Jump to content

coffeesippin

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by coffeesippin


  1. 6 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Did you ever consider that this might be the point? That the goal is to clamp down on such posts that violate the rules?

    If you want to see fewer modnotes, you could do your part and follow the rules. That might cut down on the number of them appearing in threads in which you are participating.

    They also issue parking tickets and citations for speeding. But it's interesting you jump to thinking about violent felonies.

     

    Yes, clamp down when needed, absolutely. But I see little need on this forum to clamp down except on lewdness, vulgarity, accusation of lying and fabrication of evidence.  The fabrication can be simple error, possibly as in the case of the sailor swallowed by the whale near the Falkland Islands and recovered alive, which because it was Smithsonian I accepted as fact without close examination, and when accused of fabrication (NOT by a moderator at least in a moderator ID) I examined closer and saw the the case is not closed whether true or false.   Yes, clamp down on accusation especially those which can be interpreted in law as libel and slander. Absolutely.  We're not drunken teenagers.  Maybe I make too much of this, but character assassination is not pleasant to the character being assassinated, and turning the other cheek too often without rebuke can cause an image of the smacked one as being a masochist.    

    But a wandering statement which is a matter of interpretation as to whether it's off topic or not, whether it is intended to divert from the topic or or merely enlarge the scope of the topic?  Being so new to the forum I'm still not sure that if OT statements split off into a hijack thread can be commented on?  I seem to have run into a case where I can't comment, but I participate too often when tired, so can't right now point to the example. 

    Even with tickets for parking and speeding there is grace, quiet warnings issued sometimes, and of course you will say you do that here too.  Why did I jump to thinking about felonies?  I guess that shows my deepest thoughts about some of the behaviour here.  You are aware of the cases of bullying that lead to suicide.  Of course this forum won't lead to that kind of thing, but it CAN lead to depression, a hopelessness that yet one more source of pleasure and information has been turned into mayhem.  A reason to take a drink at least.  Open wide.  :lol:

    And of course my acknowledgement of my doubt in BB, and my belief in the KJV bible not only sets me up as a target for those who think BB is the only answer, and the KJV is a terrible translation, it sets me up for attack by denominations who view the KJV as Protestant, which it is not, while I am a lamb (God make that a true statement please) without a defined flock, but not lost.  And it sets me up for attack by those who vehemently deny God and Bible of any translation.  Those prejudices WILL OFTEN affect mod interpretation of my words, intents and actions unfavorably, and in my opinion account for most or many mod criticisms of my time here, along with a dark view of those who find reason to doubt BB.  I avoid membership in religious denomination and even regular affiliation because of their many prejudices.  I don't join astronomical clubs for the same reason, 'oh, you don't believe BB is true?  Poor mentally challenged infant' their attitude will be.  'Ever hear of Pasucal Jordan?' the infant asks.  'Who?' the learned one responds. 

    I already see I was in error about the mod boxes always being big black and bold.  I saw a pastel coloured one today.  It was pleasant, except for the big exclamation point. 


  2. 32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    I think he preferred to preserve an air of uncertainty in his thinking, which is consistent with a good scientist regarding anything.

    String, I gave you an upvote, I wish I could have given you a hundred upvotes. 

    15 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Good thing I didn't say that, then.

    What I did say was that the quotes in question were comments on QM, and not religion. Any extrapolation from those two quotes will not give you insight into either man's religious views. I made no claim about either one's general view on a supreme being.

     

    I enjoy your quoted response, Swan, it's wonderfully temperate.  I'll place the comment commented on here:  "God does not play dice" is a statement about quantum mechanics, not religion. As is the response. They are claims about how the universe behaves. In this exchange, God is a metaphor for the rules of nature, nothing  more."  The inclusion of the word God, especially with the capital 'G,' along with Eintein's quote that he is not an atheist,  is not merely a comment on the rules of nature, but a reflection of his deep thinking including "soul."  "Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one." 

    Likewise with Hawking,  “I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science,” he said. “The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.”  How can the laws of nature intervene in their operation, so Hawking too believed in something greater.  He did not say, "If there is a God, God does not intervene to break the laws." 

    I'm greatly surprised that there is so much evidence in so brief a search that both men DID believe in a God greater than the universe.  Hawking is said to declare in his last book that there is no God, but even the most ardent believer seems to have doubt in difficult times, and Hawking was in a very difficult time, the relationship with the woman he had left his wife for had ended, he and his wife were divorced, he no longer had the support of an intimate other .. yes he would feel alone and abandoned by God he obviously once believed in. 


  3. On 11/18/2018 at 4:32 AM, mistermack said:

    The Mars rovers should be finding some Armadillo shit pretty soon then. Beats me what they've been feeding on, they should be sending back pictures of that too pretty shortly. Insects and grubs from soft soil usually. So digging evidence should be around and about. 

    I don't know why all the skepticism .. even on earth Armadillos are found in very few places.  "There are no armadillos living in Australia. ... There are twenty species of armadillos; of these, only one lives in the United States (despite the great expanses of desert in the U.S. and even in Canada. The nine-banded armadillo can be found in the deserts of the Southwest U.S.""  Landers on Mars have traveled only how far on the planet's surace?  How limited is their search?  Like animals on earth if a Martian creature saw a rover moving about it would certainly make itself difficult to find.  Martian environments vary almost as greatly on Mars as do earth's environments, with oceans beneath the sand, and water seeping down the faces of steep surfaces.  Many of earth's creatures spend entire seasons hidden, from Polar Bears to turtles.  Life in the depths of our oceans is still just beginning to be explored.  Species are still being found in our jungles.  Skepticism is okay .. but we've only overturned a rock or two on Mars, and some of us think we know all that there is to be found.


  4. Okay the work 'box' is not quite accurate because a box has three dimensions while the mod notification 'boxes' have only two physical dimensions, plus the effect dimension.

    In this post I'm just trying to be helpful, not antagonistic.

    The effect of the BIG BOLD STARKLY AGGRESSIVE THREATENING EXCLAMATION MARK ARMED moderator notification boxes might be too intimidating and discouraging to discussion.  Some mods will like that effect, as one mod told me mods are like police enforcing laws.   I don't think that's a good comparison, as police deal with murderers and people committing other gruesome crimes too terrible to mention.  The people here are not, hopefully, murderers etc.  We are people trying to enjoy conversation and ideas in an increasingly hostile and threatening world.  Of course the boxes were designed to make sure they were seen, but I think the tone and amount of activity of this forum could be dramatically enhanced by a less overbearing approach, perhaps colour the thick black borders of the boxes pastel?  That would not only get attention, it would feel far less threatening than the thick black borders.  It's almost as if a big monster were hovering over a child roaring and gnashing its teeth like a parent.  Most of us here have learned respect or we wouldn't be interested in science.  Adults aren't children who can't make choices, we can go away freely, though sadly, from a place we hope to learn from and find enjoyment in, to share new ideas, but discerning adults as well as discerning children may be driven away, diminishing the activity of the forum, and making it less valuable to advertisers, harming any business model the forum might hope to promote.   Also, some mods discourage involvement by their very numerous subtle insults, that activity spilling over into the non-mod population, encouraging them to be obnoxious.  This forum as a retreat from the increasing brutality of the world would attract far more activity.  I have yet to see insults directed towards mods from the non-mod side of this forum, but plenty from the mod side.  If advertising revenue is not important to the forum, I suppose population here is totally unimportant, but that shouldn't need to be a consideration in how people are treated here, either from the mods or non-mods. 


