Flat Earth - For all the Ballers out there I have a question..

[Libertaurum]

Where are the intermediary links then?

Ever heard of Orrorin Tugenesis? Or Austrolopithecus Afarensis?
There have been a number of significant finds in the past 20 years. Our understanding of evolution has also evolved.

I see what you've been doing now. You make false claims about what a poster is saying to create an argument with them. They respond. You make more false claims about what they said to continue the argument and get a response from them. They respond. Rinse and repeat. There's a word for this argumentive tactic. It has something to do with hay or straws, or something like that. But, straws are banned, at least in California. You were doing it with me and I just watched you do the same damn thing to goldielox1, twice. Get real.

Why make false statements, SOG? You get real.

This all came about because I said science is not some sort of religion. That obviously hit a nerve with both you and goldie and now you're both getting bent out of shape over evolution, atheism and other non-topics, talking about how bad science is and how we should all believe everything the Bible says instead.

Fail.

I'm confused...on one hand you said that "religious dogma does not equal scientific fact, which I agree with. Then you contradict your statement by stating that your religious origins myth of evolutionism is supported by science. Evolutionism is the most illogical and unscientific religious origins account I can think of. Since you refuse to state how a religious origins myth that contradicts all known laws of science is supported by science (1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Biogenesis, Cause and Effect, Mathematics and Statistic) I can only conclude either you really hate science or you just don't know anything about science.

The Bible on the other hand is in fact a science book. How can I say that? Well it's easy one of the highest forms of evidence is eyewitness testimony, which is accepted in both courts of law as evidence, and for instance by those investigating an event such as a policeman trying to figure out how a wrecked car on the side of the road got there. The first thing he would do is ask for eyewitness accounts, which the Bible is full of. There is an eyewitness account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the author himself not only witnessed it but documented it so that only a fool (atheist?) would deny the obvious that the universe was made by an intelligent mind. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" despite all the evidence pointing to a Creator, is the same fool that would look in the mirror and miss the nose in front of his face.

Yes, I know you are confused, goldie.
Evolution is supported by science. Biology, genetics, physics, geology, etc.
The Bible is not.
If you think, as you say, that "the Bible is in fact a science book" then you're even more confused than I thought.
Please also note that it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that, simply because someone is unwilling to accept the Bible as a science book, they must be atheist.
Your version of God is not the only version of God.

First statement: That has become obvious.
Second statement: That is not true. The evolutionary theory is full of holes and there are a multitude of scientists, of all types, who admit to it. Some are creationists, some are not, but they see the obvious problems. To be honest, L, many of your statements actually do reflect a bias towards an evolutionist religious viewpoint. And evolutionism is a religion. Just like global warmism or climatism, whatever you want to call it, based on religiously held beliefs, rather than evidence and honest data. That's where true science lies. Honest data, obtained by real scientific methods, interpreted objectively, without prejudice.

First response: So? This ain't Catholic school. I've read the Bible as I've read other historical books. I didn't memorize it and I didn't take it as the word of God. If you do, that's your own problem.
Second response: Again, the fact that you and goldie insist on equating science and religion serves only to reveal the fact that you are insecure about your own beliefs and so must try to make everyone else's beliefs just as questionable.
They are not.

Shall we open separate threads and discuss evolution, the Bible and atheism, or shall we get back to the topic at hand?

That the Earth is round is a scientifically proven fact. I'm glad we agree on that.

 

[Son of Gloin]

Ever heard of Orrorin Tugenesis? Or Austrolopithecus Afarensis?
There have been a number of significant finds in the past 20 years. Our understanding of evolution has also evolved.


Why make false statements, SOG? You get real.

This all came about because I said science is not some sort of religion. That obviously hit a nerve with both you and goldie and now you're both getting bent out of shape over evolution, atheism and other non-topics, talking about how bad science is and how we should all believe everything the Bible says instead.

Fail.


Yes, I know you are confused, goldie.
Evolution is supported by science. Biology, genetics, physics, geology, etc.
The Bible is not.
If you think, as you say, that "the Bible is in fact a science book" then you're even more confused than I thought.
Please also note that it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that, simply because someone is unwilling to accept the Bible as a science book, they must be atheist.
Your version of God is not the only version of God.



First response: So? This ain't Catholic school. I've read the Bible as I've read other historical books. I didn't memorize it and I didn't take it as the word of God. If you do, that's your own problem.
Second response: Again, the fact that you and goldie insist on equating science and religion serves only to reveal the fact that you are insecure about your own beliefs and so must try to make everyone else's beliefs just as questionable.
They are not.

Shall we open separate threads and discuss evolution, the Bible and atheism, or shall we get back to the topic at hand?

That the Earth is round is a scientifically proven fact. I'm glad we agree on that.

This is exactly what I mean. Goldielox1 and I did not, absolutely not say that science itself is religion. Repeat, just in case you're dense, did NOT say that science itself is a religion. You're either being disingenuous or you're being stupid. Which one is it?

 

[Libertaurum]

This is exactly what I mean. Goldielox1 and I did not, absolutely not say that science itself is religion. Repeat, just in case you're dense, did NOT say that science itself is a religion. You're either being disingenuous or you're being stupid. Which one is it?

Riiight...

...
Science itself, though, can be turned into a religion and indeed has been by some people. This religion is called Scientism and is used to justify many ideological and political beliefs.
...

Anyway, it looks like now we can agree on two key points:

1. The Earth is round.
2. Science is not a religion (which is what I initially said anyway)

I suppose we should call that progress.

