spiritual science

[Freodin]

Well, answer me this, how many others have you heard so far?

Depending on how neat you distinguish between the several parts of these hypothesises: between 4 and about 20

So what? Are you going to answer my question now?

 

[dad]

dad - do you claim that the canopy exists still?
[Are you kidding? Do you think we would not see one if it was there?]

From evidence we have recieved so far such a canopy does not exist. ( Satillite footage etc).

from jellybean who is on a wild train of thought...

.

 

[dad]

Try to find any evidence of the existance that in the past such a canopy existed? One would be to look at past records of such phenomena, (anything left over from pre-food?) , look at geological records, look for evidence in the polar ice caps...
[Yes, feel free. The ice caps however, likely are post flood. ]

Thats the best way i can see to test it, from what i interpret. (I read all the posts but my short term memory is pants!)

Although my question is that - in Eden dad mentions that spiriual science and physical science was combined, but with the fall both were seperated. However people have claimed that physical science has been overcome by (as dad calls it) "spiritual science", most call these miracles. Can we test this today?
[The whole universe was merged before, now, it is (what we are in) physical only. Miracles do still happen, because the spiritual can locally affect things, but isn't at the moment universal. ]
(no really, has anyone ever actaully tries to test faith healing conferences?!!)
[Aimee did sometimes have doctors in attendance who did just that. But this kind of thing the devil really fights, and there is always cases he will bring up that are weird, or phoney as well, so it isn't cut and dry. But there is a lot to it.]

.

 

[dad]

Depending on how neat you distinguish between the several parts of these hypothesises: between 4 and about 20

So what? Are you going to answer my question now?

The way I would distinguish is with the department of weights and measures, the validator, the bible. If it doesn't check out with that, forget it. Now, if some seem to, well, we need to go a little deeper.

 

[Freodin]

The way I would distinguish is with the department of weights and measures, the validator, the bible. If it doesn't check out with that, forget it. Now, if some seem to, well, we need to go a little deeper.

I´m not sure I understood that.

But perhaps you can explain, using the example I gave in my post to Jellybean.

Hypothesis 1: There was a "canopy" of water orbiting the earth beyond the atmosphere with enough volume to cover the earth up to the highest mountains.

Hypothesis 2: Enough water to cover the earth up to the hightest mountains was created ex nihilo in the atmosphere and rained down.

So, how would you - with weights and measures and the bible - find out which hypothesis is better?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

No one said christians didn't want their , or other children to be educated!

And neither did I say it. What I implied is that a small portion of chrisitans - creationists like yourself - don't want their children educated regarding science. That's an obvious truth.

What a cheap smear. Says a lot about you.

I'll ignore this little ad hominem, too, particularly since it was based on something you made up.

No one wants to throw science away I heard of yet either.

No, people like you are only too keen to keep science as long as it looks after their health, provides them with electricity and cars, and so forth. You (and others like you) just want to throw away it away when it suits you - that is, when it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

But the so called science, that claims to tell us the creator did not make the world, because they believe that only the physical existed in God's yesterday or tommorow, we need to beware of.

Back to this strawman? Science does not tell us the creator did not make the world; it does not tell us (or believe) that only the physical existed. Why do you persist in these lies?

No one has a right to force their belief on others.

Coming from a creationist, who is only too eager to force his religious beliefs on everyone else, that's rich.

God doesn't force us at all, He is like a dove, that is easily shooed away if we don't want Him.

No, he just blackmails us.

Normally. When a body, or a nation gets so far out of line it endangers His plan for man, why, then, He'll lower the boom. You really don't want to be found fighting against the Almighty!

Nice little rant which has no basis in reality.

So, remember, what I call so called science is not real science, that operates in it's proper little sphere, or box.

What you call so called science is science. What you call 'real science' is not science at all, but rather religion (your religion, of course) and science mixed to the detriment of both.

But it is only when it leaves there, and proclaims that is all there ever was or will be, by virtue of nothing but belief! That is when it becomes science falsely so called!

Science does not proclaim that is all there ever was or will be. Why do you persist in these lies? Or is it that you are so painfully ignorant of science you don't even know what it claims?

