Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do Invisible Pink Unicorns love chimichangas? What do angels taste like? Why are these meaningful questions that deserve to be within 100 miles of scientifc domains?
What makes you think I think what you seem to think is being thunk??And so are you, apparently, if you think that there is no S/P material sending light waves flying off every which way!
Why what is not?So you don't know why not. That's a shame - it means your model's rubbish.
Hooray; we win.
Show me where the waves were predicted to do squat, when they first went down?? You don't think it was a surprise to find out that the outer core area behaves like a liquid? Etc? Be honest.Ohh dear. No model that predicts the correct behaviour here either.
Such as??? Since you know so little about it, what makes you think anything is correct? Modelling comes before we saw which way the waves wiggled, not some PO effort to fit the evidence after the fact.Did you read what I said? Why does modeling the earth as physical get the right results?
You can conclude you really had it wrong, and God was right, as always, it is eternal.If I say "the earth is made of S/P material" what can I conclude from that - NOTHING.
On the other hand, if you model the earth as physical material with a certain specific density function, we get exactly the results we see - that's because we know how physical stuff works.
True, you have no clue. Even with the stuff you think you know a bit about, the physical, you admit to flying blind as a bat!You have no clue how spiritual stuff works, so you can't tell anything about what a spiritual thing will do under given circumstances. That means you can't construct a model, and that means you're wrong.
Test what? Science that is not limited to the PO? Well, first you need to come up with some, then I'll test it! Meanwhile, you are no authority on things spiritual.So you can't test it. So you're wrong.
So, looking at the waves going through the earth, they simply bend afew times. What is it you can tell us about that? Show us the material it has to be.Uh, no. We know exactly what waves do given the density function of a material. That's why thaumaturgy was telling you to look up Snell's law, and I was telling you to look at moduli of elasticity. We know what happens. You have no clue what happens in spiritual stuff.
No, one does not lose for not knowing the precise properties of angels. At least I have some clues. You have no clue. Some winner!So you've got no clue why not. Guess what that means? It means you lose.
Impossible in your fishbowl has very little meaning. The real action is outside the natural only.Why are you still asking my to prove there are no anything? It's impossible. I can no more prove that there are no spirits than you can prove there is no invisible elephant in your cupboard.
You know why that is? Because proving "there is no such thing as a <something>" is impossible.
False. They cannot be disproved, that is true. But they are proved enough to be accepted by most on earth.But if you expect me to disprove such a thing, then I have the right to expect you to do the same. So - if you want me to disprove spirits, then you can go ahead and disprove the inivisible elephant in your cupboard.
A lot? How about if people who went up with amputated limbs regrew them? That would be a good start.
. That, in it's own weak little way is fine. Careful not to gaze on history, or the bible, you might learn something.You know nothing of the influence compared with anything, so I'm going with the stargazer option, thanks.
No doubt. Not I, however. The spiritual reality among men is a bible fact of the time near Babel. So are the watchers!! By the way, if you were a "Watcher" what better place to watch men, then from the moon!!!??Well, someone's been reading some Van Daniken...
Well, in the Egypt story, the flood was not the nile! They came there after the flood, to have a new life.A common trope seen in ancient middle eastern river people's creation stories... after all, flooding was a common occurance that was both necessary for replenishing the land's fertility as well as being terrifying and often unpredicatably destructive.
Easy. I test the bejinkers out of it. It works over and over. I observe the hec out of it, - in most men's experiences. I read history, and it permeates all of it from the getgo!Trouble is... how are you to verify/justify such matters outside said fishbowl? By what justified methodology?
Neither is lack of proof proof. Neither is anything you have proof! You are the conjecture man, wiz.Conjecture is not proof.
Give one of those to anyone that does not think the moon is a great place to watch earth!
What makes you think I think what you seem to think is being thunk??
I do not rule out the S/P.
Why what is not?
Show me where the waves were predicted to do squat, when they first went down?? You don't think it was a surprise to find out that the outer core area behaves like a liquid? Etc? Be honest.
