Long lives of the antedeluvian patriarchs

[_spotlight]

Vagueness is when you know some properties of an entity but there are properties you don't know that are not open to your determination. Thus science is intrinsically vague.

Well if we presume the existence of the properties that are not open to our determination, I suppose. I'd say it would be more correct to observe that ultimate truth is unknowable. But I'll accept this Clark. What does that make religion then? It is not even vague. Where are these properties of the entity that you know about religion?

Some prominent vague conceptions in science are dark matter, dark energy,

Is this a vagueness in the gaps argument?

and some would argue entropy

Would these "some" include you Clark?

(certainly pre-statistical mechanics entropy when is was purely phenomenological was).

?

Most phenomenological work (in the scientific not philosophical sense) ends up being a logic of vagueness.

Maybe you could provide an example here of what you mean. That would be a little less vague.

Within biology vague terms become much more common and arguably also inescapable due to the types of descriptions biologists use and the type of phenomena being investigated.

Are you referring to complexity here? Could you be a little less vague please?

I don't think that describes how everyone encounters either science or religion.

What do you think describes how everyone encounters science or religion?

For the vast swath of the country science is not understood in terms of evidence.

For the vast swath of the country science is not understood, period.

You know it might just be because they have different experiences.

Such as?

I'm certainly not going to say you are following a reasonable path given your experiences. Yet you are swift to make judgments about people whose background you are frankly pretty ignorant of and whose experiences you are even more ignorant of.

So I'll lay off those who still believe in Santa because perhaps they have caught him ascending the chimney?

That doesn't exactly clarify. More what?

Playing dumb here Clark?

You're dealing in vagueness here. (grin)

Really? You find "In this case the sacrifice of all you are and possess including life itself" to be vague? You have to literally sacrifice everything for your religion in the LDS faith Clark. You have been to the temple, yes?

If you are making an economic argument then you're not doing epistemology and if you're doing epistemology you're not doing economics. So I think you're making a category error again.

Keep up the attempt at distraction Clark.

I'm addressing the underlying philosophical principles.

Link your paper when it gets published.

[_ClarkGoble]

Vagueness is when you know some properties of an entity but there are properties you don't know that are not open to your determination. Thus science is intrinsically vague.

Well if we presume the existence of the properties that are not open to our determination, I suppose. I'd say it would be more correct to observe that ultimate truth is unknowable. But I'll accept this Clark. What does that make religion then? It is not even vague. Where are these properties of the entity that you know about religion?

Well obviously there we disagree. But our disagreement isn't typically over vagueness. I'm just responding to certain of your arguments that seems to presume knowledge in full to have knowledge. I'm not claiming that nor am I making an "gaps" arguments that I'm aware of.

Would these "some" include you Clark?

Entropy in statistical mechanics is fully determinate. Entropy in pre-statistical mechanics thermodynamics wasn't. It's just a fact about scientific history and philosophy of science. Whether entropy is more vague in quantum mechanics or cosmology is more of an open question but I assume it's more like statistical mechanics simply because it works so well in simple QM models.

Most phenomenological work (in the scientific not philosophical sense) ends up being a logic of vagueness.

Maybe you could provide an example here of what you mean. That would be a little less vague.

Well classic entropy is the obvious example of this. You have a mysterious entity we don't measure directly and the properties of which outside of those indirect mathematical equations isn't known.

Within biology vague terms become much more common and arguably also inescapable due to the types of descriptions biologists use and the type of phenomena being investigated.

Are you referring to complexity here? Could you be a little less vague please?

I wasn't although the debate over reductionism and emergence is a clear place where it pops up.

More what I was thinking of were terms like "diversity" in biology. These vague terms are fairly abundant in biological explanations.

What do you think describes how everyone encounters science or religion?

I think there's a lot of diversity so I don't think there is one description. That was rather my point.

For the vast swath of the country science is not understood in terms of evidence.

For the vast swath of the country science is not understood, period.

Yup.

You know it might just be because they have different experiences.

Such as?

Would it matter? Anything I'd say you'd not believe so what is the point? Clearly it's convincing to me and I'm fairly confident anything I related you'd not believe. So why bother?

