online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: 2012???
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
2012???
Posted: 4/11/2008 12:08:49 AM
Yes, Jesus opened the gates of hell which is usually translated from the word “sheol” which most schollars agree simply meant grave. He did so by reclaiming his body. He did not break them down, He simply had the key and turned it in the lock. If we think of resurrection as a subset of reincarnation which is literally "in flesh again" (Please check out my posts in the
"Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs,"
thread in this religion forum. All are to be resurrected. Since this must include the unbelievers, it is quite likely that the unbelievers will simply call it something else. Near Death Experience, Out of Body Experience, or simply resuscitation.

Humans are enduring much tribulation right now especially in the middle east, the part of the earth in which the authors of the scriptures were most particularly concerned.

One of the problems in this time is the conditioning we have received to believe lies. The exaggerations of the number of crashes which result in fire or explosion in movies, as compared to number of real auto accidents which result in fire or explosion; for example, conditions us to seek greater excitement in life. The exaggerations deafen us to the still small voice and divert us from recognizing the gentle inspiration. When we do hear and heed it, we frequently fail to give credit to God for such inspiration.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 17 (view)
 
2012???
Posted: 4/10/2008 4:46:57 PM
The following are but a few of the Biblical prophecies concerning what the last days or second comming will be like. The Day and Hour were not known in ancient times, but any reasonable intellect knows that these cannot be witheld forever. Particularly after the event, all will be able to know the exact day and hour.

Luke 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

Hebrews 12:29 For our God [is] a consuming fire.

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

2 Peter 3:3 ¶ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Recent Astronomical Observations indicate that there is some very high relative velocity debris out in the infinite reaches of space. Two events in particular are worth looking at. SN1987A and CassA. It appears that when some supernovae explode, they do not just become nebulae or clouds of debris from which new suns and planets may form. I do not wish to refute that planetary formation theory, I simply suggest that there are other theories which may also be true, perhaps more true than that one. Accepting the idea that we live in a God created universe, in which new heavens and new earths may arise, we may conclude that everything is recycled. It may still be well beyond our embrionic god minds to comprehend how the debris from supernovae may be decellerated and parked in orbits around stable stars in or on which corporial bodies or tabernacles of flesh may reside to house the eternal spiritual offspring of God our Heavenly Father. Not to connect the dots and see the possibilities, however, is hardly excusable. Let he who has ears to hear or eyes to see understand.

The recently acknowledged principle of gravitational accelleration or sing shot effect which has begun to be used to accellerate our exploritory efforts of our little solar system, has obviously always existed. To put it as simply as I am able, it is that when one celestial object is moving with a velocity in excess of that we regard as escape velocity of another celestial object, Because the amount of time that approach velocity may be increased, exceeds the amount of time during which velocity may be decreased, there will be a net increase in relative velocity of both celestial objects.

What this means is that if no intelligent intervention occurs to utilize other forces to counter this effect, orbital velocities are extreemly unlikely. Things must either collide and merge or fly off faster than they approached.

If the Sun's light can be diminished by a cloud of water vapor, how much more might it be diminished by the condensation of a small fraction of the debris from a supernova passing through the Solar System? Might not the moon be heated past the color of blood by the impact of trillions of particles of such debris impacting its surface?

I have much more to say on this subject, but the attention span of most forum readers is far too short. I suggest that you research these things for yourselves as even I was unable to accept these things upon just hearing them.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 287 (view)
 
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 3/16/2008 3:16:01 PM
Yes, you have eiscerned the conflict correctly, but you apparently haven't read my previous posts. The opinion of the LDS or Mormons is that there are two deaths. Death is defined as a separation. The most common form of death which we see and must endure is the physical death. Most do notlperceive the separation from God as a form of death. Death is a separation. One is a separation fo the Spirit from the Body. Two is a separation of the Spirit from God. Until or without the Atonement the Second or Spiritual death or separation from God was permenant.
Jesus performed two services or saving ordinances if you will. In the Garden of Gethsemene, He accomplished the Atonement in which we, through repentance and compliance with the laws and ordinances of God, we may by our choice be reconciled to God and return to his kingdom. The second was performed on the cross. That is where Jesus Died Physically and by re-entering his flesh he accomplished what he had done for Lazerus and Elijah did for the Old Testament mentioned above. Jesus went another step, however, and having Atomed for the sins of man in the Garden of Gethsemene ascended to the Father and accepted Exaltation. He became Physically immortal. Some may prefer to say he threw of the Mortality he had endured in order to fulfill the prophecies made from the foundation of the world concerning him.
Neither Resurrection nor Reincarnation assure one of not physically dying again The wages of sin is death and continues to be. Jesus being sinless is no longer subject to the wages of sin.
Jesus accomplishment on the cross applies to all. We all get to be reunited with flesh. The methods of accomplishing this can include reincarnation. Resurrection being a subset of reincarnation includes the suffecient development of the Spirit that It can recall and play back memories made while out of the body. In other words, Resurrection is being again in the flesh previously incarnated in.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 282 (view)
 
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 3/13/2008 2:28:01 PM
Thanks consigliere,
When I read that, I thought, yes, this guy is getting it. When put together with all that has come to pass since the death and resurrection of Christ, It all makes sense. The Cross was the fulfillment of the lamb slain from the foundation. Right on. The job has been finished for 2038 years. OH, BUT PEOPLE ARE STILL DYING AND BEING BORN. When a praterist reads something like that, believing that every prophecy was fullfilled in the first 100 or 300 years after Christ, he can see the flaws in scripture. We don't have access to the only words, written in stone by the finger of the LORD. Everything in scripture is interpretation of men of what they have heard or been inspired to write. We must take what has transpired since into account. Death has not been put under his feet yet. At least not physical death. So some interpret this as spiritual death rather than physical death. Our bodies can die an infinite number of times but the death of the spirit is ended. We are reconciled to God and still have our agency. So it is just a matter of time until we CHOOSE to accept it.
Well, there are still some prophecies which are unfulfilled. The Baptism of Earth by Fire, The Darkening of the Sun, and The turning of the Moon to blood. Just to mention a few. Praterists need to repent. Everything did not happen in the generation following Christ. It is still going on and there was a new star in heaven at the time of Christ's birth. He Synchronized his Birth with the arrival of the light from a Not too distant SuperNova. One which lit up the Western Hemisphere all night long. The New heaven and New earth prophecy is also yet to come to pass. Observations of distant Supernovae in recent years have given us reason to expect the debris from that nearby supernova, now cold and dark to be, to be passing through the solar system soon. If a rain cloud can block the light of our sun temporarily, I imagine a space storm will be millions of times more ominous. The speed of the debris is expressed in fractions of the speed of light. Too many insignificant zeros when expressing it in tens of millions of miles per hour.
We are the same spirits that Jesus preached to. We have new bodies over and over again since then. Resurrection would be meaningless if our memories and experiences went into the grave with our bodies. The problem is that those memories were recorded with different bio computers whose wiring was different as the blood flow in our retinas. Translating the old memories into meaningful images and thoughts is a time consuming process requiring a "Rosetta Stone" like translation tool. The Bible, having been read in a former life, is one "Rosetta Stone" that serves the function for those who read it again in their reincarnated bodies. Many other old books or records can also serve. It does still require time and effort. Remember this as well, YOU DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT IN ANY OF YOUR FORMER LIVES, OR YOU WOULDN'T STILL BE HERE! Do not trust your recollections, Be prepared to throw them out and try something new. Reincarnation is true, The problem is and has been that when preached, people tend to procrastinate the day of their repentance. Well, Brothers and Sisters, The Baptism of Fire will end the chances on this planet. It is sorting time and there are zillions of planets into which God can put you in Zillions of different bodies which may or may not be human. If you wish to be like God in eternety, Learn to behave like him NOW!
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 280 (view)
 
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 3/12/2008 9:14:04 PM
IMO it is obvious that reincarnation is simply the placing of the prefix re in front of incarnation. Incarnation has the obvious and I believe irrefutable biblical meaning of a Spirit entity (GOD) entering into a physical body. (Jesus Christ). We learn from Christ dealing with a spiritual entity which called itself Legion that many spirit entities may fit into one human tabernacle body and by Jesus leave these entities (plural) entered into a herd of swine (pigs) and caused them to do what they had failed to make the human do, namely commit suicide by drowning in the sea of galilee or lake ganesareth, whichever... These spirit entities obviously went out of human flesh and back into swine flesh. It is not appropriate to call it resurrection as this is before the first fruits of the resurrection. So we coined the word reincarnation. The incarnation of these non god spirits into swine flesh. This event pretty much defines the term as it applies to Biblical context. It does obviously include the possibility of incarnating into animal flesh. Again all things possible with God. Those who deny it are denying the obvious power of God and are IMO attempting to dictate to God what he cannot do.
On another occasion, Jesus by NOT refuting the doctrine as false or incorrect or impossible, and on other occasions stating plainly that with God All things are possible, has made the fact of reincarnation an ongoing and pre-resurrection valid doctrine. These things all happened prior to Christ's resurrection.
IMO, therefore, While reusrrection qualifies under resurrection, there are some distinct differences which create need for this other word. Resurrection is a subset of reincarnation in that it requires a return to the same body with all memories and experiences in tact. Thus Lazerus and the others miraculously raised from the dead and which we have no reason to believe became immortal (I'd love to see some record of their lives and/or posterity subsequent to their restoration to life). We also have no indication that they had any recollection of what they did while dead or out of the body. Jesus, on the other hand is reported to have gone among the dead to preach his gospel and which some believe set up his church among them. Resurrection is promised to all and thus becomes the free gift of grace. it is a free gift which may be rejected as we are still free after resurrection to die again or become unclean and unworthy to enter the Father's presence. Jesus forbade Mary to touch him at the grave for he had not at that time yet ascended to his Father and Our Father. Subsequently he invites his disciples to touch him to discern him from a spirit which hath not flesh and bones as they saw him have. Thus his appearance to Mary could have been a vision which she could not touch. It is difficult to prove whether Jesus was touchable or not at that point but the body was no longer in the tomb so the majority believe he was tangable.
So the question of whether the man or his parents sinned that he was born blind is in effect Jesus indicating that the man could have lived before.
In another place Jesus asks "Whom do men say that I the son of Man am?" and by NOT indicating that the ideas believed by the men they answered him regarding, but simply congratulated Peter for getting it right, He in effect endorsed the doctrine of reincarnation as both a pre-resurrection and a post-resurrection doctrine.
Grace was accomplished on the cross and all will be resurrected like it or not. Yes, for some it will be, as He himself said, "It would have been better not to have been born" For Where we get to live in our resurrected bodies is determined by our Works. See 1 Cor posted previously. Celestial, Terrestrial, and another glory as diverse as the stars.
One way of looking at it is that Jesus had the right to forgive or not based on the suffering he endured in the Garden of Gethsemene. Had he not suffered infinitely there, he might not have been able to be killed on the cross. IMO. Were he not the Spiritual entity referred to as Jehovah in the old Testament or JHWH and thus the giver of the law and by the law the creator of sin, he would not have had the right to grant mercy. On the other hand, being the author of the law, he was able to obey it every wit.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 263 (view)
 
