The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[DogmaHunter]

There is no evidence to dismiss or accept or do anything else with regarding what time is like in deep space. You have beliefs.

Null hypthesis. And like I said: auto-dissmissal of evidence that counters your beliefs, prevent you from acknowledging said evidence.

That depends if you embrace the belief system of origin sciences. Apparently you do.

Science is evidence based, not faith based.

 

[dad]

How would you know? Again: have you been in every square inch in belgium and tested it out? Have you even been in Belgium at all?

[qutoe]
The evidence is billions of people living all over this world.

How do you know that? Have you personally spoken to these billions of people?
How many % of the earth is covered with these human witnesses? It can't be much, considering that 70% of the surface is covered with water. Of the remaining 30%, much of it is uninhabitable mountain regions, permafrost ice caps, deserts,...

So you have no human witnesses for most of the earth's surface.

So, you just assume that gravity and time in the US works the same as it does on the north pole or some uninhabitable region in Tibet?



Not one witness is in the middle of the arctic either.



I'm asking YOU, while demonstrating how your "logic" is utter nonsense and that the null hypothesis is that things can assumed to work the same unless there actually is a valid reason to think otherwise.

But I'm sure that your fundamentalists beliefs will prevent you from thinking it through and realising how utterly insane your "reasoning" is.[/QUOTE] I accept witnesses and evidence, none of which you have for the edges of the universe.

 

[dad]

Null hypthesis. And like I said: auto-dissmissal of evidence that counters your beliefs, prevent you from acknowledging said evidence.



Science is evidence based, not faith based.

The origins sciences are not science, they are belief based philosophy influenced delusions and dogma. Real science that deals in facts and reality and that works has zero to do with your religion.

 

[SelfSim]

I accept witnesses and evidence, none of which you have for the edges of the universe.

One of physics' starting posits is that the fundamental physical constants (for eg) are universal and have constant value over time .. It continually tests this posit however, via observations taken throughout the universe.

It seems you object to these tests proceeding .. but that does not stop these perpetually incomplete tests from proceeding.

The origins sciences are not science, they are belief based philosophy influenced delusions and dogma.

No. Investigation into 'origins' in science recognises incompleteness of objective data sets (and of current testable theories). This recognised incompleteness allows for consideration of influences beyond the immediate lines of query, as 'being possible'. If those things aren't testable then science has nothing to say about them.

Filling in the resulting gaps happens when other ideologies and dogma attempt to do that.

Absolutism is a philosophy itself, and does not appear in the well understood and taught scientific process (there is abundant objective evidence of this .. look up 'scientific process').

Real science that deals in facts and reality and that works has zero to do with your religion

Nor yours (or anyone's).

'Real science' establishes objective reality.
The 'facts and reality' you refer to, are the products of verified objective testing.
This is a fundamental distinguishing factor which separates science from religion or philosophy.

 

[SelfSim]

It seems you object to these tests proceeding .. but that does not stop these perpetually incomplete tests from proceeding.

I think its a fundamental part of our make up, as humans to question in order to explain what we see around us, and then to use these perspectives to look back at ourselves to discover what we are.

I have the feeling that this aspect is perhaps what actually unites both religion and science(?)

However, there is also an ever growing number of human minds that are dissatisfied with the ancient untestable assumptions and beliefs upon which all religions are based .. and so the perpetual query will continue .. I personally doubt that it can be stopped by the old totalitarian methods historically levaged by institutional religions ...
(.. all because science leads to tangible things and has demonstrated its useful contributions in supporting the quest ..).

 

[sjastro]

I like the bible.
Don't you wish. The argument was regarding the basis used by science to determine distances to stars. Since you seem unable to address that, we find you instead grasping at some old wives tale so called interpretations of Scripture.



The verses you posted do nothing of the sort. They have so far shown that you have no ability to understand what you are reading.

You seem to be under the impression that I am supporting the geocentric interpretation of the Bible.
My opinion is quite the opposite, you and the Bible are comprehensively wrong when it comes to Science.
I am pointing out the opinions of other mindless fundamentalists like yourself who have a very different interpretation of the Bible which is more consistent than yours from a literal perspective.

For the benefit of lurkers, I will look at each verse you posted here, with my interpreations following.

1 Chron 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. 31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth. 32 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that is therein. 33 Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.

