Christianity and Government

Post by s***@googlemail.com
NOTE: I originally posted this to alt.religion.christian, but I have a
feeling this group will give me more serious answers.
----------------
I was wondering what the thoughts are on how christianity has been
intertwined in our government.

Who is encompassed by "our"?

Please, when writing for an international readership, representing many
different Christian traditions (and some non-Chtristian ones), be careful to
indicate what pronouns refer to.

However, speaking for myself, I think I can point to the week in which Saddam
Hussein was sentenced to death, and PW Botha died.

PW Botha was a dictator every bit as nasty as Saddam Hussein, yet when he died
flags flew at half mast and he was offered a state funeral. He was allowed to
live unmolested for 15 years after his fall from power, which shows that
Christian values of forgiveness are still influential in our society and
government.

Saddam Hussein, however, was treated according to Muslim values.

See

http://methodius.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-to-do-with-old-dictators.html

for more.

--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

Matthew Johnson

2006-12-08 01:07:47 UTC

In article <svrdh.4161$***@trnddc03>, Steve Hayes says...
[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
PW Botha was a dictator every bit as nasty as Saddam Hussein,

But was he? I find this _really_ hard to believe. Did Botha ever use chemical
warfare against South African countrymen? Did Botha deliberately and
systematically imitate Hitler and Stalin's ruthless methods of seizing power and
holding on to it?

No, he did not. On the contrary: he actually championed constitutional reform, a
thing Hitler and Stalin (Saddam's idols) _never_ did.

You should not be too surprised that I express my skepticism here.

Post by Steve Hayes
yet when he died
flags flew at half mast and he was offered a state funeral.

And why not? Despite his destructive endorsement of apartheid, he did make many
positive contributions to the welfare of the South African state. He was even
the first South African government leader to recognize the need to talk with
Nelson Mandela.

So it is no wonder Mandela himself says that it was Botha who made the eventual
dismantling of Apartheid possible. I suppose one could see an analogy between
this and Khrushcev being the one who made Glasnost and Perestroika (and therefor
the Fall of Communism) possible in the USSR.

Post by Steve Hayes
He was allowed to
live unmolested for 15 years after his fall from power,

Not completely unmolested; he was fined for refusing to testify concerning the
violence perpretrated by the State Security Council.

Post by Steve Hayes
which shows that
Christian values of forgiveness are still influential in our society and
government.

To some extent, yes.

Post by Steve Hayes
Saddam Hussein, however, was treated according to Muslim values.

Hardly. Do you _really_ think the secular Iraqi court that tried him has _any_
resemblance to an Islamic court? If it did, sentence would have been carried out
already.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Steve Hayes

2006-12-12 04:14:09 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
PW Botha was a dictator every bit as nasty as Saddam Hussein,

Your questions are both disingenuous and irrelevant, as they are based on the
erroneous assumption that a ruler is only a dictator if he imitates the
methods of other dictators.

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, he did not. On the contrary: he actually championed constitutional reform, a
thing Hitler and Stalin (Saddam's idols) _never_ did.

Really?

Did Stalin never amend the constitution of the USSR?

Did Hitler never amend the constitution of Germany?

There are those who aver that PW Botha intended to introduce democratic
constitutional reforms, but was removed from office before he had the chance
to do so. I cannot comment on that, because I was not privy to his intentions.
But I do know that the constitutional reforms he did introduce were calculated
to entrench Afrikaner nationalist power, but eventually failed to do so
because they were the last straw that provoked revolt.

Post by Matthew Johnson
So it is no wonder Mandela himself says that it was Botha who made the eventual
dismantling of Apartheid possible. I suppose one could see an analogy between
this and Khrushcev being the one who made Glasnost and Perestroika (and therefor
the Fall of Communism) possible in the USSR.

And Brezhnev, and Andropov -- don't forget them.

Post by Steve Hayes
He was allowed to
live unmolested for 15 years after his fall from power,

Not completely unmolested; he was fined for refusing to testify concerning the
violence perpretrated by the State Security Council.

Well, compare his fate with that of Mussolini.

Post by Steve Hayes
Saddam Hussein, however, was treated according to Muslim values.

Hardly. Do you _really_ think the secular Iraqi court that tried him has _any_
resemblance to an Islamic court? If it did, sentence would have been carried out
already.

Just as the secular courts that didn't try PW Botha for genocide and gross
human rights abuses were not the Inquisition. Though of course his case never
came to court because he was never prosecuted, and so what really needs to be
compared is the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute.

And the South African government, which probably has as great a percentage of
Christians in it as the Iraqi one has Muslims, decidede that since he was no
longer in a position to do any harm, he should not be harmed.

It was just an example, and examples can not be taken too far, of how
Christian values can, and sometimes do, influence the behaviour of
governments. It is not an invariable rule.

The Botha givernment used a lot more Christian rhetoric, but was less
influenced by Christian values, not only in its behaviour, but also in its
ideology. Politicians like to use Christian rhetoric if they think it will
persuade voters to vote for them, and look for photo-ops with church leaders
as they do in Russia, on learning from opinion polls that the average Russian
trusts the church more than politicians. That should not be confused with
espousing Christian values.

--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

Matthew Johnson

2006-12-13 04:43:25 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
PW Botha was a dictator every bit as nasty as Saddam Hussein,

Your questions are both disingenuous and irrelevant,

No, my questions are neither.
as they are based on the

Post by Steve Hayes
erroneous assumption that a ruler is only a dictator if he imitates the
methods of other dictators.

Come now, Steve. You know this is not true. Remember what your original claim
was: it was not that Saddam and Botha were both dictators, it was that Stalin
and Botha were both "every bit as nasty" as Saddam. And the answers to my
question -- at least the _correct_ answers to them -- illustrate degrees of
nastiness that Stalin, Saddam and Hitler all shared, yet Botha did not share
with any of these other three..

Post by Matthew Johnson
No, he did not. On the contrary: he actually championed constitutional reform, a
thing Hitler and Stalin (Saddam's idols) _never_ did.

Really?
Did Stalin never amend the constitution of the USSR?
Did Hitler never amend the constitution of Germany?

Since when did you buy into such "bait and switch", Steve? Don't you know the
difference between 'amend' and 'reform'?

Of course Stalin _called_ his change 'reform', everybody does that, but of
course it was no such thing. Botha's changes were reform, and made the fall of
apartheid possible.

Post by Steve Hayes
There are those who aver that PW Botha intended to introduce democratic
constitutional reforms, but was removed from office before he had the chance
to do so. I cannot comment on that, because I was not privy to his intentions.
But I do know that the constitutional reforms he did introduce were calculated
to entrench Afrikaner nationalist power, but eventually failed to do so
because they were the last straw that provoked revolt.

And Brezhnev, and Andropov -- don't forget them.

I didn't forget them. I did not include them because I gave Mandela's own words
more credit than you have done in this thread. Again, according to Mandela
himself, Botha actively made the fall of apartheid possible, whereas Brezhnev
and Andropov only dragged out the fall of Communism.

[snip]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Hardly. Do you _really_ think the secular Iraqi court that tried him has _any_
resemblance to an Islamic court? If it did, sentence would have been carried out
already.

Making such a comparison would be a much better idea than comparing the SA court
w/ the Iraqi Court.

Post by Steve Hayes
And the South African government, which probably has as great a percentage of
Christians in it as the Iraqi one has Muslims, decidede that since he was no
longer in a position to do any harm, he should not be harmed.

Chile's Courts once made a similar decision (I won't claim it was exactly teh
same), but then in an act of lawlessness, revoked Pinochet's immunity.