So I'll lay off those who still believe in Santa because perhaps they have caught him ascending the chimney?

If someone claimed to see the real Santa coming down the chimney I'd certainly not believe him.

That doesn't exactly clarify. More what?

Playing dumb here Clark?

Nope.

You're dealing in vagueness here. (grin)

Really? You find "In this case the sacrifice of all you are and possess including life itself" to be vague? You have to literally sacrifice everything for your religion in the LDS faith Clark. You have been to the temple, yes?

LOL. Come on now. Again all I've been asked to do is help the needy, do callings, pay tithing and that's it. Now if God came and asked more and I was sure it was God that'd be different. Sure I'm fine telling God I'll do what he says. If there's a conflict I'll deal with it then.

Keep up the attempt at distraction Clark.

That's what's funny. It's not. But perhaps we're going around in circles. What you clearly want me to do is relate my personal religious experiences that convince me of the truth of the gospel so you can attack and ridicule them. Even if there were of the sort that would convince you if it happened to you since it didn't happen to you you'd ridicule it since you can dismiss it having never experienced it. So what's the point?

Also just as clearly you don't want to discuss general epistemological questions. That's fine of course. But that more or means our discussion is pointless. I don't want to discuss what you want to because it's clearly pointless. And you don't find my points about general epistemology conditions interesting.

I'm addressing the underlying philosophical principles.

Link your paper when it gets published.

None of this stuff is particularly controversial. Really mainstream stuff. My sense, perhaps wrong, is that you're embracing a type of scientism. But since we're just going around in circles I'll drop out of the discussion.

[_Physics Guy]

I agree with Clark at least about entropy being vague. This is the focus of much of my research, so I'll dump my little spiel.

Thermodynamically, entropy is defined by measuring continuously, over a period of time, both the temperature of a system and the net amount of heat that has gone into it (which would be negative if the system has lost heat). The integral of one-over-temperature with respect to heat is the change in the system's entropy.

That seems precise until you ask what heat and temperature are. Then vagueness smacks you in the face, because the definitions of heat and temperature invoke "thermodynamic equilibrium," which is a fancy name for a concept that badly needs a fancy name, since what it literally means is just "a state in which you don't notice any change happening".

Um, yeah.

So I'm not supposed to notice anything changing. Does it matter how closely I'm paying attention? Could I put a system out of equilibrium just by putting it under a microscope? Could I put it into equilibrium by closing my eyes?

Um. Maybe? Equilibrium is a relative term? It depends on resolution? Somehow?

Statistical mechanics is supposed to help, but it doesn't. Every introductory stat mech text has a hand-waving first chapter about ergodicity and molecular chaos, through which the textbook author struggles desperately to reach the safe shore of Gibbs ensembles. Everyone who reads this vague first chapter nods and figures that they'll get the rigorous explanation later in a more advanced course. Then the advanced books all begin, "As you know: Gibbs ensembles."

So okay, maybe entropy can be relative or contextual or even subjective. Why not? But then, you, know the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy increase is supposed to be the thing that distinguishes yesterday from tomorrow. That difference doesn't seem so fuzzy, really. And entropy is supposed to ultimately track us all down and kill us. Getting killed by a fuzzily contextual subjective concept is like getting knifed by Bozo the Clown. I was hoping to go out with more dignity than that, you know?

[_spotlight]

I agree with Clark at least about entropy being vague. This is the focus of much of my research, so I'll dump my little spiel.

Thermodynamically, entropy is defined by measuring continuously, over a period of time, both the temperature of a system and the net amount of heat that has gone into it (which would be negative if the system has lost heat). The integral of one-over-temperature with respect to heat is the change in the system's entropy.

That seems precise until you ask what heat and temperature are. Then vagueness smacks you in the face, because the definitions of heat and temperature invoke "thermodynamic equilibrium," which is a fancy name for a concept that badly needs a fancy name, since what it literally means is just "a state in which you don't notice any change happening".

Um, yeah.

So I'm not supposed to notice anything changing. Does it matter how closely I'm paying attention? Could I put a system out of equilibrium just by putting it under a microscope? Could I put it into equilibrium by closing my eyes?