What I see here is prophesy. Beautiful prophesy. One day there will be stability on the earth after He returns. (to interpret this as if it meant the earth doesn't move is truly offensive to the spirit of the text)

Psalm 93:1: 1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

In the same verse we see that this refers to the time when Jesus will reign of earth!!


Psalm 96:10: 10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Again, clearly prophesy and clearly referring to a future this earth will be forever time when the world and all people on it will be safe and secure and established forever and ever. For anyone to try and twist these things into some insult to Scripture and the intelligence of God is ugly and low and disgusting.



Psalm 104:5: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

So now we have the creation of the world. Here, the word translated as foundations means this from the Hebrew... "fixed or established place".

Since we know from Scripture that the Almighty will Himself descend from heaven to forever live on this earth, one would certainly say He build the foundations to last!!! With a deeper understanding of the bible and prophesy of what is coming, we would also notice that the surface of the earth will be burned up. But the earth itself sits on more sure foundations, so it will no more be destroyed by this than an iron frying pan is destroyed by frying an egg on the fire. It is fixed, established on the foundations.



Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. 18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

So once again, this refers to the time when Israel will be saved! That is, for the prophesy savvy folks here, at the return of Christ at the end of the great tribulation. Then it tells us of how God made this ol world to last forever and for people to live on it forever. Wonderful verses.


In the verses you quoted, it has nothing to do with that.

I just showed that the verses you try to insult and malign mean nothing similar to your pathetic accusations. From the beginning of the bible we see that God moves, He moved over the waters, and we see that He set up seasons and day and night. No matter what moves where or how, seasons take some movement!!! Your interpretations are utterly devastated.

Go take it up with the individual who made the claims I only quoted them.
Does the Bible teach that the earth is 'fixed' and 'immovable'?

I suggest you address the cold hard facts.
Why is it?
(a) A large percentage of mindless fundamentalists believe in a geocentric Universe.
(b) For centuries the Catholic Church believed in a geocentric Universe.
The answer is very simple the prevailing literal interpretation of the Bible is the geocentric view.

You have been well truly caught with your pants downs.
You have inadvertently claimed a heliocentric model which contradicts the literal interpretation and now you are trying to kid yourself with a pathetic form of reasoning involving a moving God or moving waters supporting a heliocentric view in the Bible.

He did not really have much of a clue about some things. Looking at wiki I see that he had views that today would be considered terrorism.

"

• "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
• "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
• "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
• "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
• "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
• "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
• "Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"

Martin Luther and antisemitism - Wikipedia

Your star witness to foolish cosmology was just shown up to be a terrorist and you preach about morals???

Simple logic is obviously not one your strong points otherwise you wouldn’t have invested the research into Luther.
If you think Luther’s criticism of the Copernican model was based on Luther’s anti Semitism or he wasn’t a particularly nice guy then you are just plain stupid.
Luther was expressing the view at the time that Copernicus was wrong because the Bible stated the Earth was stationary.

Ideas that denigrate Scripture and try to make God seem like an imbecile are bad. I took the time to show that the verses you tried to use to do so were actually wonderful, lovely verses, rich in prophesy and promise and that display the awesome wisdom of God.

This has nothing to do with the fact you are using God to justify your ignorance and bigotry.

///for the win!

If it is a contest for emotive, illogical and contradictory thought then yes you win hands down.

 

[dad]

One of physics' starting posits is that the fundamental physical constants (for eg) are universal and have constant value over time .. It continually tests this posit however, via observations taken throughout the universe.

Untrue, it doesn't even know what space or time are, let alone test time in the far universe. ALL tests are done in the fishbowl. No exceptions.

It seems you object to these tests proceeding .. but that does not stop these perpetually incomplete tests from proceeding.

There are no tests for what time is like in the distant universe. If you claim there are post them.

No. Investigation into 'origins' in science recognises incompleteness of objective data sets (and of current testable theories). This recognised incompleteness allows for consideration of influences beyond the immediate lines of query, as 'being possible'. If those things aren't testable then science has nothing to say about them.

Not true, no God is allowed in their modelling criteria. No creation. What is allowed is physical only fishbowl based narrow minded criteria from which to derive all models...rendering them religious trash.

Filling in the resulting gaps happens when other ideologies and dogma attempt to do that.

They fill in gaps like 95% of the universe missing matter with unknown dark stuff. That is ideology.

Absolutism is a philosophy itself, and does not appear in the well understood and taught scientific process (there is abundant objective evidence of this .. look up 'scientific process').