Post by Steve Hayes
It was just an example, and examples can not be taken too far, of how
Christian values can, and sometimes do, influence the behaviour of
governments. It is not an invariable rule.

That it is not "an invariable rule" is obvious -- except to those duped by
politicians using Christian rhetoric.

Post by Steve Hayes
The Botha givernment used a lot more Christian rhetoric, but was less
influenced by Christian values, not only in its behaviour, but also in its
ideology.

Now that I can believe. But is is a very, VERY long way from that bad behavior
to the far worse abuse of such characters as Saddam, Hitler and Stalin -- who
really do belong together in their own special category of incredible villains.
Botha didn't even get close.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Steve Hayes

2006-12-14 04:01:02 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
as they are based on the

Post by Steve Hayes
erroneous assumption that a ruler is only a dictator if he imitates the
methods of other dictators.

Sorry, that was not my claim at all.

You often accuse Bren of twisting things that other people say -- now you are
doing it. You may disagree with what I say, but please don't misrepresent what
I say.

--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

Matthew Johnson

2006-12-18 03:20:26 UTC

as they are based on the >erroneous assumption that a ruler is only
a dictator if he imitates the >methods of other dictators.
Come now, Steve. You know this is not true. Remember what your original claim
was: it was not that Saddam and Botha were both dictators, it was that Stalin
and Botha were both "every bit as nasty" as Saddam. And the answers to my
question -- at least the _correct_ answers to them -- illustrate degrees of
nastiness that Stalin, Saddam and Hitler all shared, yet Botha did not share
with any of these other three..

Sorry, that was not my claim at all.

Really? I left your original words in my post. How do they differ from
what I said was your claim?

Post by Steve Hayes
You often accuse Bren of twisting things that other people say -- now
you are doing it.

I am doing no such thing. You really did say that. Let's take a look

PW Botha was a dictator every bit as nasty as Saddam Hussein,

Quoting, of course, your own post of two days yet earlier. Now how is
that different from my own words describing your position, that "it
was that Stalin and Botha were both "every bit as nasty" as
Saddam. And what does this have to do with the clause "that a ruler is
only a dictator if he imitates the methods of other dictators" (Ibid)?

The only way you can weasel out of this -- and _weasel_ out it would
be -- is to claim that it was in error for me to introduce Stalin into
the equation, that Saddam was nowhere near as nasty as Stalin.

But this would fail, since by now it is too well known that Saddam
very deliberately aped Stalin's nastiness, considering both Stalin and
Hitler as excellent examples of how to grasp and hold on to absolute
power.

I am not going to bore the lurkers with the details of how well Saddam
learned from Stalin and Hitler. For those of us with the now
internationally available cable TV channels, this was covered all too
well by the History Channel.

Post by Steve Hayes
You may disagree with what I say, but please don't misrepresent what
I say.

I am doing no such thing. If you really didn't mean to say that, then
you have to choose your words more carefully. I think you really
forgot what you yourself said because of your use of dialup
encouraging you to view the thread through a straw. If this is the
case, then you should keep local copies of other posts in the thread
on your computer, reviewing them off-line before you logon again to do
your posting. It could save you from the embarassment of forgetting
your own words again.

Finally, remember: _I_ can condemn Botha as a dictator, because he is
not the leader of my country. But you do not have this freedom, as
ever since St. Basil, the Orthodox have consistently taught that we
must not speak evil of the leader of our people -- even if the evil is
true (Acts 23:5).

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Steve Hayes

2006-12-19 03:46:35 UTC

Post by Steve Hayes
You may disagree with what I say, but please don't misrepresent what
I say.

This has now got so far off topic that it is not worth pursuing, but for the
record, here are my original words:

There is a problem in teaching values, say, in schools in a multicultural
society, where some are quick to complain about other peoples' values being
forced down their throats. But it is at times like this that one realises that
ubuntu is alive and well, and that one of the core Christian values of love of
enemies come to the fore, and that projects to promote values, like
Heartlines, are not just whistling in the dark.

PW Botha was not in the first rank of dictators of the 20th century. He was
not up there with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. He belonged a bit lower down the
list, along with Pinochet of Chile, Franco of Spain, Mussolini of Italy,
Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and a few others. Unlike many, he did not create the
evil system he presided over, he inherited it from his predecessors, and his
contribution was to prop it up and prolong it with ever more brutal repression
of those who opposed it. There were signs, just before his fall from power, of
his willingness to change, when he invited Nelson Mandela, the jailed leader
of the opposition, to tea at Tuynhuis, his official residence. But, unlike
Adriaan Vlok, his minister of police, he showed no indication of repentance or
remorse.

--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

Ahtuk Burger

2006-12-08 01:07:48 UTC

Nope. We've been doing it for 230 years. What you are talking about is
disenfranchising believers. People advance agendas consistent with their
own particular beliefs or philosophies.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
2. Do christians view this as a
"bastardization" of their religion?

I don't. My religion remains pure.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
3. Galileo was prosecuted by the church for stating that the earth is
not the center of the universe. Of course, at that time, church and
state in Italy were very tightly coupled (and still are for that
matter). However, we are now very sure that the earth is not the
center of the universe. Religion has changed to understand and reflect
that. I don't know if the scripture specifically states the earth is
the center of the universe, but for this discussion, let us assume it
does. Would this not contradict the word of God, who is infallible?
This is an early example of the church in politics.

So some pope decided that the Earth is the center of the universe. The
whole incident is blown out of proportion. Actually, I think, Galileo said
that the Earth is not the center of the *Solar System*, something even the
ancient greeks knew. For all practical purposes, however, the Earth IS the
center of the universe.

5. Back to modern times, gay marriage has been a recent political

Post by s***@googlemail.com
topic, of which, the only possible opposition would be considered
religious (various religions at that). I can't think of any reason
other than religious beliefs to be against gay marriage.

There are some possible legal scenarios that could arise, example:

Mr. X, a married man with four kids, decides to 'be himself.' He abandons
his family, divorces his wife and then 'marries' his male lover. A month
later his car goes off a cliff. Consider the consequences in light of the
inheritance laws in your neck of the woods.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
6. I'll concede that a lot of my fellow atheists have gone a bit
overboard on this separation of church and state thing;

'nuff said

Why? Atheists fancy themselves as intellectually superior people. Why are
they so afraid of a little diversity?

Post by s***@googlemail.com
Religion aside, this promotes bad "science." I don't want to
go into why the "science" is bad as it has been explained ad-nausea in
many forums, but creationism simply does not fit into the scientific
method.

ID is not creationism. One can acknowledge a process that does not appear
to be the result of random forces without having to believe in a creator, or
even in a supernatural. Perhaps one day science may explain ID!

Is this understood by christians? To answer this question

Post by s***@googlemail.com
effectively, you must understand that intelligent design theory is
simply not science. Arguing that it is science is pointless and not
the intended idea of the question.

Define 'science.'

Post by s***@googlemail.com
8. Abortion.... here we go.

A discussion of abortion is an empty exercize if we don't consider the
actions that lead up to the 'unwanted pregnancy' and the questions of
personal morality and responsibility.

Emma Pease

2006-12-12 04:14:10 UTC

Post by s***@googlemail.com

5. Back to modern times, gay marriage has been a recent political

Mr. X, a married man with four kids, decides to 'be himself.' He abandons
his family, divorces his wife and then 'marries' his male lover. A month
later his car goes off a cliff. Consider the consequences in light of the
inheritance laws in your neck of the woods.

I'm not sure how this differs from him deciding to divorce his wife
and marry another woman? A situation that happens quite frequently.

