Moon was Created

[The Bellman]

Because science, natural science does not cover everything!! It is about time you realized that, wiz. That fact ain't going away. Not now. Not ever.

And just as soon as you can demonstrate this 'fact', you'll have something. But you can't. You never can. Which is why all of your nonsense is just that - completely unsupported (by anything except your fantasies) rubbish.

 

[thaumaturgy]

No. Presenting biblical truths in a modest fashion, allowing for difference of opinion, is manners.

Modesty??? Manners??? Did I read that right?

 

[dlamberth]

The only place you can rule out the known spiritual is in your head. Have fun with that.

Which known spiritual would that be that can only be ruled out in ones head, and who's head? Hinduism? Buddhism? American Indian Spirituality? Paganism? Islam? Jainism? Sikhism? Shamanistic traditions? Christianity? Shinto?

.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Which known spiritual would that be that can only be ruled out in ones head, and who's head? Hinduism? Buddhism? American Indian Spirituality? Paganism? Islam? Jainism? Sikhism? Shamanistic traditions? Christianity? Shinto?

.

DADISM.

 

[dad]

And just as soon as you can demonstrate this 'fact', you'll have something. But you can't. You never can. Which is why all of your nonsense is just that - completely unsupported (by anything except your fantasies) rubbish.

The known spiritual is not made up by me, I assure you, and science, by design does not attempt to try to cover it. It admits it is limited to the physical, and natural. Consider it demonstrated.
When I said that, it should have been obvious even to you, at least rung a bell!

" natural science does not cover everything!! " Ding a ling, a ling. Starting to hear it now?

 

[dad]

Modesty??? Manners??? Did I read that right?

Yes, to any deserving audience, those things ought to be standard fare. Don't you think?

 

[dad]

Which known spiritual would that be that can only be ruled out in ones head, and who's head? Hinduism? Buddhism? American Indian Spirituality? Paganism? Islam? Jainism? Sikhism? Shamanistic traditions? Christianity? Shinto?

.

Of those things, and others, that involve some spiritual, I think we have to acknowledge they exist. That they believe in some form of spiritual. That is what cannot be ruled out, not that any of them are particualrily right, as to thinking their spirits are the One True God.
There are plenty of spirits to go round! Good ones, bad ones, small ones, big ones, strong ones, smart ones, silly ones, and etc.
Then there are the crowd that pretends there are none. That is a scream.

 

[The Bellman]

The known spiritual is not made up by me, I assure you, and science, by design does not attempt to try to cover it. It admits it is limited to the physical, and natural.

" natural science does not cover everything!! " Ding a ling, a ling. Starting to hear it now?

And as soon as you can demonstrate that there is anything other than the physical and natural for science to not cover, you'll have something. You can't, which is why your nonsense is nonsense.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The known spiritual is not made up by me, I assure you, and science, by design does not attempt to try to cover it. It admits it is limited to the physical, and natural. Consider it demonstrated.

There is no known spiritual -- only wishful thinking by those who want to believe.

 

[dad]

There is no known spiritual -- only wishful thinking by those who want to believe.

Right, so I suppose all history, and experiences of man, including most on the planet as we speak, all ought to be melted into the opinion of some admitted backslider. You need to take a good hard look at who is doing the wishful thinking.
After all, it isn't like there is any science to deal with spirits.
Face the facts.

 

[dad]

And as soon as you can demonstrate that there is anything other than the physical and natural for science to not cover, you'll have something. ....

There is everything in the OP here, such as the impacts on men, from what they say was a spiritual cause. There is all the history mentioned in the thread, including the moon god that was a watcher. There is the personal experiences of most Christians on the forum here, as well as billions through history. There is no reason at all in heaven or earth to be in denial, and take natural science for anything more than the little pipsqueak present natural package, it itself purports to be.

Don't you know it does only deal in the natural, and physical? -That rules it out as any judge of anything else right there! So, what do you base your claims there is nothing else on, besides ignorance of it?

 

[MoonLancer]

Right, so I suppose all history, and experiences of man, including most on the planet as we speak, all ought to be melted into the opinion of some admitted backslider. You need to take a good hard look at who is doing the wishful thinking.
After all, it isn't like there is any science to deal with spirits.
Face the facts.

the facts are good science does not involve itself with the spiritual because if it did, it would allow anyone to make any time of claim without it being verified, as people commonly do in religion and theology. Until the spiritual can be measured or observed it should not be included as science.

