Unsure of flat or not but here's something interesting

Quote from: simplyfascinated on November 15, 2015, 11:19:45 PM

Quote

A discussion, such as we're having, is pointless if your default is simply going to be to assume that you're right and any alternative is wrong. Finding an argument is false doesn't imply your conclusion is.

I'd like to think that if either of us have learned anything during this discussion, then it was not pointless.

Quote

Or I could say that people seek out God because it gives them a sense of superiority, because they're able to feel chosen, or the centre/purpose for the whole of creation, and that many people who think that there is a God do so out of ego.
See how easy it is to make assumptions? They're little more than bald faced stereotypes in an attempt to discredit. I don't know if this is what you intended or not, but 99% of the time that's exactly where that chain of reasoning comes from.

Well, you could say that, but where does that assumption come from? Because all the legitimate Christians that I know would probably be surprised at your surmise. Actually, it's quite humbling to say that "I need God" because "I am a sinner" and "need forgiveness." with the hope of everlasting life. I certainly don't and never did have a sense of superiority or ego about the matter; quite the opposite. God chose all of us, so there's no special circumstance there with me. The only difference is that I chose to accept his gift. My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, wrote that he accepted God "kicking and screaming" so to speak, because it wasn't what he wanted, but he knew better. Then he was "surprised by joy" at the result. This attitude of superiority that you speak of would certainly go against Jesus' words when he said to be a servant and showed that example by washing his disciple's feet, to pray for those who mistreat you, and that the last would be first and the first last. He sat and dined with the lowly sinners and showed strong disfavor with those who thought they were superior. So if anyone had this attitude of superiority, it would be in direct conflict with what they state to believe in. If the signs of their behavior are not in accordance with Jesus, then they are truly not followers of his.

Quote

If there's a maker who wants belief, it should be easy to arrive at it with more than what are at best arguments from ignorance.

I really don't know what you mean by "arguments from ignorance," but I would strongly agree that God actually has made it quite easy to believe in him. As I said before, our world looks designed. Even Dawkins has admitted this, poor guy. If there was a hermit who lived all alone, without any communication with others, he would examine the world around him. If he weren't a fool, he would see the clearly designed features of his own self and the world around him. If he were able to look at a snowflake, his suspicion would be confirmed. If he were able to learn about the cell, same result. But as I said, we have the evidence around us. If the hermit were able to seek out God from his discoveries, he would find him, just as God promised we would. If we have eyes and a mind, we are without excuse.

Well, you could say that, but where does that assumption come from?

I really don't know what you mean by "arguments from ignorance,"

If there was a hermit who lived all alone, without any communication with others, he would examine the world around him. If he weren't a fool, he would see the clearly designed features of his own self and the world around him.

And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 17, 2015, 10:03:00 AM

And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?

A flat earther just tried to define what is or isn't scientific source. Now we've seen it all, the world might just end, right? 

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 17, 2015, 11:19:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 17, 2015, 10:03:00 AM

And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?

A flat earther just tried to define what is or isn't scientific source. Now we've seen it all, the world might just end, right? 

Fuck off, moron, why the hell are you here if all you offer is whinging in every fucking thread? Go away, no one wants you here.

You're wrong. The only 2 people who do not want me here is you and "The big one". Since you were the 2 people mostly refuted by me, by far, that makes sense. You do not want to be questioned.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 17, 2015, 12:43:51 PM

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 17, 2015, 11:19:11 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 17, 2015, 10:03:00 AM

And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?

A flat earther just tried to define what is or isn't scientific source. Now we've seen it all, the world might just end, right? 

Fuck off, moron, why the hell are you here if all you offer is whinging in every fucking thread? Go away, no one wants you here.

You're wrong. The only 2 people who do not want me here is you and "The big one". Since you were the 2 people mostly refuted by me, by far, that makes sense. You do not want to be questioned.

