Long lives of the antedeluvian patriarchs

[_spotlight]

Adam was there on the 6th day.

How do you know? Were you there too? And how do you know the Bible is true? Were you there when it was written down?

Man is far too stupid to fabricate a triune GOD

And yet men did exactly that.

Odin and Zeus were fabricated and designed by and for people like you.

Ouch LittleNipper. I see where you got your name.

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.

Unfortunately for you, chemostratigraphy shows that is not the case LittleNipper. Those would be essentially at the same time geologically speaking. Maybe you could contact your friends at ICR that did the rate study and have them explain how all of that speeded up radioactive decay failed to melt the planet. Billions of years worth of decay forced to occur within a short period of one year. Noah and crew including animals would have been toast. But I know how they survived. They weren't literally real. They were invented characters in a story.

[_Choyo Chagas]

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?

ok, here comes your eingangs:

Moses likely transcribed what the Lord desired him to write

when, where and which way the lord DESIRED moses to write anything? as far as i know, and as far as you and other the-bible-is words-of god blabbers know (i hope at least you know as copy-paste-knight-of-ylt), the ten DESIRED items of law were carved in stone by god himself.
moses was a simple postman in that case
watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58VIY1gBmns: "if there a letter in your bag for me"
if there a letter in littlenipper's bag for choyo chagas?
LIKELY... good word
evidence? testimony? proof? witness? indication? evidence? argument?
likely... persuasive reason

and Joshua concluded it as the Lord desired.

ahem
so joshua has rewritten moses' last book...
even you didn't answer it, we have the answer to my "did joshua rewrite moses' fifth book? (inserting moses' burial...)" question
ok, moses' fifth book is ver 1.1 by yoshua

I'll answer your question regarding creation if you will answer mine: Were there any scientists present during creation?

no. there were nobody present
--- because there was no such event as creation;
--- and grand canyon is for to find a twopence of a scottish (he is digging today to find it so grand canyon is growing)

--- --- ok, your turn...
by the way you are like of my wife (fortunately you are not)
as she is always asks back
i ask: how many (much) money have you in your pocket
she aswers: why
i: then, i don't care your pocket

(ok, there were two exceptions, maybe only one)
(or maybe none)

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

do you know my next question; don't you, littlenipper, about adam?

was there anybody?
was there anybody to lighten us?
who was that nobody?

got it? from this point, we are talking about adamic language
up to now, there is no dictionary to/from adamic

but j-s-


please don't forget; i've answered everything...

[_Physics Guy]

@Spotlight:

Indeed there are no known violations of the Second Law, and most everyone including me expects that it's really true. The problem is that it's not really supposed to be a fundamental law, like general relativity or quantum field theory. These other laws of nature by themselves already determine everything, in principle; there is nothing left for any additional laws to do but either disagree with the fundamental laws, or agree with them. The first case—a conflict between thermodynamics and quantum mechanics or gravity, say—would be exciting but has not been seen. In the second case, where thermodynamics simply agrees with what the other laws already prescribe, thermodynamics is simply superfluous.

And that's the standard assumption, that thermodynamics is superfluous. It simply codifies one particular implication of all the other, fundamental laws of nature. It's a plot synopsis that lets you skip the long film and still talk about it next day at the office.

There are two problems with this situation. The first problem is academic: if thermodynamics is just a consequence of the fundamental laws, then we should be able to derive it from them. But so far we can't. All the claims to have done so, starting with Ludwig Boltzmann, have turned out to have derived nothing, but simply to have assumed the Second Law in some concealed form. This problem is either better or worse, depending on your viewpoint, because it does not seem to be a paradox. It's just a pain: thermodynamics is expected to emerge from mechanics for large and complex systems, and it's very hard to prove anything about large and complex systems. So at the moment thermodynamics is kind of a "God of the gaps", theoretically. We assume it will all come out some day from a bunch of stuff that we don't yet understand. Empirically, of course, thermodynamics has been thoroughly tested and has always passed. It's not in doubt; we just don't understand it.

The other problem with thermodynamics as an "emergent" consequence of the fundamental laws of nature is that its microscopic causes, which we don't understand, may turn out to be important in themselves—whatever they are. Give me a steam engine, composed of many bazillions of atoms, and I can apply thermodynamics to it with confidence. But does thermodynamics govern molecular machinery? This is really unclear.

It's not that thermodynamics might be wrong for microscopic machines, but that thermodynamics doesn't even really talk about them at all. It talks about heat and temperature, and it's hard to see what those concepts even mean for a handful of molecules. Applying thermodynamics to microscopic systems is kind of like trying to resolve a murder trial using only intellectual property law. The law tells you to start from the text of the patent, but what you have is a corpse.

On the other hand we may be making molecular machines before too long. What will their limits be? Are there things that can't be done with microscopic machines no matter how hard you try, because they would violate some microscopic version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? We don't know, and we may very well want to know.

Even if we don't make molecular machinery, there's a lot of it around us and even inside us. By the standards of physics, biochemistry is a purely descriptive science which has collated a lot of empirical facts but can't predict anything. And we're only just beginning to get observational evidence for what exactly goes on in biologically important chemical reactions. There's a vast amount of unknown stuff to explore, and although in principle there are no new fundamental laws of nature at stake in this exploration, if some physics fairy offered me the choice between discovering microscopic entropy or quantum gravity, I'd take microscopic entropy in a flash.