  5. 5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    So what?

    "Some models are better than others.

    For example you could model scientists as children.

    That would be a very silly model."                                               

              So what is wrong with children as models of scientists?    They can be very patient (the 10 year old searched for the supernova for six months before finding it,) and 'as open minded as children' .. not predisposed to ideas that hinder their curiosity and observations.    

             A life saving child who did what adult scientists failed in 10 years to do:    For over a decade, people in Southern California have been getting sick (and in some cases dying) after coming into contact with a fungus called Cryptococcus gattii. But for years, the scientists who study C. gattiiweren't able to determine exactly where people were meeting up with this deadly fungus, according to a recent report by NPR.  Enter Elan Filler, a seventh-grader in search of a cool science fair project. Her father, an infectious disease specialist, recommended she take up the challenge of finding out where C. gattii was hiding out. Filler started investigating and ultimately identified at least three trees infected with the fungus in the greater Los Angeles area.    She shared her discovery with researchers at Duke University in North Carolina. Her findings were part of a study published Aug. 21, 2014, in the journal PLOS Pathogens. 

                Another life saving child?  Need proof that middle-school science projects beget scientific discoveries? Meet Simon Kashchock-Marenda, a student in the United States whose unique experiment inspired a study by scientists at Drexel University in Philadelphia.Kashchock-Marenda was interested in finding out how artificial sweeteners, such as Sweet'N Low and Equal, affect fruit flies. He fed groups of the flies different sweeteners, one of which was Truvia, an artificial sweetener containing a sugar alcohol called erythritol. The flies that fed on the Truvia died within six days, leading the budding scientist to hypothesize that, for fruit flies, Truvia isn't a healthier alternative to sugar.  With help from his father, a professor of biology at Drexel, the middle-school student repeated the experiment under laboratory conditions and observed similar results. Drexel researchers later concluded that the erythritol in Truvia has a toxic effect on the flies, leading them to explore whether erythritol could one day be used as a human-safe insecticide

                   Yes, those children had adult help and inspiration, but they obviously also had unique qualities that enabled them.  Perhaps science could identify those qualities and teach them in university, if that's not already being done.

             https://www.livescience.com/47642-discoveries-by-kids.html

    Yes, we've gone off topic .. it's so easy, but all I was doing was answering a question.  If we have to open a new topic each time this situation arises navigating could get very cumbersome.  Still, if a mod suggests I open a new topic, I'll do that.   I don't think I have anything more to say about children scientists though.


  6. 14 minutes ago, beecee said:

    You can check your history as much as you like...neither accepted your version of a god in the sky.  I don't call myself an atheist either...I accept the logic of the scientific method and where ever that leads.

    BeeCee, my worthy opponent .. why do you think anyone's idea of God should match MY idea of God?   Why should anyone's idea of science match YOUR idea of science?  We are almost 8,000,000,000 people on earth.  That's room for that number of ideas on anything.  Despite 10,000 people having the same idea about something, it still may be wrong.  I think it may have been you who in a post somewhere among the many admitted you learned 30 years ago that you don't know everything.  None of us know everything about everything.   


  7. 3 hours ago, swansont said:

    "God does not play dice" is a statement about quantum mechanics, not religion. As is the response. They are claims about how the universe behaves. In this exchange, God is a metaphor for the rules of nature, nothing  more.

    Einstein:   "He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] 

    "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."

    "Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[21]"

    Hawking:  “I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science,” he said. “The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.”         Einstein said he did not believe God intervened directly into man's daily life, (as the laws of nature do, my words.)  Those statements refer to much more than the rules of nature, how can the rules of nature intervene in themselves?

          From those statements it's easy to see that the idea of God was at work in their thinking in more than an abstract way.  Does quantum mechanics for instance have anything to do with the soul?  Both men had much exposure to faiths when young, Einstein's Jewish and Catholic, and Hawking Church of England.  Einstein became a strong Zionist.  Hawking's wife was strong in her Church of England faith, even singing in the church choir,  so Hawking could not have had strong objections to the idea of God in his home. 

          My statements above are repeats of what I wrote earlier in the topic.  Had they been read I doubt you would have been so quick to say either man's idea of God related only as if they were the universe at work.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/17/what-stephen-hawking-said-about-god-his-atheism-and-his-own-death.html

    3 hours ago, beecee said:

    Bingo!that though won't stop certain people attempting to infer otherwise.

    Einstein:   "He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] 

    "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."

    "Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[21]"

    Hawking:  “I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science,” he said. “The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.”         Einstein said he did not believe God intervened directly into man's daily life, (as the laws of nature do, my words.)  Those statements refer to much more than the rules of nature, how can the rules of nature intervene in themselves?

          From those statements it's easy to see that the idea of God was at work in their thinking in more than an abstract way.  Does quantum mechanics for instance have anything to do with the soul?  Both men had much exposure to faiths when young, Einstein's Jewish and Catholic, and Hawking Church of England.  Einstein became a strong Zionist.  Hawking's wife was strong in her Church of England faith, even singing in the church choir,  so Hawking could not have had strong objections to the idea of God in his home. 

          My statements above are repeats of what I wrote earlier in the topic.  Had they been read I doubt you would have been so quick to say either man's idea of God related only as if they were the universe at work.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/17/what-stephen-hawking-said-about-god-his-atheism-and-his-own-death.html

    Why was Hawking's funeral religious, and why was he buried in a religious institution?  If he was a staunch atheist surely those wishes would be to lie outside the religious bounday.  It may be easy during life to say, 'I don't believe in God.'   But isn't it comforting to be buried in Hallowed Ground?  Where his birth and death dates more than coincidences?

    "Hawking was born on the 300th anniversary of Galileo's death and died on the 139th anniversary of Einstein's birth.[330] His private funeral took place at 2 pm on the afternoon of 31 March 2018,[331] at Great St Mary's Church, Cambridge.[331][332]Guests at the funeral included Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, and Queen guitarist and astrophysicist Brian May.[333]Following the cremation, a service of thanksgiving was held at Westminster Abbey on 15 June 2018, after which his ashes were interred in the Abbey's nave, alongside the grave of Sir Isaac Newton and close to that of Charles Darwin.[1][333][33"


  8. 44 minutes ago, Strange said:

    https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html

    So as Einstein had a concept of "god" (however abstract) and Hawking famously denied god, it is hard to see where to go from there...

    Hawking:  "Hawking did not rule out the existence of a Creator, asking in A Brief History of Time "Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence?"[138] In his early work, Hawking spoke of God in a metaphorical sense. In A Brief History of Time he wrote: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."[139] In the same book he suggested that the existence of God was not necessary to explain the origin of the universe. Later discussions with Neil Turok led to the realisation that the existence of God was also compatible with an open universe."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking     

     

    Einstein:   "He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

    "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."

