Mainstream/ alternative science discussions and arguments

[midniterider]

8 minutes ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

hi.  i dunno.  his tone here doesn't seem very challenging does it?       

 

i could be wrong.

 

lol. No it didnt. 

 

Pantheory: As a Christian I would expect that no part of cosmology, or any related theory, would sound appealing to you, right?  Cheers.

 

Pantheory: OK, Great,  Thanks for that, and Cheers

[WalterP]

Oh btw Pantheory,

 

That was a nice dodge, earlier today.

 

Well done!

 

Walter.

[sdelsolray]

Smarmy thread is smarmy, except when it isn't.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

Smarmy thread is smarmy, except when it isn't.

 

Yup, good word smarmy. True about some postings of this thread, but had to look up the meaning of the word.

[Christianchat_Chat]

On 3/4/2021 at 2:14 PM, pantheory said:

The point of this thread is simply my statement that sometimes science theory can be totally wrong just like religion. 

 

they (science) have gods too, yes.  do you suppose it's possible go in any direction at all in thought/thinking without a 'god'?  have you seen the 'god' of this site?

[pantheory]

12 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

they (science) have gods too, yes.  do you suppose it's possible go in any direction at all in thought/thinking whithout a 'god'?  have you seen the 'god' of this site?

 

In the US, somewhere between 40-50 percent of scientists believe in a higher power.

 

I'm sure you're a good person but as for me, you will never find an atheist as certain in his disbelief as myself.  I bet with the devil my immortal soul against a six pack of beer that there is neither a God,  spiritual world, heaven, or hell. If the devil delivers a six pack to me and gives me a week thereafter, he can take my life and my immortal soul at that time. That bet was made many decades ago and I am still waiting for the six pack, oh well

 

More seriously, when one is well-educated in geology, biology, or astronomy, one will likely lose his belief in the existence of a  God IMO, but of course there will always be exceptions in the vastness of humanity.

 

anyway,  best regards to you,  pantheory (aka Forrest)

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

they (science) have gods too, yes.  do you suppose it's possible go in any direction at all in thought/thinking without a 'god'?  have you seen the 'god' of this site?

 

Might be a good question to start a new thread with?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

have you seen the 'god' of this site?

My ears are burning. 

[pantheory]

10 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Might be a good question to start a new thread with?

 

"they (science) have gods too, yes.  do you suppose it's possible go in any direction at all in thought/thinking without a 'god'?  have you seen the 'god' of this site?"

 

Yes, it probably would make a good thread but who would be the Christian and defender of the statement? The gentlemen who made this quote does not seem at all like someone who likes to ague. I view him as a very good, but naive person.

 

Although a Christian, the "wdua" that he refers to as his God-belief in his description-summary is of Islamic origin based upon a google search. I hope this Christian is not interested in such a thread since Christians first get mauled and then eaten in the Lion's Den.

[WalterP]

12 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

In the US, somewhere between 40-50 percent of scientists believe in a higher power.

 

I'm sure you're a good person but as for me, you will never find an atheist as certain in his disbelief as myself.  I bet with the devil my immortal soul against a six pack of beer that there is neither a God,  spiritual world, heaven, or hell. If the devil delivers a six pack to me and gives me a week thereafter, he can take my life and my immortal soul at that time. That bet was made many decades ago and I am still waiting for the six pack, oh well

 

More seriously, when one is well-educated in geology, biology, or astronomy, one will likely lose his belief in the existence of a  God IMO, but of course there will always be exceptions in the vastness of humanity.

 

anyway,  best regards to you,  pantheory (aka Forrest)

 

But none of these 40-50 % of US scientists believing in a higher power could be Young Earth Creationists, Pantheory?

 

http://commonsensescience.net/speakers.html

 

Given the great diversity of religious belief, what would you bet that none of this percentage are YEC's?

 

 

[midniterider]

41 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

"they (science) have gods too, yes.  do you suppose it's possible go in any direction at all in thought/thinking without a 'god'?  have you seen the 'god' of this site?"

 

Yes, it probably would make a good thread but who would be the Christian and defender of the statement? The gentlemen who made this quote does not seem at all like someone who likes to ague. I view him as a very good, but naive person.

