Did you hear the one about the disappearing planet?

[dad]

Your claims are false, as is easily demonstrate by your total inability to be specific about what you're actually objecting to, let alone support your objection with examinable evidence.

You object to them for the same reason you object (by avoidance) to those many biblical quotes of Jesus denying he's God, and denying he has any authority in heaven, and why you want nature to have changed in some unspecified way at some unspecified time in the past ─ because they contradict a story that only exists in your mind.
If you say they know squat that means you're familiar with and have understood the case they make and the evidence on which it's based ─ but of course that's not true either, you have no idea what they actually say or why they might have said it, you're simply disagreeing to protect your story.
If I directed you to the experiments and the reasoning that support this conclusion, you wouldn't read it, or wish to understand it, you'd only want to badmouth it. So you can look it up for yourself. Start by googling, say, "cosmic background radiation" and go from there.
As I've pointed out before, how funny, and rather sad, that you denigrate science by calling it a religion, trying to drag it down to your own level. The believers I know are all smarter than that.
There you go again, just making stuff up.
No it's not a con. Your bible says the flood covered Mt Everest abot 25 feet deep. So look up the height of Mt Everest and do the maths. Don't take my word for it.
There you go again, not knowing what your own book says and trying to impose your own imaginings on it instead.
Yet ANOTHER fiction you've invented for your own purposes, yet another claim backed by zero evidence,.

Your flood story doesn't hold water. Get over it. Join the adult world. Who knows, you might enjoy thinking.

Nothing to say then. OK. Whatever. If you can't make a good case for your false science beliefs, not sure why you bothered posting. I guess it was just to get a little bible bashing in. Whatever

ZZZzzz

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This one they had to admit to.

"admit"?

'admit' is when did something bad and you then "admit" to it.
I've explained this already. There's no shame in honest mistakes.

But science haters like yourself off course jump on stuff like this to make irrelevant idiotic points thinking you can discard the whole of science in this way.

You won't be mentioning the hundreds, thousands even, of planets that were correct assessments of the data and which continue to be observed later down the line. Because that is not conveniont for your dishonest argument.

The mistake would have been to believe them in the first place I guess.

Science doesn't demand "belief".
All of science is provisional. And this is a good example of why that is so: future evidence can show your conclusions wrong. And then you correct yourself.

I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you feel like you can use this as ammunition to bash science, as if scientists should be ashmed or something.

While things like this are the EXACT opposite. This is the pride of science! The intellectual honesty to correct yourself when evidence demands it and not make stuff up post hoc to pretend as if you weren't wrong eventhough you obviously were.

Like you like to do with your "different state past" bs.

This is the difference between your dogmatic beliefs and scientific intellectual honesty.

When scientists discover new data showing them wrong, they happily change their conclusions and are thrilled and proud about it, having learned something new and thus made progress.

When you discovere data that shows you wrong, you make stuff up in the most assanine of ways, just so you can feel like you can pretend to still be correct.

This is why science makes progress while you are stuck in the iron age.

The issue is not about what they know and publish. The issue is about what they publish that they know and don't know.

No. The issue is how intellectually dishonest you are and how hellbend you are to jump on ANYTHING you feel like you can use to spew your hatred of anything scientific - no matter how utterly wrong you are. If anything is clear by now - you don't care about being wrong.

Scientists care a great deal about being wrong. This is why they alter their views when new data shows them wrong, like they did in this instance.

There are constant examples of their views being incorrect.

Off course. This is how progress is made.
More often then not, when you LEARN something, it comes with a disproval of previously held ideas.

Heliocentrism corrected geocentrism.
Relativity corrected newtonian physics.
An expanding universe model corrected a static model.
Germ theory corrected nonsense about demons.
Etc.

Almost every single breakthrough in any field, corrected previously held views.

It's called learning.
You should try it some time...

The idea is that they scramble to try and explain things using their belief system

No, that's what YOU do.
You "scramble" and make sh!t up in order to hold on tight to your beliefs of creationism.
This is why you came up with that different state past nonsense.

The evidence of reality shows you wrong. But you can't deal with the idea of your beliefs being wrong, so if your beliefs can't be considered wrong, then you have to consider the evidence wrong, which means that you need to come up with stuff to wave away the evidence.

This is the whole reason for your last thursdayism nonsense...

Scientists do the opposite.
There's no "scrambling" to clinge to their "beliefs". They don't have beliefs. They have conclusions based on evidence.