    "Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[21]"

      

    11 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

    Hawking:  "Hawking did not rule out the existence of a Creator, asking in A Brief History of Time "Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence?"[138] In his early work, Hawking spoke of God in a metaphorical sense. In A Brief History of Time he wrote: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."[139] In the same book he suggested that the existence of God was not necessary to explain the origin of the universe. Later discussions with Neil Turok led to the realisation that the existence of God was also compatible with an open universe."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking     

     

    Einstein:   "He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

    "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."

    "Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[21]"

      

    Hawking:  “I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science,” he said. “The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.”     

    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/17/what-stephen-hawking-said-about-god-his-atheism-and-his-own-death.html

         As noted by Strange, Hawking's last book is said to include a statement 'There is no God.'  But we can't easily know his mind after that book, before the moment of his passing, because he was obviously conflicted throughout his life about God's existence.  


  9. 45 minutes ago, beecee said:

    It's not resistance for the sake of resistance...it's obviously resistance due to the fact that the incumbent has served and is serving us as well as we can hope, and of course, it [V G4,] is still being actively researched and evaluated by  our best brains. Derision is also sometimes deserved. You yourself have practised that art. [eg: the attempted derision of the theory of evolution via obtuse banter we have seen]

     

    No actually I have said a few times here in this fourums I agree that evolution is real.  I can't see how you missed those statements but I guess we get busy, or you simply misread what I said.  However, I place a limit on what evolution does.  If my limit offends you, perhaps you can tell me why we are stuck on a terminally ill planet instead of having evolved wings and other capacities allowing us to fly away?  

    8 minutes ago, Strange said:

    If you listed all the mathematicians who contributed to special and general relativity I suspect it would look like a phone book (if anyone remembers them - phone books I mean, not relativity)

    They still deliver them around to our igloos here in Canada.   Now if we could only get landlines instead of these cellphones!  It's a problem of laying lines beneath permafrost I understand.  (I wonder how far that one will go?)  

    16 minutes ago, studiot said:

    Yes I missed that.

    But I would not get to starry eyed about the wiki article on Lobachevsky without first reasearching the following names who all contributed

    Hasan ibn al-Haytham, Omar Khyyam who kicked off the game,

    Saccheri who developed these ideas in 1733

    Schweikart, Taurinus, Wachter who were active at the time  of Lobachevsky and Bolyai.

    And of course Gauss who never published so we don't fully know what he knew, except that he feared the "Boeotians"

     

    After this aside I feel I have been off topic long enough and should get back to reading the 'vector' paper.

     

    Has no one any thoughts on the postulated vector field?

    You weren't off topic at all, Studiot.  I'm sure  Lobachevsky must have been exposed to many great minds past and in his present that influenced his thought processes; indeed, during a trip in my time machine ...   HAHAHAHAAHAHHA.  Hillarious thought.  'Hello Lobachevsky, just dropped in to say hello from Sfn where not all of us are fans because of what you theaten to do with GR.'    'Have some vodka,' he might say, 'Sfn .. what are you sniffing up there?'   


  10. This could be fun .. hard to see how we can go off topic .. a lot less work for the recently overworked moderators if we remember to be polite and pleasant homo sapiens.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

    https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/news/2014/09/physics-beyond-god-play-dice-einstein-mean/

    Albert Einstein is one of the greatest and certainly best known physicists. If you ask anyone to name a physicist the most common answer you will receive is “Einstein”. Einstein is also famous for his quotations. Among the many Einstein’s quotations one is particularly popular among the general public: “God does not play dice”. But what did Einstein mean by this?

    "Not only does God play dice but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."  Hawking.

    https://ronbc.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/hawkings-hidden-dice/

    The scientific version of the debate concerns how much we can know about the state of the universe: whether we can measure, at least in principle, all that there is out there to be measured. In other words, can we ever know everything? Or will there always be surprises?

    Einstein thought that we could, famously asserting that “God does not play dice.” Today’s most celebrated scientist, Stephen Hawking, co-author of the recent The Grand Design, has determined that not only was Einstein wrong, but that there’s even more uncertainty than previously thought.

    1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

       I forgot to touch the notification icon.  

     

    Getting this started is giving me a hard time.  I can't seem to find the submit reply icon


  11. On 11/20/2018 at 3:48 PM, Strange said:

    For completeness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Lobachevsky

    The same ideas were also (independently) developed by Gauss and Bolyai. It was in the air at the time, I guess.

    Wonderful link, thank you Strange.  He was quite the guy with numbers, his wife birthing 18 children.  :blink:    

    "The boldness of his challenge and its successful outcome have inspired mathematicians and scientists in general to challenge other "axioms" or accepted "truths", for example the "law" of causality which, for centuries, have seemed as necessary to straight thinking as Euclid's postulate appeared until Lobachevsky discarded it. The full impact of the Lobachevskian method of challenging axioms has probably yet to be felt. It is no exaggeration to call Lobachevsky the Copernicus of Geometry, for geometry is only a part of the vaster domain which he renovated; it might even be just to designate him as a Copernicus of all thought."

    15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Spinoza's god, I have read somewhere.

    I resist the temptation.

    24 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I think you'll find that scientists can be a lot ruder to one another than is allowed on this forum. (And Einstein's "god" was not your god)

    I shall resist the temptation, however:  Hoyle is a good example .. calling his contemporaries liars and cheats .. and missing the Nobel probably because of that.  Who wants to honour a scoundrel?   https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize   "He had called some of them liars and cheats in public."     


  12. 1 hour ago, Strange said:

    That was an example of hoax/fraud, not stealing someone's ideas. I am not aware of any examples of the latter. Although there has been a tendency, in the past, for some female scientists to not be given the credit they deserve (Rosalind Franklin, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, etc)

    Incidentally:

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/skulduggery

    So it long predates Piltdown Man.

    I have to say, it may seem unpleasant, but this resistance to new ideas is one of the reasons that science works as well as it does. 

    Einstein was famously resistant to the implications of quantum theory, but that forced people to examine the theory more deeply and come up with experiments to test his objections. It made it a better theory.

    Resistance of course is good, but derision is destructive.  

    And no matter if I try to avoid it or not, there it is:     https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/news/2014/09/physics-beyond-god-play-dice-einstein-mean/    The whole big existential question.


  13. 1 minute ago, beecee said:

    Science nor any other institution is ever perfect...

    :rolleyes: Who is upset? Again, GR is overwhelmingly evidenced and has a top notch predictive and observationally verified data. Any attempt by any other hypothetical by any other scientist, will by necessity, need to run the gauntlet. Why do you get so upset over that logical step of the scientific method?

    Again, who is upset, other then apparently you?

    The rest of your post is simply reflecting what your posts have always reflected and your agenda laden cynical approach to science. 

    Now if you want to discuss the pros and/or cons of V G4 then go ahead. Or alternatively if you would like to debate the excellent observationally verified, and excellent predictive nature of GR then that's OK too. But you need to live with the fact that the qualities and known success of GR, will be by necessity hard to overthrow and any potential adversary will again, wait for it....need to run the gauntlet.  In other words stop your nonsense and get back on topic.

