Long lives of the antedeluvian patriarchs

[_huckelberry]

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

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...

Nipper,
This sounds like an explanation of strata but is it really?

I do not understand how asteroids create very much strata. They blow big holes in the earth erasing strata. The mix blown up in the are would make a layer but all of the asteroids hitting the earth that year would form one scattered layer of mixed rock and dust. Again the crust of the earth fracturing would not create strata it would make breaks in strata. I can see how very large volcanic eruptions make a layer identifiable as volcanic ash, lava pumice etc. Those do exist here and there. The rest mudslides and the crust sliding around would do very little to make layers but would do a good deal to erase them.

The fossil layers is another puzzle, It is not true that fossils are the only dating method but because certain kinds of fossils are found in some layers and not in others they are a method of grouping different examples. I do not see how your proposed pattern of creation of layers would do a clear sorting out of kinds of fossils for different layers. Just the opposite, you propose a story where fossils would all get jumbled together. Earth covered with water the rock being broken up and sloshed about like cement in a cement mixer would result in a mush everywhere.

[_spotlight]

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.

Is this a variant of there is only one god with which we have to do? A corollary perhaps?

Clark's arguement is that multiverses are necessary in order for LDS theology to be true. He was replying to Fence Sitter's objection about information and physical bodies traveling about in the universe being limited to light speed, well something less than light speed or the bodies would acquire infinite mass and energy.

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.

What I have brought up is that real models that introduce multiverses bring more problems for LDS theology than they resolve. In order to have this discussion we have to limit it to real models of multiverses rather than any old layman idea about there being more than one universe. For example the multiverses that are the result of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics certainly disproves LDS theology, if true. Colliding Branes doesn't fair much better. Ron Hellings ideas while interesting are apologetic in nature and leave unanswered the problem of how beings in one universe move onto the next to escape the heat death of the one they are in, etc.

However the bit about entropy just doesn't apply that I can see for the reasons I've outlined numerous times.

This is the bit that I was hoping for more elucidation on from Clark. I don't see where he has resolved it. Resurrected bodies are made of the same matter as mortal bodies. Hence the missing body of Jesus in the tomb - handle me and see, eating the fish, it is I myself, etc. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is at play wherever energy exists and work is done. Are resurrected bodies over-unity perpetual motion machines? Then the waste heat given off from that process is continually increasing in the universe and will continue to increase without bound for all eternity.

Add to this the doctrine that matter is eternal, no creation ex nihilo - which by the way is violated by any sort of free energy idea - along with a geometric increase in the number of resurrected bodies for time without end and well there are *cough* problems to be resolved with LDS theology.

[_huckelberry]

a snippet from A D White, thanks to Maksutov.

"But by far the most terrible champion who now ap-
peared was Cardinal Bellarmin, one of the greatest theo-
logians the world has known. He was earnest, sincere,
and learned, but insisted on making science conform to
Scripture. The weapons which men of Bellarmin's stamp
used were purely theological. They held up before the
world the dreadful consequences which must result to
Christian theology were the heavenly bodies proved to
revolve about the sun and not about the earth. Their
most tremendous dogmatic engine was the statement that
'' his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan
of salvation." Father Lecazre declared " it casts suspicion
on the doctrine of the incarnation." Others declared, " It
upsets the whole basis of theology. If the earth is a
planet, and only one among several planets, it can not be
that any such great things have been done specially for it as
the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets,
since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited ;
but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam?
How can they trace back their origin to Noah's ark ? How
can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?" Nor was
this argument confined to the theologians of the Roman
Church ; Melanchthon, Protestant as he was, had already
used it in his attacks on Copernicus and his school."
/////

I think this stuff sounds much like our modern anti science battles to protect faith.

[_The CCC]

Is this a variant of there is only one god with which we have to do? A corollary perhaps?

Clark's arguement is that multiverses are necessary in order for LDS theology to be true. He was replying to Fence Sitter's objection about information and physical bodies traveling about in the universe being limited to light speed, well something less than light speed or the bodies would acquire infinite mass and energy.

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.

What I have brought up is that real models that introduce multiverses bring more problems for LDS theology than they resolve. In order to have this discussion we have to limit it to real models of multiverses rather than any old layman idea about there being more than one universe. For example the multiverses that are the result of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics certainly disproves LDS theology, if true. Colliding Branes doesn't fair much better. Ron Hellings ideas while interesting are apologetic in nature and leave unanswered the problem of how beings in one universe move onto the next to escape the heat death of the one they are in, etc.

However the bit about entropy just doesn't apply that I can see for the reasons I've outlined numerous times.

This is the bit that I was hoping for more elucidation on from Clark. I don't see where he has resolved it. Resurrected bodies are made of the same matter as mortal bodies. Hence the missing body of Jesus in the tomb - handle me and see, eating the fish, it is I myself, etc. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is at play wherever energy exists and work is done. Are resurrected bodies over-unity perpetual motion machines? Then the waste heat given off from that process is continually increasing in the universe and will continue to increase without bound for all eternity.