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 3/11/2008 7:25:38 PM
Jesus had to orchistrate his crucifixion for the benefit of us all. Imagine what we would have today if Christ had successfully converted Herod! None of us would even recall Christ as Herod would have freed him. Herod was already torn up over having to have John beheaded. Jesus had to be insolent to him to be sent back to Pilot.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 259 (view)
 
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 3/11/2008 12:03:22 PM

My understanding is that reincarnation is for those of us who just don't get" it"; meaning that if we continue to live our lives with fear, hate, and harbour even the least little bit of resentment, then it's time for a do over. The Law of Grace is for those who finally understand that it's all about *Love*, and when one realises that we're really all in this together, and that we are all essentially worthy of *Love*, then our entire outlook becomes one of Peace and reconciliation, and living in a state of Grace.


Excuse me guys, Maybe I should state it IMO that the bible DOES support reincarnation but I've tried quoting the scriptures and just as you have always had them and not got it, maybe you do need to do it over. The grace thing Jesus accomplished by dying on the cross a righteous and sinless man was and is for ALL. Believers and unbelievers. Sinners and Saints. Everybody who has a body will have a resurrected body. That is what the scriptures are telling us. People just don't get it that grace is what makes that so. People get hung up on a scripture and fail to see the very next one. They stop too soon. Here Let me put the emphasis on the part I'm trying to get you all to see:

Ephesians 2: 8 For by GRACE are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
-
-
-
As for the current debate over the meaning of the word one, you seem to be ignoring:

Romans 8: 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 ¶ And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with {him}, that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time {are} not worthy {to be compared} with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Our Father in Heaven doesn't die so the inheritance must be shared. We must give up our greedy infantile ways and become adults willing to share with our children and siblings even as our Father has shared and given to Christ. This is what the united order was established to teach us. So also so much of the gospel. TO LOVE IS TO SHARE. Jesus gave of his power freely, not to everyone as there were those who did not believe and among them he could do no miracles because of their unbelief.

WE ARE THE MANIFESTATION OF GOD'S INFINATE CREATIVITY.

Those who cannot grasp this concept must be confined and restrained from destroying and discomforting those who do grasp it. This is why we must be sorted. This is why in the resurrection there are various degrees of glory. (again, resurrection is a subset of rencarnation and reincarnation is simply again in flesh) Yes, the wicked will be resurrected too. What GRACE is about is the free gift of resurrection. Our works do not earn us resurrection. What our works do, is give God the justice of having let us do what he knew we would do before he sent us here to do it. Our works justify His depriving some of us of the greater gifts in eternity. Who wants to call it just to be punished for crimes without ever having committed them? I certainly don't and would not regard such punishment just.

We all must become one with Him to enjoy his infinite creation for eternity. If we do not, he has other places within that same infinate eternity within which those who are the forever don't get it types to have their place and the rest of us who can see infinity don't have to go there or be stuck among them. The righteous will not be trapped in such places nor restricted from visiting them but who would care to go there very often?

1 Corinthians 15: 39 All FLESH [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. 40 [B][There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another. 41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory. 42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead.[/B] It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:...

How can it be said that the Bible doesn't teach reincarnation. What does reincarnation mean to those who say it isn't so? Why is this such a hard thing to understand. Resurrection is reincarnation because it is again in flesh. Being baptized is concenting to be born again and receive a new body. When Nicodemus asked if a man could enter again into his mother's womb, Jesus refrained from answering. He did not say no. People would no more accept the answer then than now. It isn't practical for you to reinter your mother's womb, but you might enter your granddaughter's. Of course you have to die to do that and Jesus was about eternal life not death after death.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 255 (view)
 
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 3/10/2008 9:41:28 PM
Again I repeat. Biblical scripture, without using the word supports reincarnation. Unless you have some other definition of the word than that indicated by the roots from which it is coined.


^^^^^hmmm....does tmf actually want to argue/debate Scripture? This should be amusing. Can't deal with John 1 though huh? > "..and the word was God." Now try refuting that. Who was the WORD again?



Back on track: no--reincarnation is not a belief or teaching that can be found in the Bible or in the teachings of Christ. Just ask Mary--she gave birth to Him once....then had other children besides. None of the others shared the remarkable characteristics of her first-born IMO. The contention is that Jesus had a pre-incarnate existence prior to coming to this Earth which some may construe as reincarnation after being born of Mary. Think again. If Jesus was indeed a reincarnate being, He would have been called Jesus the 2nd, instead of just Jesus.
face it peoples,we don't know what's going to happen when our physical bodies die. We simply believe what will happen to us,which is ok. For most of us believing is all we have.

Open your eyes and read it!
The Word REINCARNATION is not found in the cannonized Bible. The word is RESURRECTION in the Bible. What Jesus did on the Cross was for everyone and without it we would all be eternally damned. What is not well understood by many is that there was another event which is not so universially applicable. It occurred in the Garden of Gethsemene just before his arrest. What Christ did by being resurrected after dying on the cross was begin the ongoing process of resurrection. If we use the example of Christ as the defining event with regard to resurrection, we must realize that resurrection is reincarnation but reincarnation is not always resurrection. The spirit entity which constitutes Christ's personality, memory, and experience existed before his birth, and performed work while out of the body between his death and resurrection. If we use this as the defining criteria of resurrection it is a returning to the same flesh with a full recollection of having been out of the body. Thus it is being in flesh again but reincarnation includes other flesh, flesh of animals or human flesh. Thus the term reincarnation can be used with regard to resurrection but not all reincarnations are appropriately regarded as resurrections.
Since what Jesus accomplished on the cross applies to unbelievers as well as believers, it makes sense to me that unbelievers will simply call it something else in order to continue being unrepentant unbelievers. Nevertheless, they will be resurrected. Perhaps Out of Body Experience (OBE) or Near Death Experience (NDE).

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

John 5:26-29
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

There are those walking among you who are indistinguishable from yourselves who are resurrected. Being resurrected is not enough, When Jesus had just come forth and greeted the woman to whom he first appeared, he had not yet ascended to his father and prohibited her touching him. Subsequently when he appeared to his disciples and:

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

All resurrection is therefore reincarnation but all reincarnation is not resurrection. Resurrection differs from reincarnation only in that one returns to the same flesh with full recollection of experience out of the body. Everyone, therefore who has had an OBE is resurrected but Not all who have experienced the OBE are exalted or immortal. Lazerus was resurrected but not exalted. He died twice didn't he? So much for the misinterpretation of Hebrews. How many others did Christ raise from the dead to die a second time? Yes, they were appointed to die once but volunteered to die again.

YES THE BIBLE DOES TEACH IT, BUT WE WHO KNOW IT ARE INSTRUCTED TO DISCOURAGE ITS TEACHING BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES PROCRASTINATION OF REPENTANCE.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 231 (view)
 
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 2/27/2008 1:13:01 AM
happering
The simple answer is NO.
I've read the thread and find most of the biblical responses present but no one seems to have presented the strongest biblical evidence of reincarnation of all. It appears three times. To save readers time and effort I had to put in looking up other people's bible references, I'll include them here. KJV:

28 ¶ And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

Matthew 8: 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

Mark 5 : 1 ¶ AND they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3 Who had [his] dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: 4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any [man] tame him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, 7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. 8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man, [thou] unclean spirit. 9 And he asked him, What [is] thy name? And he answered, saying, My name [is] Legion: for we are many. 10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Luke 8: 26 And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. 27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in [any] house, but in the tombs. 28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not. 29 (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.) 30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him. 31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep. 32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. 33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

Let me preface my remarks with the already presented idea that the teaching of reincarnation frequently leads to a procrastination of repentance to future lives. I need to also point out that if your memories of past lives had put you on the right path, you probably wouldn't be reincarnated now. Also please note the word Appointed in the Hebrew scripture previously referenced and even included, It means we all have to die once, but we can choose to do it again and again.

Now the understanding of the foregoing scriptures is dependant on having a correct definition of reincarnation and resurrection.

RE - preface meaning again
IN - word meaning the opposite of out.
CARNE - Latin for flesh or meat.
TION - suffix denoting action

In order to recognize this scripture as supporting reincarnation, one must understand that we like the evil spirits which were allowed to enter the swine by our LORD, are all spirit offspring of Heavenly Father. Recognize that all things are possible with God and accept that we have the agency to choose to die more than once but are only appointed to die once.
The Bible provides a Rosetta Stone which helps those who read it in a former life to translate the spiritually stored memories of past lives through considerable meditative effort as can be perceived from the Edgar Casey references.
What this means to me, is that all Bible believing denominations should believe in the Biblical doctrine as it has been well presented in this thread. Just as little children should be prevented from injuring themselves with fire and sharp objects and suffocating in plastic, There is a time and a place for all things. For the sake of those who have not reached the level required to ask the question, the answer should be leave that doctrine alone. It wont help you repent. It will only make procrastination of repentance that much easier.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3898 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/24/2007 7:15:52 AM
rockondon



there are many many ways of determining ages and they are always used to test each other.