 

[Son of Gloin]

Riiight...

Anyway, it looks like now we can agree on two key points:

1. The Earth is round.
2. Science is not a religion (which is what I initially said anyway)

I suppose we should call that progress.

Riiight...
Just as long as you see that science itself is not a religion, but the belief in science as the ultimate arbiter of all truths is a religion, called Scientism. Science, properly applied is the arbiter of truth in only one plane of existence and that is the material world. Science cannot tell you if anything exists beyond the physical. It does not have the necessary tools to do so. The inner, spiritual world and the outer spiritual world are beyond it's domain. Many people like to pretend that science explains or can be made to explain everything about everything. This is Scientism. It's a belief system about science, themselves and all of existence. A religion. Science itself is not a religion, it is a toolbox created by the mind of man to measure physical reality. I believe goldielox1 would agree with me. And yes, I believe the earth is round. I don't know it for certain, because I'm mostly taking the word of scientists (imagine that) and general common knowledge and running with it, so to speak. A round earth just makes so much more sense than a flat earth. A flat earth just begs too many questions.

 

[Libertaurum]

Riiight...
Just as long as you see that science itself is not a religion...

I was the one who originally made that point, remember? Then you said "science itself" had been turned into a religion by some.
Also, I did not suggest science could provide spiritual answers, so I don't know where that came from.
Anyway, glad you see it as well: science is not some mysterious religion.

 

[Son of Gloin]

I was the one who originally made that point, remember? Then you said "science itself" had been turned into a religion by some.
Also, I did not suggest science could provide spiritual answers, so I don't know where that came from.
Anyway, glad you see it as well: science is not some mysterious religion.

You win Libertaurum. Thank God, I finally saw the light.

 

[goldielox1]

Ever heard of Orrorin Tugenesis? Or Austrolopithecus Afarensis?
There have been a number of significant finds in the past 20 years. Our understanding of evolution has also evolved.

Snore...these evolutionary icons fall into two categories: 1) Either 100% ape (Lucy that was a ape that lived in trees) or 100% human (neanderthal man who has a brain capacity that was 50% larger than modern man yet was supposed to be some ancient evolutionary dummy). 2) Deliberate Frauds such as Piltdown Man:

“Britain’s Greatest Hoax” is the title of the Timewatch investigation of the Piltdown Man fraud, shown on BBC2 television recently. Dr. A. J. Monty White discusses this prominent evolutionary fraud.

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown. The Piltdown Man fraud was a great embarrassment to the UK scientific community and questions about it were even asked in the House of Parliament.

Does this not sound like a religion to you where it's adherents are so desperate to convince the masses that their religious origins myth is correct that they have to fabricate fraudulent evidence to gain followers? Sure does to me.

But let's back up to the even more miraculous parts of your religion. Please describe how the first form of life evolved? How did it evolve in an oxiziding environment (oxygen causes amino acids to quickly decay). What did it eat, how did it reproduce? Or if you would like to back up further, how did higher chemicals "evolve" from Hydrogen? Or back up even further and explain the miracle of how the universe created itself. How did that work scientifically again where nothing exploded creating everything?

This all came about because I said science is not some sort of religion.

No, we all agree science (which just means knowledge) isn't a religion.

You are lying. What you said was evolutionism isn't a religion, which it in fact is. How can we know? Well it is a miraculous occurance that defies all known laws of science (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Cause and Effect, Biogenesis, matter from non-matter, information from non-information, order from chaos, mathematics, and statistics.) One must just have enough faith to believe in this fairy tale religious origins myth. It certainly isn't scientific to believe in something that is contrary to science.

 

[BarnacleBob]

All life support systems (bodies) on earth have evolved from an alien parasitic source! The real question is where does "anima mundi" come from and how is consciouness conceived and/or transmitted? Personally, flat or round doesnt matter, I think we dwell in a sonoluminescent energy bubble & Mother Nature, et al is the cruelist of serial murderers & torturers!

pan·sper·mi·a
panˈspərmēə/Submit
noun

the theory that life on the earth originated from microorganisms or chemical precursors of life present in outer space and able to initiate life on reaching a suitable environment

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Anima Mundi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi

Sonoluminrescence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

 

[Son of Gloin]

All life support systems (bodies) on earth have evolved from an alien parasitic source! The real question is where does "anima mundi" come from and how is consciouness conceived and/or transmitted? Personally, flat or round doesnt matter, I think we dwell in a sonoluminescent energy bubble & Mother Nature, et al is the cruelist of serial murderers & torturers!

pan·sper·mi·a
panˈspərmēə/Submit
noun

the theory that life on the earth originated from microorganisms or chemical precursors of life present in outer space and able to initiate life on reaching a suitable environment

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Anima Mundi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi

Sonoluminrescence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

The idea of panspermia only pushes the question of the origin of life farther out in space or farther back in time. It never really gets around to addressing the ultimate question of origins. If life on earth came from "out there," how did life develop out there? And if life out there came from farther out there and farther back in time, just where did that life come from? As far as anima mundi is concerned, if I understand the term correctly, what animated the universe itself? Why should the universe be so animated and possess the intrinsic propensity for life? Why should the conditions for life be so prevalent in our universe and indeed, why should our universe exist at all? Why should anything exist without a reason? If there is a reason, isn't there a will required for existence? I can't buy the "it just is" theory.

