• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Moon was Created

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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?

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.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And so are you, apparently, if you think that there is no S/P material sending light waves flying off every which way!
What makes you think I think what you seem to think is being thunk??
I do not rule out the S/P.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you don't know why not. That's a shame - it means your model's rubbish.
Hooray; we win.
Why what is not?
Ohh dear. No model that predicts the correct behaviour here either.
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.


Did you read what I said? Why does modeling the earth as physical get the right results?
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.

If I say "the earth is made of S/P material" what can I conclude from that - NOTHING.
You can conclude you really had it wrong, and God was right, as always, it is eternal.

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.

Are you talking about the waves here? Show us some of the specifics. Are you suggesting that only certain density material bounces a wave?

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.
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!

So you can't test it. So 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.


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.
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.


So you've got no clue why not. Guess what that means? It means you lose.
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!
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
Impossible in your fishbowl has very little meaning. The real action is outside the natural only.

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.
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, you are left with your inability to deny, from any standpoint of evidence, science, or reason! But, you may stubbornly cling to your set of beliefs as you wish.


A lot? How about if people who went up with amputated limbs regrew them? That would be a good start.

How would I know? Who cares?

You know nothing of the influence compared with anything, so I'm going with the stargazer option, thanks.
. That, in it's own weak little way is fine. Careful not to gaze on history, or the bible, you might learn something.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, someone's been reading some Van Daniken...
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!!!??


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.
Well, in the Egypt story, the flood was not the nile! They came there after the flood, to have a new life.



Trouble is... how are you to verify/justify such matters outside said fishbowl? By what justified methodology?
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!
I look at science, and it cannot confirm nor deny it! So, why piddle in fishbowl puddles??

Conjecture is not proof.
Neither is lack of proof proof. Neither is anything you have proof! You are the conjecture man, wiz.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Give one of those to anyone that does not think the moon is a great place to watch earth!
moon_r3.gif


Be amazed.

sphinx-great-pyramid-egypt.jpg


You are being watched. From not all that far away.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
37
✟28,130.00
Faith
Atheist
What makes you think I think what you seem to think is being thunk??
I do not rule out the S/P.

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.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
37
✟28,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Why what is not?

Focus, dad. Please try and keep up. Look back a few posts if you need to.

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.

Utterly irrelevant. The model of a liquid core predicts that no shear waves will penetrate. That's because shear waves can't propagate through liquid due to its runniness. 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?
  1. A liquid
  2. An unknown material which doesn't let shear waves through.
Which is a better explanation?

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.

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.

You can conclude you really had it wrong, and God was right, as always, it is eternal.

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. 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.
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.

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!

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.
How does spiritual stuff react to these forces, dad?

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.

You've given us no way of testing what you say, so you're almost certainly 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.

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!
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.

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!

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.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Watch out the watchers i'll get ya!

No worries. Watchers watch. 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.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
37
✟28,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Impossible in your fishbowl has very little meaning. The real action is outside the natural only.

If you can prove a universal negative I'd be very eager to know how!

False. They cannot be disproved, that is true. But they are proved enough to be accepted by most on earth.

I don't care what people believe. I care about facts, evidence. Things that are verifiable.

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

What?! Your rather pathetic excuse for "overwhelming evidence" amounts to:

  1. Lots of astronauts were Christian
  2. Some of them felt the moon was an amazing place
  3. Someone read from the Bible
  4. Someone started preaching
  5. Everyone agrees with me
The last one isn't even true, and the other four don't amount to evidence of anything except your inability to back up your claims.

How would I know? Who cares?

You need to understand what real evidence would be. Regrowing people's limbs 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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirPo
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Utterly irrelevant. The model of a liquid core predicts that no shear waves will penetrate.
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.

That's because shear waves can't propagate through liquid due to its runniness.
So what? It can penetrate spiritual material?? You have no idea.
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?
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.

  1. A liquid
  2. An unknown material which doesn't let shear waves through.
Which is a better explanation?
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!


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.
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.

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.

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

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

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

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.
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?


How does spiritual stuff react to these forces, dad?
Apparently, it keeps the one sort of wave out.

You've given us no way of testing what you say, so you're almost certainly wrong.
You have tested what is in the center of the earth? Show us. I thought you merely assigned PO conclusions to waves.

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!

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

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

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.
Only where we know it applies!
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

Yeah, that's usually what scientists do. They look at the data then propose models based on known factors and effects.

Pretty goofy!

We all work with the evidences we have.

^_^

Your myth is not special.

Not special. Just more likely.

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

Actually people knew that shear waves couldn't propogate through liquids for quite some time.

Try it some time. You'll find it doesn't work.

It's kinda part and parce of the nature of a shear wave.

Dad's posts are (sorry Soundgarden fans) what I'd imagine a blackhole sun is.

A whole lotta suck and no light.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you can prove a universal negative I'd be very eager to know how!
If you could prove a universal same state future, I'd be very eager to know how.

I don't care what people believe. I care about facts, evidence. Things that are verifiable.
Then stop fantasizing about the unknown center of the earth!
What?! Your rather pathetic excuse for "overwhelming evidence" amounts to:
  1. Lots of astronauts were Christian
Recent history. That counts as witnesses.
  1. Some of them felt the moon was an amazing place
No, spiritual. In the real sense.
Someone read from the Bible
Someone started preaching
Everyone agrees with me
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.


You need to understand what real evidence would be. Regrowing people's limbs would be a good start.
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.

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.
[/QUOTE]
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!
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

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!

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.

Whole lotta caveat, very little evidentiary support.

(Geez, at this point it makes me long for AV's version of "evidentiary support", maybe just a random bible quote or something!)
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, that's usually what scientists do. They look at the data then propose models based on known factors and effects.
So do I. Great fun.

Not special. Just more likely.
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.

Actually people knew that shear waves couldn't propogate through liquids for quite some time.
So?? They didn't know the inner core was a 'liquid'.

Try it some time. You'll find it doesn't work.
Try blasting a wave through the walls of New Jerusalem sometime, and see how far they get.
It's kinda part and parce of the nature of a shear wave.
Right, that is not in question, what it hits where you never been, and no one else has either, is the issue. Focus.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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!
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.
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.
Many have entertained angels unawares, yes. Bible 101.
 
Upvote 0