"I propose that a invisible pink unicorn created the universe and it should be in all the scientific text books because we need to teach the controversy."

hah yeah right...

 

[dad]

the facts are good science does not involve itself with the spiritual because if it did, it would allow anyone to make any time of claim without it being verified, as people commonly do in religion and theology.

It also is in the present, not in la la land of the unknown past or future. Not only under the ridiculous severe limitation of the present, testable, and observable state universe, but add to that the inability to so much as detect one silly spirit in the here and now!!!

Until the spiritual can be measured or observed it should not be included as science.

I agree, that will be never! What is called science is circus side show, more like a freak show, that can't see the true natural creatures.

"I propose that a invisible pink unicorn created the universe and it should be in all the scientific text books because we need to teach the controversy."

So? Dime a dozen, unbiblical, and unscientific utterances have no value.
Dig?

 

[FishFace]

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.

You mean they looked at the data and then tried to work out what happened?
Oh my gosh!

So what? It can penetrate spiritual material?? You have no idea.

Nor do you - which is the point!

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.

Of course not, and that is not what we're doing.

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!

Nope, I can also say how it almost certainly works underneath. Not definitely - but damn well good enough for any sane person.
That's unless anyone's got a better explanation.

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.

Waitwaitwait, you can build an equivalent model? You have a spiritual material that you know doesn't pass shear waves? I gotta see this!

I did, and I included the known spiritual, and bible. You exclude them.

Because noone can make them into a good explanation. You know, the same way as I exclude demons from why I caught a cold a couple of weeks ago.

We all have the same PO data. No need to pretend man is ignorant of the interior of the earth. He is.

You're not reading. I said pretend we didn't have the data. The data is where the waves come out.

Show us where you worked that out before you knew there was a 'liquid' outer core?

You're still not reading. Here's what happens. Again:

1. Look at the data - where seismic waves come out at the surface.
2. Make a model that you think will fit with the data.
3. Pretend you had no data, and see whether, just knowing the model, you could predict what the data will be.
4. The better this third step goes, the better your model, in general.

You are the one making stuff up to fit. The thing is, it's fine to make up a model, as long as it can predict what you see. Your model can't predict anything, so it's rubbish.

Apparently, it keeps the one sort of wave out.

No, that's not an answer to the question I asked. How does spiritual material react to the forces involved? I didn't ask about waves, I asked about forces.

You have tested what is in the center of the earth? Show us. I thought you merely assigned PO conclusions to waves.

The point is that we can test everything up here at the surface and, if that then fits exactly with the data, we've got a winner. You have no test, so you can't fit with anything.

I agree. But not the eternal nature of the foundations of the earth. That is certain.

You have neither bible, nor science for the stuff you made up.

No, we don't. But only one of those makes it ridiculous. If I could test the little goblin theory and found that it worked better than the current theory, well, little goblins it would be. If we could test spiritual stuff and it turned out better then so be it.
But we can't. Which makes them both ridiculous, made up fantasy.

Only where we know it applies!

Wrong and wrong. How do you know it applies to the air in front of you, hmm? You don't know you just have to assume that it does. If you test air in the lab, how do you know it will behave the same outside? You haven't got the foggiest. But it still make sense to assume air outside is physical and breathable - because it fits the data.
A physical earth fits the data.

 

[FishFace]

If you could prove a universal same state future, I'd be very eager to know how.

So you can't prove a universal negative. Didn't think so.

Then stop fantasizing about the unknown center of the earth!

Here's some verification: If the centre of the earth were liquid it would not pass shear waves. The centre of the earth doesn't. VERIFICATION!
Here's your equivalent - if the centre of the earth were spiritual then... um... er... well, I have no idea! NOT VERIFICATION.

Recent history. That counts as witnesses.

Wrong...

No, spiritual. In the real sense.

Prove it...

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.

So someone read from the Bible that God created. Then they looked at an amazing part of what they thought God created. Doesn't take a genius to work out that would feel pretty good.

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 judst 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.

It keeps me from believing wild fantasies! You've got an awful lot of maybe-ing and why-notting there. "Why not" come back when you have evidence instead of just "why not?"

Well, the moon god was said to have built the sphinx, and pyramid. As for the bible, te lady standing on the moon, what, she was not a spirit??? Then where was her spacesuit?? get serious, think, man!

