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

[dad]

Again .. for the umpteenth time, I have never claimed its 'in the mind' .. that's just your mental block interpretation, (stuck in belief-based philosophical realism), of what I've actually been explaining.

Well, a product of the human mind amounts to the same thing.

Animals experience time and gravity also. Inanimate objects do also.

Ok .. How does anyone know what the three observers have seen at all?

Ask them?

Answer: they describe what they've seen .. and when they do that, they use words and concepts. One of those words is 'dead'. The meaning of 'dead' is collectively understood and agreed. In this case, the three are able to come to agreement that what they have seen matches the meaning of 'dead'. 'Dead' is objectively testable in science also .. so scientific thinkers will all agree as well.

What we have here is evidence of minds communicating using pre-defined/agreed meanings that correlate closely with their independent, synchronised (in time) perceptions (or observations).

Hey, if a raven or a buzzard or other creature was nearby they would be aware of it also! No human mind/concept needed at all.

The word 'dead' and what it means, as it applies in this instance, then becomes real by agreement amongst similar, thinking minds. This is a mind dependent process and not evidence of mind independence in any way, shape, or form!

The reality of death needs no mind to interpret. Ask some roadkill, or crows eating it.

The only sense being made here is coming from what I'm explaining.
All you're doing is demonstrating the fallacy of repeated assertion without offering any semblance of a test which returns consistent results that doesn't involve demonstrations of active minds at play, in how we create our sense of reality, whenever we share meanings between ourselves.

Nothing about gravity or time or death requires a human test. They exist. Their existence is not determined by your hear or religion or wonderfully smart thoughts.

'Gravity' is a human mind (english) word. It is used to distinguish what we mean when we say it, from other things we mean when we say those other things.

It also makes stuff fall. Not just stuff in your mind.

We didn't just grab 'gravity' while we were drifting around as molecules in a protoplanetary, or planetary nebula,

No, that is a fable.

unless you can demonstrate how we can test that without using our minds to do so.

Easy. Watch stuff fall. Or, if that is using your mind, watch animals work with gravity. Or, if that requires your mind...well, deny reality for all I care.

If you think you can use the model I just gave as a short-cut .. think again, because protoplanetary and planetary nebulae are themselves models scientific minds invented and gave meaning to.

Right, and also they are faith based nonsense. The distances and sizes of what we see are not actually known, nor what the actual purposes of the things we do see out there. In this instance, you are correct, it IS a product of the human mind.

Using time, (which can also be demonstrated as conveying a mind-invented meaning), we can regress backwards to before minds ever existed(!) ... however, all this is still evidence that a mind was needed to perform such a feat .. and not evidence of any reality actually existing independently of a mind!

Regardless of vain thoughts that drift off into some la la land where God did not create man, we really are here. No invented nonsense needed.

 

[dad]

And you would be correct. To all of our devices we are stationary and it is everything else that is in motion. Just as to the photon it is stationary and it is everything else that is in motion.

They don’t understand why light travels at c regardless of velocity Dad. .

We may be able to test light here on and near earth. But who could say what speed light travels at in far space? Science assumes it obeys our fishbowl speed limit. No way to check.

 

[sjastro]

I explained why years are not denoted as we think of them...365 days. A prophetic year is 360 days.

The point there is that since the current year is a temporary thing, why would God go to the trouble of defining a year that way? Since the bible also does not spell out the orbits, maybe these are temporary also?
We do not know what orbits will be like in the future nor what they were like at creation! Who says we are supposed to have that written?
It records lots of changes in the future actually. The past recorded in the bible also is changed from the present! The fact is, then, that if the bible does not say something is here to stay, we can call off all bets.

Many changes did and will occur. Only a sacrosanct book would record that! Science is clueless on the issue.



The base line is not the fishbowl. The base line is IN the fishbowl so therefore represents time and space HERE! The orbits now are a certain way, that does not mean they will always be or that they always were that way here!

Correct, time here is what we consider normal. The thing is we know no other time and space besides here in the fishbowl.
False, the bible does not say the solar system either always was the same time and space, nor always will be! Nor does it say the far universe is the same time and space.

Therefore taking a slice of this current time and space from the fishbowl cannot be said to equate with either time and space in the distant universe, nor with time and space here in the future...or far past.



Not correct yet again. My deductions are based on what science claims and what basis exists for those claims as well as the bible.

Remember, then that in the new heavens coming soon, there is no longer any need for the current orbits to exist!!!