All of the examples you cite are subject to interpretation. When we enroll in a college course, we need to please the teacher in order to get a good grade we are therefore choosing to be what the teacher is. The teacher or professor is helping us mold our perception into his or her pattern. He or she has previously molded his or her perception to be liked by or at least accepted by those who taught him or her.
If the younger teacher doesn't please the tenured professor He or she loses his or her job.

Here are a few examples from your own posted list.


Cation ratio dating is used to date rocks that have a modified surface such as prehistoric rock carvings (petroglyphs). This is a relative dating technique and is not considered to be an accurate method of dating in some professional views.

The professor with tenure gets to create the results.
Rocks are covered by a kind of varnish, a chemically-changed layer caused by weathering that builds up over time. The change in the rock varnish is due to calcium and potassium seeping out of the rock. The cation ratio is determined by scraping the varnish from the carved or petroglyph surface back to the original rock surface and making a comparison of the two using a positively charged ion. Like dendrochronology, this ratio is affected by soil and moisture. Thus, a leaching curve is created by geographical area.

Cultural Affiliation dating is complex. There is no one way to go about using this technique. If a community of people uses Cultural Affiliation to gauge its history, they might be differently attached to a place, body, or artifact. In addition to this, sometimes there are different levels of Cultural Affiliation. Debates are also made as to which kind of Cultural Affiliation is the best.
The professor with tenure expects certain results he grades on the proximity to his expectation and so creates the results.

The different levels of Cultural Affiliation are known as temporal levels. Native peoples of the Southwest have a few different types of these levels. The first type is the Mythic Period, which was the time before the creation of fully formed humans, and even has some continuation into the present. The next type is the Traditional Period. This Affiliation has fully formed humans living where they are now. Historic Period Affiliation follows, and began when the first European person, animal, tool, grain, or disease arrived. Next is the Aboriginal Period. This is defined by the U.S. Indian Claims Commission as when Indian ethnic groups lost their land to the U.S. federal government. And the last is the Contemporary Period, which is where Indian peoples are living today.
Debates about the uses of Cultural Affiliation have come about in the last few decades. One of the first debates was trying to decide whether Native American origin stories, or scientifically known migrations are more accurate. Particular language groups are studied to see how a certain group of people has moved from place to place. The same goes with ethnography and archaeology, which both take similar cultural traits and material culture and use the information to determine the movement of a people. One of the newer methods, physical anthropology, takes DNA patterns and looks for similarities of groups to determine movement.




Fluorine is an element that is found in most ground water around the world. It can be used as a relative dating technique.
Skeletal remains buried in the earth are subject to a wide range of chemical changes. One of these changes can occur when percolating ground water comes into contact with the remains. The ground water inundates the bone remains with a solution of minerals drawn from local soils. This can cause a change in the mineral composition of the bone. Hydroxyl ions are displaced with a form of soluble fluorides. These ions form fluorapatite which is markedly less soluble. Over time, more and more fluorides are accumulated. The rate varies depending on the specific condition in the soil of the area and increases with age.
Fluorine dating is chiefly of value in determining whether bone implements or human skeletal remains found in association with other bones were buried at the same time. It was fluorine dating that was instrumental in the debunking of Piltdown Man. The Piltdown controversy lasted until 1949 when the Piltdown skull and jawbone were subjected to fluorine testing. The levels of fluorine in the skull and jawbone were significantly lower then in other bone specimens collected from the same area. After further testing the jawbone and a canine tooth proved to contain no more fluorine than fresh bones and teeth. The skull contained enough fluorine to indicate that it was not modern.

Varies greatly with location cannot be used to check results of other dating methods only to show two bones buried in the same location were buried at the same time.




Each result from each method tests the rest. So when things are aged many different ways and the results agree with each other, those results are extremely reliable.


According to the professor with tenure that defines the results but not according to other experts in related fields.


Can you provide an example please? Please note that I didn't ask for long-winded rhetoric or a changing of the subject or a long painful journey that we need degrees in astrophysics to understand. I asked for an example of observational evidence that supports both evolution and creation that will support your statement. The way you worded it makes it sound like all observational evidence that supports evolution supports creation, but I'll settle for just one example.

I have given examples but since they are already “known” to you as supporting evolution you are refusing to see that they support creation. I repeat: it depends on what each individual will accept as proof.

Everything is example of both. Those who believe in evolution interpret everything as supporting evolution. Those who believe in creation/id interpret everything as supporting creation.

I am a member of the latter group and the basic premise is that we think therefore we are. As offspring of God, we are endowed with the power of creation. Everything we observe is created as we observe it. We recreate it in our minds. It is all just interpretation of the energy impinging on our skin, tongue, Nasal membranes, eardrums, or retinas which in turn represent it in electrical signals to our brains. Our brains then interpret it according to their own predefined methods.

As long as you want to be an evolutionist, everything you look at will support evolution. As long as I want to be a creationist, everything will support creation.
Thus it is and thus it must remain. It is a matter of choice.
Happy New Year
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3895 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/22/2007 7:07:09 PM
Rockondon
What I have been presenting, is to me, proof of creation/ID.

What constitutes proof is a variable.

Yes, I made an error on the year of Cas A. I’m human and often make numerical errors. The data posted by Ravenstar66 confirms the remnant/debris velocity. The velocity figures are even faster than what I calculated from the PopSci published data. I trust the answers I get from computers but only after being certain of the accuracy of the input data.

Paul wrote in 1Thes 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” To my own satisfaction, I have sought to do just that. Concerned that we might have affected the orbit of the Moon by all of out landings and the impacts of the empty fuel tanks and rocket motors used to calibrate the seismic instruments, I took the available published data regarding the moon and proceeded to apply the Newtonian math to the known data. Proving both the Newtonian math and the data. At least to my own satisfaction. The result I attempted to post but when I examined what actually showed up in the post, I found it missing a few lines of code. I checked the original and the lines were there. I can only presume that, with all the advance warning about a possible post of such a program, someone was prepared to prevent it posting accurately. Either to discredit me or to prevent the truth from being so easily obtained. Opposition is essential. If there were no resistance to an oar in the water, how would one paddle a boat? I emailed a complete listing to one person who asked for it. I doubt I can do that for everyone. My suggestion is that everyone should put at least some degree of effort of their own into it. The essence of the program is there, If it can be read and understood, the missing lines may be restored in each individual’s unique way. It is the Newtonian Math I was trying to express in a precise mathematical language. Force of gravity and acceleration are the two basic components It is not just drawing a circle or an ellipse. It is force acting on mass over a distance. Even the time interval between calculations is a variable which the user may alter. The default numbers in the original resulted in a stable model of the orbit of the Moon in two dimensional space with a fixed Earth. Not real world but I don’t know all the other data and my computer it was written on was incapable of making the vast number calculations needed for a 3D real world model. It was adequate to prove to me the validity of the published data and the Newtonian Math. It can do the same for anyone willing to put forth the effort to figure it out. Originally it took hours to run and see meaningful results. On much faster modern computers, it produces results in seconds. The results I wanted to see were with regard to how much change occurred with the supposedly insignificant changes of the empty fuel tanks and engines of the stage which was used to break earth orbit of the Saturn Five rockets. It was left behind as soon as its fuel was exhausted so as to require less fuel to achieve orbital insertion and manuvering around the moon. They provided known mass impacting the moon in known locations at known velocity after the Astronauts were gone. These impacts were said to have made the Moon ring like a bell for over an hour. After we stopped sending men to the Moon, A sisemic event was registered on the equipment which was said to have caused the Moon to ring like a bell for over 4 hours. It was attributed to a meteor impact on the far side of the Moon. It seemed to me that Such an impact would just balance the effect of the multiple impacts, used to calibrate the instruments, which all occurred on the near side of the Moon. All of those we caused would have tended to move the Moon outward into a higher orbit while the one big one would have cancelled or balanced that effect. The instruments were never reported to have detected any additional events of that magnitued. I used double precision math to see how little an impact was required to alter the Moon’s orbit.

Once the Newtonian math is understood and the Gravitational “Sling Shot” assist is understood, the phenomenal velocity of the remnants / debris from exploded stars becomes relevant. The portion of the debris from the three mentioned supernovae have nothing between them and the solar system to either block or decelerate it. No, not even the combined gravity of the Galaxy. The velocity is over 10 times the average star velocity which keeps the stars in their courses. I have posted an ID method by which such debris might be assembled, decelerated, and parked in orbits such as we see. The math says it won’t happen by accident. I am not trying to claim that all supernovae have such residual velocities. I’m only interpreting the existing observational data. The same data which others use to support Evolution. The difference is that the Old evolution and accretion theories leave out the newly observed phenomenal relative velocity of Supernova debris. They generally refer to velocities which are more like hurricanes and tornados in Earth’s atmosphere. Even the much fiercer observed weather on Jupiter is dwarfed by the Phenomenal interstellar weather these observations forewarn us of. I am not talking If such debris will ever pass through the system, I’m reiterating the Scriptural Prophecy that has been there warning us for millennia. It is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN.

We have been progressing toward space exploration and rapid Technological Advance. I am encouraging that Technological Advance and even attempting to spur it on to greater speed. We need millions of people and ships with all the necessary technology to do mining operations in ultra cold of interstellar space, speed to get there, Computers that can do the necessary calculations for trajectories needed, The task seems insurmountable but so do many of the things we have done from the perspective of 2000 years ago.

Those who take the time and effort needed to check out for themselves, can find out what I learned playing with the input numbers to the Moon Orbit Model Program. Do the math for yourself and find out just how precarious orbits are. The fact that they can be stable for Billions of years with impacts and volcanic eruptions going on is miraculous.