    I get upset at statements like yours .. 'who is upset other than you.'    I see upset people on these science forums all the time, they become insulting and angry when a new idea comes along.  I don't get upset by scientific ideas because I don't have a strong academic background ("THAT was obvious!" someone will say.) To me all of science is till exciting and fresh, what's to get upset about?  The need for a new idea to prove itself?  Of course!  But there is no need to set up psychological barriers of hate and fear along with the scientific barriers.


  14. 21 minutes ago, studiot said:

    And yet in in previous threads, the clarion cry has been "institutional cover up" , though I don't want to attribute particular members.

    I think in fact it has more often been personal, although influential persons can and have used their position for this.

    The equivalent of the Nobel in Mathematics is the Fields Medal, which is not of such a high monetary value, but equal prestige in Maths.

    Too often a male senior has done this to a female junior.

    But mostly male/male since there have been far more males than females in Science.

     

     

    I'm more suprised that you didn't want to know the name of the junior mathematician.

    The junior mathematician .. too many details, but if you like please yes you can provide it.   I had a hard enough time remembering Pascual Jordan's name and he is the one who most influenced my science.  One of the preeminent founders of quantum theory, nominated for a Nobel by Einstein, Jordan's formula stopping Einstein in his tracks as he was crossing a street so abruptly that cars had to stop to avoid hitting him . "If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy" the star arises from nothing."  I must be showing my age I guess, to have forgotten his name.  He more than anyone opened the gate of scientific possibility to me, had I learned of Jordan while young I probably would worked very hard to become a physicist.  


  15. 18 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Quite a cynical outlook, as opposed to critical...Like I said, the many young up and comers that would dearly love to over throw GR, along with the established experts that would love that chance and the rewards that go with it, make any chances of skull duggery virtually non existant.

    Also supporting that is the incredible experiments that are now being undertaken that will either confirm GR to even greater precision, or show some limitation with the model...the SKA now being built....the LISA Pathfinder when completed. And obviously of course the realisation and discussions of V4 and other models of gravity that have been discussed in the past like emergent gravity and LQG.

    Why else would someone want to steal someone else's work in a skull duggery way?  To me that's a critical point.   Piltdown Man is a great example of skull duggery, maybe that's why it's called what it is.  But even more important is, why do some people get so upset when someone questions what is considered a Consensus theory .. surely if they have enough evidence questions aren't going to upset them, they will patiently explain the evidence.  If this same Vector theory has been proposed by me for instance with no scientific credentials, it would almost certainly have been met with tremendous derision simply because it could be a viable alternative to GR, another lunatic idea from an uneducated lunatic, and that's why I included the author's CV, to show he has the qualification to qualify the theory for consideration.  This hard core resistance to new ideas is what pits people in these discussions against one another so strongly that polite conversation breaks down and derision begin, and that of course is not productive or fun.  Also, why should the term 'overthrow' be used regarding theories .. overthrow is rather a violent term, unless in baseball or football, but in those applications it's called error, and everyone accepts an error.  I don't think scientists want to overthrow anything as in an armed revolution, they simply want new developments to come out.    


  16. 22 hours ago, studiot said:

    Let's be fair.

    An well respected, but junior mathematician at the univesity of Kazan wrote Geometriya in 1823.
    This was the mathematics that paved the way for GR.

    It was blocked by the Progfessor of Applied Mathematics (Ostragradskii) and not publish until 1909.

    Wow.   Change takes time eh.   At least the professor didn't publish it under his own name.  His lack of understanding didn't prevent his ethics.

    2 minutes ago, beecee said:

    As I said previously, it won't be easy and nor should it be. GR has an outstanding track record. I'm sure you would join with me and hope that no mistakes are made, and just as obviously with the scientific world looking on, I'm pretty sure there will be no skull duggery as we often see science labeled with by questionable so called critics...whether GR remains as incumbent or otherwise.

     

    Skull duggery may most often arise from desire for personal gain, especially financial, a Nobel is worth a lot of money.


  17. 3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    We don't gang up, we debate...

    That's the rules...

    The gangs are obvious.  Debate is an exchange of information, not a bunch of accusation and insults.

    4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    It's also ok to forgive yourself; no god/ignorance required...

    If I had said that word god I would have been hanged.  It must be nice to have political immunity.

     

    "PS - if you do one day see that it is total bunk like many do....   PLEASE keep the love in your heart.;  That feeling you get of the holy ghost filling you with love and joy to empower you to go into the world to do good things....  KEEP THAT! Please...   but you don't need to believe a load of nonsense myths to be able to take love into the world. God is love (Book of James....  can't remember the verse)."   From Dr. P.  If you say the bible is false, why quote it?   Why?  Because an incomplete understanding of the bible or of science can lead to two things, rejection or a desire to learn more about them.  You arrived at a point where you believe the bible's seeming conflicts with science prove the bible false.  Since I became a believer in the bible I have seen my knowledge of science shows the bible true, and also that the bible shows true science true, but NOT a false science that stops at a point of self satisfaction.  Science is a lifelong search, as understanding the bible can.   Where did the water on the earth come from?  Partial or false science said from asteroids ( possibly the windows of heaven as the bible says?)  True science has continued the search and found that there is as much water IN the earth as are in the surface oceans, and that the inner water has been part of the earth since creation.  https://www.livescience.com/46292-hidden-ocean-locked-in-earth-mantle.html    I believe in true science, the continuing search .. so call it the EVOLUTION of science.    Put yes, let us love, regardless of what we credit the source as, thanks for that reminder.


  18. 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Only in error...

    I don't understand your meaning, DR.

    22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    It's also ok to forgive yourself; no god/ignorance required...

    Thanks DR .. I do have to forgive my anger at Swans abuse of power .. but he at least made it clearly known by doing it .. so I'll rejoice that darkness has come to light.   Hallelujah.  Darkness has come to light!!!


  19. Also .. isn't it prophetic of me to have foreseen my post being deleted, and sending it in a message to Moon.   At least he knows the real facts even if he chooses not to beleive them .. and it's easy for anyone else to see the coverup and prejudice, my post gone, Moon's remaining.   Thanks for the easy obviously seen additional evidence, Swan, of what you really do here.


  20. 11 hours ago, Moontanman said:

    I don't believe in satan either and please name who in the bible satan killed? God is said to have killed millions, babies, children, men, women... who is really evil in your book of fables? 

    Good call, sadly the bible doesn't allow for this but since you have displayed much dishonesty already I see no reason you would break your pattern here. 

    http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html

    I suggest you do so, my quotes are accurate... 

     

    Your sad attempt at obfuscation is deceitful, Genesis was not talking about the things you're asserting, in no place did it mention anything but aerobic complex life in the form we see today. To assert anything else is again dishonest... 

    You are being dishonest if you think any of these are part of genesis. In fact later in genesis it asserts the earth is a flat disc under a crystal dome surrounded by water with the sun moon and stars being under that dome. 

    meaningless drivel, your would have to show they had some actual evidence of being true before that was even meaningful. 

    That is a lie, bats are mammals, Kiwis are birds, this has always been the case despite god evidently not knowing it. 

    Your attempt at disinformation is sad, none of these things has anything to do with genesis or the earth being created in 6 days. Perhaps monkeys will fly out of my ass your dishonesty is disturbing coming from one who believes in the 9th commandment. 