Note that what a government recognizes as a marriage need not be what
a church recognizes as a marriage. For instance the Roman Catholic
church does not recognize the marriage of divorced Roman Catholics
unless they've also had a church annulment. The opposite also holds
true, the early church apparently recognized marriages that were
illegal in the eyes of the Roman Empire (such as that contracted
between slave men and free women).

Post by s***@googlemail.com

Why? Atheists fancy themselves as intellectually superior people. Why are
they so afraid of a little diversity?

Perhaps because ID is not science as almost all scientists, Christian
or not, agree. As the moderator won't allow discussion on the merits
of various myths about origins versus science, it being a topic of the
group talk.origins, I direct you and the rest there for a fuller
discussion.

Emma

--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht

Rodney Dunning

2006-12-08 01:07:52 UTC

Post by s***@googlemail.com
1. Separating church and state is impossible. While the idea is
sound, we've elected a christian president who pushes (at times) a
christian agenda. This matter is a fundamental "flaw" in the
separation, but it is unavoidable. Ideally, if america is primarily
christian, a christian has a better chance of attaining office in the
first place simply because people will identify with someone that
shares their own faith and agenda. However, do christians realize this
"flaw" in the system? Do christians notice their religious beliefs
turning into legislation and do they see that as an issue? Finally,
for christians, is faith a matter in issues of politics?

We shouldn't limit the discussion to the United States, given our
international readership.

I disagree that separation of church and state is impossible. Quoting
from the web site for Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, "Separation of church and state is the only principle that can
ensure religious and philosophical freedom for all Americans.
Church-state separation does not mean hostility toward religion.
Rather, it means that the government will remain neutral on religious
questions, leaving decisions about God, faith and house of worship
attendance in the hands of its citizens."

Yes, some improvement is in order, but this is basically what we have
now, in the United States. See www.au.org.

On religious beliefs becoming legislation: some specific examples would
help.

On faith and politics: Recall "government of the people, by the people,
for the people." If a person is religious, then yes, faith becomes an
important matter in his or her political activity--both for the common
person and the person who holds office. And so it should be.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
2. Religion is old. I don't mean that in a bad way, just a statement
of fact. Christianity specifically has been around for quite a while
(yes, I know others are older). As our understanding of the universe
has changed over the past 2000 years, christianity has been modified to
"co-exist" with popular culture. Do christians view this as a
"bastardization" of their religion? Obviously there are
"fundamentalists" that continue with their strict interpretation. Do
they not see the flaws in their beliefs when they are refuted, do they
not understand, or do they not care?

I must let the fundamentalists speak for themselves.

I disagree that Christianity has been modified by our modern
understanding of the universe, where Christianity = John 3:16. (Sorry
for the oversimplification.)

The universe has no center in the normal sense of the term "center."

As a general rule, let us *not* assume what scripture says. It's much
better to work from real data. I am not aware of any explicit
statement in the Bible that the Earth is the center of the universe.
If you can find one, we'll discuss it.

But yes, our understanding of cosmology has changed over the centuries,
and religion has changed with it. It does not follow that God is
fallible. What follows is what we already knew: our understanding of
the universe is incomplete.

Not all Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God, or
that it's without error.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
5. Back to modern times, gay marriage has been a recent political
topic, of which, the only possible opposition would be considered
religious (various religions at that). I can't think of any reason
other than religious beliefs to be against gay marriage. Since I'm not
a homosexual and I'm not christian, it really doesn't affect me one way
or the other. But as far as politics is concerened, I don't understand
why the government should be involved in this particular issue. Is
there another concern (other than the conspiracy theory NWO people)
that I am missing on this one?

Let me explain to you very carefully why the government should be
involved in this issue:

(1) To protect the rights of its citizens, in this case, gays and
lesbians who wish to enter into binding contracts that are functionally
equivalent to traditional marriage contracts between heterosexuals.

(2) To protect the rights of the individuals--adults and children--who
are directly affected by those contracts.

Not all Christians are opposed to government recognized,
legally-enforceable unions for gays and lesbians. Religious groups
which seek to force a constitutional amendment down our throats are
throwing church-state separation to the wind and trampling on the
rights of American citizens that do fit their definition of
"traditional" and "correct" and whatever. This is wrong, and the
government is our only protection.

And you're wrong that it does not affect you one way or the other. A
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage destroys civil liberties
for a large class of individuals. Eroding civil liberties for some
hurts us all, if only because it makes all of us vulnerable to the next
amendment campaign the Religious Right choses to pursue. How about an
amendment establishing a religious test to serve in public office?

Post by s***@googlemail.com
6. I'll concede that a lot of my fellow atheists have gone a bit
overboard on this separation of church and state thing; what with the
"holiday trees" and not allowing local governments to sponsor
"christmas" and what-not. However, do christians view this as
non-christians attacking their religion?

[snip]

Post by s***@googlemail.com
What stance/action would better convey that
message without the hostility?

Not all Christians view this as an attack. In fact, many Christians
agree that government has no business sponsoring religious holidays in
any way. You can find effective ways to get involved at
http://www.au.org/.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
7. The Kansas School Board's decision to allow "intelligent design"
into text books was a massive blow to the anti-christian campaign. In
what could (should) be considered a legal holy war, is this concept of
public education teaching creationism considered progress by
christians? As an atheist (more importantly, a darwinist -- the two
are not exclusive), we view this as a disservice to the children in
Kansas. Religion aside, this promotes bad "science." I don't want to
go into why the "science" is bad as it has been explained ad-nausea in
many forums, but creationism simply does not fit into the scientific
method. Is this understood by christians? To answer this question
effectively, you must understand that intelligent design theory is
simply not science. Arguing that it is science is pointless and not
the intended idea of the question.

I'm saddened to learn there is an "anti-Christian" campaign. Speaking
from personal experience, religious faith is a beautiful, empowering
experience. It brings comfort and strength, and the ability to deal
with life on its own terms. Not everyone need be religious to live a
healthy, productive life; but why you are opposed to Christianity is
beyond me.

Does it offend you that my beliefs are not the same as your own? Who
made you the arbiter of what people should and should not believe?

No, most Christians, most *people* I suspect, do not understand what
scientists mean by the word "science." The reasons why Intelligent
Design is not a scientific paradigm are not well understand by
undergraduate biology majors, much less the general public.

The position held by many Christians is the same as your own:

Intelligent Design = generic creationism = scientific nonsense.

Not all Christians are creationists, in the usual sense of the word
"creationist." We all believe God created the universe, but we
disagree about what "create" means. Not all Christians deny evolution
or are threatened by it.

You and I have very different assumptions about the nature of the
universe, so this may be difficult for you to understand, but many
Christians recognize that evolutionary processes are evidence for the
*awesome* creative power of God.

Creating a universe is impressive. Creating a universe that evolves is
DAMN impressive.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
8. Abortion.... here we go. This is a really touchy one, even for the

[snip]

Post by s***@googlemail.com
To the point, do christians view the politicians pushing
their views on abortion and/or appointing pro-life supreme court judges
as violation of this separation or is it considered simply as an
extension of the will of the public? I don't want to get into a
discussion of whether abortion is right or wrong in a moral sense. I'm
just curious about the political question.

I'm not aware of life being created from non-life in controlled
experiments. References?

See above for what's meant by separation of church and state.
Extension of the public will? Yes--"Vox populi." The people are
religious, so religious belief informs their political will. This is
the way it should be.

But note that not all Christians oppose legal abortions. They're
*legal*, after all.