Um. Maybe? Equilibrium is a relative term? It depends on resolution? Somehow?

Statistical mechanics is supposed to help, but it doesn't. Every introductory stat mech text has a hand-waving first chapter about ergodicity and molecular chaos, through which the textbook author struggles desperately to reach the safe shore of Gibbs ensembles. Everyone who reads this vague first chapter nods and figures that they'll get the rigorous explanation later in a more advanced course. Then the advanced books all begin, "As you know: Gibbs ensembles."

So okay, maybe entropy can be relative or contextual or even subjective. Why not? But then, you, know the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy increase is supposed to be the thing that distinguishes yesterday from tomorrow. That difference doesn't seem so fuzzy, really. And entropy is supposed to ultimately track us all down and kill us. Getting killed by a fuzzily contextual subjective concept is like getting knifed by Bozo the Clown. I was hoping to go out with more dignity than that, you know?

Hey physics guy,
Thanks for chiming in. Your research sounds interesting. Please send a link in a PM if you like so I can take a look.

The by far majority opinion, emerging after circa 1950, is that there are no violations of the second law. An example of this is found in the 1964 famous quote by Russian thermodynamicist Ivan Bazarov who states: [6]

“The second law of thermodynamics is, without a doubt, one of the most perfect laws in physics. Any reproducible violation of it, however small, would bring the discoverer great riches as well as a trip to Stockholm. The world’s energy problems would be solved at one stroke. It is not possible to find any other law (except, perhaps, for super selection rules such as charge conservation) for which a proposed violation would bring more skepticism than this one. Not even Maxwell’s laws of electricity or Newton’s law of gravitation are so sacrosanct, for each has measurable corrections coming from quantum effects or general relativity.”

Likewise, in 2008 American physical chemist Robert Mortimer stated his view on the matter as such: [7]

“No violation of either physical statement [Clausius or Kelvin statement] of the second law of thermodynamics has ever been observed in a properly done experiment … a machine that would violate the second law and turn heat completely into work in a cyclical process is called a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.”

Every experiment that has been conducted to disprove the validity of the second law or to show a violation of it has been unsuccessful. [1]

http://www.eoht.information/page/Violations+of+the+second+law

This is where my understanding of the matter sits. I anxiously look forward to being shown where this is wrong. It would be very fascinating.

[_ClarkGoble]

Statistical mechanics is supposed to help, but it doesn't. Every introductory stat mech text has a hand-waving first chapter about ergodicity and molecular chaos, through which the textbook author struggles desperately to reach the safe shore of Gibbs ensembles. Everyone who reads this vague first chapter nods and figures that they'll get the rigorous explanation later in a more advanced course. Then the advanced books all begin, "As you know: Gibbs ensembles."

That's a fair criticism to a point. Although I do agree there are some questionable gestures in statistical mechanics. I'm glad you brought them up as I wasn't even thinking of them.

Where I think statistical mechanics helps is in very simple models of closed systems where you can define things much better. Now there are gross simplification in such models. (Most assume for instance discrete locations for a billiard ball model) But you can get something that works. The question is whether that's what's really going on in nature. Throw in quantum mechanics (where you can make somewhat similar idealized models) and it gets worse. Go to cosmology and it ends up being more of a type of faith that the concepts you have from simple statistical mechanics work.

This is a long way of saying I agree, but sort of defending why I think the insights from simple statistical mechanics give a reason to think they hold in more real systems - but of course we don't know for sure. I tend to think compositional properties reduce to these simple systems. But of course that's somewhat problematic: thus the whole emergentist and reductionist debate in science.

That said what statistical mechanics does do is pedagogically give one a way to grasp conceptually to what entropy is. It might be wrong ultimately, but it at least gives a model people can think about somewhat. My dad when he took thermodynamics in school had a text that did it purely phenomenologically. He still shudders about it. He didn't encounter formal statistical mechanics until grad school when everything then clicked. Interestingly he did his doctorate and post doc on the thermodynamics of hydrogen and helium near absolute zero when that was the going thing back in the 60's. So he went from not feeling he understood to doing most of his work in it thanks to statistical mechanics.