    So god was afraid to tell people that owning people as property was wrong? seems kind of timid for a god who was willing to kill the entire world. Paul wasn't Jesus, never could have met jesus and your assertion is meaningless. jesus believed in demonic possession caused diseases, claimed that what went into your mouth couldn't hurt you but that what came out was dangerous. Jesus cursed a fig tree because it didn't bear fruit out of season. 

    So far you have failed miserably to show anything in the bible is true and done nothing but dishonestly dissemble and side step the issues. 

    The flood cannot have happened, trees die when submerged for a year, cephalopods cannot survive in water that is not within very close salinity tolerances, neither can echinoderms. There is no mechanism that could allowed so many animals to actually fit into the ark nor get them to or from the middle east. Hell the ark was too small to even hold all the insects which the bible said weren't included which means they would have all died. 

    You fail utterly and do nothing but repeat PRATT to try and smoke screen your dishonesty... Smoke and mirrors will not make your assertions true...

    There might very well be a god but not god as described in the bible, the bible is a book of fairy tales, morality tales, and parables, not facts... Biblical inerrancy is a false belief, it is demonstrably a false belief, lucky that most reasonable christians know this and understand that the bible is just mythology about their god not the inerrant word of god...  

    Oh and BTW, Kiwis are birds, they do lay eggs despite what your goofy links claims... 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi

    Bats however are mammals in the same way birds are dinosaurs. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

     

    You know what Moontanman .. Your ignorance of recent science (as much water in the earth as in all the earth's oceans) and historical scripture is forgivable, your ignorance of religous history is forgivable, your inability or unwillingness to read ("Oh and by the way, Kiwis are birds" .. yes, exactly what the link said) is forgivable, your error about the bible saying the earth is flat beneath a crystal dome is forgivable, your unbelief in the Word is forgivable, your rebellion at a just God who drowned an entire world because of the rebellion of that world against God is forgivable, in fact you are entirely forgivable, and your constant accusation that I'm a liar is also forgivable

         Looks like a much longer reply I sent about 5 a.m. this morning has been deleted or suspended.   Too much fact with references in it that contradicted your mutterings I guess.

    2 hours ago, swansont said:
    !

    Moderator Note

    And that's why your post(s) were moved, because the title of the thread does mention god. And why any other posts of the same sort will be split, as they are off-topic.

     
    !

    Moderator Note

    No. No, no, no. The title mentions evolution, and god, and whether you can believe in both. It did NOT ask anything about believing in the BB and in evolution.

    If you want to talk about this, start a new thread. (I don't think this is a difficult concept to grasp)

     

     

     

    !

    Moderator Note

    I have split many posts to the trash (though it's possible they might be moved to a new thread; we'll see)

    The topic of this thread is whether one can believe in cosmological and biological evolution and god. (from subsequent refinements, one might just say can you believe in science and god)

    It is NOT the place to discuss whether you believe in any particular scientific theory. The OP didn't ask that, and you have not been invited to opine in that area. It's whether you CAN believe in both. If you don't, that's irrelevant. And I think the question has been answered: yes, you can. But there are limitations on what kind of belief you can have, which you are free to discuss.  

     

    Any new OT responses will be hidden.

     

    It seems it's my posts with verifiable links only have been removed, while Moontan's accusations of lying and presentation of shallow science remain on.  I guess it's nice to have special friends on a forum, right Moon?  No fear of anyone seeing the real facts and seeing for themselves who's posting the fraudulent stuff, people deciding for themselves who is merely accusing someone of lying and fabrication.    Sad that a forum has to come to that kind of deceit and coverup.    Fishing buddies I suppose, well, all the poison along the Carolina coast will suit your tastes.  Enjoy.  And when Apophis hits, and raises a big personal flood for you maybe you'll have taken a lesson from history and have built an ark, and end up on a mountain.


  21. 6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

    I don't believe in satan either and please name who in the bible satan killed? God is said to have killed millions, babies, children, men, women... who is really evil in your book of fables? 

    Good call, sadly the bible doesn't allow for this but since you have displayed much dishonesty already I see no reason you would break your pattern here. 

    http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html

    I suggest you do so, my quotes are accurate... 

     

    Your sad attempt at obfuscation is deceitful, Genesis was not talking about the things you're asserting, in no place did it mention anything but aerobic complex life in the form we see today. To assert anything else is again dishonest... 

    You are being dishonest if you think any of these are part of genesis. In fact later in genesis it asserts the earth is a flat disc under a crystal dome surrounded by water with the sun moon and stars being under that dome. 

    meaningless drivel, your would have to show they had some actual evidence of being true before that was even meaningful. 

    That is a lie, bats are mammals, Kiwis are birds, this has always been the case despite god evidently not knowing it. 

    Your attempt at disinformation is sad, none of these things has anything to do with genesis or the earth being created in 6 days. Perhaps monkeys will fly out of my ass your dishonesty is disturbing coming from one who believes in the 9th commandment. 

    So god was afraid to tell people that owning people as property was wrong? seems kind of timid for a god who was willing to kill the entire world. Paul wasn't Jesus, never could have met jesus and your assertion is meaningless. jesus believed in demonic possession caused diseases, claimed that what went into your mouth couldn't hurt you but that what came out was dangerous. Jesus cursed a fig tree because it didn't bear fruit out of season. 

    So far you have failed miserably to show anything in the bible is true and done nothing but dishonestly dissemble and side step the issues. 

    The flood cannot have happened, trees die when submerged for a year, cephalopods cannot survive in water that is not within very close salinity tolerances, neither can echinoderms. There is no mechanism that could allowed so many animals to actually fit into the ark nor get them to or from the middle east. Hell the ark was too small to even hold all the insects which the bible said weren't included which means they would have all died. 

    You fail utterly and do nothing but repeat PRATT to try and smoke screen your dishonesty... Smoke and mirrors will not make your assertions true...

    There might very well be a god but not god as described in the bible, the bible is a book of fairy tales, morality tales, and parables, not facts... Biblical inerrancy is a false belief, it is demonstrably a false belief, lucky that most reasonable christians know this and understand that the bible is just mythology about their god not the inerrant word of god...  

    Oh and BTW, Kiwis are birds, they do lay eggs despite what your goofy links claims... 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi

    Bats however are mammals in the same way birds are dinosaurs. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

     

    Your seeming lack of knowledge of recent science (as much water in the earth as in all the earth's oceans https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/) as well as not realizing that the rains and upwelling of fresh water would delete the ocean's salinity during the flood to tolerable levels are understandable.   Genesis says when the flood ended the waters receded into the earth .. so once again the Word confirms science and science confirms the Word.

    Your misconceptions of present day Christian and Muslim bible believers is understandable, they do believe the bible as the Word not as myth, as you seem to have given up on anything to do with the bible and people who believe in God.  Your error regarding biblical history (did you say 2,000 gospels or 200 it doesn't matter if you had read the gospels and book of Acts you would know three gospels were written by three disciples who walked with Christ and the fourth by a physician who knew those who had walked with him as well as knowing Paul who had met Christ) but perhaps you merely studied theology in one of the world's humanist-religious institutions and were led astray.) 