This pathetic attempt in changing the goalposts because you have been caught out by being unable to provide one single example of the the Bible supporting your nonsense is not fooling anyone.
Apart from the sheer idiocy of your fishbowl its "justification" is based on a logical fallacy.
It's like the argument the tooth fairy exists because no one can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Better known as the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

 

[dad]

This pathetic attempt in changing the goalposts because you have been caught out by being unable to provide one single example of the the Bible supporting your nonsense is not fooling anyone.
Apart from the sheer idiocy of your fishbowl its "justification" is based on a logical fallacy.
It's like the argument the tooth fairy exists because no one can prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Better known as the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

Once again, the fishbowl is simply a term for the part of the universe man has been to so far, such as with Voyager. No one needs to justify this in any way with the bible or anything else. What time is like outside this area, we do not know. Why over complicate things?

 

[SelfSim]

... Animals experience time and gravity also. Inanimate objects do also.

How do you know this?

Hey, if a raven or a buzzard or other creature was nearby they would be aware of it also!

How do you know this?

No human mind/concept needed at all.

How do you know this?

The reality of death needs no mind to interpret.

How do you know this?

Ask some roadkill, or crows eating it.

Roadkill doesn't communicate.
Crows possess what we perceive as having non-human minds .. But it takes the observer's mind to confer that meaning, (in this instance).

Nothing about gravity or time or death requires a human test. They exist. Their existence is not determined by your hear or religion or wonderfully smart thoughts.

How do you know this?

It also makes stuff fall. Not just stuff in your mind.
No, that is a fable.

How do you know this?

Easy. Watch stuff fall. Or, if that is using your mind,

.. (finally!) .. It takes a mind to do this!

watch animals work with gravity. Or, if that requires your mind...well, deny reality for all I care.

The meaning of 'reality' is determined by our descriptions (which is abundantly evidenced ..I have demonstrated this for pages and pages in this thread). My mind isn't the one which is doing the denying of the evidence here. 'Tis you who believe in unevidenced miracles ... now who is denying reality, eh?

Right, and also they are faith based nonsense. The distances and sizes of what we see are not actually known, nor what the actual purposes of the things we do see out there.

Now you've slipped into some kind of incoherent delirium!
Making dumb, unsupported assertions and asking questions that require no answers ..

In this instance, you are correct, it IS a product of the human mind.

Everything, once perceived by a mind leaves a trail of abundant objective evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that the mind creates its own sense of reality, whereas the notion that something 'outside' (the mind) 'exists' independently of it, is just some kind of silly unevidence belief held .. and holding such beliefs makes no impact whatseover on the abundantly evidenced view that 'reality' depends on the meaning our minds create in order to make sense of our perceptions.

Regardless of vain thoughts that drift off into some la la land where God did not create man, we really are here. No invented nonsense needed.

You spend your entire existence in that 'la la land'! (The evidence for this is demonstrated in virtually all of your responses).

 

[dad]

How do you know this?

Ever seen animals fly off the earth? Within the animal kingdom gravity is a real part of the action.

How do you know this?
How do you know this?

How do you know this?
Roadkill doesn't communicate.

Yes, it does. Vulture pick up the scent. It is not in their mind any more than yours!

Crows possess what we perceive as having non-human minds .. But it takes the observer's mind to confer that meaning, (in this instance).

Not really. The meaning is some creatures eat dead things. That means there are dead things. Unless you think they are eating only in their minds!

How do you know this?

How do you know this?

.. (finally!) .. It takes a mind to do this! The meaning of 'reality' is determined by our descriptions (which is abundantly evidenced ..I have demonstrated this for pages and pages in this thread). My mind isn't the one which is doing the denying of the evidence here. 'Tis you who believe in unevidenced miracles ... now who is denying reality, eh?

No. Reality is something humans hopefully partake in, not something invented in their heads.

Everything, once perceived by a mind leaves a trail of abundant objective evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that the mind creates its own sense of reality, whereas the notion that something 'outside' (the mind) 'exists' independently of it, is just some kind of silly unevidence belief held ..

Get over it, it does not matter what the mind does or thinks, creatures still experience gravity.

and holding such beliefs makes no impact whatseover on the abundantly evidenced view that 'reality' depends on the meaning our minds create in order to make sense of our perceptions.

Take all humans off the planet. Then drop a bread crumb. The ants will still eat it down where it falls. No mind games needed.