So okay, maybe entropy can be relative or contextual or even subjective. Why not? But then, you, know the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy increase is supposed to be the thing that distinguishes yesterday from tomorrow. That difference doesn't seem so fuzzy, really. And entropy is supposed to ultimately track us all down and kill us. Getting killed by a fuzzily contextual subjective concept is like getting knifed by Bozo the Clown. I was hoping to go out with more dignity than that, you know?

Yeah, once you start really pushing entropy far into arrow of time territory it becomes clear how fuzzy it is. I still have a bit of faith in the idea it's all ultimately statistical mechanics, but I'd be the first to admit that's far from established. In particular the ontology of entropy is particularly problematic when you start pushing the theoretical physics far. (I'll confess I don't even know if string theory addresses the issues)

The question really becomes what is more fundamental time or entropy? Or is time merely some emergent property of a kind of basic ontology of statistical mechanics. (Which has a certain charm although most see it as a bridge too far) I'll confess I've not kept up with this but there for a while I used to love reading the debate on this. So far as I know Hu Price's Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point is still the best book on the subject. Although there may be some new arguments I've not kept up with the past decade or so since I last looked into it.

[_spotlight]

I'm just responding to certain of your arguments that seems to presume knowledge in full to have knowledge.

Not what I am claiming at all Clark. I am merely pointing out that what we do know from science does not allow for the existence of a broad swath of religious ideas/concepts handed down to us from a time previous to the rather relatively current discoveries of science. It hasn't even been a hundred years yet since the discovery of the neutron. Yet what we have discovered has made much of religion and philosophy largely obsolete.

Whether entropy is more vague in quantum mechanics or cosmology

Does quantum uncertainty allow the 2nd law to be violated by a body the size of a human being Clark? Cosmology is a whole different animal altogether. The LDS theology doesn't really agree at all with anything other than a static model of the universe. At the time of Joseph Smith I think the concept was that of elements that obey the voice of god. Of course now that we know they obey laws of energy conservation etc the LDS view is disproved or reinvented by apologists.

Well classic entropy is the obvious example of this. You have a mysterious entity we don't measure directly and the properties of which outside of those indirect mathematical equations isn't known.

Well no not exactly Clark. See the following:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hunter Biden ... eclaw.html
What is the mysterious entity here that we don't measure directly?

I wasn't although the debate over reductionism and emergence is a clear place where it pops up.

Are there any experiments with results that support your side in this debate Clark?

More what I was thinking of were terms like "diversity" in biology. These vague terms are fairly abundant in biological explanations.

I am not seeing the vagueness. Now that we can sequence DNA, common ancestry has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt though it will be some time (if ever perhaps) before a complete theory is worked out for all aspects of the process. You aren't in the anti-evolution camp are you?

I think there's a lot of diversity so I don't think there is one description. That was rather my point.

Just trying to get you to make a stand on something really. Anything in particular beyond generalizations would be nice.

Would it matter? Anything I'd say you'd not believe so what is the point? Clearly it's convincing to me and I'm fairly confident anything I related you'd not believe. So why bother?

Well I need to apologize here Clark. I get this, really I do. I was on the side of LDS apologetics for a long time. I was motivated to prove it true by any means possible. I wanted it to be true. But for me at least it has turned out that there really isn't any evidence that supports the truth claims of the church. Self-contradictions are not allowed. That is the only assumption/presumption I need. If you have a world view that is OK with self-contradictions then we can amicably disagree with one another I guess.

If someone claimed to see the real Santa coming down the chimney I'd certainly not believe him.

And yet I haven't heard anything different presented as evidence for god than this example for Santa. No one seems to want to present any of it. Doesn't seem like the Biblical charge to give to every man a reason for the hope that is within you to me.

LOL. Come on now. Again all I've been asked to do is help the needy, do callings, pay tithing and that's it.

Then you haven't been to the temple. What you have been asked to do so far is beside the fact that you made a covenant to do it all if called upon to do so.

What you clearly want me to do is relate my personal religious experiences that convince me of the truth of the gospel so you can attack and ridicule them.