How can I tell people who can’t understand the math how important velocity and direction are to orbital insertion and stability? I’m asked what all the star data has to do with creation and I wonder: How can they not see it? How can others not see what I see about the precarious orbit of Earth in the life supporting liquid water zone around the Sun? What might the impact of high velocity debris from a nearby supernova do to the temperature of our Sun? How precarious is this lifezone orbit we have apparently enjoyed for all these evolutionary millions of years?

There are some major flaws in the theory of Evolution. The biggest is the length of time the Earth would have had to remain stable without any mass extinction events. The next biggest, in my opinion is the variableness of radioactive decay rates. Sure, in laboratory controlled conditions the decay rate is consistant. But it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that nuclear reactors can cut the millions of years at which U235 decays down to a mere 20 years. How can evolutionists hold to such a far fetched notion as being able to tell the age of the earth by the amount of radioactive isotopes in a tiny sample which they have absolutely no record of the conditions it has been in. Tree rings I can believe. One can even discern the weather conditions from them and link from one tree to another. Pollen counts in ice layers of compression and thermal surface melt layers are another story. To me, trying to tell how old an ice layer is in a sample is like trying to tell how deep the snow was last month by measuring what is there today. There have been days when I’ve felt the invisible CO2 increase due to a forest fire in a neighbor State. We don’t keep records of that kind of thing so how can we accurately interpret what we find in the Ice core samples?

The same observational evidence which is used to support Evolution also supports Creation. The difference is in what variables are taken into account in what order and significance. One scientist may interpret an increased CO2 percentage in an ice core sample as indicative of a global CO2 level for a hundred years. Another may interpret it as indicative of a forest fire and single hard winter with unusual storm activity or the eruption of a volcano like Krakatoa. Who is right? Why the Professor with the most tenure would be my bet.

Ravenstar66
Good points. Growth rates can be very deceiving. Like statistics it is a matter of what sample you take where. The relevance is in the relation to what I've just posted regarding ice core samples and CO2 density. Who is keeping the records? Where and how are they taking samples? How many samples from how wide an area? Etc. Etc. Etc...

It is all a matter of Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How.

Happy Hanukah
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3889 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2007 1:54:45 PM
Why should I be surprised that we have Anti-Mormons in the group. Good of you to balance the equation. Of course we are all free to examine both sides. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is only the fastest growing religion on the face of the planet. But you see here fulfillment of the first prophecy regarding Smith I paraphrased. Of course we can’t have the truth published unopposed. That wouldn’t be fair. We also have clear confirmation of the Atheistic attitude of the intelligencia who invented Science to repress God. It is true that some prophecies go unfulfilled due to the agency of man. Jonah foretold the destruction of Nineveh and was extremely disappointed when the whole city repented and were spared. Yet Jesus commends Jonah as a great prophet and we have not a single fulfilled prophecy from him. Joseph Smith on the other hand has many fulfilled prophecies. There would be no reason to put Joseph Smith down if he were not a threat to the beliefs of the workers of evil. If there were nothing to Joseph Smith’s prophecies, there would be no need for such adamant opposition. The greater the opposition, the more likely that there is something important there.

I was merely responding to questions posed by another reader. I’m an Apostate of the LDS religion myself but like the witnesses, I cannot deny the truth. The Root of Apostate is the same as the root of Apostle. I’m think of myself as a graduate of the LDS religion. I’ve learned to discern truth from error for myself. The more you rub some things, the bigger they get.

There are genuine seekers of truth and there are those who are of the mind set, don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. There are also those who just want to have fun and don’t really care about truth.

In a sense this is a prophecy, or maybe a restatement of an old one. There is a storm coming and it is not a weather related storm of this planet’s atmosphere. Such can be devastating. This one will darken the sun and turn the moon to blood. Regardless of whether or not any of us can get out there and divert some of the larger chunks from their destructive paths, The Gas and Dust with it could alter the life zone and be a mass extinction event Burning the entire surface of this planet. Stuff traveling so fast it doesn’t have time to burn up in the atmosphere. Penetrating deep enough that even those hiding in fallout shelters may be unable to survive or have a surface to return to when the storm passes. The ancient prophecy has always been that the Earth would be cleansed by fire. All I’m doing is letting you all know how the Fire cleansing can happen from a scientific point of view. If you choose to ignore it and burn, you are free to choose that. I would like to do all in my power to be part of the makers rather than the shakers.

I have been tasked to present a testable provable theory

This is ID Intelligent Directed creation.
Maybe, but you still have not provided the hypotheses and the testable theories for this assumption.


I have no idea where sufficient funds and technology will come from to test this theory, but I believe we are the manifestation of God's infinite creativity. As his offspring we are expected to become like him. We must stop pushing him onto higher and higher unreachable pedestals as we begin to see our likeness to him. In a previous post, I quoted Romans 8 about our being joint heirs with Christ. Here I refer you to Jesus parable of the talents. Different rewards for different degrees of success dealing with what we have been given. The best of whom was made ruler over 10 cities.
Jesus is the name we use to refer to the Body which began Flesh and Bone existence coincident with the arrival of light from a nearby supernova. The Spirit entity whose temple that body is, was known as YHWH translated Jehovah in some cases, Jeshua in others both having a feminine "a" sound at the end which is why the Greeks and Latin/Romans substituted the masculine "us" making it Jesus. This Spirit Entity claims to have created this earth, not out of nothing as many have supposed, but out of already existing materials in a carefully planned place (see Abraham 3:24-26) Which contrary to the ant Mormon words of Rockondon is still published in the pearl of great price. It was to be a place where we, the spirit offspring of the same Father as the spirit entity YHWH were to obtain mortal bodies and be tested.

The following is a plan, as well as an explanation of another way in which such diverse planets made of heavy metals expelled as we witness having occurred in SN1987A and Cass A with very high velocities may be intelligently created and decelerated, and parked, in planned stable orbits.


Super 200 Solar Distant
Nova ~ly System Star

\|/==================\\
-*-================= -==================*
/|\==================//

On the left is a supernova about 200 light years distant from the solar system the light from which arrived between 1BC and 1AD. That portion of the debris effected by the Sun's gravity and calculated to either impact the sun or one of the planets in orbit around the sun needs to be nudged into trajectories which will cause it to miss the sun, or planet and sun, to impact with other intelligently nudged chunks on the side opposite the sun from the origin using the sun's gravity in addition to thrust provided by fissionable material mined from the debris itself, thus using the very force which set it in motion at such High velocity it may be intelligently diverted it into carefully selected collision points along the path beyond the Sun.

Since this debris is already traveling well above escape velocity of the solar system, it will gain velocity in the process having more time for gravitational acceleration than gravitational deceleration via the Sun.

Selecting which chunks of debris impact our ID forming planet will bring fissionable materials back into close proximity which will result in neutrons being emitted by the fission of one atom being unable to escape the whole mass without triggering another fission. The non-fissionable materials should be directed to impact later to form a durable shell to contain this fissioning material. How this is to be done depends on what is available to be used and in what quantity. Mistakes have been made in the past possibly resulting in our Asteroid belt, Kuiper Belt and Ort Cloud. The nuclear fission going on inside the shell inflates it gently like a balloon. At appropriate and variable times (see along the right side of the drawing) Fission explosions may be set off to open holes in the shell and vent the Gas and dust byproducts of fission as deceleration thrust as well as retro-thrust to insert the newly ID formed planet into stable orbit around the target star.

Obviously this will require a long time so we best work on becoming immortal as it is believed Jesus is. It will also require significant advance in technology as well. Those who hope to be caught up to meet him in the air, or above the air in vacuum in his City Ship described in Rev. 21, will need to throw themselves up there. Hopefully His database will be far superior and make up for any lack we have in our preparations. If we wish to live with Him, we should be prepared to participate in the work He has told us he is engaged in, namely creating worlds without number.


Oh, one more thing, those who think electrons are not emitted from the nucleus of atoms need to look up the definition of Beta particles.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3887 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/21/2007 1:40:13 AM
To Ravenstar66 and all
Thanks and appologies
Long post. My appologies to those offended by my opinions stated earlier, It is difficult to vent here. Frustration is difficult to deal with when people don't understand what one writes. I agree that the things you refer to as opinion were just that. I usually express them as opinions. Sometimes such outbusrts are necessary to catch the attention of persons about whom such opinions are held.

You quote from some older theories and hypothisises. The facts I have been referring to have always been facts. The event of SN1987A was over 140,000 years ago. The Event of Cass A was over 10,000 years ago. The observation of these two theory altering events are a mere 20 and 200 years ago. The actual measurement of the velocity of the debris is less than 10 years old. Anything written before 2001 may need serious revision. There is a serious problem with the old theories. Let me point out that I do not refute any observed phenomena.
I have presented three major facts ONE: SN1987A debris velocity. TWO: Cass A Debris velocity. THREE Gravity Sling shot math and explaination.

It may well be that there have been big enough stars explode whose escape velocities have been far greater than the 0.2c of SN1987A. Bear in mind that this is just a rough estimate and may be less that 1 significant digit of accuracy. It was originally said that SN1987A was the star named Sandulek. Sandulek was believed to be in our galaxy less than 50,000 light years away. Then later it was said that SN1987A was 100,000 light years distant. Later still it was published that SN1987A was 140,000 light years away. Obviously these diverse figures have a dramatic effect on all other calculations. The farther away we presume it to be, the faster its debris calculates to be moving based on the size of the optical image and the angle of view represented by each pixel of the image. I'm a little more inclined to believe the distance figures for Cass A due to its continuous presence in the northern sky. Only Southern hemisphere and space telescope astronomers can observe SN1987A.


I'm sorry I must have missed the sources for this information, could you provide a link? What recently observed phenomena?


See last two paragraphs of post just prior to yours.


Maybe, but you still have not provided the hypotheses and the testable theories for this assumption.