 

Although a Christian, the "wdua" that he refers to as his God-belief in his description-summary is of Islamic origin based upon a google search. I hope this Christian is not interested in such a thread since Christians first get mauled and then eaten in the Lion's Den.

Expand  

 

Well, I see Dua is some Islamic thing...what is wdua?

[midniterider]

13 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

they (science) have gods too, yes.  do you suppose it's possible go in any direction at all in thought/thinking without a 'god'?  have you seen the 'god' of this site?

 

I think he eats grits.

[WalterP]

13 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

they (science) have gods too, yes.  do you suppose it's possible go in any direction at all in thought/thinking without a 'god'?  have you seen the 'god' of this site?

 

How about this, Christian?

 

Atheists can behave in highly religious ways and not realize it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

 

If you look at the Wiki page, the communal points of the 'Structural' aspects can't apply to Pantheory, because he is an individual and not a community.  But, his individual behaviour is still strongly in tune with three of the four points.

 

1.   He demonizes the mainstream scientific community.

2.  He is the charismatic figurehead who, like a messiah, will deliver the world from the sin of unbelief in his theories.

3.  He controls every aspect of the dogma of his belief system.

 

And he does tick six out of the seven boxes in the 'Belief' section.

 

1.  He is highly intolerant of mainstream science and treats adherents holding to it as ideologues.

2.  He claims that he can right all the wrongs in science, leading to a scientific utopia.

3.  He believes that his alternative science is naturally and obviously right.

4.  He is relentless in his efforts to convert others to his cause.

5.  He is willing to use questionable means to advance his cause - as I have demonstrated in this thread.

6.  He is fatalistic about his theories, firmly believing that they will ultimately triumph over mainstream theories.

 

See what I mean, Christian?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

But none of these 40-50 % of US scientists believing in a higher power could be Young Earth Creationists, Pantheory?

 

http://commonsensescience.net/speakers.html

 

Given the great diversity of religious belief, what would you bet that none of this percentage are YEC's?

 

 

Walter,

 

Don't know what value you see in arguing? Many argue subconsciously to convince themselves, others to bolster their own ego, and some to convince others to help that person. Excepting for honestly trying to help others, I think arguments are a complete waste of one's time, effort, and life.

 

The honest process of trying to convince others for their own sake, to get the best results often requires an extensive education concerning the subject you are talking about, and be educated in the art of salesmanship involving psychology and sociology. It almost always requires gentile statements of facts, personal experiences, personal benefits, opinions, and never contains insults, sarcasm etc. or any negative statements IMO.

 

always with best intent,  Forrest

[WalterP]

3 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Walter,

 

Don't know what value you see in arguing? Many argue subconsciously to convince themselves, others to bolster their own ego, and some to convince others for their own good. Excepting to honestly try to help another person, I think arguments are a complete waste of one's time, effort, and life.

 

regards,  Forrest

 

Ah, but there is a benefit to be had, Pantheory.

 

I learned about it from carefully reading BAA's many posts and taking note of not just what he said, but why he said it.  He debated many Christians who were in too deep in their delusion to ever change or be changed by any amount of reasoning or evidence.  He realized this and changed his style of debate.

 

If he could never succeed in changing these people's minds, then there was just no point in trying to do that.  All efforts would be wasted.  But there are always more than just the minds of the Christians to be changed in this forum.  This whole site exists to serve the needs of those trying to leave Christianity and other religions.  Their minds can be changed by seeing how unreasonably, irrationally and dogmatically the Christians behaved.

 

So, a lot of BAA's efforts were designed to help those reading his debates in the Den.  Not to help or change the people he was debating.

 

And that's the line I've been taking with you, Pantheory.  After 40+ years of unshakeable belief in your own correctness, nothing I write here is at all likely to change you one iota.  So, instead of making arguments to challenge or change you I've been making arguments to show all the other members reading this just how unreasonable, dogmatic and underhanded you are.

 

It's not reasonable for you to 'interpret' a galaxy to be 25 times larger than the data says it is.

Its not reasonable for you to 'interpret' a galaxy to have 99% more mass than the data says it has.

