Evidences against Standard Cosmology

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I´m not backtracking anything at all.

Native said: ↑
The myth of a Great Flood belongs to the Milky Way symbolism where the white Milky Way band was symbolized as a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.


Of course I´m referring to the OP of the biblical Flood when I´m trying to tell you and other debaters that this flood really should be interpreted as the Milky Way River running OVER and not ON the Earth? (Hence this this ancient divine revenge drowning of the Earth is pure nonsense).


As long as you don´t get the logical points yet of my explanations, I don´t care about your recap at all.

Maybe you should try to get the literal biblical interpretation and the mythical symbolism together into logical conclusions before you judge anything to be nonsense!?

The logical conclusion is that people like to tell stories and that no rational thinker should give a rat's behind to the odd ideas of people that cannot support what they believe.

 

[Native]

See, exactly as I predicted. Your post consisted of nothing but strawman arguments, therefore they can automatically dismissed after reading them. And from my observations, it's safe to say that the main reason for you doing this is due to your lack of comprehension skills, resulting in you not understanding arguments and ideas that others present. This is why your arguments fails.

You are becoming quite ridiculous now in your arguments! And furthermore, you´re avoiding my logical questions whether the entire Flood and Noas Ark stories seems plausible at all.

You borrow ideas that you like from others, but because you couldn't comprehend their whole idea, you misunderstood what they have proposed. And with that, you make illogical arguments defending misunderstood ideas.

Yes, apart from having my own cosmic visions, I´m also "borrowing ideas from others", namely from lots of ancient cultural collective Stories of Creation which in large speaks of the same creation story and using a similar symbolism.

As long as you don´t understand this, your judgement of what is logical or illogical can´t be taken serious at all.

I don´t blame you for not understanding the global collective essence of creation stories told by our ancestors, but I´m sort of blaming you for not trying to grasp the universal knowledge of our ancestors and especially for you simple rejection of this ancient knowledge when being represented for this.

Native said: ↑
For your information, I don´t believe in supernatural beings or floods. You can´t escape the logical questions by referring to supernatural powers at all.

For your information, I already knew that from past observations, that's why I didn't accused you of believing in the supernatural

Still you were using the "supernatural god and flood terms" when trying to explain what is going on regarding the "flood/river interpretation".

Obviously, you prefer pseudoscience over the supernatural.

So now "supernatural" has changed to "pseudoscience"?

And I already told you my position regarding the supernatural.

Yes you did indeed did so earlier:

Therefore, it fits logically with what would be considered as a supernatural flood, especially since the story said that the flood was caused by a supernatural being, the god of the bible.

What you cannot explain logically with your own analytic sentences by meeting alternate arguments and logical questions, this apparently becomes either supernatural or "pseudoscientific" in your mind.

And sorry, but, you not believing in the supernatural does not change the fact that some stories in the bible do contain the supernatural.

As you assumingly being an expert in your own mind of defining what a "strawmen" is, your failed your expertise with this comment.

 

[Native]

The logical conclusion is that people like to tell stories and that no rational thinker should give a rat's behind to the odd ideas of people that cannot support what they believe.

Personally I would rephrase this sentence to deal with "what all persons can observe with their own physical and spiritual senses and what stories comes out of this" should have a collective importance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally I would rephrase this sentence to deal with "what all persons can observe with their own physical and spiritual senses and what stories comes out of this" should have a collective importance.

Nope. If one cannot support one's claims properly then there is no "collective importance". That is just a bogus phrase that you made up.

In other words the plural of anecdotes is not evidence.

 

[night912]

You are becoming quite ridiculous now in your arguments! And furthermore, you´re avoiding my logical questions whether the entire Flood and Noas Ark stories seems plausible at all.

Yes, apart from having my own cosmic visions, I´m also "borrowing ideas from others", namely from lots of ancient cultural collective Stories of Creation which in large speaks of the same creation story and using a similar symbolism.

As long as you don´t understand this, your judgement of what is logical or illogical can´t be taken serious at all.

I don´t blame you for not understanding the global collective essence of creation stories told by our ancestors, but I´m sort of blaming you for not trying to grasp the universal knowledge of our ancestors and especially for you simple rejection of this ancient knowledge when being represented for this.

Native said: ↑
For your information, I don´t believe in supernatural beings or floods. You can´t escape the logical questions by referring to supernatural powers at all.

Still you were using the "supernatural god and flood terms" when trying to explain what is going on regarding the "flood/river interpretation".

So now "supernatural" has changed to "pseudoscience"?

Yes you did indeed did so earlier:

What you cannot explain logically with your own analytic sentences by meeting alternate arguments and logical questions, this apparently becomes either supernatural or "pseudoscientific" in your mind.

As you assumingly being an expert in your own mind of defining what a "strawmen" is, your failed your expertise with this comment.

Sorry, but adding more strawman arguments on top of previous ones, does nothing to your argument, it still remains to be illogical.

