Science and Religion

[Native]

Sorry, but logic alone is *never* enough to establish the truth of a proposition about the real world. There are too many ways logic can go wrong.

Yes just take examples from modern cosmology! Exept from they don´t use much logics at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By the very logics in my descriptions of the ancient Myths of Creation and by the comparisons between ancient and modern knowledge I provides.

Except it's not a comparison of knowledge, its re-interpretation of mythology.

This STILL is dependent of your patience and efforts to get into the explanations and look for the logics - and eventual obviously flaws.

If they're obvious, please present them.

I don´t have any expectations of being understood by the entire modern cosmological society some time soon. But I hope for thoughtful individuals here and otherwhere to see the possible and factual knowledge of our ancestors.

I see it as a possibility, but what you have presented so far is simply not sufficient enough to make your conclusions believable.

 

[Native]

Again, you misunderstand what is being said. When more than one image is obtained, it is because of gravitational lensing from a galaxy between us and the more distant object. This allows more than one path for the light, so we see the object in more than one direction. The nice thing? This phenomenon was predicted long before it was first observed and the observations match the predictions.

You are indeed unbelieavable with your replies! I was talking of a supernova with several glimses in a row and you just turn this to deal with "gravitational lensing"!? Are you having troubles with holding your focus on an issue or what?

Read more here about the impossible multiple explosions of a supernova - This Star Went Supernova ... And Then Went Supernova Again - D-brief - wich proves me right and your fantastic scientific scíence wrong - again

 

[Native]

If they're obvious, please present them.

Just study the already mentioned presentations until they become obvious to you.
Just use your ImmortalFlame profile in order to cast light on the issues

 

[Thief]

Do you believe there is a correlation between science and religion or not?

science displays ....How.....God did it

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just study the already mentioned presentations until they become obvious to you.

Are you open to the possibility that your presentations simply aren't good enough, and a person can study them honestly and openly and still come to the conclusion that your assertions aren't justified?

 

[Polymath257]

You are indeed unbelieavable with your replies! I was talking of a supernova with several glimses in a row and you just turn this to deal with "gravitational lensing"!? Are you having troubles with holding your focus on an issue or what?

Read more here about the impossible multiple explosions of a supernova - This Star Went Supernova ... And Then Went Supernova Again - D-brief - wich proves me right and your fantastic scientific scíence wrong - again

Interesting example! Contrary to what you say, there appear to be multiple proposals on what is going on and *no* reason to suspect that this says there is anything wrong with our interpretations of other SN. In fact, there are several aspects of this case that show its uniqueness. At this point, the most likely suggestion seems to be some sort of interaction with surrounding gases together with infall of material, reigniting the star.

Again, this in NO way shows we are wrong about other supernova: this one is exceptional in several ways, including the decay curve. The ones used for determining the existence of dark energy don't have suc issues.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Just study the already mentioned presentations until they become obvious to you.

Are you open to the possibility that your presentations simply aren't good enough, and a person can study them honestly and openly and still come to the conclusion that your assertions aren't justified?

Of course I am indeed. I don´t spend 40 years of studies of a subject which is mostly forgotten without expecting both some lacks of insights and some troubles with convincing my fellow debaters.

BUT: On the other hand I demand serious efforts from debaters trying to understand my points as well.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course I am indeed. I don´t spend 40 years of studies of a subject which is mostly forgotten without expecting both some lacks of insights and some troubles with convincing my fellow debaters.

BUT: On the other hand I demand serious efforts from debaters trying to understand my points as well.

But are you open to the possibility that you may simply be wrong and your evidence insufficient?

 

[Native]

Again, this in NO way shows we are wrong about other supernova: this one is exceptional in several ways, including the decay curve. The ones used for determining the existence of dark energy don't have suc issues.

I give up! Your obvious denials are far stronger than my patience and my care for your scientific health to go on with your explaining away the cosmological facts and fictions.
As far as I recall, you are a MODERATOR in this forum, right?

 

[Native]

But are you open to the possibility that you may simply be wrong and your evidence insufficient?

NOPE, CATEGORICAL NOT AT ALL!

