How to refute team "Globe"?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 08, 2018, 09:48:03 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 08, 2018, 09:45:28 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 08, 2018, 06:29:18 PM

Show me exactly where Scripture defines an age for the earth.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

So what qualifies as a Day to God?

Look up in Wikipedia the definition of day. God is not stupid.

God may not be stupid, but I am a little concerned he's relying on Wikipedia to get the definition for a Day.

You are mixing God and the liar - satan. Don't do it! In the 6 days of Genesis there are 6 evenings and 6 mornings!

No, you seem to be mixing God and the truth teller, Satan. One of the very first things God does in the Bible is lie, and then the serpent (commonly cited as Satan) comes along and tells the truth.

I notice still no refutation of pixies, nor an admission of them being absolute truth or your definition being wrong. Why is that?
Don't want to admit your standard is garbage or look ridiculous saying pixies are absolute truth?

No, I'm not.  God created all the birds, sea creatures, and animals.  This would include the dinosaurs.  Man wasn't around during the time of the dinosaurs.  This goes for all the other aspects of the Universe which is Billions of Years old.  A day for God could have been Billions of Years.  Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.

The Bible contradicting reality is not a reason to say it must be different.
Your entire argument there relies upon the Bible being correct and "interpreting it" it to fit reality. The men who wrote the Bible didn't know about those things.

Why would a Young Earth Creationsit have to believe in Flat Earth?  As I said in my previous post, not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.

But I am talking not about your mental fixations, but about mind of Dr. Kent Hovind - YEC proponent. Must he follow also Flat Earth?

But I am talking not about your mental fixations

No, you just seem to want to talk about your own.
We are meant to be talking about the pixies your line reasoning concludes are absolute truth.

Are you going to admit they are yet?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 08, 2018, 10:37:59 PM

The Creation Ministries International site certainly supports the earth "Young Earth Creationist" view.
Yet they also strongly argue that heliocentric solar system is correct.

I am not a member of their secta.

What gives you, who haven't the slightest idea of what Creation Ministries International are or do to be so critically judgemental?

OK? Friends, please read:
Expanding Universe violates laws of Physics

I glanced at your "Expanding Universe" thread and all that proves is that you know nothing of modern cosmology!
There is absolutely no "Expanding Universe" within a laboratory! Absolutely none, not even the smallest conceivable trace!

You owe it to yourself to read even the kiddies version of the "Expanding Universe".
There you would learn that even whole groups of galaxies are not moving away from each other and some are even approaching.
For example the Andromeda Galaxy and the our Galaxy are on a "collision course" - but don't send the tow-trucks out just yet !
Gravitational bound objects, including whole Galaxies, are not expanding away from each other.

And there is plenty written on the meaning of being gravitational bound.

You might read:

Is the Local Group expanding along with the entire Universe? (Intermediate)

The Local Group of Galaxies (Milky Way, Andromeda, etc) moves towards the Local Supercluster. At the same time, are our neighbour Galaxies getting away from Milky Way? Is the Local Group expanding as a whole thing at the same time that the further universe is expanding ?

Our nearest galactic neighbors, namely the Local Group, consists mainly of our galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds as well as about 30 small galaxies within ~1-2 Mpc from us. The two largest galaxies, the Milky Way and the Andromeda, are moving towards each other at about 119 km/s instead of expanding along with the rest of the universe because the gravitational attraction between the two is stronger. In fact, the entire Local Group is collapsing under the gravitational attraction, and in about 3 billion years, the Milky Way and Andromeda will collide! Ahhhh! .

If you want to debunk something you really must learn plenty about otherwise all you will do it to make a fool of yourself.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 08, 2018, 10:06:37 PM

No, I'm not.  God created all the birds, sea creatures, and animals.  This would include the dinosaurs.  Man wasn't around during the time of the dinosaurs.  This goes for all the other aspects of the Universe which is Billions of Years old.  A day for God could have been Billions of Years.  Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.

The Bible contradicting reality is not a reason to say it must be different.
Your entire argument there relies upon the Bible being correct and "interpreting it" it to fit reality. The men who wrote the Bible didn't know about those things.

Please provide me the post where I said that the Bible is an accurate historical record.  Please tell me how saying don't take everything in the Bible literally means I think the Bible is an accurate historical record.  You draw a conclusion that is both wrong and foolish as there are many ways to interpret the Bible and the words within its pages.