Perhaps a different method is required in order for you to understand. So let me try using fallacious reasoning to see if it gets through.

- So here it goes.

Please explain why you believe in science while at the same time believe that the milky way is an actual river? And you also contradicted yourself by believing and not believing in the supernatural. You cannot deny that you never used the word, "supernatural"

You admitting that you believe that the milky way is an actual river is ludicrous. A belief such as that clearly does not come from science. -

- End of my experiment -

 

[Native]

In other words the plural of anecdotes is not evidence.

I even would rephrase this sentence to "everything you personally don´t understand is not evidences".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I even would rephrase this sentence to "everything you personally don´t understand is not evidences".

Okay, have it your way. Everything that you personally don't understand is not evidences<sic>. You should be working at your understanding. The first thing that you might want to do is to look up the plural of "evidence".

 

[Native]

Please explain why you believe in science while at the same time believe that the milky way is an actual river? And you also contradicted yourself by believing and not believing in the supernatural. You cannot deny that you never used the word, "supernatural"

You admitting that you believe that the milky way is an actual river is ludicrous. A belief such as that clearly does not come from science. -

Well, it seems everything mythological is wasted on you, even when some myths are referring to the Milky Way.

Never mind. For my part you can keep on taking everything in the bible literally.

 

[Native]

The first thing that you might want to do is to look up the plural of "evidence".

At least it seems that your grammar works

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least it seems that your grammar works

And so far that has been the least of your failures. But you should think positively. You learned something today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it seems everything mythological is wasted on you, even when some myths are referring to the Milky Way.

Never mind. For my part you can keep on taking everything in the bible literally.

You are now using a strawman argument again. The only person that you can fool with that is yourself.

 

[Native]

And so far that has been the least of your failures. But you should think positively. You learned something today.

What´s your point of learning grammar when it apparently don´t help you understanding complex sentences dealing with topics outside your black box?

 

[night912]

Well, it seems everything mythological is wasted on you, even when some myths are referring to the Milky Way.

Never mind. For my part you can keep on taking everything in the bible literally.

Hahaha. So got nothing, except for more strawman arguments.

But please explain to me how it's possible for me to take everything in the bible literally when I'm not even a Christian nor believe that the bible is infallibly true?

Should I expect you to admit that you're wrong about your assumption above or just another strawman? I predict that you're just going to respond with another strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What´s your point of learning grammar when it apparently don´t help you understanding complex sentences dealing with topics outside your black box?

Please, let's not be hypocritical here.

 

[Native]

But please explain to me how it's possible for me to take everything in the bible literally when I'm not even a Christian nor believe that the bible is infallibly true?

This is because you´re following what is stated to be the truth by scholars who don´t have a clue of the mythical contents and it´s cosmological extension.

You´re simply following authorities and "group thinkers" without giving it much independent thinking.

 

[ecco]

Of course I´m referring to the OP of the biblical Flood when I´m trying to tell you and other debaters that this flood really should be interpreted as the Milky Way River running OVER and not ON the Earth? (Hence this this ancient divine revenge drowning of the Earth is pure nonsense).

WHAT FLOOD! There was no Biblical Flood! The writers of Genesis took tales of localized floods and turned them into a lesson about their new vengeful God. Their story can only be interpreted as a story about WATER - not STARS.

As long as you don´t get the logical points yet of my explanations, I don´t care about your recap at all.

You want to ignore the facts of the conversion we have had. That is not surprising.

Maybe you should try to get the literal biblical interpretation and the mythical symbolism together into logical conclusions before you judge anything to be nonsense!?

Yeah. We are all wrong in stating that the Genesis Flood myth is about water. You are right.

You say it is bout the milky way - maybe. Maybe because at one time you said water was illogical because we all know that water could not have covered the entire earth. Then you asserted it couldn't have been about the milky way because the Genesis writers had forgotten the knowledge of the ancients. You've argued both sides. So, yes, your comments are nonsense.

 

[ecco]

And furthermore, you´re avoiding my logical questions whether the entire Flood and Noas Ark stories seems plausible at all.

Maybe because it has already been addressed. My post #70

From my perspective as a rational person living in the 21st century, it isn't likely at all. However, there are people, right here on RF who do believe that the Great Flood covered the entire earth. If people can believe this now, then it is easy to see why people 6000 years ago would have believed it. That's very likely, isn't it?

You failed to respond to that. By ignoring it, you could continue to make the same silly argument that the Water Flood - Ark stories are implausible and therefore the Genesis writers must have been referring to the milky way even though you said the Genesis writers had lost sight of celestial knowledge of the ancients.

We can clearly see that you have confused yourself thoroughly.

 

[night912]

WHAT FLOOD! There was no Biblical Flood! The writers of Genesis took tales of localized floods and turned them into a lesson about their new vengeful God. Their story can only be interpreted as a story about WATER - not STARS.