Such as??? Since you know so little about it, what makes you think anything is correct? Modelling comes before we saw which way the waves wiggled, not some PO effort to fit the evidence after the fact.
You can conclude you really had it wrong, and God was right, as always, it is eternal.
True, you have no clue. Even with the stuff you think you know a bit about, the physical, you admit to flying blind as a bat!
Test what? Science that is not limited to the PO? Well, first you need to come up with some, then I'll test it! Meanwhile, you are no authority on things spiritual.
So, looking at the waves going through the earth, they simply bend afew times. What is it you can tell us about that? Show us the material it has to be.
No, one does not lose for not knowing the precise properties of angels. At least I have some clues. You have no clue. Some winner!
Watch out the watchers i'll get ya!
So you want to stick to the PO you know, fine. The only place you can rule out the known spiritual is in your head. Have fun with that.And I don't rule out S/P in the earth - but I'm not going to accept it unless you give me some evidence - evidence that can't be explained by good old fashioned physical stuff.
Why? Because that's exactly what you do. It's just that you only do it when it suits.
Impossible in your fishbowl has very little meaning. The real action is outside the natural only.
False. They cannot be disproved, that is true. But they are proved enough to be accepted by most on earth.
I am not sure how we got so far afield here. You can believe what you want. I simply pointed out the spirit connection with the moon, from Egypt, on through history, including men of science, that went there first hand. In the face of the overwhelming evidences
How would I know? Who cares?
That, in it's own weak little way is fine. Careful not to gaze on history, or the bible, you might learn something.
That model was cooked up. They tried to figure what would fit the bill. I am not even sure that a liquid outer core was claimed, before they saw the wiggle of the waves.Utterly irrelevant. The model of a liquid core predicts that no shear waves will penetrate.
So what? It can penetrate spiritual material?? You have no idea.That's because shear waves can't propagate through liquid due to its runniness.
Yes, we do not know about anything other than the PO universe state we are limited to. That does not mean you can project it to infinity and beyond.Your model is not "a certain kind of S/P material" where we know how that kind of stuff behaves. it is "S/P material which doesn't let shear waves through."
See the difference?
Who cares, unless you knew what you were talking about to begin with? It is what it is, and you don't know what it is. All you can say is that we notice how it works on the surface!Which is a better explanation?
- A liquid
- An unknown material which doesn't let shear waves through.
After we find that the waves don't go through it! I can do that as well. We all work with the evidences we have. Your myth is not special.Wrong wrong and wrong. Come back when you understand how science works. You can't build a model if you don't have any data.
It just so happens that this rather parsimonious model (a liquid core) explains the data well.
About the data dad. This is how science is done. You look at the data, then you make a model that fits with the data.
We all have the same PO data. No need to pretend man is ignorant of the interior of the earth. He is.Then and this is crucial - you pretend you didn't have the data, and you see whether, with just your model you'd be able to work out what the data would be.
Show us where you worked that out before you knew there was a 'liquid' outer core?Guess what - if you say that "the earth is made out of S/P material" then you can't work out that there would be a shadow zone.
That's why the liquid core theory is better - that's why you're wrong.
If you mean the bat stuff, you referred to a bat's sonar, as some indication we also know what is in the earth. No?I have never admitted any such thing and you know it. (That makes you a liar, by the way.) We know exactly how physical stuff reacts to stress, strain, shearing and pressure. For example, you can shear a liquid without problem. That's why shear waves don't pass through it.
Apparently, it keeps the one sort of wave out.How does spiritual stuff react to these forces, dad?
You have tested what is in the center of the earth? Show us. I thought you merely assigned PO conclusions to waves.You've given us no way of testing what you say, so you're almost certainly wrong.
Has to be? It doesn't have to be anything! It could be lots of little goblins all holding hands! But it isn't because that's a ridiculous, made up fantasy!
You have neither bible, nor science for the stuff you made up.Now, tell me how you can show me that it is ridiculous, and you'll have told me how I can show you that your belief is ridiculous.
Only where we know it applies!Wrong. If you don't know the properties of what you claim the earth is made of, then you're stuck with good old physical science.