Having faith that there is a God, doesn't mean that I throw science in the toilet and I'm aware that wait for it, not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.   I'm sure I said that in my original post, yet for some reason you seemingly ignored it because I made the distinction that to God a day could be any matter of time, in reference to the correlation of Genesis and what we know of the world's history.  Maybe you should get off your high horse and you would have understood the point I was making, instead of attempting to put words in my mouth and telling me what I believe.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 08, 2018, 10:08:08 PM

Why would a Young Earth Creationsit have to believe in Flat Earth?  As I said in my previous post, not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.

But I am talking not about your mental fixations, but about mind of Dr. Kent Hovind - YEC proponent. Must he follow also Flat Earth?

As usual you did not answer the question asked!
How about a direct answer to, "Why would a Young Earth Creationsit have to believe in Flat Earth?

Please provide me the post where I said that the Bible is an accurate historical record.

Provide the post where I said you did.

My point was that if you are trying to use mankind not living at the same time as the dinosaurs as a justification that the length of a "day" in genesis is not meant as 24 hours, you are basing it on the Bible being true. If you don't have that assumption then the argument falls apart as the day can easily mean 24 hours, and that simply means the Bible is wrong.

I see absolutely no reason to take it as anything other than a literal day, especially with "evening went and morning came, that was the nth day". Sure it is completely inaccurate, but even then there is the option of just discarding the Bible as garbage or alternatively interpreting the entire thing as a story/fable, which would allow a fundamentally different situation, like God being an advanced alien species that came to Earth some time in the past and made some creatures, finishing with mankind (as well as the more obvious option followed by YECs of just rejecting reality).

Maybe you should get off your high horse and you would have understood the point I was making, instead of attempting to put words in my mouth and telling me what I believe.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 09, 2018, 12:54:28 AM

Please provide me the post where I said that the Bible is an accurate historical record.

Provide the post where I said you did.

My point was that if you are trying to use mankind not living at the same time as the dinosaurs as a justification that the length of a "day" in genesis is not meant as 24 hours, you are basing it on the Bible being true. If you don't have that assumption then the argument falls apart as the day can easily mean 24 hours, and that simply means the Bible is wrong.

I see absolutely no reason to take it as anything other than a literal day, especially with "evening went and morning came, that was the nth day". Sure it is completely inaccurate, but even then there is the option of just discarding the Bible as garbage or alternatively interpreting the entire thing as a story/fable, which would allow a fundamentally different situation, like God being an advanced alien species that came to Earth some time in the past and made some creatures, finishing with mankind (as well as the more obvious option followed by YECs of just rejecting reality).

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 09, 2018, 12:54:28 AM

Maybe you should get off your high horse and you would have understood the point I was making, instead of attempting to put words in my mouth and telling me what I believe.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

The word true means accurate and exact or in accordance with fact and reality.

The word literal means taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

So is the Bible, as a whole and in a literal sense, true in the strictest sense of the word, no, but that doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist within it's pages.
 You are taking the Bible literally and then using it as a comparison to what we know historically and scientifically to say the Bible is wrong and is not true.

You don't believe in God, as you have said as such, however, most religious faiths have interpretations of what the Bible means.  The most simplest interpretation of Genesis is that God created the Universe and the story of Genesis is just an representation of that.  Different views and interpretations are abundant and can give added meaning to the words within Genesis.

As to the truth of God creating the Universe, that comes on faith and belief.  Scientifically it can't be proven or disproven (I'm sure you said that).  We weren't there when the Universe was created so at best we can theorize scientifically what occurred to a certain point.  But there is a lot unknown and will never be known.

That's about as far as I'm going with you on religious interpretation.  You seem to want to debate religious views.  I'm not going to.

The word true means accurate and exact or in accordance with fact and reality.

I know, don't treat me like an idiot.

Again, your entire argument is based upon the Bible being true and using that to change the meaning of day to allow the Bible to be true.
I see no reason at all to do so.

You are taking the Bible literally and then using it as a comparison to what we know historically and scientifically to say the Bible is wrong and is not true.

I am merely reading the Bible without an attempt to force it to be true. If it is wrong with a simple plain reading I will dismiss it as wrong rather than attempting to pervert the text just to pretend it is correct.

The most simplest interpretation of Genesis is that God created the Universe and the story of Genesis is just an representation of that.

No, the simplest interpretation is that God created the universe in 6 days, as an omnipotent being would be able to do.