No evidence here, either.

 

[dad]

You mean they looked at the data and then tried to work out what happened?
Oh my gosh!

Yes, as I do. They did not predict it.

Nor do you - which is the point!

Yes, unlike you, I do have some idea about the spiritual. I am not limited by your fishbowl. I deduce that the eternal earth must be also spiritual, or at least will soon be so. So, I can model the evidence on that, as you model it on your myth.

Of course not, and that is not what we're doing.

Yes it is! In the cosmos, you try to project it to the edges of time. And beyond. In the unknown interior, you try to project the PO to there.

Nope, I can also say how it almost certainly works underneath. Not definitely - but damn well good enough for any sane person.
That's unless anyone's got a better explanation.

Than what??? Pretending there was no creation of an eternal earth foundations? Pretending the waves bouncing must be from PO material? You have no clue, so to make out like you are 'almost certain' is laughable.

Waitwaitwait, you can build an equivalent model? You have a spiritual material that you know doesn't pass shear waves? I gotta see this!

Can you name one that does??? I gotta see that.

Because noone can make them into a good explanation. You know, the same way as I exclude demons from why I caught a cold a couple of weeks ago.

They already are a good explanation, no making needed. I can't tell whether your cold was demonically induced, or had other causes. I normally look to other causes, because demons need a reason to have permission to afflict man.

You're not reading. I said pretend we didn't have the data. The data is where the waves come out.

That data swings both ways.

You're still not reading. Here's what happens. Again:

1. Look at the data - where seismic waves come out at the surface.
2. Make a model that you think will fit with the data.
3. Pretend you had no data, and see whether, just knowing the model, you could predict what the data will be.
4. The better this third step goes, the better your model, in general.

To do that, we need to know all about spiritual material. I don't make stuff up, and pretend that the waves have to be either PO, or S/P. I simply note that you have no clue. Show us a funny wave bounce, in a certain area of the interior, and explain why it has to be PO.

You are the one making stuff up to fit. The thing is, it's fine to make up a model, as long as it can predict what you see. Your model can't predict anything, so it's rubbish.

What did you predict?? (Before the fact?)

No, that's not an answer to the question I asked. How does spiritual material react to the forces involved? I didn't ask about waves, I asked about forces.

From the evidence, some waves bounce funny, and even cannot pass through.

The point is that we can test everything up here at the surface and, if that then fits exactly with the data, we've got a winner. You have no test, so you can't fit with anything.

No, only if you prove the core area is the same as your surface experience. As it is, you are flying blind, in the extreme.

No, we don't. But only one of those makes it ridiculous. If I could test the little goblin theory and found that it worked better than the current theory, well, little goblins it would be. If we could test spiritual stuff and it turned out better then so be it.
But we can't. Which makes them both ridiculous, made up fantasy.

Point? How does making up stuff about goblins add to something you know squat about??

Wrong and wrong. How do you know it applies to the air in front of you, hmm?

I test and observe.

You don't know you just have to assume that it does. If you test air in the lab, how do you know it will behave the same outside?

Because we have pretty good knowledge of the world, and forces around us. I do not question what we know, only what your myth makes up about what we do not know.

 

[dad]

So you can't prove a universal negative. Didn't think so.

Why would I delve into your mind game concepts? The universe is what it is, and will be what it will be, and was what it was. You can't prove any of it, and simply operate in the only fishbowl you find yourself in.

Here's some verification: If the centre of the earth were liquid it would not pass shear waves. The centre of the earth doesn't. VERIFICATION!

No, evidence. Not conclusive, but important.

Here's your equivalent - if the centre of the earth were spiritual then... um... er... well, I have no idea! NOT VERIFICATION.

Well, then, the PO waves we send there would respond to it, and we could not really know the whys. The unknown should be admitted. People can see you are flying blind anyhow, not like you are fooling anyone here.

So someone read from the Bible that God created. Then they looked at an amazing part of what they thought God created. Doesn't take a genius to work out that would feel pretty good.

Seeing it firsthand, may have triggered something far more than the touchy feely mickey mouse emotion you try to pawn off on us here.

It keeps me from believing wild fantasies! You've got an awful lot of maybe-ing and why-notting there. "Why not" come back when you have evidence instead of just "why not?"

Healing, is known to be beyond man's ability. To assume no limbs or eyes regrew is not based on fact, but ignorant guesswork.