--
Rodney Dunning
Assistant Professor of Physics
Longwood University
http://www.longwood.edu/staff/dunningrb

l***@hotmail.com

2006-12-12 04:07:13 UTC

Post by s***@googlemail.com
1. Separating church and state is impossible.

The original intent was that the state would not meddle
in the affairs of the local church without any dialogue as
to the Church being obligated to stay out of government. In
fact, as is commonly known, the phrase, "separation of
church and state" was coined in a letter from Jefferson as
I remember it and it had an entirely different context than
what the ACLU has made it out to be.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
"flaw" in the system? Do christians notice their religious beliefs
turning into legislation and do they see that as an issue? Finally,
for christians, is faith a matter in issues of politics?

I think Bush's recent interview last week on Fox pretty much answers
the question and the application of it. Besides, again with your
original intent, the orginating founding fathers operated off of the
fundamental that what they were doing was God ordained. The
Declaration of Independence debate was impasse until a day of
prayer and fasting was called for (to Christ of the Bible). Read
older history books to learn the true history of the fomation of the
Union. Present day books are revisionary. Eisenhower had a
major role to play in the new paradigm.

Go head, refute one of the "fundamentals" and I will grant you answer.
Can you even name them?

Post by s***@googlemail.com
3. Galileo was prosecuted by the church for stating that the earth is
not the center of the universe.

Your first mistake is to equate the RCC with The Church.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
Of course, at that time, church and
state in Italy were very tightly coupled (and still are for that
matter). However, we are now very sure that the earth is not the
center of the universe. Religion has changed to understand and reflect
that.

However, when one studies the Bible, especially the OT, you will find
that
it teaches no such thing. I'm not going to dig for all the example to
illustrate
this, That you can do for yourself. However, here is a reference for
you
to look up and read if you are really interested in researching the
subject
for yourself.

Bibliotheca Sacra, "Interpretations of Biblical Authority-Part III:
Does the Bible Teach Science?" John D. Woodbridge -- Vol 142 #567 --
Jul 1985 -- P195.

You can find this and many other conservative theological journals and
their articles for the past century on Gallaxy Software's, "Theological
Journal Library" CD. I believe their PC version now
goes for less than $50.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
I don't know if the scripture specifically states the earth is
the center of the universe, but for this discussion, let us assume it
does.

It doesn't.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
Would this not contradict the word of God, who is infallible?
This is an early example of the church in politics.
4. An even earlier example of religion in politics is when the roman
empire "acquired" northern african territory. It is my understanding
that when the romans took over the egyptians, in an effort to promote
unity in the population, the religions of the two were "merged."
Sunday, as the perfect example, became the day of worship instead of
the sabbath (saturday). Sunday, the day of Sun, was traditionally the
day of worship of the egyptian sun god. If the above is true, does
this decision by the caeser fundamentally undermine the religion?
(Note the *if the above is true*. The facts I've seen are certainly
not conclusive ont his topic, but I'd like an answer to the possibly
hypothetical question rather than refuting the statements)

For an interesting primer I would suggest you read "The Two
Babylons" by Hyslop. In fact, I believe you can find it on the
internet. I was so intreged with the book that I spent at least
two years chasing down his bibliography, even to the point of
spending time at the Library of Congress in DC.

Also, if you read RC theological statements coming from
Rome, as opposed from America, they openly admit and even
revel in the fact that it is synthetic in nature. One need not
travel far to see this evidenced. Just a vacation drive away is
Mexico and its unhidden RC synthesizing of pagan deities
and rituals into the "christian" churches definitions and
employments.

Interesting because this is being "discussed" on another thread
at present. You might want to wander over to, "These Emperors
Have No Clothes."

Post by s***@googlemail.com
But as far as politics is concerened, I don't understand
why the government should be involved in this particular issue. Is
there another concern (other than the conspiracy theory NWO people)
that I am missing on this one?

You know, I hear this little bell ringing in the back of my head.
You've
been here before, have you not? Same questions. Same sort of
underhanded way of getting the community to feed upon itself. I
know I've read this before.

Who are you considering "christians" and who are you not?

As for myself, I see it as both a fulfillment of biblical prophecy as
well as a repeating of human history. Read Gibbon's lately?
What were his concluding points of an empire in decline? I would
also refer you to two books. One would be Francis Schaeffer's
mid 70's release titled, "How Should We Then Live." He also
ammended the book with a 10 part video.

The other title would be Os Guiness's, "Dust of Death," before
he began writing for general public consumption.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
The intended idea is for
christians to understand that while they have the right to hold their
religious beliefs, they are not the only religion in our country. Is
that message getting lost in the "legal" mess created by these
non-christian protestors? What stance/action would better convey that
message without the hostility?

The US will rise or fall to the degree it adheres to or rebels against
Biblical Christian presuppositions. This is evidenced by the
historical
record of where the US has sought to install democratic governments
and to which ones have succeeded and which ones have failed. A
key example is Costa Rica. With a large majority of the populace
being Protestant Christians, democracy has not only worked, it has
blossomed. Bring along side the Mexican or the Guatemalan
regimes. The Latin and So American "democracies" which are
predominately RC, have a dismal record as to education, equality,
sharing of wealth and freedom.

Yes and no. It is such an important landmark and yet at the same
time it is in no way paving a wave for the future. The problem is one
of entrenchment. Humanism has been in the educational system
for too long. Though I could be wrong, I don't see any reformation
coming. This is too bad because clearly the scientific, that is the
consistent application of scientific Laws, favors both Creationism
and Intelligent Design. www.drdino.com

Post by s***@googlemail.com
As an atheist (more importantly, a darwinist -- the two
are not exclusive), we view this as a disservice to the children in
Kansas. Religion aside, this promotes bad "science."

Like many others, you appear never to have attended a
bonified creationist/evolutionist scientific debate. Go to the website
just given and download some of the free debates. He even offers
a reward of $250,000 if anyone can scientifically prove him
wrong in a debate. That offer has been around for a couple of
decades and none have been able to accomplish it. In fact,
university prof's will rarely debate him face-to-face because they
have been embarrased time and again. Now they send their
lackies to vomit up the objects, which are each handled with
courtesy and scientific refute.

Again, the issue isn't science. It's religion. EVERY debate
I have ever personally attended, it has been the evolutionist
who have jumped out of the scientific arena into the philosophical
religious upper story arena where subjectivism is the
"emperor without clothes."

Post by s***@googlemail.com
I don't want to
go into why the "science" is bad as it has been explained ad-nausea in
many forums, but creationism simply does not fit into the scientific
method.

Says who? By what standard? VERY simple to illustrate by but
one scientific law and its adherence. The Law of Conservation of
Angular Motion. No one has been able to answer me this one.
Why do not only moons and planets, but spiral arm gallaxies
fail to conform to this law?

Post by s***@googlemail.com
Is this understood by christians?

We understand when it is left up to atheistic scientist to define
"science" to anything other than what it is really. "Science" is
only that which is replicable. Can't replicate it? Then it's just
a theory. In fact, strictly speaking, evolutionism isn't even a
theory, its a model.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
To answer this question
effectively, you must understand that intelligent design theory is
simply not science. Arguing that it is science is pointless and not
the intended idea of the question.

Yet you put it forth as a forgone conclusion. Your proof is only
your opinion. I worked at Fermi National Accelerator Lab for 25
yrs and had many "discussions" with the atheistic scientist there.
It was interesting how these men and women who really were the
smartest people on the planet, could not help but wander out of
the "scientific" arena and into the philosophical arena when it
came to applying their already preconceived presuppositions. And
I truly loved these men and women. Great, great people. But
as mentally superior they were, yet they were blind to the
true reality of the universe. Don't count me as being naive in
this area.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
8. Abortion.... here we go. This is a really touchy one, even for the
educated atheist. I'll admit that the concept of life, and when it
begins, is a fundamental difference which causes the disagreement.