 

[meebs]

err....dad i cant read your replies to me properly

Could you put them in a way i can ditinguish my posts from your replies?

sorry

 

[meebs]

Well, most things are out of your reach at the time being. But many have tried salvation, and claimed a major change in their lives. Many have prayed, and gotten answers. 'Seek, and ye shall find'. -(God). Many have returned from the dead to tell about what they saw, supervised by doctors. Many have dreamed of, or even had visions of relatives who have died, but were alive and well in the spirit world. One of the first things that people see after dying, is a loved one, God sends, to come and greet them! Then there is the eyewitness testimony of Jesus who rose from the dead, by His friends. There are so many evidences. Not to forget the non christian world as well, which also is full of them. Houdini even had one! He heard his mother guide him to the hole in the ice, when he got into trouble in a trick once. He sought out spiritualists after that, knowing there was something to it, but ended up exposing many, who were cheap tricksters out for a buck as a result. There is much to be considered, and science can't help us on this really, at all. Except to provide doubt.

You know so many of atheists are atheists for a lack of proof therefore a lack of beleif, If we could test these miracles with proper scientific methods to determine if these miracles do work (by an independant panel, not just medical doctors but chemists, physicists, etc), it would be a brilliant way for a god to prove itsself, therefore saving millions of souls in which this god apparently doesnt want to send to hell!

What tells you that the ice caps are post flood?

 

[dad]

Depending on how neat you distinguish between the several parts of these hypothesises: between 4 and about 20

So what? Are you going to answer my question now?

OK, I think this was it

Well, what if I now counter this "spiritual hypothesis" with a hypothesis of "There was no water canopy - the water for the flood was created ex nihilo in the atmosphere to rain down."

What basis do you have to back this up? I have biblical basis, because it says the windows of heaven were opened, and the waters came down. Waters already created, we see in genesis earlier!

 

[dad]

[/i]

You know so many of atheists are atheists for a lack of proof therefore a lack of beleif, If we could test these miracles with proper scientific methods to determine if these miracles do work (by an independant panel, not just medical doctors but chemists, physicists, etc), it would be a brilliant way for a god to prove itsself, therefore saving millions of souls in which this god apparently doesnt want to send to hell!

What tells you that the ice caps are post flood?

Well, many people have different tests they cook up for God to do. Maybe yours has merit, it would be better at least than what some of them are wasting time on right now. But Jesus told us, if they believe not His word, 'neither would they believe if one were to return to them from the dead'! And He proved right, as Lazarus did just that, which only served as more imputus for the religious phonies to have Him killed! Then He arose as well, from a government guarded tomb, with armed guards! Then He hung around popping up here and there to many for many weeks, if I remember correctly, to boot. So, neither the millions of miracles since, nor those things will convince a man in themselves. His word can, however.
Now, the ice caps. I figure there were cold blooded creatures near there, so it was not under ice before the flood. I could be wrong, but there are some indications.

 

[dad]

And neither did I say it. What I implied is that a small portion of chrisitans - creationists like yourself - don't want their children educated regarding science. That's an obvious truth.

No, it is a pipe dream of yours. Science will still be taught, but not so called science, I think I clearly outlined the difference already. Real science deals with our real physical present world. So called science deals with a spiritual and physical world that was, and uses only the physical for all it's calculations. The results, of course, are utterly preposterous.

No, people like you are only too keen to keep science as long as it looks after their health, provides them with electricity and cars, and so forth. You (and others like you) just want to throw away it away when it suits you - that is, when it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

I already answered this last post. You must not any longer confuse science, with science falsely so called. Science belongs to all mankind, so called science only to those with an evo bend.

Science does not tell us the creator did not make the world; it does not tell us (or believe) that only the physical existed. Why do you persist in these lies?

So called science teaches that the bible is not true, in proclaiming big bang, and granny as defacto creators. Real science, of course avoids the spiritual with a ten foot pole, since it knows it is so completely inept at even beginning to understand, or even detect it!

Coming from a creationist, who is only too eager to force his religious beliefs on everyone else, that's rich.

I don't want to force those who chose otherwise. Certainly I would hope to protect those who haven't made their choice yet, from those who would try to rob them of possibly having a chance to believe in the true God, rather than so called science weird tales!

Nice little rant which has no basis in reality.

Not only reality, but history! Fighting the Almighty does not pay.