 

[Joe King]

Does this not sound like a religion to you where it's adherents are so desperate to convince the masses that their religious origins myth is correct that they have to fabricate fraudulent evidence to gain followers? Sure does to me.

No. What it is, was a people trying to pull a fast one on everyone else by faking science.
...and whose plan was ultimately thwarted by actual science.

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan.

Doctor Kenneth Oakley applied a proper use of science in order to show the truth of the matter.
....but either way, what does it have to do with a flat Earth?

 

[BarnacleBob]

The idea of panspermia only pushes the question of the origin of life farther out in space or farther back in time. It never really gets around to addressing the ultimate question of origins. If life on earth came from "out there," how did life develop out there? And if life out there came from farther out there and farther back in time, just where did that life come from? As far as anima mundi is concerned, if I understand the term correctly, what animated the universe itself? Why should the universe be so animated and possess the intrinsic propensity for life? Why should the conditions for life be so prevalent in our universe and indeed, why should our universe exist at all? Why should anything exist without a reason? If there is a reason, isn't there a will required for existence? I can't buy the "it just is" theory.

I really dont possess a philosophy to answer your questions except to admit that "I just dont know the answers." The best explainations I have ever read were supposedly seem & observed by the Gnostic sects... namely the Demiurgos (Yaldabaoth, Sakla, Samael Jehovah) & his archons (governors) created this universe... Pistas Sophia created the Demiurgos without a male counterpart and hence this creation is an evil abomination that must be corrected. In this creation myth, the Gods live in the center of our pin wheel armed galaxy which is represented by the ancient symbol used by the Nazis known as the swastica.

I suspect a lot of the reported Gnostic observations are like most everything else, i.e. corrupted & misreported to preserve the status quo, etc... To the best of my knowledge the Gnostics never reported whether the planet was round, pear shaped, flat or any other shape.

 

[Son of Gloin]

I really dont possess a philosophy to answer your questions except to admit that "I just dont know the answers." The best explainations I have ever read were supposedly seem & observed by the Gnostic sects... namely the Demiurgos (Yaldabaoth, Sakla, Samael Jehovah) & his archons (governors) created this universe... Pistas Sophia created the Demiurgos without a male counterpart and hence this creation is an evil abomination that must be corrected. In this creation myth, the Gods live in the center of our pin wheel armed galaxy which is represented by the ancient symbol used by the Nazis known as the swastica.

I suspect a lot of the reported Gnostic observations are like most everything else, i.e. corrupted & misreported to preserve the status quo, etc... To the best of my knowledge the Gnostics never reported whether the planet was round, pear shaped, flat or any other shape.

Well, I'll continue to believe in the simplistic Biblical explanation for the existence of everything. God spoke it into being by His word and by His word all things exist. I'm also going with a round earth belief system. Makes a lot more sense than flat.

 

[Libertaurum]

Snore...these evolutionary icons fall into two categories: 1) Either 100% ape (Lucy that was a ape that lived in trees) or 100% human (neanderthal man who has a brain capacity that was 50% larger than modern man yet was supposed to be some ancient evolutionary dummy). 2) Deliberate Frauds such as Piltdown Man:

“Britain’s Greatest Hoax” is the title of the Timewatch investigation of the Piltdown Man fraud, shown on BBC2 television recently. Dr. A. J. Monty White discusses this prominent evolutionary fraud.

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown. The Piltdown Man fraud was a great embarrassment to the UK scientific community and questions about it were even asked in the House of Parliament.

Does this not sound like a religion to you where it's adherents are so desperate to convince the masses that their religious origins myth is correct that they have to fabricate fraudulent evidence to gain followers? Sure does to me.

But let's back up to the even more miraculous parts of your religion. Please describe how the first form of life evolved? How did it evolve in an oxiziding environment (oxygen causes amino acids to quickly decay). What did it eat, how did it reproduce? Or if you would like to back up further, how did higher chemicals "evolve" from Hydrogen? Or back up even further and explain the miracle of how the universe created itself. How did that work scientifically again where nothing exploded creating everything?



No, we all agree science (which just means knowledge) isn't a religion.

You are lying. What you said was evolutionism isn't a religion, which it in fact is. How can we know? Well it is a miraculous occurance that defies all known laws of science (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Cause and Effect, Biogenesis, matter from non-matter, information from non-information, order from chaos, mathematics, and statistics.) One must just have enough faith to believe in this fairy tale religious origins myth. It certainly isn't scientific to believe in something that is contrary to science.

You lie. I said science is not a religion. I also said evolution is supported by science. I know you don't like it, but don't distort it to fit your purposes.

Also, as usual, you know not that of which you speak, goldie. If you think anthropologists, paleontologists, biologists, anatomists and other scientists can't tell the difference between a chimpanzee's skeleton and an early human skeleton, while you can, you'll have to sell that bridge down the road to someone else.

It was an evolutionary anthropologist and paleologist that exposed the Piltdown Man fraud, not a creationist. And, as Joe said, that's completely irrelevant anyway.

If you are sincerely interested in understanding how elements are formed (stars and supernovas), how life evolved (natural selection) and how the Universe was created (Big Bang Theory), I suggest you read some books, do some research and find out. It will do you a lot of good and you'll enjoy it, too.

Besides, you didn't answer my question:
Do you accept the fact that the Earth is round, goldie?
That's the relevant issue. (I'll look for your threads on evolution and thermodynamics.)

 

[Joe King]

nothing exploded creating everything

See, that's an example of improper paraphrasing.