Quote

A place of vitriol and dishonesty, the exact same as yours. When an atheist does good, as many do, they do it because it is good: they have no hope of a reward. For an atheist, everything we do has actual meaning: it's not a drop in eternity, it's a finite life, ruled by experience: and those experiences have far more weight.

We, as Christians, are not rewarded for doing good at all, actually. We inherit our Father's inheritance when we accept him as our Father, and that's it. It has nothing to do with doing good or bad. We naturally try to do good because it's the essence of who God is and we're striving to be more like him, but fail. Even though you do good, you also fail. You fail when you cuss people out, you fail when you have a bad attitude, you fail when you lie, or cheat, or lust after someone. And so do I. So we both do good because we have "experiences" and know what good is. But really, if this life is all we have, you might say "then party on!" and do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences, as many do. Many atheists live for themselves and "screw the rest." But good for you for trying to do better in your life.

Quote

But sure, blindly claim all atheists "are not comfortable giving up their lifestyles," and even ignoring the fundamental flaw with a God who would design a people more comfortable to do what he forbids, it's about as meaningful a claim as mine was.

Even though it's more comfortable and easy to make mistakes, we still all know what the better option is. I wonder what atheism could explain about that (why it's more comfortable to make mistakes). Anyway, temporary pleasure with long-term bad consequences are what God forbids. He designed us to be perfect, as I said closer to the beginning of our discussion, but we fell into temptation, which was partly allowed because God wanted to show us that we need him. He's taken care of the ultimate consequence though (death).

Quote

"I don't know, so it must be God." You can say the same about anything, heading back and forth through history. Once the Sun was a god: now we understand it.

But we DO know. As you said, we understand the sun. We also understand a lot more now about our bodies and the world around us. So we're even more without excuse now that we know more. Because evolution has not been able to explain why we have what we have, especially BECAUSE we know so much. And by the way, even when there were still people worshiping the sun, people believed in God. Some people still worship the sun, stars, crystals, etc. So I'm not sure how much that has to do with knowledge.

Quote

And as a general rule, hermits are not accepted scientific sources. I'm not sure what else you expect me to say.
But, of course, beyond all explanations for seeming design, the simple question is what do we compare it to? if you know for a fact that something is designed, you must know what something naturally developed looks like. Can you provide an example? As it is, you seem to have claimed everything is designed: so what can we possibly compare that design to?

Yes, I can give you an example of things that are not designed. Look around your house. Look at your ceiling. Look at a blank wall. Is that more designed or less designed than say, Leonardo Da Vinci's ceilings? Do you have any smashed up objects? Do you have any kits that haven't been assembled yet? We have lot of examples of things that are designed, but we can also compare things that are less designed than others. So somehow, we all know what it means to be "designed."

Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.

We, as Christians, are not rewarded for doing good at all, actually.

But really, if this life is all we have, you might say "then party on!" and do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences, as many do. Many atheists live for themselves and "screw the rest." But good for you for trying to do better in your life.

I wonder what atheism could explain about that (why it's more comfortable to make mistakes).

He designed us to be perfect, as I said closer to the beginning of our discussion, but we fell into temptation, which was partly allowed because God wanted to show us that we need him.

So we're even more without excuse now that we know more.

Because evolution has not been able to explain why we have what we have, especially BECAUSE we know so much.

And by the way, even when there were still people worshiping the sun, people believed in God. Some people still worship the sun, stars, crystals, etc. So I'm not sure how much that has to do with knowledge.

Yes, I can give you an example of things that are not designed. Look around your house. Look at your ceiling. Look at a blank wall. Is that more designed or less designed than say, Leonardo Da Vinci's ceilings? Do you have any smashed up objects? Do you have any kits that haven't been assembled yet? We have lot of examples of things that are designed, but we can also compare things that are less designed than others. So somehow, we all know what it means to be "designed."