Apparently you seem to be afraid that they are subject to ridicule then. That tells me all I need to know about your experiences Clark.

Even if there were of the sort that would convince you if it happened to you since it didn't happen to you you'd ridicule it.

No but I might explain why it would not convince me if it did happen to me. Again if you are afraid of hearing that kind of information then subconsciously perhaps you are already seeing the weaknesses involved in those experiences.

Also just as clearly you don't want to discuss general epistemological questions

Well actually I'm tired of the narrow blinders that apologists try to use to keep the results positive for the truth claims of the church Clark. All the positive evidence in the world for a viewpoint means nothing when evidence comes along that contradicts that possibility.

None of this stuff is particularly controversial. Really mainstream stuff. My sense, perhaps wrong, is that you're embracing a type of scientism. But since we're just going around in circles I'll drop out of the discussion.

OK then. I'd suggest reading some of grindael's threads and posts when you find the time.

[_ClarkGoble]

Whether entropy is more vague in quantum mechanics or cosmology

Does quantum uncertainty allow the 2nd law to be violated by a body the size of a human being Clark? Cosmology is a whole different animal altogether. The LDS theology doesn't really agree at all with anything other than a static model of the universe. At the time of Joseph Smith I think the concept was that of elements that obey the voice of god. Of course now that we know they obey laws of energy conservation etc the LDS view is disproved or reinvented by apologists.

So you do or don't want to talk? I'm fine either way.

I've never made claims entropy is violated in anything nor am I aware of a theological claim running amiss with entropy.

Well classic entropy is the obvious example of this. You have a mysterious entity we don't measure directly and the properties of which outside of those indirect mathematical equations isn't known.

Well no not exactly Clark. See the following:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hunter Biden ... eclaw.html
What is the mysterious entity here that we don't measure directly?

Classic entropy. i.e. 19th century use Not sure what that link is supposed to demonstrate. I'm not denying it can be measured indirectly. Indeed it's the most important concept in thermodynamics. Again I am not quite sure what you are objecting to. Seeing 19th century use of entropy (which persisted in many contexts well into the 20th) as vague honestly doesn't seem controversial at all. I'm not quite sure why you are objecting. I'm willing to pick other examples like "diversity" in biology that I already mentioned. My whole point is simply that science is filled with such entities. Which again really isn't controversial.

I wasn't although the debate over reductionism and emergence is a clear place where it pops up.

Are there any experiments with results that support your side in this debate Clark?

Again not sure what you're asking. I was just dealing with the notion of vagueness. What part of the debate are you referring to? Are you denying there is a debate in science and philosophy of science over how to interpret compositionality and it's connection to reduction/emergence? If it is a real debate that means an essential vagueness relative to those properties.

More what I was thinking of were terms like "diversity" in biology. These vague terms are fairly abundant in biological explanations.

I am not seeing the vagueness.

I'm sensing you aren't sure what I mean by vagueness. The Sorites Paradox is a classic example. Take a person with hair. Start plucking hair. At what point are they bald? Take diversity as a term in biology. Start reducing animals. At what point is diversity lost? There are numerous terms like that in biology.

Now that we can sequence DNA, common ancestry has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt though it will be some time (if ever perhaps) before a complete theory is worked out for all aspects of the process. You aren't in the anti-evolution camp are you?

I've no idea where you are going with this nor how it relates to vagueness. If your saying we've established it without knowing all the parts then you're agreeing with me. That means it's vague in the sense of having indeterminate properties not determined by us.

Just trying to get you to make a stand on something really. Anything in particular beyond generalizations would be nice.

Again been really clear on particular stands. Suggest you go back and reread what I've said if you think I haven't. I've not taken the stands you want me to take so you can knock them down. But that really is beside the point.

But for me at least it has turned out that there really isn't any evidence that supports the truth claims of the church. Self-contradictions are not allowed. That is the only assumption/presumption I need. If you have a world view that is OK with self-contradictions then we can amicably disagree with one another I guess.

This seems a non-sequitor. Saying I can't produce public evidence to establish or verify something is not to entail a contradiction.

If someone claimed to see the real Santa coming down the chimney I'd certainly not believe him.