They are absolutely religious and absolutely do not know and absolutely cannot ever come to know.

'Real science' establishes objective reality.

Actually real science works with objective reality. Belief based origin so called sciences invent godless baloney.

The 'facts and reality' you refer to, are the products of verified objective testing.
This is a fundamental distinguishing factor which separates science from religion or philosophy.

Pretending there are any facts for origin fables is nothing more than willful denial and religious zealotry.

 

[dad]

You seem to be under the impression that I am supporting the geocentric interpretation of the Bible.

I seem to be under the impression you claimed the bible said the earth could not move etc etc. Anyone can go back and read your posts.

My opinion is quite the opposite, you and the Bible are comprehensively wrong when it comes to Science.
I am pointing out the opinions of other mindless fundamentalists like yourself who have a very different interpretation of the Bible which is more consistent than yours from a literal perspective.

Not sure what this word salad is trying to say. I suspect it means something like 'I don't really believe the silly old book anyhow, so I would molest all verses needed to get the bile to conform to manscience'?

Go take it up with the individual who made the claims I only quoted them.
Does the Bible teach that the earth is 'fixed' and 'immovable'?

If you are quoting something you do't agree with, how about simply saying what you do agree with? Then we can have at er.

I suggest you address the cold hard facts.
Why is it?
(a) A large percentage of mindless fundamentalists believe in a geocentric Universe.

God seems to think the earth is the central place because He said He was coming down from heaven to the earth to dwell with man forever. How much more central could it get??

(b) For centuries the Catholic Church believed in a geocentric Universe.
The answer is very simple the prevailing literal interpretation of the Bible is the geocentric view.

You offered verses and I showed clearly how you were utterly and ridiculously wrong on what they were saying.

You have been well truly caught with your pants downs.
You have inadvertently claimed a heliocentric model which contradicts the literal interpretation and now you are trying to kid yourself with a pathetic form of reasoning involving a moving God or moving waters supporting a heliocentric view in the Bible.

You showed you had no clue what verses pertained to the future or even what they meant in any way at all, so I would not talk about looking at people with pants down.

Simple logic is obviously not one your strong points otherwise you wouldn’t have invested the research into Luther.
If you think Luther’s criticism of the Copernican model was based on Luther’s anti Semitism or he wasn’t a particularly nice guy then you are just plain stupid.
Luther was expressing the view at the time that Copernicus was wrong because the Bible stated the Earth was stationary.

I am supposed to care about the views of terrorists?? The verses you offered said no such thing as shown.

 

[SelfSim]

Absolutism is a philosophy itself, and does not appear in the well understood and taught scientific process (there is abundant objective evidence of this .. look up 'scientific process').

They are absolutely religious and absolutely do not know and absolutely cannot ever come to know.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I accept witnesses and evidence, none of which you have for the edges of the universe.

None of which you have for the majority of the earth's surface either.

It's hilarious how you don't see how this "logic" works against you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The origins sciences are not science, they are belief based philosophy influenced delusions and dogma. Real science that deals in facts and reality and that works has zero to do with your religion.

Repeating it ad nauseum, is not going to make it true.

 

[Mountainmike]

I can only say it speaks volumes on this thread.

That the atheists here defend (the possibility of) abiogenesis to the hilt - for which there is no process, or evidence. No means of repeating it, nor does it repeat.
It is not even on the lowest rung of science which is a hypothesis.
It is is a massive intellectual leap and is complete empty space other than pure conjecture.

Nor does any of the atheist waffle - or picking of nits - change the above one iota!

I might even agree with believing it happened, but if I did it would be pure belief.
So you all have faith!


YET....The Same people wont even look at the REPEATED evidence for eucharistic miracles, which is forensic from DIFFERENT forensic labs in each case ! Ridiculing it before seeing it.

It confirms This atheist faith of yours is strong!
You allow it to determine your apriori conclusion without any evidence at all.
That reaction can only be faith based prejudice.

I prefer evidence.
There is volumes of it, on many phenomena if you athiests could drop the apriori prejudice that stops you even looking at it.

Pointless discussing further. Until I find someone who will discuss the SCIENCE...
it is sad they will not do so on a science forum! But It is pointless challenging the same (mostly illinformed waffle ) from atheists.


About time some of you STUDIED science and found out what it actually is. The model of science is just a model. It doesnt explain anything at all fundamental.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can only say it speaks volumes on this thread.