I don't feel obligated to provide the hypotheses and testable theories because I am not the originator. I'm using Newtonian math and published observed phenomena.


I haven't seen any corraborating proof of Joseph Smith's stuff either, I'm still waiting to see those golden tablets, or at least read something from an accredited institute that they have been verified and studied. Funny, I am part Cherokee and have quite a few good friends among the First Nations peoples...none of them ever mentioned anything about there being any sort of "christianity" or Judaism here before the white man came... now why would god wait for white men to come to America before revealing himself in "prophecy"? Does god have a problem with First Nations peoples? They were here for over 10,000 years, and God never spoke to them? Why? I am not "bashing" Mormonism, but like any other religion the "evidence" is weak.


Never is an infinite time. Are you sure? How do you know?
Have you sincerely looked for evidence? Have you read the Book of Mormon?

The Archeological evidence is very strong. Egyptian influence in Pyramids of Central and South America, The Tree of Life Stone, The Statues of big headed people attributed to even more ancient inhabitants of Americas. Etc. Etc. Etc. All parallel the Book of Mormon Story and could not possibly have been known by an uneducated farm boy from Vermont who moved to New York when crops failed.

Of course the archeologists who are obliged to keep to the Atheistic views of the Scientific Intelligencia will deny and spin it so as not to be connected. After all, most of them have never read the Book of Mormon either.

You mentioned the possibility of Mormons becoming planetary rulers. The simple straight forward answer is that it is part of the doctrine and Biblically supported in Hebrews Chapter 8 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we
are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are]
not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be
revealed in us." but, as mentioned before, most Mormons do not know their own doctrine and are slow to adopt it in favor of their long held catholic and protestent views.

Prophecy and Prophetic fulfillment would seem to be appropriate evidence to be presented in support of Creation. So I'm going to respond to these queries and hope that readers are suffeciently mature not to be offended.

One very well fulfilled prophecy is in regard to Joseph Smith Jr. and the Book of Mormon. That his name would be had for good and evil all over the world. ref omitted as irrelevant to thread.

The main prophecy of interest to this thread is the New Star Prophecy found in


Helaman Chapter 14
1 AND now it came to pass that Samuel, the Lamanite, did prophesy a great many more things which cannot be written.

2 And behold, he said unto them: Behold, I give unto you a sign; for five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name.

3 And behold, this will I give unto you for a sign at the time of his coming; for behold, there shall be great lights in heaven, insomuch that in the night before he cometh there shall be no darkness, insomuch that it shall appear unto man as if it was day.

4 Therefore, there shall be one day and a night and a day, as if it were one day and there were no night; and this shall be unto you for a sign; for ye shall know of the rising of the sun and also of its setting; therefore they shall know of a surety that there shall be two days and a night; nevertheless the night shall not be darkened; and it shall be the night before he is born.


And its fulfillment which is also supported in the nativity stories in the Bible.



3 Nephi Chapter 1
18 For they knew that the prophets had testified of these things for many years, and that the sign which had been given was already at hand; and they began to fear because of their iniquity and their unbelief.

19 And it came to pass that there was no darkness in all that night, but it was as light as though it was mid-day. And it came to pass that the sun did rise in the morning again, according to its proper order; and they knew that it was the day that the Lord should be born, because of the sign which had been given.

20 And it had come to pass, yea, all things, every whit, according to the words of the prophets.

21 And it came to pass also that a new star did appear, according to the word.


Another issue I've not dealt with is the Gold plates which Ravenstar66 referred to. There are 12 witnesses to the actuality of such plates. All of whom went to their graves without recanting their testimony thereof even though most apostatized from the church. All were treated badly by unbelievers an don't want to be believers. With such evidence of the wickedness of men, I have no problem with the Gold being witheld due to the information recorded thereon. There was a portion thereof which was sealed and Joseph was not permitted to translate it. Today there are several sites claiming to be publishing the material contained in the sealed portion. The earliest is copyrighted 1987 and I saw it in 1997. The others, in my opinion are attempts to deceive and/or test us. The 1987 version seems worthy of being sealed while the others are just elaborate and extensive commentaries on existing unsealed scripture. Search for Sacred Scriptures or The Sealed Portion. Either will produce results. Good hunting.
: Seasons Greetings
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3885 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/20/2007 9:32:50 AM

Sorry but even the greatest eruptions of suppervolcanoes have not had enough force to move the earths mass in any way. The thrust produced, although massive, is spread out over the entire mass of the planet.


How do you know?


Again I say, there is nothing in the acreation disk theory to proclude this. If a star forming only throws out lighter elements, then they would neciserily be closer to the parent star. Please explain how this is procluded in the acreation disk theroy.


Still does not deal with insuffecient rotational velocity to achieve orbit.



It makes perfect sense when you remmber that stars when forming, throw out most of the heavy ellements and some of the lighter ellements as well. The heavier ellements are more ussualy imparted with less velocity and so stay close to the star and the lighter ellements are imparted with greater velocity and so tavel further, thus the mix of elements is spread. This is why we see rocky planets, then gas giants, then ice planets.


Nice Old Hypothesis but Unproven theory. I agree that a wide range of velocities may result from Supernovae, but I'm referring to the ones we have been observing lately.


Incorect. You are making the mistake of looking at it on a small scale (universaly speaking). You are forgeting that the gravity of galaxies has an effect, as dose the gravity of all the other objects that it passes and sometimes colides with. If you have one explosin casting material acros the galaxy, you can gaurantee that it will eventally meat up with the material cast off by another explosion at another point of the galaxy. And what happens when to fast moving things hit each other? They slow down.


No I am not ignorant of the black holes at the center of galaxies and the velocity required to balance or escape them. Here in the Milky Way, the typical stellar velocity is between 210 and 240 km/s. This velocity represents the null or lower limit of escape velocity from the Milky Way. This makes anything moving faster than about 150 miles per second over the limit. 0.1c is 18,600 miles per second. This figure was published in Science Magazine 10 years after the fact as the residual velocity of SN1987a. That is over 66 million miles per hour. Well above the escape velocity of the Large Magellanic cloud.

Dec 2006 pg 16-17 Popular Science published the velocity of Cassiopiae A at 12 million miles per hour. That is over 3000 miles per second. This is also suffeciently above the escape velocity for the Milky Way at its current distance from the center. Cass A is only 10,000 light years away from us. Granted we still have a lot of time on Cass A but the one that worries me is the one described in the Book of Mormon. It is also mentioned in the Bible but with much less significance. Time is skewed by distance. We only began seeing the light emitted from SN1987A 20 years ago. It may be 140,000 light years distant. Even at 0.1c its debris will not reach us for at least 1.4 million years. Cass A was observed only a couple hundred years ago. Its debris at .02c is still 500,000 years away. The Star of David, Star of Bethlehem, New Star of the Book of Mormon lit the night side of Earth for a whole night as brightly as the Sun. If it was anything like either SN1987A or Cass A then it had to be much closer to have its ultra bright phase light Earth for 8 hours or so as brightly as the Sun. Its light got here 2007 years ago. If it were only 200 light years distant, and its velocity were similar to SN1987A, it is overdue. Debris from this closer Supernova is now dark. We can no longer see it. We have only the records made by humans a long time ago to warn us of it.
Merry Christmas
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3881 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/19/2007 4:25:26 PM

WHAT FACTS!?!?!? I've seen nothing that cannot be explained by natural phenomena. The human body is EXTREMELY complex but this complexity is what one expects after billions of years of evolution. I've heard some say the universe is unusually organized and perfect, yet there are explosions and collisions occurring constantly. What do you see in the world that cannot be explained by something other than a designer? Simple forces are always resulting in complex phenomena.


Apparently you have not been reading what I’ve been writing. It is unfair of you to ask for facts outside those already observed. What I've been telling you is your explanations are no longer valid. The Facts are what they have always been. It is your personal natural explanations which are faulty. You are living in the 18th century and we are now in the 21st century. The biggest fact is that planetary coalescence in a cloud of debris is an old full of holes idea. Because I point out the absence of something, you pooh pooh the logic. The Facts are that the planets all have significantly different chemical makeup. This does not make logical sense if they all came from the same supernova debris. The system should have been more homogenous. The fact that the Earth, Mars, Mercury, and Venus are Rocky and the outer planets were Gas giants, used to be expected to be the way we should find other planetary systems. Then we find a super Jupiter in orbit around a nearby star where a Mercury like planet should be. The theory fell apart. It no longer can be accepted. You are acting like the old religious leaders of Galileo's time. You are insisting that the earth is the center of the universe when moons can be observed to go around other planets. You are rejecting the facts because if someone were to convince you that an intelligent director (ID) were involved then said intelligent director would have some right to say how his planets should be used. You would be morally obligated to behave in a manner he has specified. You obviously don't want to be obligated to anyone so you reject the obvious just as the old church leaders rejected the truth because they were in a power and control position. Their job was on the line. If they were believed to be wrong, then everything else they taught could be brought into question.

You need to watch the Discovery channel and the History channel a bit more and a little less Spike and MTV. In order for the elements beyond Iron 26 in the periodic table to be here, they had to not only have been produced in the cataclysmic explosion of a star, but blown out from that star's gravity well with sufficient velocity to escape that gravity well. If they came from a super nova of our own sun, then our sun is not in its proper place in the chart of star lives. The rotational velocity of our sun is way too slow to have spun out planets with sufficient orbital velocity to remain in orbit.