 

[Polymath257]

I give up! Your obvious denials are far stronger than my patience and my care for your scientific health to go on with your explaining away the cosmological facts and fictions.
As far as I recall, you are a MODERATOR in this forum, right?

Yes. So? That has nothing to do with this discussion. Moderators are certainly allowed (in fact, encouraged) to engage in discussions on the forums.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

NOPE, CATEGORICAL NOT AT ALL!

Okay, perhaps it's something of an silly question (although you'd be surprised how often people answer it like you did but without the sarcasm), but I do still feel the need to ask it since I want to make sure that you understand me rejecting your evidence isn't an example of me not understanding it, or being irrational, or being biased, etc., I just need you to know that I believe your evidence is flawed and insufficient to demonstrate the truth of your claims for the reasons I have specified and that you are wrong. If you admit that as a possibility, then hopefully we might reach a mutual understanding of my perspective, at least.

 

[Native]

Yes. So? That has nothing to do with this discussion. Moderators are certainly allowed (in fact, encouraged) to engage in discussions on the forums.

Of course they are. I just wondered over your obvious scientific denial approaches in your replies and if this would chase som readers away from the Forum.

 

[Native]

Okay, perhaps it's something of an silly question

Yes indeed it was! I felt me sitting in a meeting with the Spanish Inquisition and the next thing was to volonterily swallow some snake poison

I just need you to know that I believe your evidence is flawed and insufficient to demonstrate the truth of your claims for the reasons I have specified and that you are wrong. If you admit that as a possibility, then hopefully we might reach a mutual understanding of my perspective, at least.

When you find something in my mythical descriptions which you accept, we can begin to discuss both mine and your skills in order to go further on.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course they are. I just wondered over your obvious scientific denial approaches in your replies and if this would chase som readers away from the Forum.

Scientific denial? You mean denial because of the results of science?

 

[Native]

Scientific denial? You mean denial because of the results of science?

You know perfectly well what I mean. Circumventing questions and not accepting new scientific findings because they contradicts your outdated explanations.

 

[Polymath257]

You know perfectly well what I mean. Circumventing questions and not accepting new scientific findings.

Really? Which scientific findings have I not accepted? Which questions have I circumvented?

You gave an example of a 'double supernova', a topic that is being actively discussed in the astronomical community, but in no way supports your claims.

I have pointed out that the Plasma-Universe or the Electric Universe models are failures. And I also pointed out that gravity clearly exists and is NOT electromagnetic. You are the one denying current science from what i can see.

 

[Skwim]

And a good science should not be in conflict with religion as in their Stories of Creation.

Nope, All good science should must fall in line with whatever the Bible says. How else could a good Christian ever be a scientist? Huh? Answer me that!

.

 

[Native]

Really? Which scientific findings have I not accepted? Which questions have I circumvented?

You gave an example of a 'double supernova', a topic that is being actively discussed in the astronomical community, but in no way supports your claims.

I have pointed out that the Plasma-Universe or the Electric Universe models are failures. And I also pointed out that gravity clearly exists and is NOT electromagnetic. You are the one denying current science from what i can see.

And you "explained" away the double/multiple supernova glimses as a result of "gravitatitonal lensing", which is a cosmological nonsense and just an "explanation" which is fitted to conserve a false cosmological perception.
Scientists STILL talks of double supernovaes wich explodes several times so dont deny this or explain it away. NASA - NASA's Swift Sees Double Supernova in Galaxy

The other thing was your false and highly biased definition of "intuition" - just in order to deminish the fact that our ancestors had this genuine skill. It is NOT thrustworty for any debaters to be that wrong in a debate. And certainly not for a Moderator, correct?

I´m not denying current science just the idiotic part of it, like the gravitational assumptions. I really would like to be a fly over your shoulders when you studied Plasma-Universe and the Electric Universe. I bet you just follow the conventional scientists without even have spend many minutes thinking for yourself over the possibilities.

OK I´m refusing 1/4 part of the fundamental forces and the weakest of them all - and you refuses the rest 3/4 of the fundamental and formative force which are much stronger and ALL Electromagnetic in their nature.

I think this just says it all.