Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 12:43:27 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 8:36:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Astronomy and meteorology allow observation under many different
conditions and as time passes, the data mount up. Astronomy is also
aided by controlled physics and chemistry experiments in laboratories
and then ASSUMING that those conditions apply elsewhere. We know
that relativity applies throughout the solar system because we have
actually performed experiments with spacecraft. We ASSUME SR and GR
work all the way back to the Big Bang, but maybe they don't.

Well, for one thing, we can analyze the spectra of light from the stars.
We assume that the same pattern of lines stands for the same element in
a distant star, so we can tell what is in those stars - but the fact
that we _are_ seeing the same patterns of lines indicates that some of
our laws of physics must be working out there.

The fine-structure constant, which got its name from some characteristics
of spectral lines, is a ratio involving the speed of light, the inertial
mass of the electron, and the force exerted by its charge. So those
spectral lines are the result of physics.

So it appears that quantum mechanics is universal. I was referring to
relativity, general specifically. String theorists and Seth Lloyd as
well have shown that the GR field equations can be derived from QM
making certain assumptions. What happens under different assumptions?

And, of course, absent evidence to the contrary, that the laws of physics
are the same elsewhere and in the past is the most reasonable starting
assumption. It can be re-evaluated when we run into trouble.

John Savard

We seem to have run into trouble. We have not found either dark matter or
dark energy in spite of intense efforts in those directions.

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 8:36:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Free speech IS being allowed to give your opinion. Discussion is good,
but intimidation and denigration is reprehensible but not punishable
under the law.

Depends on the kind of intimidation.

John Savard

On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 8:36:43 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Free speech IS being allowed to give your opinion. Discussion is good,
but intimidation and denigration is reprehensible but not punishable
under the law.

Depends on the kind of intimidation.

John Savard

In article ,
says...

So then we have the problem to determine what is "right in the sight
of God". First, which God? Jahve? Allah? Thor? Saturn? Some other
god? Second, how do you determine this? Revelations are only for the
individual to whom the revelation appears. Holy scriptures are corrupt
and contain serious errors. So how do you determine this?

There's only one way: YOU have to seek inspiration from heaven for
yourself. As the passage in Amos says:

"Surely the Lord God will doe nothing, but he reuealeth his secret vnto
his servants the Prophets." -- Amos 3:7

But it's up to YOU to find out if that prophet speaks the truth.
..........
Prophets are called by God to speak His word to everyone. It's up to
the rest of us to determine through personal revelation whether that
prophet is a true prophet.

You are arguing for "personal validation" he everyone determines for
themselves whether a claim is right or wrong, and nobody else can
validate that decision for them. But...


and humans having been "created" separately from the animals. MOdern
Christians try to escape this embarassing fact by claiming that the Bible
should be interpreted "symbolically", which opens up a multitude of
versious "interpretations" of the Bible.

Most not inspired by God :-)

How do YOU know? Didn't you just say that everyone should validate for
themself whether it's right or wrong? And now you start to make that
decision for others....

Here you claim that most other people has been wrong in determining
whether their prophet is a "true prophet". HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? You
cannot determine that solely by your personal revelation, can you?

Suppose YOU are wrong? How do you find that out?


Well, what evidence do you have that YOUR quotes are correct?

Prophets and reports of NDEs.

Anecdotal evidence that is. Nothing more. Right?

It's more than anecdotal to me :-)

Yep, there we go again. Personal validation. That method has a big big
disadvantage: if you are wrong, there is no way for you to find that out.


It's a sanity check on global models. It certainly demonstrates that
the earlier climate models were totally insane. Present corrected
models are closer to sanity but still may have some mental aberrations.

Are you going to act to get the authors of these models locked up in
asylyms? That would be a sensible thing to do, wouldn't it? After all,
you claim that their creations are "totally insane", and if that is true,
they themselves are most likely also "totally insane". So why don't you
do anything about this?



We call this "personal bias".

Most people don't apply "critical thinking" to their religious beliefs.
Or rather, they may apply it when they're young but don't after they
choose their path.

Most religious people just believe what their parents taught them. Others
use religion as a rebellion agains their parents.