No evidence here, either.

The bible is evidence, like it or not. Accept it or not. History also attributes a builder to the pyramids. Really. Some have problems with that reality, but they really did. That was the moon guy. I didn't make that up. That is the reality of what history records.
Remember the link I gave that said this?


"The ancient Egyptians left records describing the First Time as actual historic period."



Don't blame me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes, to any deserving audience, those things ought to be standard fare. Don't you think?

You wouldn't know.

 

[FishFace]

Yes, unlike you, I do have some idea about the spiritual. I am not limited by your fishbowl. I deduce that the eternal earth must be also spiritual, or at least will soon be so. So, I can model the evidence on that, as you model it on your myth.

Yes it is! In the cosmos, you try to project it to the edges of time. And beyond. In the unknown interior, you try to project the PO to there.

Of course we do. We try to put a physical model wherever we think it might work. But that's not "to infinity and beyond."

Than what??? Pretending there was no creation of an eternal earth foundations?

Prove that there was such a thing - otherwise, you're the one pretending!

Pretending the waves bouncing must be from PO material?
...
I don't make stuff up, and pretend that the waves have to be either PO, or S/P.

Never said that it must be from PO material. No more than the air we breathe must be PO air.

You have no clue, so to make out like you are 'almost certain' is laughable.
...
I simply note that you have no clue.
...
No, only if you prove the core area is the same as your surface experience. As it is, you are flying blind, in the extreme.

Wrong. I don't "have no clue." People don't "have no clue" about what is inside the earth just like they don't "have no clue" about what is inside a locked room. It's just common sense unless you have an actual reason to believe that there's something else going on.
But you aren't giving us any reason, you're just trying to make us doubt common sense! It's common sense to assume that the stuff inside a room is physical even if you can't see it - unless there's some explicit reason not to. Same thing applies to the stuff inside the earth - just because you can't see it doesn't mean there's anything non-physical going on.

Can you name one that does??? I gotta see that.

You see - your entire argument is based on doubt, not reason.

They already are a good explanation, no making needed. I can't tell whether your cold was demonically induced, or had other causes.

EXACTLY! THERE'S ALREADY A GOOD EXPLANATION! THANK YOU!

To do that, we need to know all about spiritual material.

And do we? No. No we don't. Not nearly enough. Because your argument is from doubt not reason.

What did you predict?? (Before the fact?)

You're still not reading, are you.

From the evidence, some waves bounce funny, and even cannot pass through.

Indeed. Now explain why. What's the best explanation here?

Point? How does making up stuff about goblins add to something you know squat about??

It doesn't! That's the point! Goblins is just as good an explanation as the nonsense you're touting. Go on - prove that your explanation is better than goblins.

I test and observe.

You test every bit of air in front of you to see whether it's spiritual? A) I don't believe you and B) how?

Because we have pretty good knowledge of the world, and forces around us. I do not question what we know, only what your myth makes up about what we do not know.

Wrong. You don't question what we know, so long as you like it. You've got no good reason to think that the interior of the earth works differently it all - because your argument is based on doubt not reason.

 

[FishFace]

Why would I delve into your mind game concepts?

Why do you carry on the subject if you can't prove a universal negative?
I doubt you even know what one is.

Well, then, the PO waves we send there would respond to it, and we could not really know the whys. The unknown should be admitted. People can see you are flying blind anyhow, not like you are fooling anyone here.

Tell me, are we "flying blind" because we don't know whether the air you're breathing right now is spiritual or not?
Are we "flying blind" because we don't know whether the chairs are still there after we close the door? Or is it just plain old common sense?
Because you appear to be saying that, since we can't see the centre of the earth we all of a sudden know nothing! Nothing! Because your argument is doubt not reason.

Seeing it firsthand, may have triggered something far more than the touchy feely mickey mouse emotion you try to pawn off on us here.

Healing, is known to be beyond man's ability. To assume no limbs or eyes regrew is not based on fact, but ignorant guesswork.

Er, excuse me, assuming no limbs regrew is just as sensible as assuming that leprechauns don't come into my room and have a party while I'm asleep.
Show me the evidence (of either) and then we can talk. But you have no evidence - no reason because your argument is not based on reason but on doubt.

The bible is evidence, like it or not.

No it isn't. Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong, not just some wishy washy stuff about people who know it's true.