Gravity can only hold fusion reactions together up to Iron. In every place where fission is going on, there is also a little fusion going on. Breeder reactors are the most obvious evidence of this. U238 is becoming U239 which gives up an electron from the nucleus changing its atomic number from 92 to 93. Uranium becomes Neptunium. But that doesn't stop there because another electron is soon emitted decreasing the negative charge in the nucleus another notch to up the atomic number to 94 Plutonium. How can we know this if the elements are not here? How can you explain it in your natural way? This is ID Intelligent Directed creation. We are doing. It used to be said that it didn't happen in the natural world, but then they found Plutonium in the ground in Africa. Oh Oh, we have natural atomic reactors functioning on the earth? Now we have a much bigger problem. As I explained previously, When 1 CC of U235 is completely fissioned to its most common fission byproducts, these byproduct need more elbow room. They want to spread out to fill 1900+cc of space. That is a humongous explosive force. It is a force in the neighborhood of sending debris outward at velocities of 0.3c or 1/3 the velocity of light. Well above the required escape velocity for a large star. In fact it is so far above escape velocity that the residual velocity of the debris is reported to be in the millions (plural) of miles per hour range. There is nothing out there to slow it down once it gets past the limits of the gravity well of its origin.

Fission going under our feet has a similar consequence. It produces volcanic eruptions. These volcanic eruptions may serve as thrusters to keep a planet in a stable orbit. Or they could be used in bigger size to decelerate a planet and park it in a nice stable orbit. But that would leave a huge hole or hollow space behind. Well, I'll leave it there as If I write too long a post it won't be read and you apparently are not absorbing what I've been writing anyway.

Bright1Raziel
Good stuff. Now go take a look at the published velocities of the supernova debris.

Yes, the range of possibilites is very large. Perhaps infinite. What I am talking about is the recently observed phenomena.

No the old model did not predict gas giants in the close orbital position.

The biblical account was written in extreme brevaty for the sake of newly freed uneducated slaves whose attention span was too short to take in the whole thing. I'm a fan of the restored gospel through Joseph Smith Jr. the Prophet. At the risk of decreasing my own credibility even more, I am no longer a member of the main stream LDS church but still attend services regularly. The published doctrine differs from what the general membership believs because many have only recently been converted mostly from the catholic or protestant faiths. They tend to let go of the old doctrine slowly.
By the way, Whose interpretation of the Biblical account to you adhere to?
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3877 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/19/2007 4:04:57 AM
Well, rockondon, CharlesEdm, Feral and others who are on the side of evolution,
Allow me to simplify the evidence given by the program if it had posted correctly.
I assure you that the source is still complete. Besides, I could recreate the program
if needed as it is quite brief. I believe that to truly understand the principles
one must do the math for oneself. This means writing your own program
and spending time debugging it.

It would be easier if I could include drawings or pictures.

It would be fun if someone would email me the info on how to insert those pretty lighter
background quote boxes too.

*----------------.----------------.

In the above drawing: On the left we have a piece of debris from a supernova.
On the right a Gravity object with space distance on either side equally spaced
representing the range of gravity of the central object.
The range of gravity for any object may be defined as:
The distance from the balance or null gravity point between two objects
to either object.
The slingshot effect in laman's terms describes the FACT that the amount of time
required for the Acceleration to affect the piece of debris is longer than the
amount of time available in the second space for deceleration to occur on the
same object over the same distance. When relative initial velocity is already
in excess of the required escape velocity.

There are more variables to consider but in a nutshell that is how it works.


It would be more appropriate to represent the path of the debris as a curve.
Think of it as a curve looked on edgewise coming out of the screen on one side
and into the screen on the other.

The net result of this newly observed and aptly applied principle is that anything
coming from outside the effective gravitational field of a star or planet
will leave with a net increase in relative velocity.

In other words, no retro rocket fire no orbital insertion.
Collisions do happen and do alter the velocity of both objects. However,
since both objects are in independant relative motion the center of the gravitational
effect is different from the actual location of the target object. This principle makes
for a lot more misses than hits. Thankfully because hits are quite life and peace
destructive. Think of it is being pulled like a ball on a string by your hand.
Your hand moves and so the ball follows where the hand was rather than where it is.

Science was organized to refute what many percieved as flaws in Religious dogma.
Science, being a creation of man, is subject to the same corrupting influences as Religion.
Science was a word which has been adopted into the English language. Its original
meaning was Truth. When religious dogma is refuted by observed phenomena it must be
discarded just as Scientific theories must be discarded or revised
when new observations are perceived. Unfortunately not everyone is willing or able to
give up false doctrine. For those of Galileo's time, It was their livelyhood at stake.

We must accept as proof of creation the same observed facts that support evolution.
We must simply see them more completely, more accurately.
We must be willing to see them in pure mathematical terms. If the math and the phenomena
do not match, one or the other must be revised.
Most of us have difficulty revising the observed phenomena.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3870 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/18/2007 4:27:17 PM
Bright1Raziel

I am making the assertion that the debris from supernovae must be intelligently bound back into planetary masses which must then additionally be decellerated and inserted into stellar orbits in order for the stars to be visible rather than obscured by debris from innumerable stellar explosions.

Modern astronomers have begun to accept that in order for these rocks we live on to have the heavier elements the Sun would have had to have once been a supernova or part of one. The absence of evidence of such heavier elements in the solar spectra is evidence that this is not the case. The alternative is planetary insertion. The rotational velocity required for debris to remain in orbit after such a local supernova is yet another factor refuting the accidental acretion into planets.

Yet another new evidence is the discovery of huge planets in the inner orbital positions of nearby stars. This also refutes the validity of the acretion disc theory.

The orbital plane of the Solar System provides yet another evidence of intelligent creation.

I wish the responders would resist the temptation to add the suffix ism to creation. It is not the established ism of creation that this thread is about as I read the OP. It is Creation evidence which is being sought. Most of that evidence cannot help but be the same evidence being used to support evolution. We are after all talking about the same universe. What we have is new observations which refute old theories and when the new observations are taken into account the old theories must be revised or discarded. Not everybody is keeping up with the new observations. We have put satelites in orbit brothers and sisters. Some of us are not ignorant of this fact. The process of doing it requires Rocket Science. Rocket Science is much more logical than Religious Dogma. It works in the logic circuits of computers. We may have all started out with well wired brains with strong instincts but many of us have cross wired and neutralized a lot of those instincts. Some with positive results like being able to handle flying and fire. While others have negative results like belief in a God that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time and believing that these little rocks we live on could have happened by accident.

The meat that has been requested is the same meat being consumed by evolution proponants. It merely requires taking in the additional evidence and disgarding the false disproved notions of the past regarding it to be a creation proponent. We don't have to prove who or what the intelligence is to perceive the evidence of the works of that intelligence. We merely have to progress to the point of doing some of the things done by intelligence to see that most of the things we do observe are the result of intelligent intervention.

If the debris from observed supernovae is moving as fast as we can see that it is, and calculate that it must be in order to be there at all, then the observed phenomena do match the mathematical models and vice versa.

If you can quit saying in your mind : don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up. Then you might be able to perceive the facts which refute the old interpretations of the data. Quit holding on to obsolete science and get into Rocket Science. If you can't beat the nerds, you ought to try becoming one.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3866 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 6:25:07 PM
I hope you guys got your copy before someone tampered with it. I see now that the copy on the forum is missing a couple of lines. That will definately generate a goto error. I just checked the original and it still runs on my computer and the lines are there. Obviously somebody doesn't want this truth known.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3862 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/17/2007 1:31:14 PM
FrogO_Oeyes appears to be attempting to cajole me into giving away hours of programming work for free to who knows how many users. My friend counseled me that I should be very indignant about this. He would be.

FrogO_Oeyes wrote: “This conclusion is wrong. Decay rate IS constant. It's measured in half-lives, which means a greater total amount is lost early than late. It decays into known elements, and the proportions of those known elements to one another allows elapsed time to be determined. The problem with this creationist argument is that nuclear reactors are assumed to depend on natural decay of uranium. They do not. Enriched [which is only 3% to 5% concentration U235 is bombarded with neutrons, which forcibly converts it to U236. The U236 decays MUCH faster, releasing much more energy than was used to start the fission reaction. I suspect that whoever wrote that little "factoid" about decay rates knew the truth, but deliberately obscured it in order to further the creationist agenda. Nuclear reactors need fresh fuel because they do not use the natural decay of U235 - they destroy it.”

U236 apparently has such a short half life that it is not even mentioned in my college text on the subject. The impact of a neutron on the nucleus results in the fission of the U235 atom into commonly Sr90 and Xe143 plus 3 neutrons. One of these neutrons, with the help of a moderator, triggers another U235 atom to fission while the other two escape the fuel mass.
What the College text leaves out is the extreme volume increase this results in. 1cc of U235 typically results in over 1900cc of byproducts. Fortunately the greater volume is the gas Xenon which is Nobel and vented to the atmosphere after the heat energy is used to produce electricity or destruction depending on wheter we are talking about generators or bombs.

I publish the following program on this site without warrenty or promises of any sort. It is merely presented as proof of the gravity mathematics which is used by NASA to “slingshot” Sattelites into faster velocities. The main principle was originally published by Sir Isaac Newton. I lay no clame to being the originator of the mathematics involved, I merely present them because readers of this forum have asked for it. Use of this program constitutes agreement that This site and the author shall be held guiltless of any dammage which may occur any time or any place now or in the future. It is presented primarily as an expression of the real world mathematical concepts. If the readers use it for any other purpose, The user assumes full responsibility for the consequences. No maintenance or other support of this program is offered or provided. No help file or other documentation will be provided. The claim has been made that the reader is familiar with the language in which it is written and able to understand it.