    Your lack of awareness that Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus is not understandable as you seem to have at least partly read the bible and as that account is one of the most important in the NT.   (Acts Chapter 9.)  Yes it was not Christ in the flesh as the meeting occurred after crucifixion resurrection and ascension, but it was Christ, in Spirit form.

    Your inability or unwillingness to actually read what others write  ("Oh and by the way, Kiwis are birds" .. yes, exactly what the link I included said) is understandable you don't want to see your own error.  Your error about Genesis saying the earth is flat beneath a crystal dome is not understandable as you seem to have read much of Genesis,  but you seem to recognize your error as you didn't provide chapter and verse for reference. 

    Your anger at a just God who drowned an entire world because of the rebellion of that world against God is understandable as you seem to think you have left God and scripture behind, and you don't want drowning or the fire of Revelation to happen to you so you say those things did not and will not happen. 

    Apophis, 2019.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=apophis&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=apophis&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l4j35i39.21484j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8  Your seeming unawareness of some scripture concerning the coming cosmic shaking of the earth is understandable as you don't want to be one of the those who will suffer: "Therefore I will shake the heavens, and theearth shall remove out of her place." (Isaiah 13:13.) But you know the reality of the threat of asteroids and the 2029 Aphphis timeline, you will probably still be alive then and you probably have some discomfort about it.

    Your misconception or spirited accusation of me as a liar is understandable as many of us will consider a person who disagrees with us a liar .. the story of sailor James Bartley has never been perfectly settled as to whether truth or mere tale,  two ships with the same name were mentioned one a whaler and one not, for instance; but it is possible for a whale to swallow a man whole as you must have seen as your scanned the story or other internet pages.   https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/could-human-survive-being-swallowed-whale-or-big-fish-jonah   The "fish" in the bible had been prepared by God for the event so the stomach juices must have been purged, and even humans swallow air into their stomachs.)   "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." Jonah 1:17  Note the Word does not say "stomach" but belly.  The stomach of a person is in the belly of a person, but a stomach is not a belly.  We can't know the exact situation, we don't know how God prepared the "great fish."  

    Your reliance for scriptural truth on a website than plainly says it promotes human truth and human religion is puzzling.  http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html   However, 1st John starts:  "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands of handled, of the Word of life."  This same John wrote the gospel of John and the Revelation, and was with Christ at the crucifixion, and saw him after the resurrection, and was with him at the ascension. The gospel of John's first chapter tells who that same Word is, Jesus Christ.  

    I guess that's enough for now.  I'll have another look at what you wrote tomorrow probably, and instead of trying to destroy, I'll try to build on Christ's foundation.

     

     


  22. 23 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

    13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture,14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

    Geology tells us that, biology tells us that, cosmology tells us that, there are no windows to heaven to let water in, no place for the water to go afterwards, all land based trees would have died after a year underwater as would all cephalopods, echinoderms, the vast majority of freshwater fish and saltwater fish, even whales would die after a year of water of such low salinity. All l insects and any other land dwelling organisms that do not breathe through nostrils. It is had happened it would have resulted in an obvious genetic bottleneck in all land creatures, there is no way for such animals to be spread back to their original habitats much less have gotten to the middle east to start with. The entire story is nothing but a plagiarized fairy take from the epic of Gilgamesh... 

    Without the sun there could have been no days, to claim that days meant something else is dishonest at the very least and points to a god who lies. There can be no free oxygen without sunlight, we know that life in its current state did not spring into existence ex nihilo, the order of creation of plants and animals is incorrect we know the sun came first before there was an earth, the moon is not a light and your attempt to obfuscate this shows your own dishonesty...   

    Again your own dishonesty betrays you, that was nothing but a mariners story which the smithsonian says was not possible. Frome your own link

    You think wrong, jesus said it, he never said anything about stopping slavery or slaves trying to get their freedom, slavery is morally wrong and telling slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones like they would Jesus is morally wrong.. 

    No, all biblical scholars say the gospels were anonymous, if you have a source that negates that please give it. 

    No the bible says the city of "Tyre" yes i spelled it incorrectly, would be destroyed, sink into the water and never be anything but a shallow place for fishermen to cast their nets.

    https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.com/2012/04/ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-failed.html

     

    You are the one who brought this silly shit up, you are the one who made the assertions. I simply pointed out you were wrong. Anything else you like me to destroy today? 

    Destroy? "Satan comes not but for to kill and destroy."  So if you are destroying you're doing his work, and with his language too.

    God's not done with Tyre, "in the latter days shall be earthquakes ...."  etc.  As a matter of fact, as most of Tyre is build on silt it will be easy to sink it.  And as we're do for a couple of close asteroid flybyes or collisions in 10 or 15 years it's easy to see it happening. If you're young enough now, you might see it happen.  The bible talks about the 'shaking of the earth casting off its inhabitants.'

    You provided no references for your 'all biblical scholars' who say the gospels were anonymous, and that's quite a statement, as you don't know all the tens of thousands of biblical scholars, and you haven't read all the scholars' works and opinions.  The gospels themselves tell who wrote them.

    I'll have to check the Smithsonian story again, but for you to say I'm being dishonest as if I lied is an accusation and a condemnation of what could amount to an error on my part.  I will read the entire page.  

    Your lack of scientific knowledge about what ife is possible without the sun is not up to date.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-in-the-void-billions-of-rogue-planets-without-a-home/   There is much up to date scientific speculation that many of those planets are warm enough to support life without the sun, as at the bottom of earth's oceanic trenches, as beneath the ice of the moons of Saturn/Jupiter which have liquid oceans beneath their ice.

    You are almost a flat Earther if you deny the possibility that there cannot be light without the sun (volcanic heat one source, chemical light another) or that a planet can revolve faster or slower as time passes.

    Gilgamesh.  Check your time lines.  Check how well a cubic Babylonian ark would do in a flood against the design of the Genesis ark.

    The bat? "In Birds, Bats and kiwi are mammals. They don't lay eggs. They don't hatch them. They directly give birth to their young ones. So, they are birds as well as mammals." https://www.quora.com/Which-bird-is-a-mammal  Genesis came first with its definition of birds.  If some latter day scientists want to change the definition to suit their unbelief that's their choice.  

    The flood? There are oceans beneath the earth.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=oceans+inside+the+earth&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=oceans+inside+the+earth&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.8077j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 there is a river beneath the Amazon river with I think it is three times the surface river's volume. https://www.livescience.com/15849-underground-river-discovered-beneath-amazon.htmlGenesis says the waters returned into the earth. Windows of heaven?  Your own favourite science says the earth's water probably came from space. I've read that if all the ice on earth melted, and the mountains were moved to the low places, the earth would be entirely underwater.   What do you know about earth's geologic history beside what you're taught in school?  How long ago did the mountains rise from tectonic plates crashing together?  Perhaps the weight of the flood CAUSED the continents to split apart, drift, and crash together forming mountains.  You don't know how time can vary, but surely you've heard of time dilation.  You don't believe in the flood so you don't believe in the ark either that saved the animals.  Trees can regenerate after floods and after fires.  Your science is poor.