I agree. Probably for different reasons though.

That the atheists here defend (the possibility of) abiogenesis to the hilt - for which there is no process, or evidence. No means of repeating it, nor does it repeat.
It is not even on the lowest rung of science which is a hypothesis.
It is is a massive intellectual leap and is complete empty space other than pure conjecture.

Speedwell, is an atheist?

Also: strawman that has already been explained to you.

Nor does any of the atheist waffle - or picking of nits - change the above one iota!

Nore does repeating the same strawman over and over, change anything about the fact that it is a strawman.

I might even agree with believing it happened, but if I did it would be pure belief.
So you all have faith!

Again with the dishonest strawman. You repeat it like a mantra, no matter how many times you are corrected.

YET....The Same people wont even look at the REPEATED evidence for eucharistic miracles, which is forensic from DIFFERENT forensic labs in each case ! Ridiculing it before seeing it.

Another lie. Your "miracles" HAVE been addressed by multiple people.
Stuffing your ears and screaming "lalala", won't make it go away.

It confirms This atheist faith of yours is strong!

It's funny because it's rather easy to find theists who don't agree with your "miracle" claims at all! More dishonesty.

You allow it to determine your apriori conclusion without any evidence at all.

That reaction can only be faith based prejudice​

Blatant projection

I prefer evidence.

Please.

Pointless discussing further. Until I find someone who will discuss the SCIENCE...
it is sad they will not do so on a science forum! But It is pointless challenging the same (mostly illinformed waffle ) from atheists.

Try being honest first. You can start by stopping to pretend as if only atheists don't agree with your "theistic waffle".

About time some of you STUDIED science and found out what it actually is. The model of science is just a model. It doesnt explain anything at all fundamental.

It's funny, because some of the people you are arguing with here, actually ARE professional, active scientists.

 

[Mountainmike]

Usual waffle , adhominems and smokescreen from yet another atheist who wont look at evidence. Do I now expect any less?

Which do not in any way altar the facts that

1/ Abiogenesis has no evidence or even conjectured process - but atheists believe in it because of their faith.

In contrast

2/ Atheists regard as ridiculous eucharistic miracles that do have repeated forensic evidence - they refuse to even look at the evidence - again because of their faith

That contrast says it all.

One day atheists might consider an evidence rather than faith based view. Atheists really do need to study what I just said: and discover their entire view as above is based on prejudice, not evidence. They are not at all the rational people they pretend to be.

Until then - I am not wasting more time until they discuss actual evidence (which therefore rules abiogenesis out as a faith, not evidence topic)

I agree. Probably for different reasons though.


Speedwell, is an atheist?

Also: strawman that has already been explained to you.



Nore does repeating the same strawman over and over, change anything about the fact that it is a strawman.



Again with the dishonest strawman. You repeat it like a mantra, no matter how many times you are corrected.



Another lie. Your "miracles" HAVE been addressed by multiple people.
Stuffing your ears and screaming "lalala", won't make it go away.



It's funny because it's rather easy to find theists who don't agree with your "miracle" claims at all! More dishonesty.



Blatant projection



Please.



Try being honest first. You can start by stopping to pretend as if only atheists don't agree with your "theistic waffle".



It's funny, because some of the people you are arguing with here, actually ARE professional, active scientists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It's funny, because some of the people you are arguing with here, actually ARE professional, active scientists.

And some of us have BEEN professional, active scientists

 

[DogmaHunter]

Usual waffle , adhominems and smokescreen from yet another atheist who wont look at evidence. Do I now expect any less?

being dishonest again.

1/ Abiogenesis has no evidence or even conjectured process - but atheists believe in it because of their faith.

1. abiogenesis researchers are not exclusively atheist
2. being dishonest again, we've explained to you at great length how nobody "believes" any particular hypothesis. What I do believe, is that life originated at some point, in some way. Creationists believe that too! I explained all this to you before, and so have others. Why do you keep repeating this lie?

In contrast

2/ Atheists regard as ridiculous eucharistic miracles that do have repeated forensic evidence - they refuse to even look at the evidence - again because of their faith

Again being dishonest.
Plenty of theists regard your claimed "miracles" as being ridiculous as well.

It seems like you have a lot of trouble comprehending this.

But WE are the ones engaging in "ad hominems" ey?

That contrast says it all.