10 SCREEN 2:CLS:DEFDBL A-Z:LN=1:PI=3.14159265359#:C=180/PI:P2=2*PI
15 DQ=80:DIM X(DQ),Y(DQ):Z=2:MI=5280
20 PRINT,"MOON ORBIT"
30 X=1260295291#:Y=0:TH=PI/2:P=2360592#:V=2*PI*X/P:T=36000!
40 PRINT X/MI;:INPUT "X";A$:IF A$ "" THEN X=MI*VAL(A$)
50 PRINT Y/MI;:INPUT "Y";A$:IF A$ "" THEN Y=MI*VAL(A$)
60 PRINT TH*C;:INPUT "é";A$:IF A$ "" THEN TH=VAL(A$)/C
70 PRINT V;:INPUT "V";A$:IF A$ "" THEN V=VAL(A$)
80 PRINT T;:INPUT "T";A$:IF A$ "" THEN T=VAL(A$)
85 PRINT " S=1";:INPUT S:IF S=0 THEN S=1
90 R=SQR(X*X+Y*Y):H=1.5*R:VV=.8*H:WINDOW (-H*S,-VV*S)-(H*S,VV*S)
100 VIEW (320,199)-(639,0):R1=MI*3963:GOSUB 500
110 T2=T*T:D=PI/P*T
120 TH=TH+D:K=D:L=0:G=-1.408851115D+16*1.331065111# :C=1'.9999900017706253#
130 F=.5*T2*G/(R*R):E=F/2:X(Q)=X:Y(Q)=Y:W=V:A=2*D:B=R
135 J=Q:Q=Q+1:IF Q>DQ THEN Q=0
140 M=T*V*COS(TH):N=T*V*SIN(TH):X(Q)=X(J)+M+E*COS(K):Y(Q)=Y(J)+N+E*SIN(K)
150 LINE(X(J),Y(J))-(X(Q),Y(Q)):M=M+F*COS(K):N=N+F*SIN(K)
152 J=Q:Q=Q+1:IF Q>DQ THEN Q=0
154 U=Z:Z=Z+1:IF Z>DQ THEN Z=0
156 LINE(X(U),Y(U))-(X(Z),Y(Z)),0
160 V=SQR(M*M+N*N)/T*C:TP=TH:IF M=0 THEN M=-1E-38)
170 TH=ATN(N/M):IF M 1 THEN TP=TP+P2:GOTO 190
210 IF TD 1 THEN L=L+P2:GOTO 250
270 IF D<-1 THEN L=L-P2:GOTO 250
280 L=K:K=K+D:TH=TH+TD:B=SQR(X(J)*X(J)+Y(J)*Y(J)):C=1-1/(B*B)
290 GOTO 140
500 CY1=0:CX1=R1
510 WHILE I<3.15
520 CY=R1*SIN(I):CX=R1*COS(I)
530 LINE(CX,CY)-(CX1,CY1)
540 LINE(-CX,CY)-(-CX1,CY1)
550 LINE(-CX,-CY)-(-CX1,-CY1)
560 LINE(CX,-CY)-(CX1,-CY1):CX1=CX:CY1=CY
570 I=I+PI/20:WEND
580 RETURN


Have fun.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3857 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/16/2007 10:42:48 PM
Feral appears to be seeking the same thing the OP asks for, Proof, Evidence, and perhaps some text book from which Creation may be taught in school or outside of Sunday school.

A reason why creation should be taught outside Sunday School.

I guess what I am trying to do is point out that the currently taught evolution has just as many contradictions with Scientific Observable evidence as Creation in its Biblical Form.

What seems to be sought is a text book which will be acceptable to both sides with irrefutable evedence rather than speculation and conjecture.

Let me try to respond to Tom Scharle’s

Creationism

FABNAQ (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)


”1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism? “

YES

”1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect. “

The Bible is incorrect because people have misunderstood it. The original intended audience for the Bible was a bunch of newly freed slaves who were very poorly educated and had a very limited attention span. It is not so much that it is incorrect as incomplete. To put the whole truth before a bunch of newly freed uneducated slaves would have been futile. Better to give them the simplified version and let them try to disprove it.

I’ll try to keep this brief but will elaborate to death if necessary. It has been pointed out recently that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 conflict with one another over the order of creation. In the first account, Man came last while in the second account man came first and the other animals were brought to Adam to be named.

The restored gospel resolves this conflict by regarding the first creation as spiritual and the second physical. An analogy of two dimensional house plans may be used in which the roof is drawn first and the supporting structure is drawn afterward. So it is in an intelligently controlled Genetically engineered biological development system. Imagine a software program where Genetic code can be played with like words in a word processor. The end result being instantly shown in a graphic image.

”1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists? “

This has been well answered by the assertion that the Pope approved evolution.

”1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists? “

This issue has also been resolved by the reiteration of 1000 Post Adamic Fall years being equated to a single day in the presence of the fathers/designers (Eloheim is hebrew plural and should have been more accurately translated as Fathers). The false concept that: Adam brought death upon all by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Being refuted by the fact that all was given to Adam for food and all food must die when or before being eaten. In actuality the death curse was imposed upon only Adam and Eve by depriving them of access to the other important tree, The Tree of Life. Partaken of freely prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had another important side effect. It was an oral contraceptive. They lived a very long time without having children. Long enough for the Dinosaurs to have come and gone. Long enough for the fossil record to have frozen footprints of both humans and Dinosaurs in the same soft muck. (See Creation Evidences Museum)

”1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists? “

The young-life creationists simply have not been exposed to or have rejected the above scriptural facts.

”1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge? “

Scientific Evolution does a disservice to Science when it teaches as fact things which are not fact. Regardless of whether the theory of Evolution is fact or not, Some parts of Evolution theory have been subsequently been proved false. The whole concept of nuclear physics and Nuclear energy is that the natural decay rate of certain isotopes of certain elements is not constant as is required for calculating the age of earth based upon it. A Nuclear reactor takes what is assumed in theory to be millions of years for the half life of Unranium and in a mere 20 years, its nuclear fuel is spent. I also recounted the modern cow bone household oven baked and planted at a dig site. The students carbon dated it as 1200+ years old.

Perhaps I will answer some other FABNAQ (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)
in a future post. I don’t want to post something too long.

I would post my program but undoubtedly it would merely be criticized and poo pooed. Most would find it difficult to run. I do not feel obliged to publish in a peer reviewed publication because the Math it is based upon is so well accepted and used that I doubt I could find one that would publish it.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3848 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/14/2007 2:14:18 AM
I am not attempting to refute any actual observed phenomenon. I have not seen any computer models of planetary formation. The only ones I know of are the ones formed in the computer brains of people attempting to explain how the solar system formed.

There are far more real computer models of planetary orbits and trajectories for space probes like Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, and Cassini. These are real and have proved gravitational accelleration "sling shot" effect beyond reasonable doubt.

Having created such a model myself, I am inclined to believe these models with photographic results over the Human Philosophized models you refer to.

This model disregards two obvious facts: every particle of matter exerts a gravitational influence on every other particle, proportional to their proximity. There is matter basically everywhere in the universe. A supernova ejects matter in all directions. Other supernovae do the same. On average, their velocities will be zero - for every particle travelling in one direction, there should be one travelling in the opposite direction [a consequence of the probabilities you refer to]. Many of these will be away from each other, but those will be slowed by gravitational attractions behind them. Particles have only their initial velocity, and after that, gravity, friction, and impact will all serve to alter their initial velocity. It's apparent that your models don't properly account for the most basic and universal interaction of all: gravity.

No it does not, It simply sums them at a geometric center point and the method works at the interplanetary distances. I'm glad you brought this up, however, as it opens a door to discuss the issue of reduced perceived weight of cave explorers. There is no mass reduction, but a reduction in perceived weight is noticable in that it is much easier to climb walls and such deep underground. The fact that mass remains the same and has the same inertia tends to neutralize the apparent effect. People have had the feeling of not knowing for sure which way was up. The same as divers can experience in under water exploration.

Masscons on the Moon that affected the orbit of the Lunar orbiters are a strong proof of the effect you refer to. This affect is also being used to measure the Earth.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3846 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/14/2007 1:40:05 AM
False dichotomy - there are more than two possibilities, in fact there are thousands.

Please elaborate, I think this statement implies a vastly different definition of either Creation or Evolution or both.


If we lived in a closed system this argument might have merit. Unfortunately for you, the sun actually does exist. Outside forces have enough influence to help drive things on this wonderful planet of ours.

This opposite of entropy happens all the time without the need for intelligent intervention. Plants grow, icicles form, riverbanks are shaped, stalactites form, etc. More ordered things happen when outside forces drive them to do so.

Creation does not refute the existence of or continuing evolution of things under the interaction and direction of US. We are the manifestation of God's infinite creativity. What we do, He claim s credit for.
What we fail to do, He accepts the blame for.


I know, its so obvious. Since matter was blown outwards yet some remained behind, its so obvious that it was due to someone named God, who had a kid named Jesus, allowed him to be tortured/killed, etc etc. These events are not obvious correlations.

It is only obvious to those who put forth the effort to do the math for themselves. I'm sorry if this does not include everybody. It is hard to address such a potentially vast audience.


It is every evolutionist's dream to disprove evolution, or even to overturn some of the theory. Fame and fortune would be theirs if they did so.
Evolution does nothing to deny the existence of God. There's a lot of theistic evolutionists out there.
Pope John Paul II was an evolutionist, tell me more about he wanted to deny the existence of God.

I haven't met a single evolutionist who has expressed having such a dream.

Evolution theory is predictive and proves itself in practice a million times per day.
A couple centuries ago, scientists were almost entirely all creationists. When they went out to find evidence of a global flood, and such a world-wide phenomena would produce abundant evidence if it truly happened, they instead found evidence for evolution.

This is equivilant to the idea that looking out at the surface of the earth from the surface of the earth proves the earth is flat. GIGO Garbage In, Garbage Out. I explained before that each individual has a different definition of what constitutes proof to himself. Those who constantly exclude any piece of real data are subject to the GIGO principle.

Speaking of proof, please tell us some proofs for creationism such that it can proven or disproven in an experiment.

There is a website called the Creation Evidences Museum.
http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/se_evidn4.html

One proof is a set of footprints fossilized in a riverbed. Those of a Dinosaur along with those of two humans. In order for them to become fossilized in the same muck, the muck had to be soft when the prints were made. This therefore proves that Humans and Dinosaurs existed at the same time.