Quote

Ultimately, semantics. You do good, you're rewarded: you failed, you're damned. Whether you're rewarded for doing good, or simply not punished, the end result is the same.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. I thought you were saying that an atheist has more "meaning" when they do good because Christians "have" to do good in order to enter eternity. I was just trying to clarify, because it's a common misconception.

Quote

A convenient stereotype for you to use to demonize. Certainly, there are bad atheists out there, just as there are Christians who use the faithful to line their pockets or as an excuse for cruelty.

There is no genuine Christian who steals and is cruel. We make mistakes, but to deliberately do something like this is to not be in real relationship with God. There are people who profess to be Christians who steal and who are cruel, for sure.

Quote

God still designed us. Did he not know how we'd develop after temptation?

Yes, and he knew it would be worth it. He wanted us to have free will so that we could choose to follow him or someone/something else. He wants us to choose him back, because that's what love is. It's a 2-way relationship, like in a marriage, or the relationship between a parent and a child. The end result is a few things: 1) We know we need a God, that we aren't on equal ground with him. 2) We know what sin does, we know what a fallen world looks like, and this causes us to appreciate the perfect world we will inherit, and causes us to see how perfect God is. 3) Sin led to the ultimate display of love: God's sacrifice to save our lives. In this way he proved how much he loves us. These are probably not all the reasons, but some that come to mind anyway.

Quote

How do you figure? Do you expect humanity to be omniscient?

I don't understand. I'm saying that because we know more about the human body and the world around us, it causes us to see how we're clearly designed and that evolution goes against true science. Most of what Darwin believed has been proven to be false today because of what we've found out. Therefore, since we can know more now about how evolution is not true and the complexity of our universe and our bodies, we should be more skeptical of evolution and more accepting of the idea of a creator.

Quote

It explains far more than you give it credit for. The only thing you've accused it of not explaining, that it does not explain, is the origin of life: and that's because it's not meant to. There are multiple models for abiogenesis, no one being confirmed until we know more of the initial state.

Disagree. It explains absolutely nothing successfully.

Quote

Theyw orship them, but they don't blame a god for them. No one believes the Sun is literally carried by a chariot.
And people did believed in God centuries ago: a very different God to the one you accept.

No, they think they themselves are a god or that the crystals have god-ish powers. The very same God I worship today is the same God that has been worshiped since the beginning of time.

Quote

Your first question is an interetsing one: does my wall look less designed than Da Vinci's ceilings? Well, yes; but is it, really? If anything, my wall is more deisgned: whole teams would have worked to construct, and paint, and repaint it. Da Vinci's were mostly just one person's work. Ultimately, if either is more designed, it's the wall; or at least, they're evenly designed. There's no particular difference between the designers, only the purpose.
Perhaps determining design from eyesight alone isn't so simple?
If you want to compare nature to smashed up furniture, however, it's pretty easy. What we observe as designed is far more streamlined, for an express purpose. In reality, I look out and I see uneven ground, and plants fighting for space, and leaves dying and making a mess. There are a lot of ways to improve on that design.

To the first part of your reply, fair enough, but I was trying to merely point out the surface of the ceiling, and I should have said "paint job" or something of that sort. Yes, it's a different type of design, but if we were to compare it to the artwork-type of design of Da Vinci, the comparison would be plain to see.

You can look out and see the results of the fall (when sin entered the world), but you can also see bits of heaven, too. We have both. We have "smashed up" design, sure, but it was still design to begin with, and that's easy to see.

There is no genuine Christian who steals and is cruel. We make mistakes, but to deliberately do something like this is to not be in real relationship with God. There are people who profess to be Christians who steal and who are cruel, for sure.

I don't understand. I'm saying that because we know more about the human body and the world around us, it causes us to see how we're clearly designed and that evolution goes against true science. Most of what Darwin believed has been proven to be false today because of what we've found out.

No, they think they themselves are a god or that the crystals have god-ish powers. The very same God I worship today is the same God that has been worshiped since the beginning of time.