Its not reasonable for you to 'interpret' a galaxy to have a star production rate of 1/20th than the data says it has.

 

But it is underhanded of you to do these things and then claim this data supports your theories.

 

Now everyone reading this thread knows the lengths you will go to to further your own ends.

 

This is the wider benefit of 'arguing' with you in this thread.

 

But I suspect that doing something for the good of others will be an act whose significance is lost on you.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Well, I see Dua is some Islamic thing...what is wdua?

Don't know what our Christian friend means by it, but It literally means "and, calling to prayer" in arabic, wa dua. I surmise it means God communication.

[midniterider]

 

4 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Don't know what our Christian friend means by it, but It literally means "and, calling to prayer" in arabic, wa dua. I surmise it means God communication.

 

Oh ok. Thanks. 

[pantheory]

21 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Ah, but there is a benefit to be had, Pantheory.

 

I learned about it from carefully reading BAA's many posts and taking note of not just what he said, but why he said it.  He debated many Christians who were in too deep in their delusion to ever change or be changed by any amount of reasoning or evidence.  He realized this and changed his style of debate.

 

If he could never succeed in changing these people's minds, then there was just no point in trying to do that.  All efforts would be wasted.  But there are always more than just the minds of the Christians to be changed in this forum.  This whole site exists to serve the needs of those trying to leave Christianity and other religions.  Their minds can be changed by seeing how unreasonably, irrationally and dogmatically the Christians behaved.

 

So, a lot of BAA's efforts were designed to help those reading his debates in the Den.  Not to help or change the people he was debating.

 

And that's the line I've been taking with you, Pantheory.  After 40+ years of unshakeable belief in your own correctness, nothing I write here is at all likely to change you one iota.  So, instead of making arguments to challenge or change you I've been making arguments to show all the other members reading this just how unreasonable, dogmatic and underhanded you are.

 

It's not reasonable for you to 'interpret' a galaxy to be 25 times larger than the data says it is.

Its not reasonable for you to 'interpret' a galaxy to have 99% more mass than the data says it has.

Its not reasonable for you to 'interpret' a galaxy to have a star production rate of 1/20th than the data says it has.

 

But it is underhanded of you to do these things and then claim this data supports your theories.

 

Now everyone reading this thread knows the lengths you will go to to further your own ends.

 

This is the wider benefit of 'arguing' with you in this thread.

 

But I suspect that doing something for the good of others will be an act whose significance is lost on you.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

You're saying a lot of good things in this post IMO but your ideas about me have almost always been wrong. I am simply interested in the truth of reality whoever provides enlightenment.  In this, classical physics has a great deal to offer, but modern physics has generally little to offer and is often no more than woo physics IMO.  Their physics and my physics be damned for the sake of valid theory, that's all I want.

[sdelsolray]

15 hours ago, Christianchat_Chat said:

 

they (science) have gods too, yes.  do you suppose it's possible go in any direction at all in thought/thinking without a 'god'?  have you seen the 'god' of this site?

 

I suspect your definition of "god" is different than mine, and that of many others.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I think he eats grits.

 

Yes, I like grits and girlz too since I am a vegetarian, but not a Christian.

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

You're saying a lot of good things in this post IMO but your ideas about me have almost always been wrong. I am simply interested in the truth of reality whoever provides enlightenment.  In this, classical physics has a great deal to offer, but modern physics has generally little to offer and is often no more than woo physics IMO.  Their physics and my physics be damned for the sake of valid theory, that's all I want.

 

My ideas have nothing to do with your past behaviour in this forum and other forums, Pantheory.

 

Your past behaviour clearly shows that enlightenment and truth are not your goals.

 

Nobody interested in the truth would exaggerate the size of a galaxy by a factor of 25.

 

Nobody interested in the truth would understate the star formation rate of a galaxy by a factor of 20.

 

Nobody interested in the truth would exaggerate the mass of a galaxy by a factor of almost 100.

 

These are not the actions of an honest and trustworthy person.

 

They are the actions of a person who plays fast and loose with the data by 'interpreting' it as they want.

 

And if you've done it in the past, why wouldn't you do it in again 2023, with new data?

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

My ideas have nothing to do with your past behaviour in this forum and other forums, Pantheory.