What you call so called science is science

I call so called science that belief system which seeks to superimpose a present physical only where it does not belong, (The merged past) despite their assumptions and beliefs, and squacks it does. It is false, and only a belief, and totally without any proof, now, or ever, world without end, amen!

Science does not proclaim that is all there ever was or will be. Why do you persist in these lies? Or is it that you are so painfully ignorant of science you don't even know what it claims?

I'm beginning to wonder a little about you. Throwing stones, and twisted accusations. Here is an example from today's news of so called science doing just that! I'm told the sun will burn out eventually. Oh joy. If so called science doesn't claim it's all that will ever exist, why is it projecting it's dark madness billions of years into my future, as if it will always only be physical only!!?

"Life on Earth has billions of years left before the Sun goes dim"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4685231.stm

!!

 

[platzapS]

What's so wrong about the sun going out eventually? This is based on real, "physical only" science. We can calculate the rate at which the sun is using up hydrogen, and project that into the future, assuming nothing will happen to change that*. There is no need to add elements of the supernatural into the equations. If you add in supernatural aspects, then anyone can make up any kind of nonsense, and science becomes useless.

*we all get swallowed up by a black hole, Jesus comes and starts a new universe, a giant monster eats the sun...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Here is an example from today's news of so called science doing just that! I'm told the sun will burn out eventually. Oh joy. If so called science doesn't claim it's all that will ever exist, why is it projecting it's dark madness billions of years into my future, as if it will always only be physical only!!?

"Life on Earth has billions of years left before the Sun goes dim"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4685231.stm

I really don't understand your objection. The Sun is an engine that runs on hydrogen. Like any engine, eventually it will run out of gas.

Got an "outside the box" alternative?

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Got an "outside the box" alternative?

Hell is located inside the core of the sun, and provides us with warmth and light. This act of kindness annoys and angers the devil, so he sends evil UV rays to burn our skin.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

No, it is a pipe dream of yours. Science will still be taught, but not so called science, I think I clearly outlined the difference already.

You've outlined the difference between science (what you call 'so called science') and your useless, vague spirscience (what you call science). Fortunately, education authorities exist to ensure that children will be taught science, not some wierdo perversion of it.

Real science deals with our real physical present world. So called science deals with a spiritual and physical world that was, and uses only the physical for all it's calculations. The results, of course, are utterly preposterous.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about science.

I already answered this last post. You must not any longer confuse science, with science falsely so called. Science belongs to all mankind, so called science only to those with an evo bend.

You've demonstrated you don't understand the first thing about science; you are not qualified to comment on what science is.

So called science teaches that the bible is not true, in proclaiming big bang, and granny as defacto creators.

Science does not teach that the bible is not true. It does not teach anything about my granny, and as far as I know it does not teach anything about your granny either.

Real science, of course avoids the spiritual with a ten foot pole, since it knows it is so completely inept at even beginning to understand, or even detect it!

Close. Science avoids the spiritual because it is not equipped to deal with it; the spiritual falls outside its methodologies. Just like math doesn't deal with the causes of the Russian revolution.

I don't want to force those who chose otherwise. Certainly I would hope to protect those who haven't made their choice yet, from those who would try to rob them of possibly having a chance to believe in the true God, rather than so called science weird tales!

Of course you do. You want to force everyone to accede to your weird 'spiriscience' that you can't even define.

Not only reality, but history! Fighting the Almighty does not pay.

That's nice. Fighting Thor doesn't pay, either.

I call so called science that belief system which seeks to superimpose a present physical only where it does not belong, (The merged past) despite their assumptions and beliefs, and squacks it does. It is false, and only a belief, and totally without any proof, now, or ever, world without end, amen!

Yes, I know what you call 'so called science'. However, your repeated posts indicate that you don't understand the first thing about science; you are not even qualified to have an opinion.

I'm beginning to wonder a little about you. Throwing stones, and twisted accusations.

You cannot cite a single 'twisted accusation' from me.

Here is an example from today's news of so called science doing just that! I'm told the sun will burn out eventually. Oh joy. If so called science doesn't claim it's all that will ever exist, why is it projecting it's dark madness billions of years into my future, as if it will always only be physical only!!?

Because - for the thousandth time - science deals with the physical, not the spiritual. Why can't you understand that?

