(This message is dedicated to the post below which is wrapped in **’s. I’ve numbered different parts of the post and then my responses as well so that you can go between the two faster
( Read more... )
3) The Bible has stood the test of time and come out as being much more accurately kept than other popular books, even ones which are far younger in years. Additionally the Bible has been used, and has been verified by the discoveries of many ancient 4) Don’t worry about eh Protestant Orthodox thing. I just stick to the basics, no sense in getting wound up in something that isn’t in the Bible. 5)Yes I do point out flaws in other religions, but it’s not for the sake of attacking. Truth is truth and does not contradict itself, so when something is put out to be the truth it’s not peculiar, or improper to test it. I’m glad that you recognize them as being flaws, though, and fatal one’s as well. I talk of other religions more for the benefit than those who wish to hear about it, as opposed to those who are involved in those religions. Nobody likes to have their beliefs questioned, particularly when they are unequipped to answer. It’s not for people to use to hate with though, it’s so that the truth of the Word of God can be spread, while separating the rest at the same time as well. Please note that the LDS concept of being born again is different from the Biblical teaching. They see it as being born physically (the first birth is in the spirit world). John 3:4 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he? 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit," Jesus speaks of two births, one physical and one spiritual and in that order. Nicodemus sees the physical birth as the first, and Jesus says that the physical and spiritual are different, and that a spiritual birth (for we have all had a physical birth) is necessary to enter into the Kingdom of God. As for why the Missionaries are sent out in their younger years (usually late teens-early 20’s) is to develop memories and the attachments that come with them, at least that’s what I’ve come up with.
2) I know the importance of finding the 'right' one... I just don't feel the need to state it every other sentence.
3) The historical setting of them doubtless has some accuracy, much like if I wrote a novel set in the present day it would be a fairly accurate representation of the time. Also, I'd like to point out that archaeoligists used "The Iliad" by Homer to locate the city of Troy, but that doesn't mean the goddess Athena actually helped soldiers fight each other there. As for the other scientific evidence, it's interesting how Christians pick and choose only what supports their case. Genetic testing must be completely unreliable... until it supports the idea of our genetic code narrowing down to one woman. Actually, I am familiar with that specific theory, and as I remember it had the genetic code of various peoples narrowing down to one woman multiple times. The thought was that it coincided with migrations, as well as the initial humans, i.e. Caucasoid peoples have all come from a common source after their ancestors migrated from Africa. I'd like to distinguish between Atheism and evolutionary theory here. They are not one and the same. As for the Bible 'withstanding the test of time', that's sort of a judgment call. Many, many people (myself included) consider it to be less than accurate and can point to many, many flaws in the text itself. Of course, there are rationalizations available from a number of Christian sources, as it's been for 2000 years and people have taken the time to figure out the best responses to these challenges. And the 'test of time'... does this mean it just has to be around for a while? Because there are older religions still in existence.
I'll post more on the bad science of ChristianAnswers.net in a bit. I found the astronomy section particularly amusing.
4) I could get into a 'no true Scotsman' thing here, but I won't.
5) Why why why why why do you insist in including these rails against Mormonism? They're completely out of place and unasked for in these responses. As for the missionary thing, that's part of it. The other thing that I was getting at is that it's easier to get younger people hyped up about a cause, willing to go door to door and tell people who really don't care all about their religion. This is also why college kids are always involved in protests and the like.
ChristianAnswers.net "How can light get to us from stars which are millions of light-years away in a universe which the Bible claims is only thousands of years old?"
Here's a good example of what you'll find. The article itself is an exercise in futility... the simple solution is that light had the time to travel millions of light years because the universe has been around for millions of years. Anywho...
I'm going to skip past the parts that discuss the old theories that have since been abandoned and skip to the one that the article hails as solving the entire problem. But first, a few factoids I felt I had to address: "Dr. Humphreys' new creationist cosmology literally "falls out" of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge -- that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center.
This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular ("big bang") cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries -- no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out."
This is actually a complete lie. Modern "secular" astronomers/cosmologists go by the theory that the universe does have an edge, and is not infinite; otherwise, how could the big bang go from a finite object into an infinite one?
"However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock?"
Actually, that's not true. Let me give an example: suppose that I'm at the exact center of a perfect sphere of matter. This is just an idealistic case of what the article proposes. Well, the matter of the sphere exerts a gravitic force on me, of course. However, as I'm at the center, all the forces are going to cancel out, making for a net zero gravitational effect: in other words, no net effect. Of course, the article fails to mention it. I'd also like to point out that the vast distances involved in cosmology reduce the gravitational effect of far-off (extragalactic) matter to pretty much nothing.
"If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a "white hole" -- a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR).
As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink -- eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen in time. An observer on earth would not in any way "feel different." "Billions of years" would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is travelling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc. -- while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly."
Actually, an observer inside of the event horizon would "feel different". To create an event horizon, the matter inside must be very dense. Black holes create event horizons, for example, and they contain at least 1.4 times as much matter as the sun (for those of you interested, research the "Chandrasekhar limit") in an area smaller than King County. My point here is, anything dense enough to create an event horizon would absolutely crush anything inside. And when I say absolutely crush, I mean it. Even the small space between nuclei and their orbiting electrons would be squished. An observer in this area would not only "feel different", he'd be dead a million times over.
"It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem." I just thought I'd include this part for fun. Not only does the article whine about being 'accused of manipulating the data', a claim made by Creationists against others about every five seconds, but it shows something you'll find to be typical throughout the entire website. The authors pride themselves in claiming to be victims, persecuted by some mysterious Atheist conspiracy. Frankly, it makes me sick. It's roughly on the same level as those who claim there's a "New World Order" being run by rabid Zionists.