You can look out and see the results of the fall (when sin entered the world), but you can also see bits of heaven, too. We have both. We have "smashed up" design, sure, but it was still design to begin with, and that's easy to see.

Quote

Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.

SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 18, 2015, 06:25:19 AM

Quote

Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.

SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!

With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.

I'm sorry.

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 19, 2015, 01:12:11 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 18, 2015, 06:25:19 AM

Quote

Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.

SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!

With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.

I'm sorry.

Resorting to straw men as ever. Pay attention to context. I'm getting sick of your constant ignorance.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 19, 2015, 02:13:49 PM

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 19, 2015, 01:12:11 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 18, 2015, 06:25:19 AM

Quote

Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.

SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!

With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.

I'm sorry.

Resorting to straw men as ever. Pay attention to context. I'm getting sick of your constant ignorance.

JR, your "wall of text" would NEVER make it to a scientific journal for peer review. This is NOT because there is a RE conspiracy, but because the "wall of text" you spent so much time on is crap. Documents that are posted in scientific journals have (1) a SUMMARY (2) then the descriptions and mathematical formulas (3) then test results and supporting evidence they are true (4) and finally, a list of references. Your BS "wall of text" is just random thoughts, confusing and not even written well. If presented in English class as an essay, I doubt you would even get a "C" after all these months of work on it.

Instead of BSing that people don't understand it, why don't you spend an hour or two and make it a document worthy of scientific consideration or at least an essay. I believe, since the "wall of text" was written back in June, that you WANT it to be vague and jumbled ideas because (1) there really is very little coherent meat in it and (2) you can run around asserting/claiming no one understands it but you and it solves everything because you say so.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 19, 2015, 11:24:39 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 19, 2015, 02:13:49 PM

Quote from: Kirk Johnson on November 19, 2015, 01:12:11 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 18, 2015, 06:25:19 AM

Quote

Kirk, I highly suggest you learn more about Dual Earth Theory before you claim to "refute" it's clear evidence. PM me and I can help you get a better understanding of the model.

SHUT. UP.
I have put months of my life into DET, why do you come in here and shit all over it?! Are you that incapable of any honest discussion?!

With due respect: How many time you spent coming up with DE is irrelevant. A day, an year, a decade, a life: If it has no evidence - scientific evidence, mainly - then it will not be accepted as truth.

I'm sorry.

Resorting to straw men as ever. Pay attention to context. I'm getting sick of your constant ignorance.

JR, your "wall of text" would NEVER make it to a scientific journal for peer review. This is NOT because there is a RE conspiracy, but because the "wall of text" you spent so much time on is crap. Documents that are posted in scientific journals have (1) a SUMMARY (2) then the descriptions and mathematical formulas (3) then test results and supporting evidence they are true (4) and finally, a list of references. Your BS "wall of text" is just random thoughts, confusing and not even written well. If presented in English class as an essay, I doubt you would even get a "C" after all these months of work on it.

Instead of BSing that people don't understand it, why don't you spend an hour or two and make it a document worthy of scientific consideration or at least an essay. I believe, since the "wall of text" was written back in June, that you WANT it to be vague and jumbled ideas because (1) there really is very little coherent meat in it and (2) you can run around asserting/claiming no one understands it but you and it solves everything because you say so.

What is the point in talking to you? I have answered EVERY ONE of your bullshit requests MULTIPLE TIMES, and now you're back to the exact same whining because you REFUSE to admit any of your arguments are clearly nonsense.

It took me awhile to respond because I didn't get a notification of your response. This is the second time this has happened, but on a different forum. I decided to check independently. Not sure who to tell if it keeps happening. "Notify me of replies." is always checked. Maybe a moderator could help me out? Thanks.

Quote

No True Scotsman. Clear fallacy. If you define Christian to preclude such things, sure: but an actually workable definition would be one who believes, or thinks they believe, in the relevant God. Are you really claiming all such people are good? People misinterpret, it's well known.