Doctors one second are aborting a fetus, but the next they are
doing everything conceiveable to keep it alive when the abortion
goes suddenly wrong. You've got doctors doing everything they
can to maintain life in the womb of women who are prone to
miscarrages while at the same time aborting what, 55 million
babies since Roe v. Wade? Tell me why the normal physician
community ostracizes the abortion physician community?

Post by s***@googlemail.com
I
can see how for christians, the fact that this is legal in the US is
apalling and disgusting. Not including "spirit," biologically life can
be easily explained (and these days, even created from non-life). As
far as biology is concerned, a "life" is created at the moment of
conception. I believe that christians share the same view. Abortion,
I believe, is limited to the time when the fetus can not survive on
it's own. To the point, do christians view the politicians pushing
their views on abortion and/or appointing pro-life supreme court judges

Read Bork's, "Greening of America." Classic constitutional law and
the history of errosion of hermeneutic principles.

Post by s***@googlemail.com
as violation of this separation or is it considered simply as an
extension of the will of the public? I don't want to get into a
discussion of whether abortion is right or wrong in a moral sense. I'm
just curious about the political question.
I'd like to hear from both fundamentalist christians a

Bingo!

Chris Smith

2006-12-13 04:43:26 UTC

Pardon me for jumping in...

Obviously there are "fundamentalists" that continue with their
strict interpretation.

Go head, refute one of the "fundamentals" and I will grant you answer.
Can you even name them?

Ah, yes, I remember this; it's where you try to make conversation
difficult by redefining people's words. I think it's rather shallow,
actually. Practically all Christians ultimately agree with all five of
the "fundamentals" listed by The Fundamentals. Fundamentalism, as it is
commonly understood, is a very specific approach to faith above and
beyond those statements. It declares not just that those statements are
true, but that they are the core of the Christian faith, and in doing
so, it refuses to admit that the faith includes other ideas equally
important. Any reasonable account of fundamentalism would also need to
include the specific interpretation of those statements assumed by
fundamentalist authors; for example, not just atonement but a very
strict Anselmian view of atonement, and a corresponding denial of the
equal validity of the half-dozen other metaphors for the atonement whicj
are provided by Scripture. Most importantly, fundamentalism teaches
that anything outside of that core belief defined by the fundamentals
can not help us to understand our faith.

That's what fundamentalism means, to practically everyone who uses the
word. If you don't like the word, then perhaps you could propose a new
term to use when one wishes to give the above meaning in conversation
with you. Ultimately, though, this seems to be the oldest rhetorical
trick in the book: no one can say things you find threatening if you
take away their words to say it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, if you read RC theological statements coming from
Rome, as opposed from America, they openly admit and even
revel in the fact that it is synthetic in nature.

The fact is that a good number of Christian practices originate in non-
Christian practices. This is true of nearly all groups of Christians,
with the possible exception of the Jehovah's Witness and other such
groups. (And get this: they are universally considered farther from the
mainstream for it!) Now, I suppose we could all lie about it and live
our lives in self-deception, but there's a reason Satan is called the
father of lies.

I'm unsure what you mean by "revel". All official statements
(encyclicals, proclamations, promulgated documents, etc.) of the
universal Catholic Church are translated into English and issued by the
USCCB along with every other regional or national conference of Bishops.
You could point us to some, if you like. Barring that, it really
doesn't make sense to try to construct some hypothetical story about how
the church in the U.S. is sheltered from these terrible things about the
universal Church. I know conspiracy theories are fun and all, but some
plausibility is needed.

What you may be experiencing, though, is that each particular church,
along with each regional or national council of bishops, works within
their local culture to run their church. That's as it should be; it
would be the height of hubris, given the incredible diversity of culture
in the world, to assume that Christianity requires a western approach to
the world.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
A key example is Costa Rica. With a large majority of the populace
being Protestant Christians, democracy has not only worked, it has
blossomed. Bring along side the Mexican or the Guatemalan
regimes. The Latin and So American "democracies" which are
predominately RC, have a dismal record as to education, equality,
sharing of wealth and freedom.

There's a word for this: post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a very common
logical fallacy. You are not alone in falling for it. It does show a
little bit of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty, though.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Like many others, you appear never to have attended a
bonified creationist/evolutionist scientific debate. Go to the website
just given and download some of the free debates. He even offers
a reward of $250,000 if anyone can scientifically prove him
wrong in a debate.

You seem to have a very strange understanding of science, if you think
that important questions can be settled in a "debate". Important
questions are settled by building consensus through sharing of ideas in
journals, conferences, and numerous other communications over time. I
looked at this web site briefly; it consists of a whole lot of "they're
scared to debate me" rhetoric, but no new arguments that I could find.
I didn't see any debates at all, actually (maybe that's because everyone
is just too "scared", eh?) I downloaded several of the videos, but they
were just propoganda pieces. I stopped with the one that says the big
problem with Hitler was that he believed in evolution. (As with most
philosophical/moral arguments against evolution, this one seemed to rest
on a confusion of Darwin with Herbert Spencer.)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In fact, university prof's will rarely debate him face-to-face because

Oh no, here we go again...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Says who? By what standard? VERY simple to illustrate by but
one scientific law and its adherence. The Law of Conservation of
Angular Motion. No one has been able to answer me this one.
Why do not only moons and planets, but spiral arm gallaxies
fail to conform to this law?

I'm not a physicist, but if you'd like to answer that question, getting
some training in physics would probably be the way to go. Just as a
guess, the answer probably lies somewhere in general relativity. That
tends to be the answer to these kinds of problems where there are
unbelievably large amounts of mass and distance involved.

--
Chris Smith

Rodney Dunning

2006-12-13 04:43:29 UTC

Good grief. From where are you getting this?

It's "conservation of angular *momentum*", not "motion." And moons and
planets obey it perfectly well. If you can provide evidence to the
contrary, please do so.

As for spiral arms: a spiral arm is not a rigid object. It's a
collection of stars, each orbiting the center of the galaxy much as a
planet orbits the sun. In a spiral galaxy, the arms are basically
traffic jams. In fact, models of spiral arm formation are conceptually
similar to models of highway traffic that predict traffic jams at key
points along a highway.

I suspect you've read about problems associated with galactic rotation
curves, and an apparent failure of spiral galaxies to obey Kepler's
third law. Dark matter is the proposed solution.

No doubt, you have a completely different solution. I may regret
asking this, but I would love to hear it: What do *you* say is the
reason moons, planets, and spiral arms don't obey the law of
"conservation of angular motion," and what in heavens name does it have
to do with God and the bible?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Yet you put it forth as a forgone conclusion. Your proof is only
your opinion. I worked at Fermi National Accelerator Lab for 25
yrs and had many "discussions" with the atheistic scientist there.

What kind of work did you do at Fermi?

--
Rodney Dunning
Assistant Professor of Physics
Longwood University
http://www.longwood.edu/staff/dunningrb

l***@hotmail.com

2006-12-15 03:19:38 UTC

Well I'm sorry, I don't have my notebook handy to where I
can provide every detail. At the present I feel like just telling
to go do your own research. But if you will allow me to
reply to you without verbatim quotes or noted references, I
will.