No one says that's how the "big bang" is theorized to have worked. Well, no one other than those attempting to ridicule the theory.

A better way of describing it would be, everything "exploded" and spread out into what we see in the Universe. The same "stuff" was there, it was just very very densely packed together. Now it's spread out and able to form all the different molecules and other things we know as matter.

Think of it as us and everything else as being within the "explosion".

 

[BarnacleBob]

See, that's an example of improper paraphrasing.

No one says that's how the "big bang" is theorized to have worked. Well, no one other than those attempting to ridicule the theory.

A better way of describing it would be, everything "exploded" and spread out into what we see in the Universe. The same "stuff" was there, it was just very very densely packed together. Now it's spread out and able to form all the different molecules and other things we know as matter.

Think of it as us and everything else as being within the "explosion".

Back in the early 1990's I once owned the book "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne. In the book, Thorne describes pre-Big Bang as timeless with electrons, protons & neutrons just randomly flying around with no purpose until by chance an electron, proton & neutron all collided at once producing the big bang and with it the 4th dimension of time. Its been a long time since reading the theory, thats what I remember of it which may not be exactly accurate but somewhat close to the BBT.

 

[Mujahideen]

The Big Bang theory best explains what “we” “know” about the universe. It doesn’t mean it’s true. Looking at what information we have, I tend to agree.

 

[newmisty]

No, we all agree science (which just means knowledge) isn't a religion.

You are lying. What you said was evolutionism isn't a religion, which it in fact is. How can we know? Well it is a miraculous occurance that defies all known laws of science (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Cause and Effect, Biogenesis, matter from non-matter, information from non-information, order from chaos, mathematics, and statistics.) One must just have enough faith to believe in this fairy tale religious origins myth. It certainly isn't scientific to believe in something that is contrary to science.

Actually I personally believe science IS a religion. And a dangerous one at that.

 

[Son of Gloin]

I think prior to The Big Bang there was nothing. No protons, no neutrons, no electrons. No densely packed mass of matter waiting to explode. Nothing. There wasn't even space, because there was nothing existing to fill space and give it meaning . Einstein said that without matter, there is no space, because space has no meaning without material things to fill it. And without matter in space, there can be no time, because time only has meaning if there is physical matter changing in relationship to other matter to give time meaning. So, that leaves the question, without space and time, can matter exist? I say it all came into existence at once, at the same tiny fraction of a second, instantaneously. Matter, time, space, all created at once, to give the idea of a universe, of physical existence, meaning and reality. I am a theist, so to me, God spoke all existence into being at one moment and everything that wasn't, was when He made it so.

Oh..., and eventually He made the earth and it was round, not flat or square.

 

[Libertaurum]

Actually I personally believe science IS a religion. And a dangerous one at that.

Do you distrust reason as well?

I think prior to The Big Bang there was nothing. No protons, no neutrons, no electrons. No densely packed mass of matter waiting to explode. Nothing. There wasn't even space, because there was nothing existing to fill space and give it meaning . Einstein said that without matter, there is no space, because space has no meaning without material things to fill it. And without matter in space, there can be no time, because time only has meaning if there is physical matter changing in relationship to other matter to give time meaning. So, that leaves the question, without space and time, can matter exist? I say it all came into existence at once, at the same tiny fraction of a second, instantaneously. Matter, time, space, all created at once, to give the idea of a universe, of physical existence, meaning and reality. I am a theist, so to me, God spoke all existence into being at one moment and everything that wasn't, was when He made it so.

Oh..., and eventually He made the earth and it was round, not flat or square.

The logical question would be how did God come into existence, but I won't ask that.
I usually stay away from discussions about theological or spiritual matters, precisely because those are subjects in which reason, science and logic do not apply. Therefore, arguments and counter-arguments are pointless.

There are only two spiritual states: knowing and not knowing; love and want.

See?

 

[newmisty]

Do you distrust reason as well?


The logical question would be how did God come into existence, but I won't ask that.
I usually stay away from discussions about theological or spiritual matters, precisely because those are subjects in which reason, science and logic do not apply. Therefore, arguments and counter-arguments are pointless.

There are only two kinds of spiritual states: knowing and not knowing; love and want.

See?

Reason would be not allowing oneself to become delimited to an ever changing and evolving scientific understanding that constantly explains away phenomena it cannot yet touch or understand, yet genuinely exists and manifests in our lives.

 

[Libertaurum]

Reason would be not allowing oneself to become delimited to an ever changing and evolving scientific understanding that constantly explains away phenomena it cannot yet touch or understand, yet genuinely exists and manifests in our lives.

That sounds like religion to me. Attempting to explain away complex phenomena that are not properly understood.
Scientists know they don't know everything and don't have all the answers. That's what drives science.

Scientists have a theory for how life evolved and how the Universe was created. Not about how God was created or whether he exists. Can you find a scientific definition of "God" anywhere? Of course not. Science knows what it doesn't know. Religion purports to know it all.

 

[goldielox1]

No. What it is, was a people trying to pull a fast one on everyone else by faking science.
...and whose plan was ultimately thwarted by actual science.

No it sounds like somethig a religous cult would do, not rational scientists. If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck.

You lie. I said science is not a religion. I also said evolution is supported by science. I know you don't like it, but don't distort it to fit your purposes.

Also, as usual, you know not that of which you speak, goldie. If you think anthropologists, paleontologists, biologists, anatomists and other scientists can't tell the difference between a chimpanzee's skeleton and an early human skeleton, while you can, you'll have to sell that bridge down the road to someone else.