[_Physics Guy]

@ClarkGoble:

Statistical mechanics is definitely worth something, all right. In another couple of months I have to teach it, and I expect I'll be able to work up enthusiasm for the lecture. But statistical mechanics is really still a lot like classical thermodynamics, in that it simply asks you to accept a bunch of axioms, whose relationships to the really fundamental natural laws are unclear. As with thermodynamics, statistical mechanics works very well in a wide range of important cases. And as with thermodynamics, the reasons why statistical mechanics works are unclear—and hence we're also unclear about the limits of statistical mechanics, and about what might happen beyond them. Statistical mechanics brings thermodynamics closer to mechanics, but it remains on the far side of the major gap. It's still just like thermodynamics, only not so much.

The active research field today is non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. There is definitely a big regime in which that's a sensible and well-defined problem, but what people don't often emphasize, and perhaps don't even always recognize, is that once you go far enough away from equilibrium, the basic assumptions of statistical mechanics can stop making sense. A lot of people who are very good at using the concepts of statistical mechanics don't actually think about the concepts themselves very much. At one point while I was a post-doc at MIT I had a long discussion with a well-known Russian theorist in which he kept deforming all my questions into questions that he knew how to answer, and only after several exchanges could I get him to recognize the question I actually had. His answer then was, "Well nobody knows that."

[_The CCC]

LN:

No you weren't there either.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8XXaDrK4A

[_ClarkGoble]

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.

Again (I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this) I think Mormon theology requires a multiverse with information flow between universes. I don't have time to look through all my posts but I'm pretty sure I mentioned heat death well before you did. You keep bringing up points I've already answered.

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.

I brought up vagueness due to my claim Mormon theology was vague. I only brought up science to note science was as well and making a vagueness claim about theology was hardly problematic. The ultimate point was just that the portrayal of religion you are critiquing is wrong in my view.

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.

Geeze. Nope. Let me give an example. Prove or disprove whether I was typing on an Apple keyboard or 3rd party keyboard last night. I say I was typing on an Apple keyboard. If that doesn't demonstrate the logical problem I'm getting at then nothing will.

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.

Obviously I think contradictions mean we have to reevaluate our logic or our premises. However the bit about entropy just doesn't apply that I can see for the reasons I've outlined numerous times.

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

I disagree. If the reply is that in any experience you can play the mental illness card that isn't much of an answer for the reasons I outlined. (The argument you are making is one that Descartes made long ago) But we're going in circles again so this is pointless.

Well making a covenant to give up everything most would consider the important aspect of joining the LDS faith.

Except I make the covenant with God. A difference I already mentioned and that again you're ignoring.

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 your not listening to what I said. If I describe an experience I can't prove to you I had the experience by its very nature. So what is the point then of sustaining the ridicule? The ridicule part is just a recognition of your tendencies. The fruitless point is just recognize it wouldn't get us anywhere. But again we're going in circles.

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.

I think that's my line to you. But I'll drop it for real this time. Clearly you only want one thing and any other discussion with you is fruitless. So bye for real. Although I'll keep on the board. It's just that I can't give you want you demand and you aren't interested in anything else.

[_ClarkGoble]

As with thermodynamics, statistical mechanics works very well in a wide range of important cases. And as with thermodynamics, the reasons why statistical mechanics works are unclear—and hence we're also unclear about the limits of statistical mechanics, and about what might happen beyond them. Statistical mechanics brings thermodynamics closer to mechanics, but it remains on the far side of the major gap. It's still just like thermodynamics, only not so much.

Yeah, can't disagree with that. As I said the places where it is most conceptually understandable is also where it's perhaps least realistic. It's not quite as bad as the ideal gas law of course. (grin)

A lot of people who are very good at using the concepts of statistical mechanics don't actually think about the concepts themselves very much. At one point while I was a post-doc at MIT I had a long discussion with a well-known Russian theorist in which he kept deforming all my questions into questions that he knew how to answer, and only after several exchanges could I get him to recognize the question I actually had. His answer then was, "Well nobody knows that."

Yes that happens. (Snidely I might say I've experienced that in this thread LOL) It's akin to the drunk looking for the keys under the lightpost because he couldn't see in the dark so he had to look where there was light.

[_The CCC]

ClarkGoble:

LDS theology doesn't require a multiverse. I think a good case can be made for it, but we have no theology concerning it.

[_spotlight]

Hey Clark,

If multiverses exist then Mormonism is disproved. Despite the defense of one narrow aspect of the religion with the introduction of multiverses, the concept obliterates the rest. Answering points with solutions that do more damage to the LDS position doesn't solve anything in my view.

The portrayal of religion I am critiquing is the religion that Joseph Smith created. If that is wrong in your view then you are in the critic's camp in my view.

If your claim that you typed on an apple keyboard last night was made in a universe where such an item didn't exist and all the collected knowledge of mankind proved the impossibility of it's existence then I would side with the collected knowledge of mankind.

Contradictions mean you change the religion as far as necessary to defend it, In other words you are an apologist.

The bit about entropy does not apply? I guess if we say Joseph Smith was not a prophet and was wrong when revealing that spirit is matter just more refined.

Your hypothetical is in contradiction to the collected knowledge of mankind. That's why it pulls no weight as an argument. As long as we live in a reality that does not allow self contradictions then we have to eliminate either the totality of collected human knowledge and go with the priority of privately obtained knowledge or call foul on privately obtained knowledge if it leads to said contradictions.

Descartes? Mormonism is not a theology based upon dualism now?

Your covenant is with God? And who in the LDS theology represents that god for you? Whose words must you accept as if from the mouth of god?

I am not ridiculing your experience nor you. I am criticizing the conclusions you wish to prop up as the result of your experience.

Fine by me if you think I an wearing the blinders Clark. When you can demonstrate how let me know. By all means continue on the board. If I were responsible for you leaving I'd feel pretty badly over that.

[_The CCC]

spotlight:

No it does not. Whether there is one or more universes. There is only one universe with which we have anything to do with.