You want to ignore the facts of the conversion we have had. That is not surprising.




Yeah. We are all wrong in stating that the Genesis Flood myth is about water. You are right.

You say it is bout the milky way - maybe. Maybe because at one time you said water was illogical because we all know that water could not have covered the entire earth. Then you asserted it couldn't have been about the milky way because the Genesis writers had forgotten the knowledge of the ancients. You've argued both sides. So, yes, your comments are nonsense.

Get ready for more strawman arguments on the way, in response to what you just said.

 

[joelr]

I like your general "cosmic ocean" approach to these questions as this concept can be found in several other creation stories.

Quote from - Creation myth - Wikipedia - "In creation from chaos myths, initially there is nothing but a formless, shapeless expanse. In these stories the word "chaos" means "disorder", and this formless expanse, which is also sometimes called a void or an abyss, contains the material with which the created world will be made. Chaos may be described as having the consistency of vapor or water, dimensionless, and sometimes salty or muddy".

If one knows of the Standard Cosmology way of explaining the formation of our Solar System, this mythical telling can IMO easily be compared to the ancient stories of creation in many cultures.

The standard cosmology explanation also take off with "a cosmic cloud of gas (watery elements) and dust" which comes together and create the Solar System", but when it comes to the ancient telling, the creation story includes Milky Way terms as the ancient observations "only" includes the Milky Way at the largest in their world perception.

The first creation of firm matters happens when "cosmic rivers" comes together in a swirling motion and creates "firm matters" and spheres of gas, and from the first firm matter all firm planets and stars are created in the Milky Way.

This creational/formational process explaines how the subject of "earth" in the Bible can occur before the very creation of our Solar System and the planet Earth. The first "earth" term simply explains how firm matter is created in general, whereas the second mentioning in the Bible speaks of the factual planet Earth and how it is positioned in the overall cosmic imagery/firmament.

We have several Sea Monsters in ancient cultural mythology. Once again, if we connect these sea monsters to the mythical concept of the "cosmic ocean" and other celestial "water issues", we can find several links to cultural mythological stories.

For instants: In Norse Mythology we have the "Midgaard Serpent", Jörmungandr, which encircle the entire Midgaard, the home of humans = the Earth. The only celestial structure which encircle the Earth is observed as the white Milky Way band which is observable in the night sky all around the Earth.

So, the Milky Way contours are connected to several mythological symbols, but in the case of the "Milky Way River", a Sea Serpent is also connected to the cultural stories of the Milky Way. Other Milky Way symbols are specifically cows, which logically connects to the white color of the Milky Way, and it is the same case of a Mother Goddess who also is connected to the Milky Way via her breast feeding milk as described here at - Cattle in religion and mythology - Wikipedia

These sentences contains both celestial and terrestrial terms, which automatically cannot be connected and described logically as a whole.

The myth myth in Genesis about creation and the cosmology of the Israelites is that the blue sky was water. Literal water. Every reference to this includes water. God separated Earth from this ocen to create dry land, this water creates rain and snow and this ocean was used to flood the Earth in Noahs flood.
"God moving over the face of the waters" means literal water.
The stars were in a smaller area under heaven and the vast water above heaven.
The Earth was not a circle it was a region of land surrounded by water.

The creation story you mention where gas is creating planets is not the Genesis creation story. I don't know which one includes that? Cosmic just refers to above Earth in the heavens. It's still water. They did not know what stars were either and thought they were small. Stars fall to Earth in Revelations.

The sea monsters in the Bible are in Exodus where Yahweh fights a sea monster on Earth in the actual sea.

Noahs Ark flood was water and it was the water stored above heaven.

 

[Native]

WHAT FLOOD! There was no Biblical Flood! The writers of Genesis took tales of localized floods and turned them into a lesson about their new vengeful God.

I am stunned! After all the discussions so far, in a weird way you come to the same conclusion as me:
There was no biblical flood. Yes the writers/interpretators took tales of localized floods and turned them into a lesson about their vengeful God.

Their story can only be interpreted as a story about WATER - not STARS.

Well, how do you then explain this biblical water to have covered the entire Earth high above the mountains?

The only explanation which fits both your and my perception is if you take the mythical Milky Way River into consideration and tell yourself that this white Milky Way band contains lots of stars which are localized high above the Earth.

Then you have a mythical/religious river/flood which is running OVER the and around the entire Earth - as I´ve stated several times now.

You say it is bout the milky way - maybe. Maybe because at one time you said water was illogical because we all know that water could not have covered the entire earth. Then you asserted it couldn't have been about the milky way because the Genesis writers had forgotten the knowledge of the ancients. You've argued both sides. So, yes, your comments are nonsense.

The nonsense in your head derives from not being able to read and connect the mythical language and symbolism:

The Milky Way figure is imagined and symbolized by our ancestors as a river running in the Sky and that´s all there is to it.