And yet I haven't heard anything different presented as evidence for god than this example for Santa. No one seems to want to present any of it. Doesn't seem like the Biblical charge to give to every man a reason for the hope that is within you to me.

Then you are being rational to disbelieve. It would be irrational for me to disbelieve. At best I can say evidence is there for the finding but it's not within my power to produce it as I've (again) been saying consistently.

Then you haven't been to the temple. What you have been asked to do so far is beside the fact that you made a covenant to do it all if called upon to do so.

Again you didn't read what I wrote. If God asks something I'll do it for him. I'm talking of what is asked.

What you clearly want me to do is relate my personal religious experiences that convince me of the truth of the gospel so you can attack and ridicule them.

Apparently you seem to be afraid that they are subject to ridicule then. That tells me all I need to know about your experiences Clark.

No it tells you all you need of how I perceive your attitude towards me. If the whole point is ridicule why on earth would I waste my time? If the point is some interesting discussion where something is actually discussed and debated then that might be worthwhile.

Also just as clearly you don't want to discuss general epistemological questions

Well actually I'm tired of the narrow blinders that apologists try to use to keep the results positive for the truth claims of the church Clark. All the positive evidence in the world for a viewpoint means nothing when evidence comes along that contradicts that possibility.

Again I've no idea what you're talking about here. Presumably a reference to some discussion I've not been a part of.

None of this stuff is particularly controversial. Really mainstream stuff. My sense, perhaps wrong, is that you're embracing a type of scientism. But since we're just going around in circles I'll drop out of the discussion.

OK then. I'd suggest reading some of grindael's threads and posts when you find the time.

Don't know who that is or how to find posts. I'm more than willing to have the discussion if someone is interesting. My sense is that I probably should have kept to "bye."

[_spotlight]

I've never made claims entropy is violated in anything nor am I aware of a theological claim running amiss with entropy.

Then you have to accept that the universe is heading for a heat death and that isn't in agreement with LDS theology. Not very complicated Clark.

Specifically after all the elements within stars have been fused to iron it's the end of the line. No more fuel to burn. What then?

Indeed it's the most important concept in thermodynamics. Again I am not quite sure what you are objecting to.

Well then you agree with me. If you accept the law of entropy increase then you reject LDS theology. What do the gods do when their bodies are incapable of doing work due to the heat death of the universe Clark?

If all you wish to do is play with semantics as with the Sorites paradox have at it. I don't really care about an argument over vagueness if you are not using it to discredit what we understand from science that is in conflict with LDS theology. A head of hair with a thousand hairs lost one at a time sounds like a description that is anything but vague. It might be vague to force a choice between two terms, bald or not, to describe it but that's just semantics. Not really interested. That doesn't save LDS theology but again you are not trying to do that. What are you trying to do?

I've no idea where you are going with this nor how it relates to vagueness. If your saying we've established it without knowing all the parts then you're agreeing with me.

Well fine then we agree. All life descends from a common ancestor.

I've not taken the stands you want me to take so you can knock them down.

They are knocked down just the same whether you take them or not. Invent a different religion from that of Joseph Smith and claim it's the same religion.

Saying I can't produce public evidence to establish or verify something is not to entail a contradiction.

Really Clark I didn't say that. I said if your world view/philosophy does not accept contradictions then the evidence we have from science is sufficient to lay to rest the truth claims of the church. An eternal realm of resurrected beings requires an endless supply of energy in order for those bodies to do work and function. The heat death of the universe would take that resurrected realm down with it. The prophets and apostles of Joseph's day thought that stars were celestial orbs Clark. They are just mortal objects like us Clark. They burn out, they die.

Then you are being rational to disbelieve. It would be irrational for me to disbelieve. At best I can say evidence is there for the finding but it's not within my power to produce it as I've (again) been saying consistently.

You haven't yet even produced a hypothetical example that would demonstrate much less establish that claim.

Again you didn't read what I wrote. If God asks something I'll do it for him. I'm talking of what is asked.