 

[dad]

What's so wrong about the sun going out eventually? This is based on real, "physical only" science. We can calculate the rate at which the sun is using up hydrogen, and project that into the future, assuming nothing will happen to change that*. There is no need to add elements of the supernatural into the equations. If you add in supernatural aspects, then anyone can make up any kind of nonsense, and science becomes useless.

*we all get swallowed up by a black hole, Jesus comes and starts a new universe, a giant monster eats the sun...

I like this thread, I'm getting some good stuff here. That's the problem, it is based on today's physical only processes, and there will be no more physical only soon! It only applies to the here and now, not the there and then! So called science is less than useless! The real science of men, where they stick to what they actually know, is fine. You don't know that the spiritual universe of God will not be merged together again with the physical universe of man, because it will. The sun will be here forever, and only dark evo so called science dreams say otherwise, not science. All science says, is we now are in the physical only, and it now works this way! Nothing else.

 

[dad]

You've outlined the difference between science (what you call 'so called science') and your useless, vague spirscience (what you call science). Fortunately, education authorities exist to ensure that children will be taught science, not some wierdo perversion of it.
[On the contrary. they have no qualms with so called science. So far at least. Ha]



You've demonstrated you don't understand the first thing about science; you are not qualified to comment on what science is.
[I am qualified to say what it ain't!]


Science does not teach that the bible is not true. It does not teach anything about my granny, and as far as I know it does not teach anything about your granny either.
[I have already explained that granny refers to the first lifeform. You will have to deal with this, I will not repent]


Close. Science avoids the spiritual because it is not equipped to deal with it; ...
[I'll say!]

Of course you do. You want to force everyone to accede to your weird 'spiriscience' that you can't even define.
[Nice try. I simply want those of the physical only in the past and future faith to stick to real science, and save their wet evo dreams for some paying audience who might swallow]


That's nice. Fighting Thor doesn't pay, either.
[Have it your way]


Yes, I know what you call 'so called science'. However, your repeated posts indicate that you don't understand the first thing about science; you are not even qualified to have an opinion.
[Thats easy to say. But I do have an opinion!]


Because - for the thousandth time - science deals with the physical, not the spiritual. Why can't you understand that? [In other words, science deals with the here and now, we know this. When it makes a leap of faith into the time when the merge is here, it leaps on it's own, and this is called science, falsely so called.]

.

 

[dad]

I really don't understand your objection. The Sun is an engine that runs on hydrogen. Like any engine, eventually it will run out of gas.

Got an "outside the box" alternative?

Yes, of course. How it now runs is only how it runs in our physical only universe. When the merge occurs, the process will in no way resemble the one now, it will result instead, in an eternal sun. Our lifespans also will not resemble the present ones, we will be eternal. Light will not be our Po light either, but a spiritual light, and the heaven will roll up like a scroll, and the curtain unfolded on the new heaven, and earth, which will be forever, and we will see it like it really is.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, of course. How it now runs is only how it runs in our physical only universe. When the merge occurs, the process will in no way resemble the one now, it will result instead, in an eternal sun. Our lifespans also will not resemble the present ones, we will be eternal. Light will not be our Po light either, but a spiritual light, and the heaven will roll up like a scroll, and the curtain unfolded on the new heaven, and earth, which will be forever, and we will see it like it really is.

So... when is the merge scheduled to occur?

 

[ebia]

I think maybe I'm starting to see what he's driving at:
Science is built on the idea that the world it studies behaves consistantly across time and space, according to some set of rules.

He is asserting (with no evidence beyond his interpretation of the Bible) that although that is true for some value of 'now', it has not always been true, and will not be true at some point in the future. For those periods there is a different set of rules, based on the "spiritual".

From a scientific point of view this is useless, as we can't possibly access those rules or make any observations, so we can't do anything that resembles science that includes his ideas. But it allows him to say science is wrong when it makes any claims about the distant past or the distant future.

Of course it still doesnt' cut ice, because of instances where science makes predictions about what should be true now, based on what should always have been true; predictions that work. If we can't make assumptions about the past, that impacts on our discoveries about the here and now. If the rules haven't always been true, then the universe is designed so they appear to have always been true. So we back to creation being a lie and God being a liar.