When new evidence doesn't agree with current beliefs - it's not the evidence that is incorrect.

Then as it is discovered they were wrong on some point, they simply scramble again to cook up some 'plausible' explanation that will fit their belief system.

No. That's what you do.




I'm skipping the rest of your nonsense because it's boring and clearly you have no idea what you are talking about either.

I would suggest you to actually read the article you linked to, but there's no real point in that either because you don't care about evidence, reality and being honest.[/quote]

 

[dad]

"admit"?

'admit' is when did something bad and you then "admit" to it.
I've explained this already. There's no shame in honest mistakes.

No. Admitting is just accepting the fact that you did something. Not like it has to be some big evil thing.

But science haters like yourself off course jump on stuff like this to make irrelevant idiotic points thinking you can discard the whole of science in this way.

Don't try to position yourself and your beliefs as being somehow connected to science. All connections are a fraud when it comes to origins so-called science.

You won't be mentioning the hundreds, thousands even, of planets that were correct assessments of the data and which continue to be observed later down the line. Because that is not conveniont for your dishonest argument.

I did. I pointed out the distances to these objects is totally unknown and therefore the sizes and etc. All the things they use to call things 'planets' are baloney based. So when they get caught saying something is a planet when they later have to admit it is not one, this is no surprise to me at all. I can't wait till ALL their claims are busted forever! Little busts are just a taste of things to come.

Science doesn't demand "belief".

Origins science do. They also seem to demand that you deny it is beliefs!

All of science is provisional.

Don't talk about all of science, that is off-topic here. You can talk of the cosmo fraud sciences, or origins sciences, so-called. Don't conflate these with real knowledge-based science. That would be just a cheap attempt to try and make your belief system look good.

And this is a good example of why that is so: future evidence can show your conclusions wrong. And then you correct yourself.

Speak for your own religion, not mine! Your religious beliefs falsely labeled as science not only do and can be shown wrong, the MUST be!

I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you feel like you can use this as ammunition to bash science, as if scientists should be ashmed or something.

While things like this are the EXACT opposite. This is the pride of science! The intellectual honesty to correct yourself when evidence demands it and not make stuff up post hoc to pretend as if you weren't wrong eventhough you obviously were.

They are constantly wrong on many things. The motis operendi of so called science is to be wrong, then scamble to cover that up by cooking up a new steaming pile of belief based stories that seem plausible because these too are based on their same beliefs.

Like you like to do with your "different state past" bs.

Name something I am wrong about that you can evidence regarding the record of the past?? Ha.

When scientists discover new data showing them wrong, they happily change their conclusions and are thrilled and proud about it, having learned something new and thus made progress.

They merely scramble to come up with some other explanation based on the same wrong beliefs that resulted in the wrong claim to start with. That is progress? No more than a bank robber makes progress by changing motels and names!

No. The issue is how intellectually dishonest you are and how hellbend you are to jump on ANYTHING you feel like you can use to spew your hatred of anything scientific - no matter how utterly wrong you are. If anything is clear by now - you don't care about being wrong.

In other words, it upsets your sensibilities when your religion is shown for what it is.

Scientists care a great deal about being wrong.

Yeah, they need to appear correct. Naturally, they care about the times when they were shown wrong.

Heliocentrism corrected geocentrism.
Relativity corrected newtonian physics.
An expanding universe model corrected a static model.
Germ theory corrected nonsense about demons.
Etc.

Big talk for fishbowl beliefs. If someone claims there are no spirits then prove it? If spirits cannot sometimes affect health, prove it? Otherwise, your claims are ridiculous personal ignorance-based bias.

No, that's what YOU do.
You "scramble" and make sh!t up in order to hold on tight to your beliefs of creationism.

Truth be told there is not much scrambling involved lately. The opposition is like a ship with no wind in their sails and like a tiresome broken record. Clouds with no rain.

The evidence of reality shows you wrong.

What is shown is that your beliefs cannot be defended and that you are in denial.

Scientists do the opposite.
There's no "scrambling" to clinge to their "beliefs".

They never abandon their belief based method for a moment! The only scrambling involved is in quickly trying to cover up being wrong, and using their same belief system to cook up a new whopper!

They don't have beliefs. They have conclusions based on evidence.

None you ever posted! What has been demonstrated in this thread is that so-called science disciples insist on calling their beliefs evidence despite the evidence that they are just beliefs, and then denying it!!!!