That's about as far as I'm going with you on religious interpretation.  You seem to want to debate religious views.  I'm not going to.

Not really. I just don't want people spouting pure garbage about it, as if the Bible contradicting reality means that it must mean something else.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 09, 2018, 08:04:00 AM

The word true means accurate and exact or in accordance with fact and reality.

I know, don't treat me like an idiot.

Again, your entire argument is based upon the Bible being true and using that to change the meaning of day to allow the Bible to be true.
I see no reason at all to do so.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 09, 2018, 08:04:00 AM

You are taking the Bible literally and then using it as a comparison to what we know historically and scientifically to say the Bible is wrong and is not true.

I am merely reading the Bible without an attempt to force it to be true. If it is wrong with a simple plain reading I will dismiss it as wrong rather than attempting to pervert the text just to pretend it is correct.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 09, 2018, 08:04:00 AM

The most simplest interpretation of Genesis is that God created the Universe and the story of Genesis is just an representation of that.

No, the simplest interpretation is that God created the universe in 6 days, as an omnipotent being would be able to do.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 09, 2018, 08:04:00 AM

That's about as far as I'm going with you on religious interpretation.  You seem to want to debate religious views.  I'm not going to.

Not really. I just don't want people spouting pure garbage about it, as if the Bible contradicting reality means that it must mean something else.

You are not a theologian or a scholar. You take a look at text authored 2000 years ago or more and forgetting the fact that definitions of words change think the entire thing is a load of nonsense

You want to know whats nonsense? Doctors using bare unwashed hands to treat healthy people right after they just handled sick/diseased or dead patients. Moses figured out many thousands of years ago that that wasn't a smart idea, but it took 'science' a few more thousand years to figure out there are benefits to hygiene after all.

Not everything in the bible is rubbish just because you wish to apply simple context and literal definitions of words written thousands of years ago and apply it to todays standards.

Saying the universe was created in 6 days etc is relative. But relative to what? We dont know. We assume its based on the 24 hour rotation of the Earth, but thats moronic since the Earth didn't exist at the time. It's like how fast is the Earth moving. Is your reference point standing on Earth? The Sun? The galactic core? Each point will give wildly different answers.

You are not a theologian or religious scholar. Do not expect anyone to take anything you say against religion to be met with authority.

The best any scientist can be on matters relating to God is agnostic. Indeed, some of the most famous scientists have been and have likely been better at their science for it

You are not a theologian or a scholar.

I never said I was. But neither are you. So if you want to reject what I say for no reason at all, why should I give a damn what you say?

Saying the universe was created in 6 days etc is relative. But relative to what? We don't know.

Considering the "day" and "night" and "evening" and "morning" I would say that is pretty obvious.

but thats moronic since the Earth didn't exist at the time.

No. That's moronic as you are assuming the Bible needs to be correct.
As I said, if you accept the Bible is false, then there is nothing moronic about it having a god start with Earth, with the rest of the universe being covered by the stars.

The best any scientist can be on matters relating to God is agnostic.

That depends on if you are referring to specific gods, or gods in general, and if you mean technically agnostic or practically so.

For gods in general, we can treat it just like pixies. How many scientists are agnostic relating to pixies?

Quote from: Shifter on December 09, 2018, 02:25:40 PM

You are not a theologian or a scholar.

I never said I was. But neither are you. So if you want to reject what I say for no reason at all, why should I give a damn what you say?

Quote from: Shifter on December 09, 2018, 02:25:40 PM

Saying the universe was created in 6 days etc is relative. But relative to what? We don't know.

Considering the "day" and "night" and "evening" and "morning" I would say that is pretty obvious.

Quote from: Shifter on December 09, 2018, 02:25:40 PM

but thats moronic since the Earth didn't exist at the time.

No. That's moronic as you are assuming the Bible needs to be correct.
As I said, if you accept the Bible is false, then there is nothing moronic about it having a god start with Earth, with the rest of the universe being covered by the stars.

Quote from: Shifter on December 09, 2018, 02:25:40 PM

The best any scientist can be on matters relating to God is agnostic.

That depends on if you are referring to specific gods, or gods in general, and if you mean technically agnostic or practically so.

For gods in general, we can treat it just like pixies. How many scientists are agnostic relating to pixies?