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 4:46:49 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
says...

Prophets are called by God to speak His word to everyone. It's up to
the rest of us to determine through personal revelation whether that
prophet is a true prophet.

You are arguing for "personal validation" he everyone determines for
themselves whether a claim is right or wrong, and nobody else can
validate that decision for them. But...

What alternative is there in a free society?

Anyways, there are plenty of ways to find out if one is wrong.

He is referring to "personal revelation" - not personal rational thought. So
presumably if one mistakenly thinks one is receiving a message from God that so-
and-so is not a true prophet, God can speak more loudly.

And, of course, the Bible prescribes another test for true prophets: do the
events they fortell come to pass?

John Savard

On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 4:46:49 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

So then we have the problem to determine what is "right in the sight
of God". First, which God? Jahve? Allah? Thor? Saturn? Some other
god? Second, how do you determine this? Revelations are only for the
individual to whom the revelation appears. Holy scriptures are corrupt
and contain serious errors. So how do you determine this?

There's only one way: YOU have to seek inspiration from heaven for
yourself. As the passage in Amos says:

"Surely the Lord God will doe nothing, but he reuealeth his secret vnto
his servants the Prophets." -- Amos 3:7

But it's up to YOU to find out if that prophet speaks the truth.
.........
Prophets are called by God to speak His word to everyone. It's up to
the rest of us to determine through personal revelation whether that
prophet is a true prophet.

You are arguing for "personal validation" he everyone determines for
themselves whether a claim is right or wrong, and nobody else can
validate that decision for them. But...


and humans having been "created" separately from the animals. MOdern
Christians try to escape this embarassing fact by claiming that the Bible
should be interpreted "symbolically", which opens up a multitude of
versious "interpretations" of the Bible.

Most not inspired by God :-)

How do YOU know? Didn't you just say that everyone should validate for
themself whether it's right or wrong? And now you start to make that
decision for others....

What decision have I made for others? All I did was tell HOW to find out,
not WHAT to find out.

Here you claim that most other people has been wrong in determining
whether their prophet is a "true prophet". HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Since there have been so many different "prophets" preaching different
things, shouldn't it be obvious that most of them must be wrong?

You cannot determine that solely by your personal revelation, can you?

I believe personal revelation happens all the time, it's just not always
recognized as such.

Suppose YOU are wrong? How do you find that out?

We've both seen false "prophets" who led their followers to do horrendous
things, but WE would never do that ... would we?

Each of us has a conscience that tells us when something is right or wrong,
moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. You might say it is instilled in
us by parents and society, but I believe at least part of it comes from a
deeper source. That spark can be dampened and almost put out by degenerate
teachings and behavior, but I believe it's still down there somewhere.

I believe there is a God who only has our development and growth as His
main goal. He wants us to become like Him, but some of us won't reach
such a high mark. That's okay, He still will love us and wants us to attain
whatever level we're capable of.

If a prophet teaches that, that's a BIG point in his favor, IMHO. Then I
can seek inspiration to confirm (or reject) that.

Anecdotal evidence that is. Nothing more. Right?

It's more than anecdotal to me :-)

Yep, there we go again. Personal validation. That method has a big big
disadvantage: if you are wrong, there is no way for you to find that out.

If one can get heavenly inspiration to confirm something, why couldn't
one get inspiration that it should be rejected?

It's a sanity check on global models. It certainly demonstrates that
the earlier climate models were totally insane. Present corrected
models are closer to sanity but still may have some mental aberrations.

Are you going to act to get the authors of these models locked up in
asylyms? That would be a sensible thing to do, wouldn't it? After all,
you claim that their creations are "totally insane", and if that is true,
they themselves are most likely also "totally insane". So why don't you
do anything about this?

So you believe that if someone creates a process that produces insane
predictions, he is also insane? :-)

We call this "personal bias".

Most people don't apply "critical thinking" to their religious beliefs.
Or rather, they may apply it when they're young but don't after they
choose their path.

Most religious people just believe what their parents taught them. Others
use religion as a rebellion agains their parents.

I am neither.