When new evidence doesn't agree with current beliefs - it's not the evidence that is incorrect.

When so-called evidence is just projected beliefs - when they are wrong, you are right, it is not evidence that is wrong at all. It is their fishbowl religion that is wrong, and that is falsely called science.


Admit defeat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Admitting is just accepting the fact that you did something. Not like it has to be some big evil thing.

Okay. Then what is the problem?
Are these scientists denying to thought it was a planet?
Are they refusing to change their minds in light of this new evidence?
Are they refusing to acknowledge they were wrong?

What exactly is your complaint here?
Or is it just that they were wrong?

You think scientists aren't allowed to be wrong?
They have to be 100% correct 100% of the time?

Don't try to position yourself and your beliefs as being somehow connected to science.

I wasn't talking about me nore my beliefs.

All connections are a fraud when it comes to origins so-called science.

Funny how you just confirmed the point I was making.

I did. I pointed out the distances to these objects is totally unknown and therefore the sizes and etc. All the things they use to call things 'planets' are baloney based. So when they get caught saying something is a planet when they later have to admit it is not one, this is no surprise to me at all. I can't wait till ALL their claims are busted forever! Little busts are just a taste of things to come.

Don't hold your breath.
pssst: your hatred is showing again.

Origins science do

No it doesn't. You're being dishonest again.

They also seem to demand that you deny it is beliefs!

Nope.

Don't talk about all of science, that is off-topic here

Says the guy who just brought up "origins science" and who's using this ONE honest mistake as a trojan horse to try and discredit the entire scientific enterprise.

Dishonesty again.

You can talk of the cosmo fraud sciences, or origins sciences, so-called. Don't conflate these with real knowledge-based science. That would be just a cheap attempt to try and make your belief system look good.

Dishonesty again.

Speak for your own religion

I'm an atheist - I don't have a relgion

Your religious beliefs falsely labeled as science not only do and can be shown wrong, the MUST be!

The only reason they "must" be (to you), is because you need your beliefs to be correct.
That's the dogmatic thingy I was talking about.

Only one of us here can't deal with the idea of the evidence of reality contradicting currently held views - and it's not me.

When evidence contradicts my views, I actually rejoice, because I just learned something and I'll HAPPILY alter my views accordingly.

When evidence contradicts YOUR views, then you conclude that the evidence MUST be incorrect and / or you'll make stuff up to handwave it away. Like your intellectually dishonest last thursdayism nonsense.

They are constantly wrong on many things. The motis operendi of so called science is to be wrong, then scamble to cover that up by cooking up a new steaming pile of belief based stories that seem plausible because these too are based on their same beliefs.

learn2science

You're just projecting here.
It is clear that an evidence based view of the world is something that is completely foreign to you.

You're just projecting your "method" of dogmatic belief upon scientists.
Again, science doesn't do "beliefs". Science is about evidence based conclusions - which are subject to correction if new evidence demands it.

Whereas your dogmatic beliefs not only aren't subject to correction, they are in fact the exact opposite... Even only questioning them is likely a "crime" of blasphemy or alike.

Name something I am wrong about that you can evidence regarding the record of the past?? Ha.

I think it would be easier to list what you are right about.
Here's the list:

Admit defeat.

Back to playing pidgeon chess I see.

 

[dad]

Okay. Then what is the problem?
Are these scientists denying to thought it was a planet?
Are they refusing to change their minds in light of this new evidence?
Are they refusing to acknowledge they were wrong?

If a religious person told you the earth was a hologram, and the moon was made of cheese, and then evidence surfaced they were wrong, what would be the problem? Well, I do not think that the universe is anything like they imagine or claim. I know that their distances and sizes of stellar objects are faith-based. So when I see a planet claimed but later said to be hot gas or whatever, it doesn't really bother me at all. I know they are wrong anyhow about it all. It just gets a little chuckle from me to see them busted at times for being wrong. Perhaps it might cause some devotees of false science to question the faith.

No it doesn't. You're being dishonest again.

False and easy to demonstrate as being false. The real basis of origins claims are well known. You could not begin tho show them as anything BUT faith-based.

Says the guy who just brought up "origins science" and who's using this ONE honest mistake as a trojan horse to try and discredit the entire scientific enterprise.

I have seen such errors many many many times. It is not one time. It is built into the faith-based models and in endemic.