Add to this the doctrine that matter is eternal, no creation ex nihilo - which by the way is violated by any sort of free energy idea - along with a geometric increase in the number of resurrected bodies for time without end and well there are *cough* problems to be resolved with LDS theology.

Yes, and deliberately so.

I've already said a good argument can be made for a multiverse. However LDS theology doesn't require it.

We really don't know much of anything about Resurrected bodies. We assume they are a type of matter, but more fine. Whatever that means we have no clue.

We live in a four dimensional world. If there are other dimensions out there, ours would look very strange to them. I'm not saying that the next life is in other dimensions, but it COULD be. We just don't know.

[_spotlight]

Yes, and deliberately so.

I've already said a good argument can be made for a multiverse. However LDS theology doesn't require it.

We really don't know much of anything about Resurrected bodies. We assume they are a type of matter, but more fine. Whatever that means we have no clue.

We live in a four dimensional world. If there are other dimensions out there, ours would look very strange to them. I'm not saying that the next life is in other dimensions, but it COULD be. We just don't know.

You and CG are apparently not on the same page. This is what is frustrating with dealing with apologists. Each is an island of thought where each has worked out some scenario to rescue the theology. When I brought the issue of geometric increase of resurrected bodies up to one defender he was intelligent enough to understand where that point was leading and dug himself in with the assertion that resurrected bodies are made of some different material than the elements that compose our mortal bodies. You wish to say that the matter is altered into another kind of matter but that doesn't resolve the problem when the matter of our bodies is the material that provides the substance from which the resurrected body is constructed. The universe that we experience would rather quickly become depleted of its matter.

[_huckelberry]

again, White thanks to Maksukov,

"Bellarmin now commands Gali-
leo, " in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole
Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether
the opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and im-
movable, and that the earth moves, nor henceforth to hold,
teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in
writing." This injunction Galileo acquiesces in and prom-
ises to obey."

/////
As we all know these authorities were able to force words from Galileo but were unable to force the sun to revolve about the earth.

I think similarly Mr Morris may speak of flood geology but cannot convince a flood to create thousands of feet of sedimentary rock neatly separated into layers of differing kinds containing different populations of fossils or no fossils.

I think the flood story is more believable sticking to the way it is told in the Bible. The waters rose and covered the mountains they later receded showing the same mountains and rocks as before.

Of course that version of the story does not explain fossils.

Neither does the flood story as recreated by Mr Morris and company.

[_ClarkGoble]

This is what is frustrating with dealing with apologists. Each is an island of thought where each has worked out some scenario to rescue the theology.

Or people just believe different things. I also think most of our thought arises out of apologetics as a defense or rescue. Rather we just read scripture and history differently. In the same way most of the non-Mormons writing here have different beliefs.

[_spotlight]

Or people just believe different things. I also think most of our thought arises out of apologetics as a defense or rescue. Rather we just read scripture and history differently. In the same way most of the non-Mormons writing here have different beliefs.

I can agree with this but it doesn't negate my point. If I would try to present data that contradicts someone's beliefs, the data necessary for the task is different for each individual who nurses a collection of disproved beliefs. While true for all people as you state, the LDS religion does have some commonly held theological beliefs and truth claims shared by all of its members, supposedly. The fact that this is not true in practice was referred to derisively as "cafeteria Mormonism" by one of my institute instructors years ago.

If religion is so fluid that it cannot be pinned down, then how can it be of any utility to its disciples? How can any make the claim that they are on the right path that leads to any promised blessings if something as common as diverse beliefs is capable of steering us down the wrong alleyway? Making changes in our lifestyle certainly can lead to beneficial improvements in our lives, such as the example of the meth addict breaking away from their addiction, etc but people can do that within or without a religious framework. So the fact of improvement in one's life following certain guidelines presented within a religious context is not evidence for the truth claims of that religion anymore than receiving good advice from a leader of the KKK would establish their cause as correct.

Being free to modify religious beliefs as one does their scientific theories with new knowledge that comes to light makes religion at some point along that path something other than "revealed religion." Or at the very least it makes that which is "revealed" so obscure as to be useless non-communication.

[_The CCC]

The LDS are not Methodists. We are open to new knowledge from wherever it comes. IE; Pi is a whole number in the Bible, but the LDS believe it is an non-repeating infinite decimal out to at least 10 Trillion decimal places.

[_Maksutov]

The LDS are not Methodists. We are open to new knowledge from wherever it comes. IE; Pi is a whole number in the Bible, but the LDS believe it is an non-repeating infinite decimal out to at least 10 Trillion decimal places.

Methodists are not open to new knowledge? CFR.