Another proof is the experiment of a Creationist putting a modern day beef roast in an oven and cooking it. After consuming the meat the bone was left in the oven while other meals were cooked in a normal manner for a couple of months. The bone was then taken to a proposed dig site and buried. The site was then subsequently used for a college class to dig up. The bone was dug up and taken to the lab where students carbon dated it as being over 1200 years old. The bone in actuality was no more than 3 years old.

My examples are old posts and I did not find them when I interrupted this writing to revisit the site.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3841 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/13/2007 9:58:48 AM
Since it is a well understood fact in the scientific community that one cannot prove a negative, It becomes necessary to prove the positive. We must therefore endeavour to prove either Creation or Evolution. Statistics is a science, a branch of Mathematics. Mathematics, is the strongest proof or evidence which to me obviously proves Creation. The odds against the accidental or unguided opposite of entropy movement toward organization rather then disorder is the strongest evidence that can be presented in support of intelligent creation.
The problem here seems to be what individuals accept as proof of anything.
It seems clear to me that:
IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A PLANET WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION AGAINST ENTROPY, THEN YOU CANNOT HAVE BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION WITHOUT INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION.
It is as simple as 2+2=4.

Matter blown out into space from supernovae travels at speeds more than 3600 times as fast as orbital debris. The laws of gravity by both observation and practical use clearly show that objects which do not collide with other objects with relative velocities in the range of the residual velocities of supernova debris cannot simply accidentally fall into orbit around stars. In other words, The math says The planets cannot exist without someone putting them there. Just as our space craft cannot accidentally park themselves in orbit. The range of possible insertion velocities is infinitessimal in comparison to the infinit range of inevitable failures.

This is such an obvious proof of creationism that it boggles the mind how intelligent human beings can fail to see it.

What we have here is an unwillingness on the part of Evolutionists to see the evidence against their Theory. They want so much to deny the existence of God that they look for any excuse to deny the obvious.

Since each individual has a different set of parameters that constitute proof, it becomes essential for agreement to be first established in this set of parameters that constitute proof. If the Mathematical proof in not in the individual's set of parameters, we must find some parameters that are in the individual's set of put them there.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3836 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/12/2007 11:50:24 PM
I am trying hard to comply with the OP. I have been posting what I consider to be mathematical proof that an INTELLIGENT director. Feral chooses to call this intelligent director Evolution. I believe most creationists have agreed among themselves to refer to him as God.

The mathematics I am referring to is rocket science but rocket science is not as hard for laymen to grasp as religious dogma. It would be nice to receive permission from a moderator to put the BASIC listing of a program here. It is a relatively short program which expresses the concept in the strict mathematical language required to tell computers how to calculate and graphically display results. Playing with it has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that the number of possible successful initial conditions for orbital insertion are infinitessimal in comparison to the number of unsuccessful orbital insertions. What this shows me is that we cannot even have planets for Evolution to occur on without an intelligent director of the matter. This intelligent director is our Creator.

I am not scripture thumping here, I'm illustrating proof of Creation vs. Evolution.

Have I misinterpreted the implied definition of Evolution as used in the OP? Do you Feral or the moderator desire to change the commonly held definition:

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-) KEY
NOUN:
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

2. The process of developing.
3. Gradual development.

Biology
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity

I point out that this definition conflicts with the scientific concept of entropy:

en·tro·py (ntr-p)

NOUN: plural- en·tro·pies Symbol S
For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

see AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY

This site does not permit the inclusion of pictures so it is difficult to express some concepts.

follow the leader
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3831 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/12/2007 2:32:09 AM

Hey, A nuclear physicist maybe? Yes, Well there are more places and times where nuclear interactions take place than here on Earth’s outer surface.

Attempting to stay in the flow of this thread, while also addressing the nuclear physics aspect. The thread seems to be addressing the idea of evolution being fact or theory.

Nuclear physics is also something which cannot at this time be observed directly.

My view is that in every observation there is always an observer. The further away from the thing being observed, the less the influence of the observer on the thing being observed, but that influence is never zero. It may be infinitessimal but it is never zero with respect to the thing being observed. To state it more plainly we, being offspring of the entity who claims to have created this planet, are more able to influence evolution than we realize. We sometimes fail to recognize and / or acknowledge our influence in what we observe. Our observations are also influenced by our neighbors near and far.

In my opinion, one area of minimal influence exists does exist.Mathematics is an area where observation has little influence if any. For Example, we are prohibited by the laws of Mathematics from making 2 + 2 = anything other than 4. I say this not for the eyes of a nuclear physicist, but for the other onlookers.

Fortunately we are pretty far from the nuclear explosions we observe all around us. Unfortunately, What many fail to see is that time gets skewed and the light from a nearby supernova is long since past by us. Debris from such a nearby supernova could be arriving soon. Debris traveling at speeds so fast we express it as a fraction of the speed of light. I once read that the escape velocity from a star massive enough to go supernova, is in the neighborhood of 0.2c (2 tenths the velocity of light) The Actual velocity of the debris from SN1987a was in the neighborhood of 0.3c. (3 tenths the velocity of light). That leaves a residual velocity in the neighborhood of 0.1c. (One tenth the velocity of light.) These velocities are common to a wide range of supernovae.

At this time of year, many people think about or read and relate the stories of the birth of Jesus Christ. Which tell of a new star. A star which some prophecy foretold and gave a group of wise men reason to travel to Bethlehem. The account in the Book of Mormon of this new star describes it as lighting the night side of the earth in the Americas as brightly as day. I contend that Jesus, who is recorded in scriptures as being responsible for the creation of many worlds or planets, synchronized his morta birth with the arrival of light from such a nearby supernova.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3826 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 12/6/2007 3:40:40 PM
CharlesEdm asks why I have not published. I have to ask in return how he knows I haven't? If one counts a forum like this, one might conclude that I have.

Because I haven't been published in such a peer review journal under this psuedonym, I respond that: First reason is because I am not the originator of the mathematical proof. Second reason is because I found the answer in such information which has already been published. I merely am bringing it to the attention of this group.

There are numerous TV programs on Science channels, expressing some of the facts. I don't feel responsible for getting the word out. I meerly took the published data and wrote a 2d model of our Moon orbiting Earth. I previously had played a game which allowed such two Dimensional orbital mathematics to affect a missle fired from a rocket graphic to a UFO graphic through a random number of worlds of random masses. Once fired, the effect of the various masses was imposed on the projectile. Once the concept was understood and a player could hit the target with relatively few attempts, the challenge among a group of us programmer/consultants to put the projectile into orbit around one of the simulated masses. I was intregued by the task. To my knowledge, the record was in the range of 5 or 6 orbits before impact of departure from the planetary mass. Eventually I had the time and means to write a model of my own rather than just play with somebody elses game. I wrote it so I could plug in any initial velocity, mass, angle of approach, and a few other variables such as ingerval between calculation points and graphic display magnification, The model is rather simple and brief enough that I could publish a listing here. It runs in GWBASIC.
With it, one can get a feel for the odds of success putting a mass like our Moon in stable orbit about an mass like Earth. I can tell you from experience that the range of possible successes is very small in comparison to the range of probable failures.
I do not know if this is an appropriate place to publish such a listing.
 bsofa
Joined: 11/23/2007
Msg: 3754 (view)
 
Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/28/2007 11:39:26 AM
I read the OP and a lot of what has gone before, forgive me if I don't take the time to read it all. A lot of good points have been made for both sides of this issue and I am not one to criticize. I have an answer which satisfies my curiosity and would be pleased to share it with this group, I just wonder how many will be interested. You see, the answer may be lengthy and exceed the allowed message length or violate some rules.

To state it simply, all one need do is do the math for oneself, or develop the necessary skills to enlist the aid of the fabulous technological device which makes this communication possible.

Do The Math Yourself.

It is difficult for us to pick a beginning, As humans, we have a beginning and so everything else must.

Science has finally begun to accept the fact that the earth is made of star stuff. the idea that it was our Sun which went nova at some time in the past and the planets all just came together on their own is where most psuedo scientists have philosophized.

Do the Math for yourselves.

In order for the planets to have formed around the origin of a supernova, the initial velocity of the debris would have to have exceeded the escape velocity for the original star predecessor of the Sun by some infinitesimal amount required for it to sit here in orbit.

I have done the math. It just doesn’t work that way. I’ll try to KISS (keep it simple stupid) for all you fish. I’ll use Nice round single significant digit factual numbers.

The initial velocity of debris from a supernova in the neighborhood of 0.3c (three tenths the velocity of light). The escape velocity of a star massive enough to go supernova is about 0.2c (two tenths the velocity of light). That leaves a residual velocity of 0.1c (one tenth the velocity of light or 18,600 miles per second). To put that in perspective, consider the space shuttle flying between 100 and 200 miles up. 17,000 miles per hour. The residual velocity of the debris from which we know planets are formed, is 3600 times as fast as our (unclassified) spacecraft.

It is relatively simple math to see that any object traveling faster than the escape velocity of another object will gain velocity as it approaches and lose velocity as it recedes. The difference in the amount of time the force of gravity has to work. Since its velocity as it recedes is greater, the amount of time gravity has to slow it down is less than the amount of time gravity has to accelerate it as it approaches. It is called the sling shot effect. It has been well publicized in recent times getting our unmanned probes to Jupiter and Saturn.

Due to length constraints, I must draw this to a close as If I make it too long, nobody will read it. The bottom line is it takes intelligent intervention to cause planetary bodies to form from the debris as well as get parked in stable orbits around stars. The math says it can’t happen by accident as often as we can see that it has happened in our own Solar System. Eight major planets, and a whole lot of other stuff from exploded or other relatively slow orbiting debris.

I say eight because Poor Pluto got demoted. Being smaller than the Moon of Earth and other larger than Pluto objects having been identified in the vicinity of Pluto’s orbit, we either have to add a whole bunch more bodies to the list of planets or take the ones that can only be seen with powerful telescopes off the list.


Damn it what is that X doing in place of Christ? My doing, I'm sorry.
 
Show ALL Forums