That model was cooked up. They tried to figure what would fit the bill. I am not even sure that a liquid outer core was claimed, before they saw the wiggle of the waves.
We all work with the evidences we have.
Your myth is not special.
Show us where you worked that out before you knew there was a 'liquid' outer core?
If you could prove a universal same state future, I'd be very eager to know how.If you can prove a universal negative I'd be very eager to know how!
Then stop fantasizing about the unknown center of the earth!I don't care what people believe. I care about facts, evidence. Things that are verifiable.
Recent history. That counts as witnesses.What?! Your rather pathetic excuse for "overwhelming evidence" amounts to:
- Lots of astronauts were Christian
Some of them felt the moon was an amazing place
They expressed the awe that they felt, with the statement that In the beginning God created.. They were impacted, and whether they started to climb the high mountain several times, dedicated their life to God, or other things, it goes toward showing effect. That means there was cause.Someone read from the Bible
Someone started preaching
Everyone agrees with me
We can do that with our new bodies. These ones are temporary. But, many miracles of all sorts are recorded. How would I know if all the lame in the bible grew limbs or not? Should we assume that none did, as part of getting healed??? Get serious. Not just limbs, whole bodies were raised from really being dead dead dead. How about all the lepers? Did any have limbs amputated or lost? With the scope of the utter miracle of healing, why not!!! Maybe some of the blind had only one eye??!!!! Etc. Get positive, man, all that unfounded negative doubting can't be good for you.You need to understand what real evidence would be. Regrowing people's limbs would be a good start.
[/QUOTE]Not really. History doesn't have any evidence of there being spirits in the moon, nor does the Bible. Good old fashioned, physical awe is good enough for me.
Aww.
I assume they likely are the sons of god that used to live right in the heaven above places like Babel. They used to marry women. Maybe when the spiritual was separated, they were allowed to help keep an eye on man, from the new spot in the moon?? If they watch, and saw something, maybe they would relay the concern to a 'holy one'. Or angel of God, who goes down and does the nitty gritty hands on work. For example, say some were plotting to start a nuclear war, firing off a nuke, or whatnot, and blame it on someone else. If it was not time for it to end for man yet, God would not allow it, if it was to result in a world war. So, the angels come, and conduct the operation to stop it. Quite covert, really. In fact, they can assume a body of an animal, or bird, or just about whatever they like, according to the bible, and history. So, one supposes, that in heaven, it is teamwork. Lot's of jobs for watchers, angels, other spirits, and even departed men living in heaven. Busy place. At least that is how I see it.
So do I. Great fun.Yeah, that's usually what scientists do. They look at the data then propose models based on known factors and effects.
You say your myth is more likely, because all you decided to accept was natural only criteria. Only IN your box is it more likely. Only IF there is nothing but your fishbowl, is it likely! You are only working with part of a deck in denying all but the present nature.Not special. Just more likely.
So?? They didn't know the inner core was a 'liquid'.Actually people knew that shear waves couldn't propogate through liquids for quite some time.
Try blasting a wave through the walls of New Jerusalem sometime, and see how far they get.Try it some time. You'll find it doesn't work.
Right, that is not in question, what it hits where you never been, and no one else has either, is the issue. Focus.It's kinda part and parce of the nature of a shear wave.
No. Presenting biblical truths in a modest fashion, allowing for difference of opinion, is manners. Maybe someone has a strong case the Watchers are something else, for example. I stay open for new evidences, and usually don't lock into a solid position, that is unchangeable, except on key issues of faith. I don't much care about watchers, and Egyptian spooks.In case you're keeping count kiddies, that's 11 caveats in the space of 1 paragraph (of sorts).
19 "caveat words" out of a total of 201 words. That's a 9.4% rate for caveats and wild guesses!
Many have entertained angels unawares, yes. Bible 101.That's not as bad as I would have assumed but when you couple it with only TWO extremely vague references to outside sources ("In fact, they can assume a body of an animal, or bird, or just about whatever they like, according to the bible, and history") you kind of get the idea of how "organized" and "well crafted" dad's posts are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?