Post by Rodney Dunning
From memory, I believe there are somewhere near 90 moons

that we are able to observe rotation. Out of that number, at least
eight of them rotate counter to the planets they orbit. There are
at least two planets in our solar system that has the opposite
rotation to that of the sun. If memory serves me right, either
earth itself or the moon counts as one of them. Again, it
should be easy enough to find on the web if you want to
search it out for yourself. I simply don't have the time.

Post by Rodney Dunning
As for spiral arms: a spiral arm is not a rigid object. It's a
collection of stars, each orbiting the center of the galaxy much as a
planet orbits the sun. In a spiral galaxy, the arms are basically
traffic jams. In fact, models of spiral arm formation are conceptually
similar to models of highway traffic that predict traffic jams at key
points along a highway.

But the point still applies. Why do some spiral one way while
others in an opposite direction? The Law applies no matter how
big or how diverse.

Post by Rodney Dunning
I suspect you've read about problems associated with galactic rotation
curves, and an apparent failure of spiral galaxies to obey Kepler's
third law. Dark matter is the proposed solution.

Well, yes. There is more to the issue than just rotation. If the
cosmos is as old as evolutionism requires it to be, then there is the
added unanswered problem as to why spiral arms still spiral. i.e.
they should have lost that energy ages ago.

Post by Rodney Dunning
No doubt, you have a completely different solution. I may regret
asking this, but I would love to hear it: What do *you* say is the
reason moons, planets, and spiral arms don't obey the law of
"conservation of angular motion," and what in heavens name does it have
to do with God and the bible?

I don't have to provide an answer. My paradigm has no objection to
it and it possess not problems. However, when one holds to the
big bang or someother evolutionary theorum, then it is they who are
then put to arms and find a need to provide an answer to the
contradiction. Either the Laws of the universe are absolute or they
are merely sometimes fast. But when you travel down this resolve,
then you end up with no absolute laws at all and therefore can't even
pursue a line of argument using decay rates or speed of light
constants. But if you will allow that A+B always = C, whether we
are speaking of chemical reaction or mathematics or even as
originally noted, "conservation of angular *momentum*" then
solutions are required when those "Laws" find contrasting
evidences.

And now that I happen to think about, just as the macro
universe displays a contradiction to this law, so does the
micro universe. On the photographic plates used to capture
atomic particle decay when protons and antiprotons collide,
even those tracings reveal a diversity of spiralations. Why?

But I again ask, why do spiral arm galaxies still maintain
enough energy to rotate after "billions and billions" of
years to quote both Sagan and Hawkings, both of whom
I heard personally declare it?

Matthew Johnson

2006-12-18 03:20:28 UTC

Says who? By what standard? VERY simple to illustrate by but one
scientific law and its adherence. The Law of Conservation of
Angular Motion. No one has been able to answer me this one. Why
do not only moons and planets, but spiral arm gallaxies> fail to
conform to this law?

Well I'm sorry, I don't have my notebook handy to where I
can provide every detail.

Then why did you even bring it up? You have been in this NG long
enough to know better: when you make such a shocking claim, you should
_expect_ to be challenged; you should _expect_ to have to defend it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
At the present I feel like just telling
to go do your own research.

Well, so what if you feel like doing that? That would be giving up.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But if you will allow me to
reply to you without verbatim quotes or noted references, I
will.

Post by Rodney Dunning
From memory, I believe there are somewhere near 90 moons

Well, so what if you don't have the time? Even if you did, that would
not help you. For as Rodney _already_ pointed out, the process of
formation of spiral galaxies is completely different: he compared them
to traffic jams.

That is, in the solar system, we interpret the correlation between
directions of orbits in one way, but the directions of rotations of
spiral arms in a different way. For the way they are formed is
different. In the former, we have good reason to believe that it is a
specific result of the way the planets were formed, that they mostly
rotate the same way. Thus, for example, one proposal was that they all
evolved out of a disk rotating around the sun. ONLY in such a case
does the coservation of angular momentum explain rotation in the same
direction. But if the principle of formation is different as IS the
case with galaxies, there is no such consequnce of c. of a.m. Eddies
can form, allowsing galaxies to rotate in all different directions.

Post by Rodney Dunning
As for spiral arms: a spiral arm is not a rigid object. It's a
collection of stars, each orbiting the center of the galaxy much as
a planet orbits the sun. In a spiral galaxy, the arms are
basically traffic jams. In fact, models of spiral arm formation
are conceptually similar to models of highway traffic that predict
traffic jams at key points along a highway.

But the point still applies.

No, it does not.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why do some spiral one way while others in an opposite direction?

Haven't you ever seen eddies in a river do the same thing? Some rotate
one way, others another.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Law applies no matter how big or how diverse.

Of course it does. But it does NOT iply that spiral galaxies must
rotate the same directions.

Post by Rodney Dunning
I suspect you've read about problems associated with galactic
rotation curves, and an apparent failure of spiral galaxies to obey
Kepler's third law. Dark matter is the proposed solution.

What? Where do you think it would have gone?

I don't have to provide an answer.

Yes, you do. For it was YOU who claimed they don't obey it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
My paradigm has no objection to it and it possess not problems.
However, when one holds to the big bang or someother evolutionary
theorum, then it is they who are then put to arms and find a need to
provide an answer to the contradiction.

You miss the point. You _do_ need to provide an answer to show that
there IS a contradiction. Neither Rodney nor I see it. In fact, I
daresay no bona fide cosmologist will see it. Even a lot of
non-bona-fide cosmologists will see that your 'contradiction' is no
contradiction at all.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Either the Laws of the universe are absolute or they
are merely sometimes fast.

But wait a minute: this IS a problem for you. For you are the one who
claimed that the rate of radioactive decay went through a big speed
up, i.e. was "sometimes fast", and sometimes not.

Have you forgotten this? You are the one who requires the laws of
nature to change, so that the radioactive decay into helium ran much,
much faster for a period of time than it does today. Yet this _too_
follows from the laws of nature, i.e., from the quantum nature of
matter, as George Gamow explained.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But when you travel down this resolve,

'resolve'?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
then you end up with no absolute laws at all and therefore can't even
pursue a line of argument using decay rates or speed of light
constants.

And again: this is a problem for your system, because of your denial
of nuclear physics.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But if you will allow that A+B always = C, whether we
are speaking of chemical reaction or mathematics or even as
originally noted, "conservation of angular *momentum*" then
solutions are required when those "Laws" find contrasting
evidences.

So give the solution: explain what was wrong in Gamow's proof of the
_constancy_ of radioactive decay, so that we should allow your claimed
empirical evidence that the decay rate used to be much faster.

[snip]

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

l***@hotmail.com

2006-12-18 03:20:29 UTC

Post by Chris Smith
Pardon me for jumping in...
Ultimately, though, this seems to be the oldest rhetorical
trick in the book: no one can say things you find threatening if you
take away their words to say it.

Not at all. It is restricting the definition of the term to those
who hold it, not to those who stand on the outside and wish to
characterize it as you have done.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, if you read RC theological statements coming from
Rome, as opposed from America, they openly admit and even
revel in the fact that it is synthetic in nature.

The fact is that a good number of Christian practices originate in non-
Christian practices.

No, this is wrong. This is the old "which came first, the chicken
or the egg."

Post by Chris Smith
I'm unsure what you mean by "revel". All official statements
(encyclicals, proclamations, promulgated documents, etc.) of the
universal Catholic Church are translated into English and issued by the
USCCB along with every other regional or national conference of Bishops.
You could point us to some, if you like.