 

Your past behaviour clearly shows that enlightenment and truth are not your goals.

 

Nobody interested in the truth would exaggerate the size of a galaxy by a factor of 25.

 

Nobody interested in the truth would understate the star formation rate of a galaxy by a factor of 20.

 

Nobody interested in the truth would exaggerate the mass of a galaxy by a factor of almost 100.

 

These are not the actions of an honest and trustworthy person.

 

They are the actions of a person who plays fast and loose with the data by 'interpreting' it as they want.

 

And if you've done it in the past, why wouldn't you do it in again 2023, with new data?

 

Walter.

 

 

"Nobody interested in the truth would exaggerate the size of a galaxy by a factor of 25."

 

You ague subjects which you have little idea concerning the concepts involved which you think you are talking about. If you asked questions maybe you could understand barmaid physics, but by making wrong assumptions all the time you will likely learn little or nothing.

 

Concerning your quotes, for instance, by the inverse square law of light and the cube root factor of volume and mass, a galaxy that in reality is 3 times farther away than what you calculate it to be,  will be 9 times larger in diameter and 27 larger in mass than you would normally calculate it to be. If you cannot understand such things without asking questions, then you should certainly not criticize it since you are entirely out of your league.

 

"Nobody interested in the truth would understate the star formation rate of a galaxy by a factor of 20."

 

This again is easy to understand, but maybe a little beyond barmaid physics: When you think a galaxy is much closer than it really is, by its visual size you calculate the galaxy to be very small compared to its actual size. Based upon your calculated distance you calculate that the galaxy is a small galaxy with high luminosity, then you calculate a very high rate of star formation when in reality the star formation rate is normal. 

 

These are the problems which arise when the calculated distances based upon redshifts are wrong. Here is the link to my alternative distance-formula and calculator. How could you or anyone be expected to understand this if they weren't highly educated in these subjects.

 

http://www.pantheory.org/hubble-formula/

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348973177_WHETHER_TO_FOLLOW_HUBBLE'S_LAW_OR_CHOOSE_AN_ALTERNATIVE_WAY#fullTextFileContent

 

Walter, if you continue criticizing and insulting without asking questions then I must realize that you don't believe you can learn anything from me. And if so I will no longer waist my time responding to you in this thread. Even though I don't respond, you can still continue with insults of me here in the spirit of the Lion's Den, and of your own related personality.

 

[Joshpantera]

@pantheory The issue is that for the purpose of this website, we are dealing with people leaving christianity. They are generally in a certain frame of mind. Finding strength in science is what BAA was using to counsel and help people with. Even though there are uncertainties, he was focused on the strengths in comparison to religion. The truths that go beyond anything featured in religious belief and myth. 

 

We all know you have an alternative cosmology. You can have a link to it in your signature. Can we leave it at that? And not rehash discussion of self promotion over and over?

 

I don't think this is an unfair request.

 

If you're interested in helping ex christians great. But if you're just sticking around for self promotion reasons it's getting a little long in the tooth. I like some of these alternative ideas that are discussed. But they are not helpful for struggling deconverts. It's more distracting to the site purpose than anything else. Suggesting that science is as off base as religion is just unhelpful. 

 

If you would just stand down and discontinue any more self promotion, these arguments wouldn't exist right now. They exist because you won't just let it go. A continued presence for 'the potential of self promotion' just doesn't seem right, to be honest. That's not the purpose of the site. 

 

I'm trying to be cool about this but at the same time find some type of agreement or resolve we all may be able to agree with.

 

You are an ex christian just like the rest of us. You have every right to be here. I'm not trying to run you off. I just want to find some resolve between all involved so that we don't have this lingering issue of alternative cosmology lurking around every corner when we want to have a science discussion. 

 

As is stands, we can't have a science discussion without it derailing like this over and over again.  

 

Does anyone else feel the same? 

 

Please add your thoughts and concerns. Hopefully we can all work out some type of agreement that works for all involved. 

 

Thanks. 