The only thing "saying it all" here, is your continued dishonesty in repeating the same strawmen over and over again, no matter how many times we correct you (and "we", includes theists)

One day atheists might consider an evidence rather than faith based view.

//facepalm

 

[Mountainmike]

And yet.

Nothing you say alters the evidence gap

Between...
A belief in abiogenesis held by all atheists I see on this forum. although I cannot speak for what all atheists believe, I have yet to meet one that does not, indeed most belong to Dawkins faith it happened!.

Which FYI actually means " confident it happened in absence of sufficient evidence"
Since there is no evidence, and you are all confident QED you have a belief.

And ridiculing eucharistic miracles - several again on this thread - without even looking at the evidence.

( I have yet to see a theist on this thread ridicule eucharistic miracles or an atheist argue against abiogenesis, so yours is the straw man, although I accept all theists dont believe in eucharistic miracles, and no doubt some atheists prefer unicorns - But what I said is true of this thread!)

The willingness to ridicule WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING at evidence shows it is a belief , not a rational conclusion. And most have ridiculed, none looked at evidence.


The point I am making is the apriori discrimantory attitude confident one thing without evidence
and ridiculing another without looking at forensic evidence

So why you continue to argue is beyond me.
Definition of words, shows what I said is true.

So spare me the waffle.

Simple question , have you looked at the evidence or not?
If not why not?

being dishonest again.



1. abiogenesis researchers are not exclusively atheist
2. being dishonest again, we've explained to you at great length how nobody "believes" any particular hypothesis. What I do believe, is that life originated at some point, in some way. Creationists believe that too! I explained all this to you before, and so have others. Why do you keep repeating this lie?




Again being dishonest.
Plenty of theists regard your claimed "miracles" as being ridiculous as well.

It seems like you have a lot of trouble comprehending this.

But WE are the ones engaging in "ad hominems" ey?



The only thing "saying it all" here, is your continued dishonesty in repeating the same strawmen over and over again, no matter how many times we correct you (and "we", includes theists)



//facepalm

 

[dad]

None of which you have for the majority of the earth's surface either..

Not sure what you have against actual reasonable evidence.

New Gravity Map Reveals Lumpy Earth

 

[sjastro]

I seem to be under the impression you claimed the bible said the earth could not move etc etc. Anyone can go back and read your posts.

Not sure what this word salad is trying to say. I suspect it means something like 'I don't really believe the silly old book anyhow, so I would molest all verses needed to get the bile to conform to manscience'?

If you are quoting something you do't agree with, how about simply saying what you do agree with? Then we can have at er.
God seems to think the earth is the central place because He said He was coming down from heaven to the earth to dwell with man forever. How much more central could it get??


You offered verses and I showed clearly how you were utterly and ridiculously wrong on what they were saying.
You showed you had no clue what verses pertained to the future or even what they meant in any way at all, so I would not talk about looking at people with pants down.



I am supposed to care about the views of terrorists?? The verses you offered said no such thing as shown.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of hypothetically speaking.
If you want to play the role of the idiot with obfuscated responses that’s fine with me because your avoidance of the issues is a dead giveaway the debate is over.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is of a stationary Earth which was the prevailing view in Christianity for well over 1000 years and still is amongst fundamentalists and is incompatible your fishbowl which caters for a non stationary Earth.
You are either incapable of seeing the dilemma or deliberately avoiding it.

The discussion is over, you lose.

 

[SelfSim]

About time some of you STUDIED science and found out what it actually is. The model of science is just a model. It doesnt explain anything at all fundamental.

What we mean by reality depends entirely on models conceived by the mind! The meaning of Science's reality, is a subset of this, with it itself being distinguished by verified objective test results. Speculation leading into testable hypotheses represents the transition point from the unrigorous concepts our mind naturally develop from perceptions, into the scientific realm.

Your chosen title of this thread automatically demonstrated to me that you have no idea of how our minds determine what 'exists' and what is 'real'.

In spite of your rants, Abiogenesis refers to a collection of ideas (speculation) some of which lead to lab tests and investigations. The results of these are useful in understanding more about life (eg: where it can be found and why). That there is no generally accepted model pertaining to what science means by 'Abiogenesis', doesn't worry most scientists (or me) in the slightest .. and why should it, if there are no particular beliefs or objective evidence holding me (or them) back? (If there were any particular belief(s), it would be shelved whilst moving forwards on the topic).