You're right about the definition of a Christian, but the Bible also says that there are "fruit" or signs of being an actual Christian. To be a thief or a liar as one's lifestyle would be in direct defiance of God and who he wants us to be. If we love God, we will not want to grieve him, and we will have a heart to love others as well. This would mean leaving a lifestyle of selfishness, and to live the way he wants us to.

Quote

That's simply untrue. Are you imagining an absurd conspiracy? That's what the denial of evolution amounts to. With no reason, for no gain, thousands and millions of people gather, compare evidence, and don't notice the flaws. two people developed the theory of evolution independently and simultaneously. The evidence is there. Simply because you've chosen to reject it won't do away with that evidence.

No, I am not imagining an absurd conspiracy, and I'm sure you don't have any of your own, either. =) There is plenty of reason to follow after evolution if the alternative is to accept God. There are many who would rather believe aliens planted us here. As far as gain, only what every other scientist gains by discovering things, writing books on things, selling to schools, the Nobel Prize, etc. right? I'm not saying that they don't believe what they see is true, but there are presuppositions before they examine the "evidence," and it will fit into whatever agenda they have, even if it means stretching the truth. This is weird but true: http://creation.com/evolutionist-its-ok-to-deceive-students-to-believe-evolution

I have also learned that "misplaced" fossils in the fossil record are excused, and dating methods have quite a lot of presuppositions involved. All these evolutionists who "come together" is a pretty fantastical picture, anyway. The truth is that each scientist has their own special field of study, and they all trust each other's fields to find the answers that they need (that they themselves may be lacking). But what happens when they don't, or if what they find discredits the theory? Bill Stein's Expelled is a documentary about just that. If you don't agree with evolution, you're kicked out. So yes, in a sense, that is a conspiracy. But it's been proven.

As far as your claim that there were two individuals who developed the theory of evolution independently and simultaneously, are you thinking of Russell Wallace? Because the only thing he and Darwin both realized individually was "survival of the fittest" which is not evolution. In fact, a creationist by the name of Blythe wrote about that 25 years earlier.

Quote

First, unjustified. Second, barely. Even by the God's own words, it was worshipped only in a limited geographical area for several thousand years: if you believe a literal Genesis then that's your only justification for the claim, and it still falls flat because there was no such worship going on outside the middle east.

What is unjustified? That people look to the powers of crystals? I live in a hippy town. I know these things. Secondly, I don't know what you're talking about with the middle east and all that crap, or why that would discredit anything if it's true. If there was a great flood as the Bible says there was, any evidence of man-made things would be gone before that. Any evidence of worship afterwards would have started in the middle east, because that's where they landed and began their new life. But the only evidence I can think of of God-worship in those days would be altars and then the ancient scrolls to document the history. You might have fun searching creation.com for archeological finds. It's quite interesting.

Quote

If you look for it. Most of the world you would see is designed anyhow: humans built and maintain most of it. As for literal design though, that's a presupposition through and through.

Again, you must have a presupposition to believe in evolution or God. If you look for design and find it, but decide not to believe, that's your choice. Incidentally, have you heard of Fibonacci? I just learned about him. Fascinating: http://creation.com/golden-numbers

But we're not talking about maintenance of yards here, we're talking about our own bodies, the cell, the genome, DNA, a fingerprint, a flower, a snowflake, the creatures of the ocean, the katydid, sand dollars, are just some that come to mind. People don't maintain these obviously designed things, but to turn a blind eye to it is definitely a choice of preference as to what to believe in.

This is all you get - the DEF "wall of text"

I have already falsified/disproved it (aligning telescopes)

You're right about the definition of a Christian, but the Bible also says that there are "fruit" or signs of being an actual Christian. To be a thief or a liar as one's lifestyle would be in direct defiance of God and who he wants us to be. If we love God, we will not want to grieve him, and we will have a heart to love others as well. This would mean leaving a lifestyle of selfishness, and to live the way he wants us to.