You seem to think that if you do not see it, or think the right thoughts, nothing exists. GONG!

 

[Mountainmike]

Wrong.

Like most atheists you are so blinded by your faith and apriori prejudice you don't do evidence. I do... I am a scientist.

Now check out the ACTUAL evidence or Butt out of my thread completely this time.

Mexicos main criminal lab is one of the main investigators on tixtla. But you didnt know that because you didn't even look. You prefer your prejudice to fact.

Google it and all you will find is more illinformed people , just like you, in the sceptic echo chamber.

So check the ACTUAL evidence or butt out of my thread.

As for cells whose DNA does not replicate on analysis , it seems the world is more unusual than you assume, or your present model contains, so it doesn't always play by your rules. Why should it? If they were fraudulent they would most certainly be traceable back to a victim. So it is yet more evidence it wasn't a fraud.

LOL!

No, it really hasn't. I googled this crap. You have a handful of people either with phony affiliations or having retired from the work making declarations and you simply accept it, no questions asked. I linked to someone that HAD looked into these claims and found them wanting and you engaged in your usual well-poisoning ad hominems to dismiss his research. Typical.

Why do you keep embellishing your claims?

A trick?

The leukocytes with no DNA? Those "leukocytes"?

Hmmm... DNA does no belong to a living person... Maybe it belonged to no PERSON?

The DNA-less "leukocytes"?

My gosh you are gullible.

 

[SelfSim]

Ever seen animals fly off the earth? Within the animal kingdom gravity is a real part of the action.

.. and that's what we mean by the word 'gravity' .. (ie: that something keeps them on the ground)!

Your second statement would be utter gibberish without the meaning we, (humans) gave the word 'gravity'.

Yes, it does. Vulture pick up the scent. It is not in their mind any more than yours!

Ok then .. you now speak vulture do you?
Otherwise how would you have the slightest clue what a vulture is smelling unless you use your senses and then use the meaning we gave to the word: 'scent'?????
Its all more evidence of your mind at play in your thought experiment, which makes use of human meanings denoted by the human (English) words you use!!

Not really. The meaning is some creatures eat dead things. That means there are dead things.

You're even using the word 'meaning' here!!
Who/what is supplying the 'meaning' you're referring to in these 2 statements upon which your response is totally dependent???
Sheeesssh!!!

Unless you think they are eating only in their minds!

For the umpteenth+1 time, I have never said: 'only in their minds'!!! You are saying that and not me. Whilst this was phrased as a question, I reject your insinuation that I have ever presented such an idea.
For the future: do not misrepresent what I have said! Its dishonest and if you keep doing this I will report it as an ad-hom attack!
Take this as a formal warning!

No. Reality is something humans hopefully partake in, not something invented in their heads.

I never said 'in their heads' ... you did and not me.
There is no objective evidence of anything existing 'outside their heads' (ie: 'independent of a perceiving mind', in my far more precise language).

Get over it, it does not matter what the mind does or thinks, creatures still experience gravity.

.. and don't tell me what to do.
You do not have my permission to give me directives.
This is also another formal warning.
Keep that up and the mods can deal with you.
Disgraceful behaviour.

Take all humans off the planet. Then drop a bread crumb. The ants will still eat it down where it falls. No mind games needed.

.. and how do you know all that?
Where did that entire scenario come from?

You seem to think that if you do not see it, or think the right thoughts, nothing exists.

No I don't think that.
The abundantly evidenced point is that the process by which the word 'exists', (used in your above sentence), acquires its meaning .. is entirely dependent on a human mind.

I have supported this by producing abundant objective evidence in my replies to you in this thread (although you clearly do not understand this) .. whereas you have produced precisely zip.

 

[dad]

For the future: do not misrepresent what I have said! Its dishonest and if you keep doing this I will report it as an ad-hom attack!
Take this as a formal warning!

I never said 'in their heads' ... you did and not me.
There is no objective evidence of anything existing 'outside their heads' (ie: 'independent of a perceiving mind', in my far more precise language)..

Ha. I rest my case.

Gravity and time exist outside the heads of man.

 

[sjastro]

Once again, the fishbowl is simply a term for the part of the universe man has been to so far, such as with Voyager. No one needs to justify this in any way with the bible or anything else. What time is like outside this area, we do not know. Why over complicate things?

Progress is being made with the Bible being jettisoned from the discussion.
Now you have to deal with the argument from ignorance issue.

