecting again.

Projecting what?

You never did answer my question. Why do you suppose that Alan Guth got to name his invisible friend?

He conceived the label. Seriously, do you not know this?

Here's a few....

https://www.google.com/search?q=hub...oTCIrK0qL18sYCFVUviAodyXAAzA&biw=1920&bih=913

Each of those is a picture of a Christian God?

 

[Davian]

<snip false dichotomy>

Nobody doubts that accuracy is required as well as pattern recognition, but pattern recognition is an integral part of science, not something to be ridiculed. Without it, there is no scientific progress to start with.

Where did I ridicule it?

 

[Davian]

Well, probably because I support Panetheism for starters. It's a package deal.

Show me an universty-level ethics class synopsis that includes cosmology.