@TABA

@TheRedneckProfessor

@LogicalFallacy

@Hierophant

 

 

 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

@pantheory The issue is that for the purpose of this website, we are dealing with people leaving christianity. They are generally in a certain frame of mind. Finding strength in science is what BAA was using to counsel and help people with. Even though there are uncertainties, he was focused on the strengths in comparison to religion. The truths that go beyond anything featured in religious belief and myth. 

 

We all know you have an alternative cosmology. You have a link to it in your signature. Can we leave it at that? And not rehash discussion of self promotion over and over? I don't think this is an unfair request. If you're interested in helping ex christians great. But if your just sticking around for self promotion reasons it's getting a little long in the tooth. I like some of these alternative ideas. But they are not helpful for struggling deconverts. It's more distracting to the site purpose than anything else. 

 

If you would just stand down and discontinue any self promotion direction, these arguments wouldn't exist right now. They exist because you won't just let it go. You have links to your Pantheory. I think that's good enough. A continued presence for the potential of self promotion just doesn't seem right, to be honest. That's not the purpose of the site. 

 

I'm trying to be cool about this but at the same time find some type of agreement or resolve we all may be able to agree with. You are an ex christian just like the rest of us. You have every right to be here. I'm not trying to run you off. I just want to find some resolve between all involved so that we don't have this lingering issue of alternative cosmology lurking around every corner when we want to have a science discussion. 

 

Does anyone else feel the same? 

 

Please add your thoughts and concerns. Hopefully we can all work out some type of agreement that works for all involved. 

 

Thanks.

 

 

Hi Josh,

 

I was told by TheRedneckProfessor to take this argument to the Den, even though none of the arguments were mine since I always stated IMO. As you recall, this discussion started by your thread in the science forum, concerning the science of the double slit experiment. I was explaining the possibility that woo physics was not necessary to explain the double slit experiment as proposed by your posted video.

 

Walter objected to my explanations which was great, but he would not leave it alone. If you look back on the postings on this thread you will realize there was no self promotion. Walter cut and pasted many of my postings from a science forum many years ago just to ague them in this thread. All discussions/ arguments were instigated, and in response to postings by Walter. At first I thought he was arguing for his understand, but in this thread I realized that he just likes to argue and insult, period, so for that reason I certainly would not object if you wished to close this thread since I will no longer respond to Walter here, as I stated in my last posting.  Look at my polite postings here to explain my past statements that he posted and quarried, followed by his continuously insulting responses.

 

I can understand his opposition to me in that his primary interest on his profile is cosmology, and I have stated that IMO that much of the BB theory is wrong, based upon his questions. I backed it up with links to peer-reviewed science papers by myself and others.

 

In the past 8 years since I have been here I have not posted a single thread concerning my own theories, which are related to modern physics, not just cosmology. I primarily respond to postings in the science forum and statements and questions by others concerning science in general, but will respond to woo physics IMO when I hear or see it in the science forum on rare occasions.

 

One of my main concerns in the X-Ch forum is that I don't want members or lurkers to exchange religion for the belief in science, and then find out that the science was wrong and go back to religion, which I think could begin to happen within a few years because of the James Webb observations concerning the BB model. They should learn the science is a self-correcting process, not a belief in this or that theory. I think all should know that there is more than a single science explanation for woo physics, such as quantum-physics explanations -- mainstream or not.

 

that's all for now Josh, best regards Forrest

[midniterider]

Josh, this thread became the Trial of Pantheory, by Prosecutor Walter. 

 

If we're going to say no more self-promotion by Pantheory, I think we should also disallow digging up bullshit from other webforums from 2015 to attempt to assassinate characters. 

 

Even digging up stuff that BAA said back in 20-whatever is irrelevant and irritating. BAA, while a nice guy, a logical guy, could get a little over the top about this stuff. I remember he didnt like Pantheory much. And he liked shutting down threads to stop people from talking. IMO. 

 

I think most people that come here to deconvert aren't scientists so probably wouldnt know or care about the minutiae of the nonsense debate that has gone on and on for page after page. 

 

Unless Pantheory is promoting Christianity ... and he's not ... I dont see an issue. Nor is he saying the moon is made of cheese. He has somewhat differing opinions about science. Big deal. 

 

Walter appears obsessed with making Pantheory look bad. To protect the Holy Science!