    Slaves were a factor of life.  Man was so barbaric God told Moses to command the Jews to not eat their meat raw but to cook it first.    Paul told a brother in Christ to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother instead of as a slave.    

     

     

     

    1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

    Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

    13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture,14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

    Geology tells us that, biology tells us that, cosmology tells us that, there are no windows to heaven to let water in, no place for the water to go afterwards, all land based trees would have died after a year underwater as would all cephalopods, echinoderms, the vast majority of freshwater fish and saltwater fish, even whales would die after a year of water of such low salinity. All l insects and any other land dwelling organisms that do not breathe through nostrils. It is had happened it would have resulted in an obvious genetic bottleneck in all land creatures, there is no way for such animals to be spread back to their original habitats much less have gotten to the middle east to start with. The entire story is nothing but a plagiarized fairy take from the epic of Gilgamesh... 

    Without the sun there could have been no days, to claim that days meant something else is dishonest at the very least and points to a god who lies. There can be no free oxygen without sunlight, we know that life in its current state did not spring into existence ex nihilo, the order of creation of plants and animals is incorrect we know the sun came first before there was an earth, the moon is not a light and your attempt to obfuscate this shows your own dishonesty...   

    Again your own dishonesty betrays you, that was nothing but a mariners story which the smithsonian says was not possible. Frome your own link

    You think wrong, jesus said it, he never said anything about stopping slavery or slaves trying to get their freedom, slavery is morally wrong and telling slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones like they would Jesus is morally wrong.. 

    No, all biblical scholars say the gospels were anonymous, if you have a source that negates that please give it. 

    No the bible says the city of "Tyre" yes i spelled it incorrectly, would be destroyed, sink into the water and never be anything but a shallow place for fishermen to cast their nets.

    https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.com/2012/04/ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-failed.html

     

    You are the one who brought this silly shit up, you are the one who made the assertions. I simply pointed out you were wrong. Anything else you like me to destroy today? 

    Destroy? "Satan comes not but for to kill and destroy."  So if you are destroying you're doing his work, and with his language too.

    God's not done with Tyre, "in the latter days shall be earthquakes ...."  etc.  As a matter of fact, as most of Tyre is build on silt it will be easy to sink it.  And as we're do for a couple of close asteroid flybyes or collisions in 10 or 15 years it's easy to see it happening. If you're young enough now, you might see it happen.  The bible talks about the 'shaking of the earth casting off its inhabitants.'

    You provided no references for your 'all biblical scholars' who say the gospels were anonymous, and that's quite a statement, as you don't know all the tens of thousands of biblical scholars, and you haven't read all the scholars' works and opinions.  The gospels themselves tell who wrote them.

    I'll have to check the Smithsonian story again, but for you to say I'm being dishonest as if I lied is an accusation and a condemnation of what could amount to an error on my part.  I will read the entire page.  

    Your lack of scientific knowledge about what ife is possible without the sun is not up to date.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-in-the-void-billions-of-rogue-planets-without-a-home/   There is much up to date scientific speculation that many of those planets are warm enough to support life without the sun, as at the bottom of earth's oceanic trenches, as beneath the ice of the moons of Saturn/Jupiter which have liquid oceans beneath their ice.

    You are almost a flat Earther if you deny the possibility that there cannot be light without the sun (volcanic heat one source, chemical light another) or that a planet can revolve faster or slower as time passes.

    Gilgamesh.  Check your time lines.  Check how well a cubic Babylonian ark would do in a flood against the design of the Genesis ark.

    The bat? "In Birds, Bats and kiwi are mammals. They don't lay eggs. They don't hatch them. They directly give birth to their young ones. So, they are birds as well as mammals." https://www.quora.com/Which-bird-is-a-mammal  Genesis came first with its definition of birds.  If some latter day scientists want to change the definition to suit their unbelief that's their choice.  

    The flood? There are oceans beneath the earth.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=oceans+inside+the+earth&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=oceans+inside+the+earth&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.8077j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 there is a river beneath the Amazon river with I think it is three times the surface river's volume. https://www.livescience.com/15849-underground-river-discovered-beneath-amazon.htmlGenesis says the waters returned into the earth. Windows of heaven?  Your own favourite science says the earth's water probably came from space. I've read that if all the ice on earth melted, and the mountains were moved to the low places, the earth would be entirely underwater.   What do you know about earth's geologic history beside what you're taught in school?  How long ago did the mountains rise from tectonic plates crashing together?  Perhaps the weight of the flood CAUSED the continents to split apart, drift, and crash together forming mountains.  You don't know how time can vary, but surely you've heard of time dilation.  You don't believe in the flood so you don't believe in the ark either that saved the animals.  Trees can regenerate after floods and after fires.  Your science is poor.

    Slaves were a factor of life.  Man was so barbaric God told Moses to command the Jews to not eat their meat raw but to cook it first.    Paul told a brother in Christ to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother instead of as a slave.    

    1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

    Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

    13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture,14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

    Geology tells us that, biology tells us that, cosmology tells us that, there are no windows to heaven to let water in, no place for the water to go afterwards, all land based trees would have died after a year underwater as would all cephalopods, echinoderms, the vast majority of freshwater fish and saltwater fish, even whales would die after a year of water of such low salinity. All l insects and any other land dwelling organisms that do not breathe through nostrils. It is had happened it would have resulted in an obvious genetic bottleneck in all land creatures, there is no way for such animals to be spread back to their original habitats much less have gotten to the middle east to start with. The entire story is nothing but a plagiarized fairy take from the epic of Gilgamesh... 

    Without the sun there could have been no days, to claim that days meant something else is dishonest at the very least and points to a god who lies. There can be no free oxygen without sunlight, we know that life in its current state did not spring into existence ex nihilo, the order of creation of plants and animals is incorrect we know the sun came first before there was an earth, the moon is not a light and your attempt to obfuscate this shows your own dishonesty...   

    Again your own dishonesty betrays you, that was nothing but a mariners story which the smithsonian says was not possible. Frome your own link

    You think wrong, jesus said it, he never said anything about stopping slavery or slaves trying to get their freedom, slavery is morally wrong and telling slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones like they would Jesus is morally wrong.. 

    No, all biblical scholars say the gospels were anonymous, if you have a source that negates that please give it. 

    No the bible says the city of "Tyre" yes i spelled it incorrectly, would be destroyed, sink into the water and never be anything but a shallow place for fishermen to cast their nets.

    https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.com/2012/04/ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-failed.html

     

    You are the one who brought this silly shit up, you are the one who made the assertions. I simply pointed out you were wrong. Anything else you like me to destroy today? 

    Destroy? "Satan comes not but for to kill and destroy."  So if you are destroying you're doing his work, and with his language too.

    God's not done with Tyre, "in the latter days shall be earthquakes ...."  etc.  As a matter of fact, as most of Tyre is build on silt it will be easy to sink it.  And as we're do for a couple of close asteroid flybyes or collisions in 10 or 15 years it's easy to see it happening. If you're young enough now, you might see it happen.  The bible talks about the 'shaking of the earth casting off its inhabitants.'