It was an evolutionary anthropologist and paleologist that exposed the Piltdown Man fraud, not a creationist. And, as Joe said, that's completely irrelevant anyway.

If you are sincerely interested in understanding how elements are formed (stars and supernovas), how life evolved (natural selection) and how the Universe was created (Big Bang Theory), I suggest you read some books, do some research and find out. It will do you a lot of good and you'll enjoy it, too.

It was an evolutionist that created the fake piltdown man using a file and half a chimp skull and half a human skull. I guess even if it's a big fat lie as long as it pushes your religion its okay right? Oh because if we evolved from a rock, then there is no morality and lying isn't wrong right?

You subsitute the word "science" for "evolutionism". They are actually mutually exclusive. One can't believe in science and evolutionism because they entirely contradict each other. Science obeys scientific laws, while evolutionism breaks every single scientific law we know of. Then you claim that you didn't say "evolutionism isn't religion" where you said "science isn't religion" then equate your religious evolutionary beliefs as being actual science when it isn't. Rather ridiculous.

I also find it amusing that you call scientists that agree with your religious big bang origins myth to be scientists, but scientists that believe in the religious origins myth of supernatural creation to not be "scientists" rather "creationists". Your bias is pretty blatant, no?

I suppose I should follow suit those that believe in the true origins are scientists but those that believe in the atheist origins myth are "evolutionists" not "scientists". Fortunately basically the father of every major scientific field is/was a "scientist" and not an "evolutionist". You know guys like Kelvin, Pasteur, Mendel, Newton, et al.

LIST OF CREATIONIST GIANTS OF SCIENCE AND THE FIELD THEY "FATHERED"
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705) NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889) STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS​

ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871) INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626) SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872) THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

So let's see..ironically the founding father of your religious origins myth was a pastor and a racist: Pastor Charles Darwin who's seminal racist work was "The origin of species and the preservation of FAVOURED RACES". Which races are the favored ones btw? Your founding father had a degree in religion and nothing in science...lol so funny since he is considered the father of religious atheism.

See, that's an example of improper paraphrasing.

No one says that's how the "big bang" is theorized to have worked. Well, no one other than those attempting to ridicule the theory.

A better way of describing it would be, everything "exploded" and spread out into what we see in the Universe. The same "stuff" was there, it was just very very densely packed together. Now it's spread out and able to form all the different molecules and other things we know as matter.

Think of it as us and everything else as being within the "explosion".

So basically your interpretation of it is that it explains absolutely nothing. The question is where did the universe come from. Even the stauchist atheist believing scientist has dismissed the idea of an eternal universe, yet you apparently didn't get the memo. If the universe is eternal then you have an even bigger problem to explain.

The Big Bang theory best explains what “we” “know” about the universe. It doesn’t mean it’s true. Looking at what information we have, I tend to agree.

Really? What information do we have that The BB Theory well explains? We actually see the opposite of what the atheist religious origins predicts. Things like non-uniform Cosmic Background Radiation, a universe that has a fixed amount of matter/energy, a universe that is becoming more and more chaotic (2nd Law TD)....those are all predicted and fit the creationist model and are contrary to what the atheist model predicts.

The logical question would be how did God come into existence, but I won't ask that.
I usually stay away from discussions about theological or spiritual matters?

Good idea. Every time you try to, you make a fool of yourself. The dumb question about who created God is asinine. Why? Because the creationist origins account is that the universe was created SUPERNATURALLY, whereas the atheist must reject the supernatural because he doesn't want to be accountable to a supernatural power (he prefers to have no silly absolute moral codes that prevent him from being a sodomite, child molester, rapist, etc. and have to be accountable in his internal conscience in the near term, and accountable to the Creator on the judgment day for in the long term, rather he likes the idea that he can makes his own rules). The atheist must by definition believe only in the NATURAL (not the SUPERNATURAL). The problem is that the universe cannot be explained naturally given that every explanation requires a miracle whether it's an eternal universe or a universe that created itself from nothing. Either way it's a miraculous supernatural event which is thus a natural self-refuting argument and a big fat failure for the poor religious atheist.

Class dismissed.

 

[Son of Gloin]

No it sounds like somethig a religous cult would do, not rational scientists. If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck.


It was an evolutionist that created the fake piltdown man using a file and half a chimp skull and half a human skull. I guess even if it's a big fat lie as long as it pushes your religion its okay right? Oh because if we evolved from a rock, then there is no morality and lying isn't wrong right?

You subsitute the word "science" for "evolutionism". They are actually mutually exclusive. One can't believe in science and evolutionism because they entirely contradict each other. Science obeys scientific laws, while evolutionism breaks every single scientific law we know of. Then you claim that you didn't say "evolutionism isn't religion" where you said "science isn't religion" then equate your religious evolutionary beliefs as being actual science when it isn't. Rather ridiculous.

I also find it amusing that you call scientists that agree with your religious big bang origins myth to be scientists, but scientists that believe in the religious origins myth of supernatural creation to not be "scientists" rather "creationists". Your bias is pretty blatant, no?