There is plenty of reason to follow after evolution if the alternative is to accept God. There are many who would rather believe aliens planted us here. As far as gain, only what every other scientist gains by discovering things, writing books on things, selling to schools, the Nobel Prize, etc. right? I'm not saying that they don't believe what they see is true, but there are presuppositions before they examine the "evidence," and it will fit into whatever agenda they have, even if it means stretching the truth.

Again, you must have a presupposition to believe in evolution or God.

But we're not talking about maintenance of yards here, we're talking about our own bodies, the cell, the genome, DNA, a fingerprint, a flower, a snowflake, the creatures of the ocean, the katydid, sand dollars, are just some that come to mind. People don't maintain these obviously designed things, but to turn a blind eye to it is definitely a choice of preference as to what to believe in.

This is all you get - the DEF "wall of text"
So, I explain the problems with teaching the model with a wall of text, I explain my reasons, I explain how the scientific community will not respect any FE model no matter what, I have explained the limited resources I have access to: and still you choose to come forward and OUTRIGHT LIE. Are you really struggling to manage any honest response?

Quote

I have already falsified/disproved it (aligning telescopes)

How about you respond to my repeated refutation before claiming victory? That would be the honest thing to do, if you were honest in the slightest.

Yes, you whine why you can't do it. Like I said, why don't you spend a couple HOURS make this into a document worthy of publication in a scientific journal. You claim you spent MONTHS developing a "wall of text". Stop whining.

I have, several times. You do not know (1) the physical properties of objects (sphere vs disk, rotating objects), (2) what is needed to align telescopes (amateur astronomy), (3) logical deductions (if a sphere PERFECTLY aligns telescopes by definition, any flat DISK can not by definition). Honestly...

Quote

Yes, you whine why you can't do it. Like I said, why don't you spend a couple HOURS make this into a document worthy of publication in a scientific journal. You claim you spent MONTHS developing a "wall of text". Stop whining.

Because this is a forum, not a scientific journak. No journal is going to accept text based on FET, and it takes a while to fully outline what underpins the model. I could make it as neat as you want, it's not going to change the fact next to know REers are willing to exert the effort necessary to actually learn a model. You provide perfect evidence of this: all you're interested in is a basic, flawed understanding and straw man, because it's easy. Dishonest, but easy.

Quote

I have, several times. You do not know (1) the physical properties of objects (sphere vs disk, rotating objects), (2) what is needed to align telescopes (amateur astronomy), (3) logical deductions (if a sphere PERFECTLY aligns telescopes by definition, any flat DISK can not by definition). Honestly...

A lie, and an irrelevant one. You refuse, consistently, to justify your claim that the RE explanation for observations is the only possible one. Your only attempts to do so have been refuted derailments and completely incoherent straw men. And yet you still drag the exact same argument into every thread as though the fact I'm getting sick of repeating myself is any kind of point.
You love your arguments from exhaustion.

Quote

I have, several times. You do not know (1) the physical properties of objects (sphere vs disk, rotating objects), (2) what is needed to align telescopes (amateur astronomy), (3) logical deductions (if a sphere PERFECTLY aligns telescopes by definition, any flat DISK can not by definition). Honestly...

A lie, and an irrelevant one. You refuse, consistently, to justify your claim that the RE explanation for observations is the only possible one. Your only attempts to do so have been refuted derailments and completely incoherent straw men. And yet you still drag the exact same argument into every thread as though the fact I'm getting sick of repeating myself is any kind of point.
You love your arguments from exhaustion.

Quote

And even that's down to interpretation. To be a liar is wrong: is it against God to say "This statement is a lie?" Lines are rarely clearly defined; and sometimes you can only choose between the lesser of two evils.