Dishonesty again.

Don't pretend you know the difference between truth or lie.

I'm an atheist - I don't have a relgion

You are trying to defend the faith here actually. So-called science is belief based. Atheists simply do not realize their various gods are gods.

Only one of us here can't deal with the idea of the evidence of reality contradicting currently held views - and it's not me.

Only one can't post any!

When evidence contradicts my views, I actually rejoice, because I just learned something and I'll HAPPILY alter my views accordingly.

Being a so-called science fan I guess you are in for very happy times then!

When evidence contradicts YOUR views

No evidence contradicts my views. Your faith-based hooey is not evidence. The actual evidence is in my back pocket.

It is clear that an evidence based view of the world is something that is completely foreign to you.

You don't even know what evidence is. Your beliefs are foreign to evidence, and only get latched on to it by forced immigration!

Back to playing pidgeon chess I see.

We get it. Anyone that doesn't swallow your belief set wholesale you want to call a pigeon.

 

[Milton Platt]

A guy walks into a bar....

well, actually science declared a planet (or exoplanet as it is called when it is really far away) existed.

The funny thing is that is up and disappeared. Not there. So, do we get an apology? No.

"What scientists thought was a planet beyond our solar system has 'vanished.' Though this happens to sci-fi worlds, scientists seek a more plausible explanation."

Exoplanet apparently disappears in latest Hubble observations

We get the usual scramble to find some 'plausible' (fishbowl) explanation. In other words they are busted and scrambling to cook up another whopper.

Kids, this is how cosmology works.

It's how science works. It corrects mistakes and moves on. Unlike dogma.

 

[dad]

It's how science works. It corrects mistakes and moves on.

The mistake was a result of a belief system. They use the same system to try and correct mistakes. That is how so-called science works.

 

[blü 2]

Nothing to say then. OK. Whatever. If you can't make a good case for your false science beliefs, not sure why you bothered posting. I guess it was just to get a little bible bashing in. WhateverZZZzzz

Your claims are unsupported by evidence.

Your claims are refuted by evidence.

You make stuff up.

You don't know what your own book says.

When it's drawn to your attention you pretend it isn't there.

So we'll leave it at that.

All the best.

 

[dad]

Your claims are unsupported by evidence.

My claims are that so called science has no evidence for the same nature in the past it claims and uses in models.

Your claims are refuted by evidence.

With my claim being that there is no evidence for your beliefs, your lack of evidence is evidence. Evidence that shouts from the housetops. Your defeated efforts at trying to call your beliefs evidence ring out clearly and loudly.

With that, I bid thee adieu.

 

[blü 2]

My claims are that so called science has no evidence for the same nature in the past it claims and uses in models.
With my claim being that there is no evidence for your beliefs, your lack of evidence is evidence. Evidence that shouts from the housetops. Your defeated efforts at trying to call your beliefs evidence ring out clearly and loudly.

With that, I bid thee adieu.

You should reread my previous post.

And have a lovely day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The mistake was a result of a belief system

No, it wasn't. Just another hint that you have no clue what this issue is really all about and that you didn't properly read the article.

They use the same system to try and correct mistakes

Yes. And that system is: gather evidence/data, analyse it and form conclusions.

The horror, right? How dare they learn things based on evidence!!!

That is how so-called science works.

Yes, science works by starting from data and evidence.
Whereas you start from faith based fundamentalist belief in an iron age tale.

 

[dad]

No, it wasn't.

Oh yes it was.

Yes. And that system is: gather evidence/data, analyse it and form conclusions.

No. It is to fit all explanations into the belief-based paradigm. They cannot analyze something they have the wrong data such as distance and size for!
Soon this fable age will end. The age of fables!

 

[dad]

You should reread my previous post.

And have a lovely day.

You should stop posting since you have the wind knocked from your religious sales. Nice try. No cigar.

 

[blü 2]

You should stop posting since you have the wind knocked from your religious sales. Nice try. No cigar.

I see you didn't read, or didn't understand, my post #68.

It points out that your claims, supported by no evidence at all, are refuted by superabundant evidence.

And that you make stuff up when it suits you.

And that you don't read your own book, and when its words are drawn to your attention, pretend not to hear.

Your 'undefeated' is yet another of your untenable claims.

Live long, learn, and prosper.

 

[dad]

I see you didn't read, or didn't understand, my post #68.