"By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality." Cough.
4) Don’t worry about eh Protestant Orthodox thing. I just stick to the basics, no sense in getting wound up in something that isn’t in the Bible.
5)Yes I do point out flaws in other religions, but it’s not for the sake of attacking. Truth is truth and does not contradict itself, so when something is put out to be the truth it’s not peculiar, or improper to test it. I’m glad that you recognize them as being flaws, though, and fatal one’s as well.
I talk of other religions more for the benefit than those who wish to hear about it, as opposed to those who are involved in those religions. Nobody likes to have their beliefs questioned, particularly when they are unequipped to answer. It’s not for people to use to hate with though, it’s so that the truth of the Word of God can be spread, while separating the rest at the same time as well.
Please note that the LDS concept of being born again is different from the Biblical teaching. They see it as being born physically (the first birth is in the spirit world). John 3:4 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he? 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit,"
Jesus speaks of two births, one physical and one spiritual and in that order. Nicodemus sees the physical birth as the first, and Jesus says that the physical and spiritual are different, and that a spiritual birth (for we have all had a physical birth) is necessary to enter into the Kingdom of God.
As for why the Missionaries are sent out in their younger years (usually late teens-early 20’s) is to develop memories and the attachments that come with them, at least that’s what I’ve come up with.
Reply
3) The historical setting of them doubtless has some accuracy, much like if I wrote a novel set in the present day it would be a fairly accurate representation of the time. Also, I'd like to point out that archaeoligists used "The Iliad" by Homer to locate the city of Troy, but that doesn't mean the goddess Athena actually helped soldiers fight each other there.
As for the other scientific evidence, it's interesting how Christians pick and choose only what supports their case. Genetic testing must be completely unreliable... until it supports the idea of our genetic code narrowing down to one woman. Actually, I am familiar with that specific theory, and as I remember it had the genetic code of various peoples narrowing down to one woman multiple times. The thought was that it coincided with migrations, as well as the initial humans, i.e. Caucasoid peoples have all come from a common source after their ancestors migrated from Africa.
I'd like to distinguish between Atheism and evolutionary theory here. They are not one and the same.
As for the Bible 'withstanding the test of time', that's sort of a judgment call. Many, many people (myself included) consider it to be less than accurate and can point to many, many flaws in the text itself. Of course, there are rationalizations available from a number of Christian sources, as it's been for 2000 years and people have taken the time to figure out the best responses to these challenges. And the 'test of time'... does this mean it just has to be around for a while? Because there are older religions still in existence.
I'll post more on the bad science of ChristianAnswers.net in a bit. I found the astronomy section particularly amusing.
4) I could get into a 'no true Scotsman' thing here, but I won't.
5) Why why why why why do you insist in including these rails against Mormonism? They're completely out of place and unasked for in these responses.
As for the missionary thing, that's part of it. The other thing that I was getting at is that it's easier to get younger people hyped up about a cause, willing to go door to door and tell people who really don't care all about their religion. This is also why college kids are always involved in protests and the like.
-Danny
Reply
"How can light get to us from stars which are millions of light-years away in a universe which the Bible claims is only thousands of years old?"
Here's a good example of what you'll find. The article itself is an exercise in futility... the simple solution is that light had the time to travel millions of light years because the universe has been around for millions of years. Anywho...
I'm going to skip past the parts that discuss the old theories that have since been abandoned and skip to the one that the article hails as solving the entire problem. But first, a few factoids I felt I had to address:
"Dr. Humphreys' new creationist cosmology literally "falls out" of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge -- that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center.
This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular ("big bang") cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries -- no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out."
This is actually a complete lie. Modern "secular" astronomers/cosmologists go by the theory that the universe does have an edge, and is not infinite; otherwise, how could the big bang go from a finite object into an infinite one?
"However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock?"
Actually, that's not true. Let me give an example: suppose that I'm at the exact center of a perfect sphere of matter. This is just an idealistic case of what the article proposes. Well, the matter of the sphere exerts a gravitic force on me, of course. However, as I'm at the center, all the forces are going to cancel out, making for a net zero gravitational effect: in other words, no net effect. Of course, the article fails to mention it. I'd also like to point out that the vast distances involved in cosmology reduce the gravitational effect of far-off (extragalactic) matter to pretty much nothing.
Reply
As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink -- eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen in time. An observer on earth would not in any way "feel different." "Billions of years" would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is travelling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc. -- while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly."
Actually, an observer inside of the event horizon would "feel different". To create an event horizon, the matter inside must be very dense. Black holes create event horizons, for example, and they contain at least 1.4 times as much matter as the sun (for those of you interested, research the "Chandrasekhar limit") in an area smaller than King County. My point here is, anything dense enough to create an event horizon would absolutely crush anything inside. And when I say absolutely crush, I mean it. Even the small space between nuclei and their orbiting electrons would be squished. An observer in this area would not only "feel different", he'd be dead a million times over.
"It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem."
I just thought I'd include this part for fun. Not only does the article whine about being 'accused of manipulating the data', a claim made by Creationists against others about every five seconds, but it shows something you'll find to be typical throughout the entire website. The authors pride themselves in claiming to be victims, persecuted by some mysterious Atheist conspiracy. Frankly, it makes me sick. It's roughly on the same level as those who claim there's a "New World Order" being run by rabid Zionists.
"By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality."
Cough.
-Danny
Reply
Leave a comment