It's not that difficult to get, is it? Everybody will lie at some point in his or her life. The point I was trying to make is that one's lifestyle cannot be one in a lie and yet also be following after God. You cannot serve two masters. Either you serve God or you serve yourself. So if you are living a lie and wish to be a child of God, he will help your heart change so that you no longer are wishing to be a liar and are uncomfortable enough to change, with the wisdom he gives you.

Quote

Read your own link. Beyond a handful of inexplicable criticisms of simplifications intended to make it easier to understand what's being said, there's the Piltdown Man/Piltdown Bird exposed by scientists as fakes: knowledge which caught on, and no scientist will use them as evidence.

I did read my own link, and maybe you should read it again. The "handful" of examples are falsehoods that were not exposed until at least years later, 40 years later for Piltdown Man. The fake examples of evolution were continuously published in school books, and the forged Haeckel embryo pictures still are, apparently. So we're not talking about "simplifications" here. We're talking about lies.

Quote

except you have apparently decide dthat even though scientists have exposed falsehoods relating to the theory, and made sure no one would take some (ancient) examples as evidence, they're incapable of seeing through the flaws they work with daily. That just doesn't make sense.

It's not a simple as "flaws," although there are indeed some flaws that are overlooked because it doesn't "make sense" to evolutionary theory. There is always an excuse for why things don't match up. I can see that I need to present more examples, and there are examples in every field of evolutionary study, so it's hard to just tell you. I'll give you a couple of articles that I may or may not have read, but I think they might explain what I mean when I say that scientists use a lot of presuppositions in their studies to fit what they find into the theory. They do this in the dating methods, in the fossil record, and when they find things they shouldn't find, like unfossilized dinosaur bones. This is an article about the fossil record and assumptions: http://creation.com/index-fossils This one is about fresh dino blood: http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report  This one is about unfossilized dino bones (and media bias): http://creation.com/unpermineralized-hadrosaur-bones-alaska  This one is about radiometric dating: http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating And this one is about carbon dating: http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-breakthroughs  But what's interesting to me is that we began our discussion with you stating that you distrusted scientists and refused to defend dating methods. Yet you seem ready to defend these "scientists" to the end now.

Quote

My presupposition is to invoke as few unnecessary entities as possible. I'd assume we share that: it's applicable to more than just evolution. So, on this topic, while I technically do have an involved presupposition, it's a general one that we share. You're the one that relies on a separate presupposition.

Whatever the reason for your presupposition or for mine, you keep stating that I have one, as if you don't. So every time you say that I have one, I'll remind you that you have one too. Because everyone has one. So it's an invalid argument.

Quote

Which are only designed if you ignore alternatives.

Or, they are only not designed if you ignore the possibility of God and search for other alternatives.

I did read my own link, and maybe you should read it again. The "handful" of examples are falsehoods that were not exposed until at least years later, 40 years later for Piltdown Man. The fake examples of evolution were continuously published in school books, and the forged Haeckel embryo pictures still are, apparently. So we're not talking about "simplifications" here. We're talking about lies.

There is always an excuse for why things don't match up.

scientists use a lot of presuppositions in their studies to fit what they find into the theory.

Whatever the reason for your presupposition or for mine, you keep stating that I have one, as if you don't. So every time you say that I have one, I'll remind you that you have one too. Because everyone has one. So it's an invalid argument.

You provide a link I explicitly asked you not to do so, after a lengthy discussion on the problems of learning from a wall of text. You consistently ignore all the evidence I give you, claiming I offered no such thing when anyone who reads the threads will see otherwise. You complain I don't have the resources to map every inch of the world's surface. You presuppose the truth of RET, and offer nothing against DET beyond assertions you have repeatedly been corrected on. Your alignment argument has been demonstrated to not refute FET, and you constantly derail that discussion.
You lie again, and again, and again. Why is it you act so secure in your model, when you refuse honest discussion, and handwave any attempt to involve you in an honest discussion and pointing out the flaws in your logic as 'debate tactics?'