It points out that your claims, supported by no evidence at all, are refuted by superabundant evidence.

And that you make stuff up when it suits you.

And that you don't read your own book, and when its words are drawn to your attention, pretend not to hear.

Your 'undefeated' is yet another of your untenable claims.

Live long, learn, and prosper.

My claim is that science has no proof or support or evidence for the fundamental belief used in all models of the past. That claim is absolutely beyond debate and we see you certainly can't begin to support your belief based claims you offered as science.
When I gave no place to your blasphemy and spam posts you do the inevitable and run while trying to save face by pretending it is something else.

Run quietly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. It is to fit all explanations into the belief-based paradigm.

No, that's what you do with your last thursdayism which must fit into your creationist theistic belief.

The article you posted, demonstrates that scientists do the opposite.
First they thought there was a planet and then new data revealed that they were wrong, so they change their beliefs to fit the data.


Your projection level is astonishing.

They cannot analyze something they have the wrong data such as distance and size for!

The only reason YOU think such data is wrong, is because YOU need it to be wrong because it doesn't fit your theistic beliefs.

You are the one that rejects the evidence in favor of a prior beliefs.
Scientsts are the ones that change their mind when the evidence demands such.

Soon this fable age will end. The age of fables!

Preach more, preacher

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My claim is that science has no proof or support or evidence for the fundamental belief used in all models of the past. That claim is absolutely beyond debate and we see you certainly can't begin to support your belief based claims you offered as science.
When I gave no place to your blasphemy and spam posts you do the inevitable and run while trying to save face by pretending it is something else.

Run quietly.

There you go.

Even only suggesting there might be evidence that your beliefs are wrong, you call it "blasphemy".

But scientists are the ones that try to force fit evidence into a priori beliefs ha?

 

[blü 2]

My claim is that science has no proof or support or evidence for the fundamental belief used in all models of the past.

You have the burden of demonstrating from evidence that it was different.

You have no credible evidence at all to demonstrate that your claim is correct, just as you have no evidence at all for any of your other claims.

If your system requires that someone's claim stands until it's disproved (whereas in the real world, someone's claim is not accepted until its correctness is demonstrated) then you have altogether failed to show that Jesus was not a Chinese robot; and under your system, it's your job to disprove it, not my job to prove it.

So go ahead.

In the real world, you still have nothing. In the real world, the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, and the sun and the earth are about 4.5 bn years old. and life on earth began a bit over 3.5 bn years ago and all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor. In the real world, there was no flood, and none of the evidence that would have to be there if there had been a flood is found anywhere. In the real world, the NT reads that each of the five versions of Jesus in the NT expressly denies that he's God.

And so on, as I've already pointed out to you.

 

[dad]

No, that's what you do with your last thursdayism which must fit into your creationist theistic belief.

The article you posted, demonstrates that scientists do the opposite.
First they thought there was a planet and then new data revealed that they were wrong, so they change their beliefs to fit the data.

In other words, they were busted! Ha. They had to deal with some facts that showed their model was bogus.

The only reason YOU think such data is wrong, is because YOU need it to be wrong because it doesn't fit your theistic beliefs.

No. I realize the mental imaging based on faith of the universe nature and origins is wrong for two reasons.
1) It not only does not fit with the facts of Scripture regarding creation.

2) They have no evidence on a faith-based modeling system for their claims.

It is, then, no wonder that they routinely need to scramble to cook up new whoppers when busted!

You are the one that rejects the evidence in favor of a prior beliefs.

You are the one that calls a godless a priori belief system evidence!

Scientsts are the ones that change their mind when the evidence demands such.

So-called science MUST change stories BECAUSE they are wrong!

 

[dad]

There you go.

Even only suggesting there might be evidence that your beliefs are wrong, you call it "blasphemy".

But scientists are the ones that try to force fit evidence into a priori beliefs ha?

That quote was in reply to someone who has said biased things about God and His word and people routinely here.

example post 34

"Sure, a couple have slipped through. God had to change [his] mind about slavery (but [he] was able to hold out till after the US Civil War) and [he]'s had to learn the hard way that you can't just forbid contraception or divorce (you sort of mumble those parts instead), because otherwise all your parishioners will melt away, And [he]'s slowly having to see the light about alternatives to strict heterosexual sex for the same reason (helped by SCOTUS and successful referenda around the world in favor of gay marriage)."

God has not changed His mind on good and evil at all.