    You provided no references for your 'all biblical scholars' who say the gospels were anonymous, and that's quite a statement, as you don't know all the tens of thousands of biblical scholars, and you haven't read all the scholars' works and opinions.  The gospels themselves tell who wrote them.

    I'll have to check the Smithsonian story again, but for you to say I'm being dishonest as if I lied is an accusation and a condemnation of what could amount to an error on my part.  I will read the entire page.  

    Your lack of scientific knowledge about what ife is possible without the sun is not up to date.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wandering-in-the-void-billions-of-rogue-planets-without-a-home/   There is much up to date scientific speculation that many of those planets are warm enough to support life without the sun, as at the bottom of earth's oceanic trenches, as beneath the ice of the moons of Saturn/Jupiter which have liquid oceans beneath their ice.

    You are almost a flat Earther if you deny the possibility that there cannot be light without the sun (volcanic heat one source, chemical light another) or that a planet can revolve faster or slower as time passes.

    Gilgamesh.  Check your time lines.  Check how well a cubic Babylonian ark would do in a flood against the design of the Genesis ark.

    The bat? "In Birds, Bats and kiwi are mammals. They don't lay eggs. They don't hatch them. They directly give birth to their young ones. So, they are birds as well as mammals." https://www.quora.com/Which-bird-is-a-mammal  Genesis came first with its definition of birds.  If some latter day scientists want to change the definition to suit their unbelief that's their choice.  

    The flood? There are oceans beneath the earth.  https://www.google.ca/search?q=oceans+inside+the+earth&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=oceans+inside+the+earth&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l4.8077j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 there is a river beneath the Amazon river with I think it is three times the surface river's volume. https://www.livescience.com/15849-underground-river-discovered-beneath-amazon.htmlGenesis says the waters returned into the earth. Windows of heaven?  Your own favourite science says the earth's water probably came from space. I've read that if all the ice on earth melted, and the mountains were moved to the low places, the earth would be entirely underwater.   What do you know about earth's geologic history beside what you're taught in school?  How long ago did the mountains rise from tectonic plates crashing together?  Perhaps the weight of the flood CAUSED the continents to split apart, drift, and crash together forming mountains.  You don't know how time can vary, but surely you've heard of time dilation.  You don't believe in the flood so you don't believe in the ark either that saved the animals.  Trees can regenerate after floods and after fires.  Your science is poor.

    Slaves were a factor of life.  Man was so barbaric God told Moses to command the Jews to not eat their meat raw but to cook it first.    Paul told a brother in Christ to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother instead of as a slave.    

    I don't know what's going on with the submit reply and save functions.   Somehow I got 3 of the same postings.  It's past my bedtime and I'm tired might account for it.  I just don't know.


  23. 5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    Well let's see, bats are not birds, no world wide flood ever happened, the earth was not created in 6 days, no man was ever swallowed by a fish and regurgitated days later alive. Jesus said for slaves to obey their masters while the old testament actually allows slavery no eyewitness sources wrote anything of the four gospels, the city of Tir is still not just standing but still being lived in. 

     

    Just because it agrees with other books that are bullshit doesn't mean it's true...   

     

    MY copy of Lord of the Rings is 100% accurate to earlier printings, doesn't make it true...  

    Oh and BTW please demonstrate the holy spirit exists before you use it as a source of factual information... 

    Well let's see, bats are not birds,

                do you have a chapter verse I can check? 

    no world wide flood ever happened,

                How can you know that?

    the earth was not created in 6 days,

                How do you know how long the days were?  The days were divisions between light and darkness.  They could have been hundreds of millions of years.  The sun was not created until the fourth day.  There are forms of light not involving the sun.  There can be lots of life without sunlight the bottom of the ocean trenches are proof of that and lots of light on the fish down there.

    no man was ever swallowed by a fish and regurgitated days later alive.

              Smithsonian says it's possible:    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/could-a-whale-accidentally-swallow-you-it-is-possible-26353362/

    Okay, so whale sharks won’t swallow you. But what about toothed whales? They do sometimes swallow prey whole, so you could fit down their esophagus. Sperm whales sometimes swallow squid whole, so it could definitely manage a human. In fact, there’s a story of a sailor being swallowed by a sperm whale off the Falkland Islands in the early 1900s. The story says that aftter sailors chased a sperm whale for several hours, the whale caused a few men to be pitched in to the ocean. Then, well, this happened:

    The whale was dead, and in a few hours the great body was lying by the ship’s side, and the men ere busy with axes and spades cutting through the flesh to secure the fat. They worked all day and part of the night. They resumed operations the next forenoon, and were soon down to the stomach, which was to be hoisted to the deck. The workmen were startled while labouring to clear it and to fasten the chain about it to discover something doubled up in it that gave spasmodic signs of life. The vast pouch was hoisted to the deck and cut open, and inside was found the missing sailor, doubled up and unconscious. He was laid out on the deck and treated to a bath of sea-water, which soon revived him, but his mind was not clear, and he was placed in the captain’s quarters, where he remained to weeks a raving lunatic. He was carefully treated by the captain and officers of the ship, and he finally began to get possession of his senses. At the end of the third week he had finally recovered from the shock, and resumed his duties. 


    Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/could-a-whale-accidentally-swallow-you-it-is-possible-26353362/#BlpxiCYtIjEBPrrX.99
    Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
    Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

    Jesus said for slaves to obey their masters while the old testament actually allows slavery

              Jesus did not say that one of the apostles did, Paul I think.  Slaves were commonplace in those days, like employees today.                What does that have to do with biblical accuracy?

    no eyewitness sources wrote anything of the four gospels,

             Mathew Mark and John.  Luke was a physician who knew the apostles and who received his knowledge from them,                              Luke 1:1and2, Luke was also a friend of Paul's who called him "the beloved physician." 

    the city of Tir is still not just standing but still being lived in.

            Tir?  You mean Tyre?  I might look into that, but cities in the east were destroyed in wars and rebuilt so many times they ended            up sitting on artificial hills with the destroyed cities in layers beneath them.   

    Oh and BTW please demonstrate the holy spirit exists before you use it as a source of factual information. 

            I think my patience in the face of severe abuse and even lewdness on this forum is a demonstration.   I think that the forum has          a section for religion is another demonstration.

    Moontanman ..  Tyre .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon ...  the old city is an archceological site.  the new city built alongside it, near it, around it, whatever.  And in any case, with the middle east conflict, the entire city could end up leveled.   If you could provide a chapter verse I'll look into it further.


  24. 7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    No I am saying you are mistaken and no the Kings James is not true, it's not even an accurate translation...  

    Here's a proposal:  I'll tell you why the KJV is 100% accurate, then you tell me why it's not accurate.

    I began reading and studying the KJV 41 years ago, sometimes with the help of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.  If I had doubts of words in those years I turned to Strong's.  When I was converted to Christ the Holy Spirit told me the KJV was a perfect book.  I have had NO reason since to question beyond the Strong's, as every word matches every meaning and intention.  One example of the KJV's perfection is John Baptist telling soldiers, "Do violence to no man."  This alone would end war.  Jesus says, "Put up thy sword, for those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."  That is perfect agreement found in few other translations.  

    Okay Moontan .. you're turn. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.