I suppose I should follow suit those that believe in the true origins are scientists but those that believe in the atheist origins myth are "evolutionists" not "scientists". Fortunately basically the father of every major scientific field is/was a "scientist" and not an "evolutionist". You know guys like Kelvin, Pasteur, Mendel, Newton, et al. View attachment 110527

LIST OF CREATIONIST GIANTS OF SCIENCE AND THE FIELD THEY "FATHERED"
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705) NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889) STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS​

ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871) INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626) SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872) THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

So let's see..ironically the founding father of your religious origins myth was a pastor and a racist: Pastor Charles Darwin who's seminal racist work was "The origin of species and the preservation of FAVOURED RACES". Which races are the favored ones btw? Your founding father had a degree in religion and nothing in science...lol so funny since he is considered the father of religious atheism.




So basically your interpretation of it is that it explains absolutely nothing. The question is where did the universe come from. Even the stauchist atheist believing scientist has dismissed the idea of an eternal universe, yet you apparently didn't get the memo. If the universe is eternal then you have an even bigger problem to explain.



Really? What information do we have that The BB Theory well explains? We actually see the opposite of what the atheist religious origins predicts. Things like non-uniform Cosmic Background Radiation, a universe that has a fixed amount of matter/energy, a universe that is becoming more and more chaotic (2nd Law TD)....those are all predicted and fit the creationist model and are contrary to what the atheist model predicts.



Good idea. Every time you try to, you make a fool of yourself. The dumb question about who created God is asinine. Why? Because the creationist origins account is that the universe was created SUPERNATURALLY, whereas the atheist must reject the supernatural because he doesn't want to be accountable to a supernatural power (he prefers to have no silly absolute moral codes that prevent him from being a sodomite, child molester, rapist, etc. and have to be accountable in his internal conscience in the near term, and accountable to the Creator on the judgment day for in the long term, rather he likes the idea that he can makes his own rules). The atheist must by definition believe only in the NATURAL (not the SUPERNATURAL). The problem is that the universe cannot be explained naturally given that every explanation requires a miracle whether it's an eternal universe or a universe that created itself from nothing. Either way it's a miraculous supernatural event which is thus a natural self-refuting argument and a big fat failure for the poor religious atheist.

Class dismissed.

What he said.

 

[Son of Gloin]

Do you distrust reason as well?


The logical question would be how did God come into existence, but I won't ask that.
I usually stay away from discussions about theological or spiritual matters, precisely because those are subjects in which reason, science and logic do not apply. Therefore, arguments and counter-arguments are pointless.

There are only two spiritual states: knowing and not knowing; love and want.

See?

You continually invoke the belief in and use of reason in many of your posts. Yet, think about it, you are claiming here that science and logic can speak nothing to theological and spiritual matters. Yes! Obviously! Yet, so many people who are believers in the absolute authority of science (Scientism), claim there is nothing beyond the material world. The physical is all that exists and the supernatural (that which is beyond the material world) cannot exist, since science cannot measure it or discuss it's existence or nature. They are making claims about a realm that they cannot explore with the scientific method, all the while claiming that science proves it does not exist. What!? How?
Knowing and not knowing are mental states.
Love and want are emotional states.
The spiritual is our connection to the supernatural. Only a spiritual being can have a connection to the supernatural. There is no scientific tool that can explore the supernatural realm. The supernatural is a realm of experience and only experience can report on it. There have been too many people, over the course of all written history who claim to have experience with the supernatural world, including up to the present moment in time. Yet, those who believe in the ultimate authority and primacy of science to explain all and everything dismiss the supernatural reports of masses of human beings, only because they can't use a microscope or a telescope or some other scientific instrument to see it. It's madness.

 

[Son of Gloin]

And the earth is a rotating ball. Wish I had pictures, dammit!

 

[Libertaurum]

No it sounds like somethig a religous cult would do, not rational scientists. If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck.


It was an evolutionist that created the fake piltdown man using a file and half a chimp skull and half a human skull. I guess even if it's a big fat lie as long as it pushes your religion its okay right? Oh because if we evolved from a rock, then there is no morality and lying isn't wrong right?

You subsitute the word "science" for "evolutionism". They are actually mutually exclusive. One can't believe in science and evolutionism because they entirely contradict each other. Science obeys scientific laws, while evolutionism breaks every single scientific law we know of. Then you claim that you didn't say "evolutionism isn't religion" where you said "science isn't religion" then equate your religious evolutionary beliefs as being actual science when it isn't. Rather ridiculous.

I also find it amusing that you call scientists that agree with your religious big bang origins myth to be scientists, but scientists that believe in the religious origins myth of supernatural creation to not be "scientists" rather "creationists". Your bias is pretty blatant, no?

I suppose I should follow suit those that believe in the true origins are scientists but those that believe in the atheist origins myth are "evolutionists" not "scientists". Fortunately basically the father of every major scientific field is/was a "scientist" and not an "evolutionist". You know guys like Kelvin, Pasteur, Mendel, Newton, et al. View attachment 110527

LIST OF CREATIONIST GIANTS OF SCIENCE AND THE FIELD THEY "FATHERED"
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705) NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889) STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS​

ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871) INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626) SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872) THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)

So let's see..ironically the founding father of your religious origins myth was a pastor and a racist: Pastor Charles Darwin who's seminal racist work was "The origin of species and the preservation of FAVOURED RACES". Which races are the favored ones btw? Your founding father had a degree in religion and nothing in science...lol so funny since he is considered the father of religious atheism.

What's amusing is that you have to recur to listing Bacon and Kepler, as well as so many other people who never had a chance to hear about, least of all refute, evolution since they died long before Darwin's work was published.