Never said I was a theologian but I dont spout shit and claim it's gospel myself. My view on it is pretty agnostic and I dont judge and speak with contempt those who believe in something

The idea of God relates to the universe and the nature of its and our existence. WTF has pixies got to do with anything. That's a shit example you made up to drive a point. It doesn't work

You are a very intolerant, ill tempered arsehole in all your responses. Whatever someone says, you will never give an inch to agree they might have a point on anything about anything.

Maybe if you spoke with a little more class and not so bitter, twisted and angry, people would respond to you better and people could actually have a real conversation with you. You just come here to troll and argue and no one is taking you seriously

Never said I was a theologian but I dont spout shit and claim it's gospel myself.

That is basically all you do here, but with a different subject.
But you also do that with religion, such as where you dismissed a view as moronic.

I would also say dismissing something as moronic sure seems to be judging and speaking with contempt.

Follow your own advice before giving it to others.

The idea of God relates to the universe and the nature of its and our existence. WTF has pixies got to do with anything.

They are both mythological creatures with no connection to reality, where we just have stories about them, filled with fantasy.

You are a very intolerant

Yes, I'm intolerant of BS. That isn't a bad thing. The rest of that line is just pathetic insults.

This seems to helping Astronomy in his quest of "How to refute team 'Globe' " by "team 'Globe' " fighting "team 'Globe' ".

Though I doubt any of this will have the slightest impact on the accepted Heliocentric Solar System.

Indeed.

Back on topic. Astronomy, got anything else to add?

Preferably around your statement that absolute truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong.

Indeed.

Back on topic. Astronomy, got anything else to add?

Preferably around your statement that absolute truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong.

.... and never will be proven wrong.

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 02:17:12 AM

Indeed.

Back on topic. Astronomy, got anything else to add?

Preferably around your statement that absolute truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong.

.... and never will be proven wrong.

How do we know something will never be proven wrong? Or to turn the question around: how do we know something is absolute truth?

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 02:17:12 AM

Indeed.

Back on topic. Astronomy, got anything else to add?

Preferably around your statement that absolute truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong.

.... and never will be proven wrong.

So things like pixies.
They haven't been proven wrong and never will be.

So do you accept the existence of pixies as absolute truth?
If not, disprove their existence.

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 02:17:12 AM

Indeed.
Back on topic. Astronomy, got anything else to add?
Preferably around your statement that absolute truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong.

.... and never will be proven wrong.

Now justify your claim that "Absolute Truth" has anything to do with the shape of the earth or even cosmology.

Quote from: Astronomy on December 10, 2018, 06:50:48 AM

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 02:17:12 AM

Indeed.

Back on topic. Astronomy, got anything else to add?

Preferably around your statement that absolute truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong.

.... and never will be proven wrong.

How do we know something will never be proven wrong? Or to turn the question around: how do we know something is absolute truth?

If absolutely all statements of team Globe will be falsified (as the Science is falsifiable), then team Globe in the end is wrong about shape of the Earth.

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 08:59:55 AM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 10, 2018, 06:50:48 AM

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 02:17:12 AM

Indeed.

Back on topic. Astronomy, got anything else to add?

Preferably around your statement that absolute truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong.

.... and never will be proven wrong.

How do we know something will never be proven wrong? Or to turn the question around: how do we know something is absolute truth?

If absolutely all statements of team Globe will be falsified (as the Science is falsifiable), then team Globe in the end is wrong about shape of the Earth.

Falsifiability does not mean a statement is false, it just means that it has the ability of being proven wrong. Thus having some scientific value. Why would you try to disprove a statement that can not be disproven? Hence the question you were asked about pixies (still waiting for an answer).

Another question you didn’t answer: how do you know something is absolute truth? How can you be sure that a statement will never ever be disproven?

I understand all this are scary thoughts for a devout person like yourself. But please try not to see it as a case of good vs evil because it is really not.

Quote from: Astronomy on December 10, 2018, 09:12:44 PM

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 08:59:55 AM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 10, 2018, 06:50:48 AM

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 02:17:12 AM

Indeed.

Back on topic. Astronomy, got anything else to add?

Preferably around your statement that absolute truth is anything that hasn’t been proven wrong.

.... and never will be proven wrong.

How do we know something will never be proven wrong? Or to turn the question around: how do we know something is absolute truth?

If absolutely all statements of team Globe will be falsified (as the Science is falsifiable), then team Globe in the end is wrong about shape of the Earth.

Falsifiability does not mean a statement is false, it just means that it has the ability of being proven wrong. Thus having some scientific value. Why would you try to disprove a statement that can not be disproven? Hence the question you were asked about pixies (still waiting for an answer).