I have. In the past I have quoted them extensively and given all
the proper references. I'm not obliged to do it repeatedly. Again,
do your own research. It's not difficult. There are direct statements
from Cardinals and there are statements in old Roman catechisms.
But even beyond the doctrinal statements, there is the evidentuary
fact of history. "Convert or die!" and when they died by the
thousands
then the system of synthesizing began. Not begain as a new
paradigm, but rather, was implimented. The RCC faith is birthed out
of synthesis.

Post by Chris Smith
What you may be experiencing, though, is that each particular church,
along with each regional or national council of bishops, works within
their local culture to run their church. That's as it should be; it
would be the height of hubris, given the incredible diversity of culture
in the world, to assume that Christianity requires a western approach to
the world.

Whether in Boston watching a statue of Mary being paraded about the
streets and the priest offering atonement to sinner if they just place
a
couple of bucks under her garters or whether in Santa Fe where they
dress up a self same statue in garments worth hundreds of thousands
of dollars, it is all from the same factory. I worked for a man who
gave
nearly 7 figures to the local RCC and in return, he was granted to have
stay in his home, for one week, one of three special statues of Mary
from Rome. A list of prayers was handed out along with it. Then there
were all sorts of "miracles" which occurred. Funny, they all had to do
with monitary increase / "blessing."

History speaks for itself. The history of the RCC in Latin and So Am
has, like in old Europe, just produced another "Dark Ages." I've been
over this before and presented numerous historical evidences.

You seem to have a very strange understanding of science, if you think
that important questions can be settled in a "debate".

It's NOT that complicated. Now certain secular evolutionist like to
spew forth this nocturn. There is a "priesthood" and only they have
the
wherewithall of being able to adequately understand all that is
involved.
Therefore just admit your stupidity and listen to the "priests."

Post by Chris Smith
Important
questions are settled by building consensus through sharing of ideas in
journals, conferences, and numerous other communications over time.

When all share the same presuppositions, there need be no designed
conspiracy. It just happens naturally. And the presupposition of
evolutionism
is that if there is a "god", he is subject to the adjudication of human
reasoning. THIS is nothing short of being the "fruit of good and evil."

Post by Chris Smith
I
looked at this web site briefly; it consists of a whole lot of "they're
scared to debate me" rhetoric, but no new arguments that I could find.

There are new lines of argument all the time. However, not even the
old ones, which are the fundmental questions, cannot be answered by
evolutionary science. Therefore why pursue it further?

Post by Chris Smith
I didn't see any debates at all, actually (maybe that's because everyone
is just too "scared", eh?) I downloaded several of the videos, but they
were just propoganda pieces.

Well I guess all those downloads I have on my hard drive are just
another creationist illusion. Perhaps, I will grant you, they are no
longer on that website. But you can write to him and he will send
them to you on CD for no cost. I have over 20 of them on CD. All
are from different universities, different evolutionary scientific
fields,
and all have these evolutionary professionals left stumped. They
cannot debate in pure scientific terms, the creationist proofs for
either a young earth or for intelligent design.

Post by Chris Smith
I stopped with the one that says the big
problem with Hitler was that he believed in evolution. (As with most
philosophical/moral arguments against evolution, this one seemed to rest
on a confusion of Darwin with Herbert Spencer.)

Again, historic fact. Never read Mein Kamph or is it Mein Camp?
Also, there are the quoted statements of his generals. There is also
the facts dealing with Luthernism and Luther's position concerning the
Jews. It's all related and all documented.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In fact, university prof's will rarely debate him face-to-face because

Oh no, here we go again...

I've been there. I've witnessed it. I've also, as mentioned,
witnessed
first hand that the cream of the crop of evolutionary scientist
absolutely
refuse to allow any witness which stand contradictory to their
religion.
Don't even pretend to tell me it is otherwise.

Earlier you dismissed the proposition concerning the "fundamentals"
and yet in the same vein you are here doing exactly the same thing
that you accused me of. Interesting but not unexpected.

Again, explain to me how a beach ball can spin off of the
merry-go-round universe in a counter-revolutionary orbit. You
cannot reproduce this and yet the universe displays the fact.
So how do you resolve it? All I ask of anyone is to just investigate
it honestly. If the "big bang" is presumed and taught as being
THE beginning (as necessitated by the evolutionary theory), then
how can one continue to believe it when there are so many
in-your-face contradictions? I've only named but a few. Why,
in these debates, are evolutionary scientist only equipped to
defend micro-evolution? Why never cosmic, chemical, stellar,
macro or organic evolution? Big deal, a wolf and poodle are
evidences of "evolution." But they only illustrate evolution
within the same "kind." Now show me a cat that barks and
naturally chases cars or a horse that flies and THEN we will
have something to discuss. But that has never naturally
occurred and there has never been any scientific evidences
produced to substantiate the claim. Evolutionism is
a faith based upon presuppositions, not on cold, hard
*scientific* objectively verifiable facts.

You have reacted to what I have written. That is good. We
should test each other. Iron sharpens iron. However, we
should also be willing to change our testimonies when we
are proven wrong. It's called maturing.

Matthew Johnson

2006-12-19 03:46:35 UTC

In article <1Onhh.2132$***@trnddc03>, ***@hotmail.com says...

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, historic fact. Never read Mein Kamph or is it Mein Camp?

You really don't know? And yet you have the gall to upbraid others for
not knowing their facts before entering debate?

You can fool no one with such a blatant and foolish double-standard, Loren.

It is "Mein Kampf"! And it does NOT support your ludicrous contention
that "the problem with Hitler was that he believe in evolution.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I've been there. I've witnessed it. I've also, as mentioned,
witnessed first hand that the cream of the crop of evolutionary
scientist absolutely refuse to allow any witness which stand
contradictory to their religion. Don't even pretend to tell me it is
otherwise.

But _of course_ it is otherwise. The real reason they refused the
debate is because your "old earth deniers" are so _radically_
unscientific. The so-called 'debate' they subject people to is a gross
parody of true debate.

Says who? By what standard? VERY simple to illustrate by but one
scientific law and its adherence. The Law of Conservation of
Angular Motion. No one has been able to answer me this one. Why
do not only moons and planets, but spiral arm gallaxies fail to
conform to this law?

I don't believe you when you say "no has been able to answer". I think
you just ignored the answer when you didn't like what you heard?

Why do I believe this? Because both Rodney and I _have_ answered it:
the answer is that there is NO reason why the conservation of angular
momentum would imply that spiral galaxies rotate in a given
direction. Rodney compared them to traffic jams, and I compared them
to eddies in water. In none of these cases (galaxies, water, traffic)
does conservation of angular momentum dictate a given direction.

Post by Chris Smith
I'm not a physicist, but if you'd like to answer that question,
getting some training in physics would probably be the way to go.

Chris is absolutely right here.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, explain to me how a beach ball can spin off of the
merry-go-round universe in a counter-revolutionary orbit.

This is not so hard: the kid on the merry-go-round has to work hard to
give the beach ball spin in the other direction. But the recoil will
still not change the spin of the merry-go-round noticeably.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You cannot reproduce this and yet the universe displays the fact.

So you love to repeat, but where _are_ your facts? The only 'fact' you
have exhibited to date is a gross misunderstanding of the physics of
the situtation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So how do you resolve it? All I ask of anyone is to just investigate
it honestly.

Then why are you still pretending that the law of conservation is
violated after you have been told it is not?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If the "big bang" is presumed and taught as being THE beginning (as
necessitated by the evolutionary theory), then how can one continue
to believe it when there are so many in-your-face contradictions?

Because there are NOT any such 'contradictions'.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I've only named but a few.