Well making a covenant to give up everything most would consider the important aspect of joining the LDS faith. In your previous list of minor things you've been asked to do as a member I notice you didn't mention serving a mission. Lucky you. If you were a member when Joseph was alive and had a daughter that would have likely been asked of you. Or your wife might have been put upon the alter of sacrifice behind your back as you were sent overseas on a mission.

No it tells you all you need of how I perceive your attitude towards me. If the whole point is ridicule why on earth would I waste my time?

If your reasoning were sound then whatever it is that you experienced would withstand any sort of ridicule, Clark. Creationists can ridicule geology all they like and it doesn't damage the field of geology.

Again I've no idea what you're talking about here. Presumably a reference to some discussion I've not been a part of.

Precisely, keep those blinders on.

Don't know who that is or how to find posts.

Try the terrestrial section of the board. You need to brush up on your history a bit.

[_LittleNipper]

You forget Joshua ---- he replaced Moses and spoke with God, as did Moses.

no i don't. joshua has his own book. you know, jedem das seine...

did moses write his fifth book (deuteronomy) or didn't he?
did joshua rewrite moses' fifth book? (inserting moses' burial...)
did anybody rewrite any old testament book?


i repeat my question, please try to answer:
was you there during creation?

for bonus points:
was moses there?

for more bonus:
were anybody there?

Moses likely transcribed what the Lord desired him to write, and Joshua concluded it as the Lord desired. I'll answer your question regarding creation if you will answer mine: Were there any scientists present during creation?

And frankly, Adam was there on the 6th day.

[_LittleNipper]

Thor and Odin are only super men.

No LittleNipper, they are imaginary entities like your god.

They have all the lust, and frailty of a fallen nature.

If you do not like your nature, live without sinning as defined per your dogma. But please stop passing the buck and blaming it all on an imaginary fall and using that and an imaginary atonement as a get out of jail free card to do what you supposedly despise without owning it.

They do not possess perfection nor exhibit good character.

That's because they don't really exist.

Nor can they save humanity from eternal damnation.

Nothing saves us from death Little Nipper. Eternal damnation doesn't exist because we don't exist but for the brief flicker of mortality.

Interdependence supposes that multiple organisms of various kinds sprang into being at the very same time!!!!!!!!!

No it does not. For example an organism that depends upon one source of food may evolve to depend upon an alternate source of food. The alternate source of food may not have existed when the first organism first existed living on the first form of sustenance.

Evolutionists cannot even create ONE from a rock, let alone a circus of organisms so they could survive off each other's contributions.

Nature is not "an evolutionist." Besides I don't know how this excuses you from asserting that Thor, Odin or Dora the Explorer did it using unexplained magic simply because that is the dogma of your cult.

You only date fossils by the strata they are found in and the strata by the fossils found in it.

Not true LittleNipper. Your ignorance here is not my responsibility to continually correct. Especially am I disinclined to continue doing so since you have shown yourself incapable of comprehending even basic science.

Talk about circular reasoning.

Ok let's. The Bible is true because it says so right in the Bible. Well there is no Biblical reference to the Bible per se but that's a different point.

Dig 6 feet down in a graveyard. What is the age of the dirt being excavated? Does that mean that a body turned to soap is the same age as a fossil found in the digging of the grave? So why is it that when GOD chooses to bury the animals killed in the flood suddenly they are the age of the strata they are found in?

Because by the principles of chemostratigraphy we know that the geologic column was NOT layed down all at the same time. That is not the only evidence but one of the stronger proofs. But you wouldn't understand this because for you the Bible is more important than understanding geology. So you spend your time cutting and pasting its contents thinking that somehow it is a valuable use of the brief time you have to exist.

Man is far too stupid to fabricate a triune GOD. Odin and Zeus were fabricated and designed by and for people like you.

And of course the strata wasn't all laid down at the same time. It happened during various stages of the Pre-Food, the Flood, and Post Flood. Asteroids hit the earth and there is strata formed. The crust of the earth is fractured (forming strata) and volcanic action occurs and that cause ash (forming strata) and lava flows (forming strata). More meteors hit the earth. And then there was the deluge causing mudslides (forming strata), and tsunamis (forming strata). And then the earths crust begins to slide and subside and uplift (forming strata), forming the continents and mountain ranges...