So basically your interpretation of it is that it explains absolutely nothing. The question is where did the universe come from. Even the stauchist atheist believing scientist has dismissed the idea of an eternal universe, yet you apparently didn't get the memo. If the universe is eternal then you have an even bigger problem to explain.

Good idea. Every time you try to, you make a fool of yourself.

I'm sure you'd rather I didn't expose you for the fool you are, but it's so much fun.

The dumb question about who created God is asinine. Why? Because the creationist origins account is that the universe was created SUPERNATURALLY, whereas the atheist must reject the supernatural because he doesn't want to be accountable to a supernatural power (he prefers to have no silly absolute moral codes that prevent him from being a sodomite, child molester, rapist, etc. and have to be accountable in his internal conscience in the near term, and accountable to the Creator on the judgment day for in the long term, rather he likes the idea that he can makes his own rules). The atheist must by definition believe only in the NATURAL (not the SUPERNATURAL). The problem is that the universe cannot be explained naturally given that every explanation requires a miracle whether it's an eternal universe or a universe that created itself from nothing. Either way it's a miraculous supernatural event which is thus a natural self-refuting argument and a big fat failure for the poor religious atheist.

You just got done making fun of Joe for saying science can't explain everything, yet your answer is that it's all "supernatural"... Miracles. Oh, well, then that's ok. Nevermind. It's "supernatural"...
See, it's your set of beliefs that can't explain anything.

Class dismissed.

Stay in school, goldie.

 

[Libertaurum]

You continually invoke the belief in and use of reason in many of your posts. Yet, think about it, you are claiming here that science and logic can speak nothing to theological and spiritual matters. Yes! Obviously! Yet, so many people who are believers in the absolute authority of science (Scientism), claim there is nothing beyond the material world. The physical is all that exists and the supernatural (that which is beyond the material world) cannot exist, since science cannot measure it or discuss it's existence or nature. They are making claims about a realm that they cannot explore with the scientific method, all the while claiming that science proves it does not exist. What!? How?
Knowing and not knowing are mental states.
Love and want are emotional states.
The spiritual is our connection to the supernatural. Only a spiritual being can have a connection to the supernatural. There is no scientific tool that can explore the supernatural realm. The supernatural is a realm of experience and only experience can report on it. There have been too many people, over the course of all written history who claim to have experience with the supernatural world, including up to the present moment in time. Yet, those who believe in the ultimate authority and primacy of science to explain all and everything dismiss the supernatural reports of masses of human beings, only because they can't use a microscope or a telescope or some other scientific instrument to see it. It's madness.

No, SOG, love is a spiritual state.

I wish I could explain it. You either know or you don't know. See, it's supernatural stuff.

 

[Son of Gloin]

No, SOG, love is a spiritual state.

I wish I could explain it. You either know or you don't know. See, it's supernatural stuff.

Now, that's a snide response. You do not need to explain love to me, Bevis.

 

[Son of Gloin]

No, SOG, love is a spiritual state.

I wish I could explain it. You either know or you don't know. See, it's supernatural stuff.

And another thing. Those who have no rational arguments left always resort to personal attacks, no?

 

[Libertaurum]

And another thing. Those who have no rational arguments left always resort to personal attacks, no?

Snide, perhaps. But I was only half kidding. I said it before, arguments do not apply when it comes to spiritual experiences.
Personal attack? Hardly. And hey, at least I didn't ask if you were stupid, like you did a few posts back.
Double standard much?

 

[G-khan]

 

[newmisty]

Once again, here is SOLID PROOF you live on a BALL EARTH...

START in one spot, travel (by train, airplane, hovercraft, pogo-stick, rollerbaldes, dune buggy, DUCK BOAT etc) a long distance and stop.

TURN exactly 90 degrees and travel that exact same distance again and STOP

TURN 90 degrees again(3rd time) and travel the same distance as you did the previous 2 times and since the EARTH IS A SPHERE you will end up very close to your starting point. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN ON A FLAT SURFACE!

GAME OVER.

 

[Son of Gloin]

Snide, perhaps. But I was only half kidding. I said it before, arguments do not apply when it comes to spiritual experiences.
Personal attack? Hardly. And hey, at least I didn't ask if you were stupid, like you did a few posts back.
Double standard much?

I did not say you were stupid, L. I implied that you were being stupid. There is a huge difference. See, you're twisting people's words again.

 

[BarnacleBob]

 

[Libertaurum]

I did not say you were stupid, L. I implied that you were being stupid. There is a huge difference. See, you're twisting people's words again.

I twist nothing.
You complained that I personally attacked you because I said "I wish I could explain it. You either know or you don't know. See, it's supernatural stuff". But you don't consider saying I'm "being" stupid a personal attack?
That's just you being stupid.

 

[Son of Gloin]

I twist nothing.
You complained that I personally attacked you because I said "I wish I could explain it. You either know or you don't know. See, it's supernatural stuff". But you don't consider saying I'm "being" stupid a personal attack?
That's just you being stupid.

Do you believe the earth is flat or is it a sphere?

 

[Lt Dan]

Come on guys! Y'all are kinda boring with this.

Earth ain't flat no matter what your argument to the contrary....

 

[newmisty]

The idea of panspermia only pushes the question of the origin of life farther out in space or farther back in time. It never really gets around to addressing the ultimate question of origins. If life on earth came from "out there," how did life develop out there? And if life out there came from farther out there and farther back in time, just where did that life come from? As far as anima mundi is concerned, if I understand the term correctly, what animated the universe itself? Why should the universe be so animated and possess the intrinsic propensity for life? Why should the conditions for life be so prevalent in our universe and indeed, why should our universe exist at all? Why should anything exist without a reason? If there is a reason, isn't there a will required for existence? I can't buy the "it just is" theory.