That is a lie. You provided a link to another site that you asked me not to provide - I haven't and you know it. I searched Google for "Dual Earth Theory" and to my surprise, I found DEF publicly available! Other than the 3 paragraphs under the diagram, it is essentially the same "wall of text". YOU did not send me the link. Stop lying and whining. If you want, I can provide BOTH links so people can see your lie.

I ignore your "evidence" because most of the time, when asked, you don't provide any.

You never correct stuff, just say you do. That is not a correction.

You never demonstrated anything concerning aligning telescopes - just BS rebuttals.

I ignore your debate tactics because they derail posts from providing evidence of DEF to arguing RET.

If someone brings any evidence from the real world - off you go debating that instead of DEF. It gets tiring. Most of your posts/rebuttals are just "READ!", "I've already provided evidence" and other such random, vague and unsubstantiated statements. Then if I don't respond to this BS, you say you refuted my argument. BS - waste of time. Look at my sig... I typically require an order of magnitude time and effort to refute your BS arguments.

Quote

I ignore your "evidence" because most of the time, when asked, you don't provide any.

All you've ever done is complain that I used an analogy, ignoring everything else, and ignoring observational evidence: and pretending I have never explained what observations I'm talking about when I do every single time, and even do so in the link. And EVERY SINGLE TIME I ask you why this is not satisfactory, or what kind of evidence you would prefer that is not this, you flee

Quote

You never correct stuff, just say you do. That is not a correction.

Outright lie. You make a false claim about my model, I correct you: ten seconds later you're back to making the exact same claim.

Quote

You never demonstrated anything concerning aligning telescopes - just BS rebuttals.

And yet you've been incapable of ever responding, just repeating the exact same argument with no acknowledgement or alteration to address the flaw.

Quote

I ignore your debate tactics because they derail posts from providing evidence of DEF to arguing RET.

Because the topic under discussion is not universally DET. Is this really a hard concept? If you are trying to falsify a model, it falls to you to provide the evidence: all I need to do is show your evidence doesn't amount to anything, which is often trivially easy to do. then all you do is change the topic and move the goalposts and act like your dishonesty is somehow my fault.

Quote

If someone brings any evidence from the real world - off you go debating that instead of DEF. It gets tiring. Most of your posts/rebuttals are just "READ!", "I've already provided evidence" and other such random, vague and unsubstantiated statements. Then if I don't respond to this BS, you say you refuted my argument. BS - waste of time. Look at my sig... I typically require an order of magnitude time and effort to refute your BS arguments.

Yes, it takes time to respond to arguments, well done. That's why I can't be bothered to repeat myself over and over to the likes of you when you have demonstrated a complete inability to learn and a complete unwillingness to be even the slightest bit honest. So all you're going to get is 'Read!' UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DO READ AND RESPOND TO WHAT I SAY.

Quote

Do flat earthers have any explanation for this?

Yes.

That is why I was surprised to find one publicly available that was basically what you provided me. As far as I am concerned, since this is publicly available, you can't whine about trolls.

You assert/claim I "bastardize" what you wrote. Now everyone can see for themselves (this is why I didn't want the "PM me" BS). I did not provide the link you gave me and you know this. Stop saying I did.

You have been REBUTTED! - is that what you mean by me "incapable of ever responding?" - do you mean me or you?
What flaw? Never anything specific. Stop stating BS as the truth with authority.

<-- EVIDENCE.

Tell me about it... with your 2 word answers and bogus vague statements and insults. That's just it, the only thing you repeat are the 2 word answers, vague statements, and insults. You never give proper supported answers ("altitude of stars"). What the hell kind of answer is that? I have NOTHING to learn from 2 word answers and insults and your BS unsupported statements. I read everything. The problem is, there is nothing to read but 1 word answers (READ!) and BS. You actually want me to respond to "READ!" - yeah right. Hey I should respond to all your posts - READ!

Is this another example of your "teaching"?