 

[dad]

Progress is being made with the Bible being jettisoned from the discussion.
Now you have to deal with the argument from ignorance issue.

I jettisoned the claim that the bible held a claim that the earth was stationary. Shredded that one to pieces, and danced over it's ashes.

I also pointed out that the future for the heavens will be different than what we have now according to the bible. I also pointed out that we don't really know anything much about orbits in this area in the far past.

..Since the fishbowl represents the area known to man, the are outside that is unknown...so guess who is ignorant?

 

[sjastro]

I jettisoned the claim that the bible held a claim that the earth was stationary. Shredded that one to pieces, and danced over it's ashes.

I also pointed out that the future for the heavens will be different than what we have now according to the bible. I also pointed out that we don't really know anything much about orbits in this area in the far past.

..Since the fishbowl represents the area known to man, the are outside that is unknown...so guess who is ignorant?

Now we have the Argument by Repetition fallacy.
Repeating the same nonsense doesn’t make it right.
Did you read the link on the Argument from Ignorance fallacy which you are also guilty of?
A common form of the fallacy involves the argument of the existence of “something” by claiming its non existence is unknown.

Examples of “something” can be fishbowls, tooth fairies and unicorns.
Should scientists search for unicorns as their non existence is unknown?

 

[dad]

Now we have the Argument by Repetition fallacy.
Repeating the same nonsense doesn’t make it right.
Did you read the link on the Argument from Ignorance fallacy which you are also guilty of?
A common form of the fallacy involves the argument of the existence of “something” by claiming its non existence is unknown.

Examples of “something” can be fishbowls, tooth fairies and unicorns.
Should scientists search for unicorns as their non existence is unknown?

Still babbling about nothing eh? Unknown is...well.. unknown. Your problem is science claims that something exists out in unknown space and time. In fact models are based on the belief. You have religion..period.

 

[sjastro]

Still babbling about nothing eh? Unknown is...well.. unknown. Your problem is science claims that something exists out in unknown space and time. In fact models are based on the belief. You have religion..period.

Of course it is babbling to you because the subject matter is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.
You neither understand the logical fallacies in your arguments nor the nature of the fallacies themselves.
The biggest logical fallacy of all is shifting the burden of proof.
It's up to you to explain why time is not defined beyond your fishbowl in which case the discussion would hopefully take on a form that bears some resemblance involving Science.

Instead you use the argument from ignorance fallacy making the reasoning behind your fishbowl as idiotic as trying to explain the existence of tooth fairies and unicorns.

 

[SelfSim]

Ha. I rest my case.

You don't have any 'case' to be 'rested'.

Gravity and time exist outside the heads of man.

Stating that over and over again, does not make it so, nor does it make it even make it 'a case' .. Fallacy of Argument by Repetition (as sjastro has demonstrated using evidence).

 

[dad]

Of course it is babbling to you because the subject matter is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.
You neither understand the logical fallacies in your arguments nor the nature of the fallacies themselves.
The biggest logical fallacy of all is shifting the burden of proof.
It's up to you to explain why time is not defined beyond your fishbowl in which case the discussion would hopefully take on a form that bears some resemblance involving Science.

Instead you use the argument from ignorance fallacy making the reasoning behind your fishbowl as idiotic as trying to explain the existence of tooth fairies and unicorns.

Hey, you base models of where the universe and life came from on something, you have a burden of proof.

 

[dad]

You don't have any 'case' to be 'rested'.

Stating that over and over again, does not make it so, nor does it make it even make it 'a case' .. Fallacy of Argument by Repetition (as sjastro has demonstrated using evidence).

It is not a debate whether gravity exists regardless of what goes on in the mind of man. Your strawman diversion shows us you can't deal in reality or issues.

 

[SelfSim]

It is not a debate whether gravity exists regardless of what goes on in the mind of man. Your strawman diversion shows us you can't deal in reality or issues.

No ... the discussion shows that you are incapable of defending your fantasies with evidence or logic.

 

[sjastro]

Hey, you base models of where the universe and life came from on something, you have a burden of proof.

Now we get three logical fallacies for the price of one; all in a very brief response.
Along with the shifting of the burden of proof and the argument from ignorance fallacies, the red herring fallacy is thrown in for good measure as your post is totally irrelevant in supporting your fishbowl.

 

[dad]

No ... the discussion shows that you are incapable of defending your fantasies with evidence or logic.

Gravity and time are not fantasies or in the head. You have proven incapable of defending the religious claims of so called science.