Another question you didn’t answer: how do you know something is absolute truth? How can you be sure that a statement will never ever be disproven?

I understand all this are scary thoughts for a devout person like yourself. But please try not to see it as a case of good vs evil because it is really not.

Can team Globe be wrong about team Flat? Can Earth be Flat?



A knowledge of a human is the knowledge of his God. Therefore, God must exist.
My God knows, that pixies (and FS Monster, and sinner Harry Potter) are just a story.

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 09:36:45 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 10, 2018, 09:12:44 PM

If absolutely all statements of team Globe will be falsified (as the Science is falsifiable), then team Globe in the end is wrong about shape of the Earth.

Falsifiability does not mean a statement is false, it just means that it has the ability of being proven wrong. Thus having some scientific value. Why would you try to disprove a statement that can not be disproven? Hence the question you were asked about pixies (still waiting for an answer).

Another question you didn’t answer: how do you know something is absolute truth? How can you be sure that a statement will never ever be disproven?

I understand all this are scary thoughts for a devout person like yourself. But please try not to see it as a case of good vs evil because it is really not.

Can team Globe be wrong about team Flat? Can Earth be Flat?

I'll say it again and again:
         You have never proved that "ABSOLUTE  TRUTH" has any connection with the shape of the earth or even with any particular cosmology.

Quote from: Astronomy on December 10, 2018, 11:45:46 PM

Quote from: Lamaface on December 10, 2018, 09:36:45 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 10, 2018, 09:12:44 PM

If absolutely all statements of team Globe will be falsified (as the Science is falsifiable), then team Globe in the end is wrong about shape of the Earth.

Falsifiability does not mean a statement is false, it just means that it has the ability of being proven wrong. Thus having some scientific value. Why would you try to disprove a statement that can not be disproven? Hence the question you were asked about pixies (still waiting for an answer).

Another question you didn’t answer: how do you know something is absolute truth? How can you be sure that a statement will never ever be disproven?

I understand all this are scary thoughts for a devout person like yourself. But please try not to see it as a case of good vs evil because it is really not.

Can team Globe be wrong about team Flat? Can Earth be Flat?

I'll say it again and again:
         You have never proved that "ABSOLUTE  TRUTH" has any connection with the shape of the earth or even with any particular cosmology.

Denial of Truth is lie of Nihilism - root of all evil.

If absolutely all statements of team Globe will be falsified (as the Science is falsifiable)

Again, that is not what falsifiable means.
Stop repeating the same bullshit.

Now care to address the problems with your claims on absolute truth?
Are you going to admit pixies are absolute truth?

Can team Globe be wrong about team Flat? Can Earth be Flat?

All the available evidence indicates Earth is not flat. Based upon that no, team reality can't be wrong about team flat. Earth can't be flat unless someone flattens it.

A knowledge of a human is the knowledge of his God.

This is not a place to discuss religion. The only way that factors into it is your insane claim that just because something can't be disproven magically makes it true.
But that the statement "pixies exist" is absolute truth, as it is impossible to disprove.

All the available evidence indicates Earth is not flat. Based upon that no, team reality can't be wrong about team flat. Earth can't be flat unless someone flattens it.

Why that is not True? Absolute true?

Quote from: JackBlack on December 11, 2018, 01:03:02 AM

All the available evidence indicates Earth is not flat. Based upon that no, team reality can't be wrong about team flat. Earth can't be flat unless someone flattens it.

Why that is not True? Absolute true?

Because all evidence indicates earth is not flat. Jack already said it.

Although I would rather apply some nuance: because all evidence indicates, with a probability extremely close to absolute truth, that the earth is not flat.

Also, to be on clear: “earth is flat” is a falsifiable claim.

Quote from: Astronomy on December 11, 2018, 01:15:54 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 11, 2018, 01:03:02 AM

All the available evidence indicates Earth is not flat. Based upon that no, team reality can't be wrong about team flat. Earth can't be flat unless someone flattens it.

Why that is not True? Absolute true?

Although I would rather apply some nuance: because all evidence indicates, with a probability extremely close to absolute truth, that the earth is not flat.

Therefore, team Globe might be wrong about spinning Globe?

<<  Ignored while you refuse to answer!  >>

I'll say it again and again:
         You have never proved that "ABSOLUTE  TRUTH" has any connection with the shape of the earth or even with any particular cosmology.