On Dafa
(Lunyu)

Dafa is the wisdom of the Creator. It is the bedrock of creation, what the heavens, earth, and universe are built upon. It encompasses all things, from the utmost minuscule to the vastest of the vast, while manifesting differently at each of the cosmic body’s planes of existence. Out of the depths of the cosmic body, the tiniest of particles first appear, with layers upon layers of countless particles following, ranging in size from small to great, reaching all the way to the outer planes that humankind knows—those of atoms, molecules, planets, and galaxies—and beyond, to what is still larger. Particles of varying sizes make up lives of varying sizes as well as the worlds of varying sizes that permeate the cosmic body. Lives at any of the various planes of particles perceive the particles of the next larger plane to be planets in their skies, and this is true at each and every plane. To the lives at each plane of the universe, it seems to go on infinitely. It was Dafa that created time and space, the multitude of lives and species, and all of creation; all that exists owes to it, with nothing outside of it. All of these are the tangible expressions, at different planes, of Dafa’s qualities: Zhen, Shan, and Ren.
However advanced people’s means of exploring space and probing life may be, the knowledge gained is limited to certain parts of this one dimension, where human beings reside, at a low plane of the universe. Other planets were explored before by humans during civilizations predating history. Yet for all the heights and distances achieved, humankind has never managed to depart from the dimension in which it exists. The true picture of the universe will forever elude humankind. If a human being is to understand the mysteries of the universe, space-time, and the human body, he must take up cultivation of a true Way and achieve true enlightenment, raising his plane of being. Through cultivation his moral character will elevate, and once he has learned to discern what is truly good from evil, and virtue from vice, and he goes beyond the human plane, he will see and gain access to the realities of the universe as well as the lives of other planes and dimensions.

While people often claim that their scientific pursuits are to “improve quality of life,” it is technological competition that drives them. And in most cases they have come about only after people have pushed out the divine and abandoned moral codes meant to ensure self-restraint. It was for these reasons that civilizations of the past many times met with destruction. People’s explorations are necessarily limited to this material world, and the methods are such that only what has been recognized is studied. Meanwhile, things that are intangible or invisible in the human dimension, but that do objectively exist and do reveal themselves in real ways in this immediate world—such as spirituality, faith, divine word, and miracles—are treated as taboo, for people have cast out the divine.

If the human race is able to improve its character, conduct, and thinking by grounding these in moral values, it will be possible for civilization to endure and even for miracles to occur again in the human world. Many times in the past, cultures that were as divine as they were human have appeared in this world and helped people to arrive at a truer understanding of life and the universe. When people show the appropriate respect and reverence toward Dafa as it manifests here in this world, they, their race, or their nation will enjoy blessings or honor. It was Dafa—the Great Way of the universe—that created the cosmic body, the universe, life, and all of creation. Any life that turns away from Dafa is truly corrupt. Any person who can align with Dafa is truly a good person, and will be rewarded and blessed with health and happiness. And any cultivator who is able to become one with Dafa is an enlightened one—divine.
Li Hongzhi
May 24, 2015

http://www.en.minghui.org/html/articles/2015/5/25/150752.html


Seen from the high dimension, human life is not meant for being a human being. As human life is born in the cosmic space, it is in conformity with Zhen Shan Ren, the fundamental qualities of the universe, and originally has a kind and good nature. However, when there are more living beings, they fall into a social relationship, in which some of them have become selfish or bad and can no longer stay in the very high dimension, so they drop into a lower one. When they become bad again in this dimension, they have to drop down and down until they have dropped into this realm of ordinary people. They are to be annihilated when they have dropped into this realm. However, out of compassion those great enlightened beings have decided to give human beings another chance by putting them in the hardest of circumstances, so they have created such a space.

People in the other spaces do not possess such bodies. They can float in the air. They can become bigger or smaller. However, in this space human beings are provided with bodies, such as our physical bodies. With such a body, you will find cold, heat, fatigue or hunger all unbearable. Anyway, these are all sufferings for you. When you are ill, you feel pain. You have to go through birth, old age, diseases and death. You are left in the sufferings to pay your karmic debts. You are given another chance to see whether you can return or not. Therefore, you have dropped into a maze in which you are provided with two eyes so that you are not able to see the other spaces, or the truth of matter. If you can return, the greatest suffering will be the most valuable. In such a maze, you have to suffer a lot when you cultivate yourself to return in dependence on your awakening ability, and thus, you will go back quickly. If you still let yourself go bad, your life will be annihilated. Therefore, in the eyes of the enlightened beings, human life is not to be lived as a human being. A person is expected to return to the origin and go back to the truth. An ordinary person cannot awake to this. An ordinary person in ordinary human society is no more than an ordinary person. What he thinks about is how to develop himself and how to live a good life. The better he lives, the more selfish and greedy he will become and the more he will run counter to the fundamental qualities of the universe. Thus, he will head for his doom.

http://en.falundafa.org/eng/zfl_35.htm​

 

[Libertaurum]

Do you believe the earth is flat or is it a sphere?

No. I know it's round.

 

[Son of Gloin]

No. I know it's round.

I'll take your word for that. I simply believe it to be so. However, this thread is about flat earth versus round earth and we are in agreement! How about that!?