And ALL of them were simply wrong.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why, in these debates, are evolutionary scientist only equipped to
defend micro-evolution? Why never cosmic, chemical, stellar, macro
or organic evolution? Big deal, a wolf and poodle are evidences of
"evolution." But they only illustrate evolution within the same
"kind." Now show me a cat that barks and naturally chases cars or a
horse that flies and THEN we will have something to discuss. But
that has never naturally occurred and there has never been any
scientific evidences produced to substantiate the claim.

This is a classic example of the fallacy known as "raising the bar" or
"moving the goalpost". The deceiver states as a requirement, something
that is FAR MORE than is genuinely required to prove the point, and
then loudly insists that it is the only way to prove it.

No, Loren, we do not need a horse that flies to know that evolution
takes place even not "within the same 'kind'".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Evolutionism is a faith based upon presuppositions, not on cold, hard
*scientific* objectively verifiable facts.
You have reacted to what I have written. That is good. We should
test each other. Iron sharpens iron. However, we should also be
willing to change our testimonies when we are proven wrong. It's
called maturing.

When will you admit your testimonies concerning the age of the earth
are wrong, Loren? When will you admit that the earth really is 4+
billion years old? When will you admit the light from the Andromeda
Nebula really is 2 million years old?

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Chris Smith

2006-12-19 03:46:36 UTC

Post by Chris Smith
Ultimately, though, this seems to be the oldest rhetorical
trick in the book: no one can say things you find threatening if you
take away their words to say it.

Not at all. It is restricting the definition of the term to those
who hold it, not to those who stand on the outside and wish to
characterize it as you have done.

[For context, we are discussing the definition of fundamentalism.]

Do you intend to say, then, that fundamentalists do not hold the other
opinions I put forth? I thought I was being fair. I believe in the
literal reality of the miracles of Jesus; in the virgin birth and that
Jesus is God; in Jesus' bodily resurrection. I believe in the essential
inerrancy of scripture in that its human authors were inspired by God to
write the big-T Truth, and were protected from inadvertent error in
doing so, but I disagree with the use of scripture to derive support for
ideas that are contained only by reference and are apart from what the
text was intended to convey. I believe in the atonement of Christ, and
I see the myriad of metaphors used by scripture to explain it, and I
understand that the truth about the atonement is beyond human language
but that each of the scriptural metaphors -- including the
substitutionary punishment of Christ for our sins -- conveys an
important part of the meaning.

Do you consider me a fundamentalist, then? If so, then I think that we
shall need a new word to express what the rest of us mean by
fundamentalism. I certainly don't consider myself a fundamentalist.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, this is wrong. This is the old "which came first, the chicken
or the egg."

In at least one important sense, the human life and death of Christ and
the founding of the Church, Christianity came about after 33 A.D, and it
borrowed from traditions that existed prior to the birth of Christ. If
you wish to argue that Christianity was the ultimate end of earlier
religions, I will not disagree with you. But in that case, it seems
pointless to complain about other traditions that originated from non-
Christian religions. Why would they not have their ultimate end in
Christianity as well? I am looking for anything that delineates which
traditions validly entered Christianity from non-Christian religions,
and which did not; you haven't provided that.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I have. In the past I have quoted them extensively and given all
the proper references.

It's hard for me to respond when I don't know what you're talking about.
I apologize for not having time to read all of your long diatribes with
Matthew; but certainly you must realize that they get very tedious.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But even beyond the doctrinal statements, there is the evidentuary
fact of history. "Convert or die!" and when they died by the thousands
then the system of synthesizing began.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me here. It is true that a lot of death has
occurred in the name of the Catholic Church, mainly because the human
leaders of the Church were improperly concerned with temporal matters.
They have made grave mistakes. Christ never promised that this wouldn't
happen; only that the church would prevail. You will have to explain
what you mean by "synthesis" before I understand you well enough to say
any more.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Whether in Boston watching a statue of Mary being paraded about the
streets and the priest offering atonement to sinner if they just place
a couple of bucks under her garters or whether in Santa Fe where they
dress up a self same statue in garments worth hundreds of thousands
of dollars, it is all from the same factory.

Well, I would draw a sharp distinction between the two. The first, if
it occurred that way, is absolutely inexcusable, contrary to the
Christian faith and Catholic teaching. I recognize, though, that biased
viewpoints often make personal observations unreliable, so I'd still ask
for an objective reference).

The second is, at worst, unwise stewardship. But before you judge
others' stewardship of God's gifts, remember that the Catholic Church is
also the largest philanthropic organization in the world. If I had to
list groups who are doing important work to improve the lives of others,
I'd include quite a few Catholic organizations -- CCHD and Catholic
Relief Services, for example -- on the list alongside Habitat and Red
Cross. In other words, the Church is anything but miserly. I won't
presume to second-guess the decision to spend money on religious
artifacts, when many times throughout history the poorest members of
every society have counted it among their greatest achievements to
dedicated their unpaid labor and what little money they have to the
glory of God.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I worked for a man who gave
nearly 7 figures to the local RCC and in return, he was granted to have
stay in his home, for one week, one of three special statues of Mary
from Rome. A list of prayers was handed out along with it. Then there
were all sorts of "miracles" which occurred. Funny, they all had to do
with monitary increase / "blessing."

This sounds like something from the realm of superstition, not
Catholicism. Again, I can only say that there is no official
encouragement of anything like this, and all the records are available.
There is nothing in canon law, nothing in any major encyclicals, nothing
in the CCC, nothing in statements of the USCCB, relating to magical
statues of Mary. I have read them. If this occurred as you explained
it, it demonstrates that someone has a very poor understanding of their
faith, which is sad.

Post by Chris Smith
There's a word for this: post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a very common
logical fallacy. You are not alone in falling for it. It does show a
little bit of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty, though.

History speaks for itself.

Again, you have established correlation, which is not causation. Among
other things, consider that those living in poverty tend to be more
Catholic, especially in Latin America, and that democracy doesn't work
nearly so well for those living in poverty as it does for those who are
well-off, even in the U.S. Unbridled capitalism works even less, and
that's what the U.S. spreads more often than "democracy". No wonder
this has led to conflict. Consider also that the U.S., having been a
traditionally Protestant nation, has had more friendly interactions with
other largely Protestant areas, and has built more trust there. Both of
these make your correlation between Protestantism and success of U.S.-
sponsored "democracy" very likely, with no need for your "Catholic
Church causes darkness and strife" hypothesis.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's NOT that complicated. Now certain secular evolutionist like to
spew forth this nocturn. There is a "priesthood" and only they have
the wherewithall of being able to adequately understand all that is
involved.

I have to say I'm considerably more sympathetic to the experts in
biology that you implicitly distrust. Perhaps I can give you an
understanding of why.

I am fairly knowledgable about math. There are some difficult concepts
in mathematics that have been proven to be true, but which are counter-
intuitive to most people. In particular, let's take two examples:
Cantor's work on theory of infinite sets, and non-recursive or
undecidable sets in recursion theory. Now, take a brief jog over to
sci.math and comp.theory, and you'll see huge threads by various people
who do not have advanced degrees in mathematics claiming to disprove
each of these ideas. If you read those threads carefully, you'll see
that these detractors generally use the same words as those who know
what they are talking about; they show an uncanny knack for being wrong
in subtle ways. If you weren't educated about the subject, you might be
fooled by the arguments. Furthermore, every single one of those
detractors is convinced that the mathematicians are just making things
too complicated. Occasionally, they complain about conspiracies, but
mostly they just claim that mathematicians are just too set in their
ways, or indoctrinated, to understand the simpler truth. In every case,
they are wrong.

So biologists at least superficially appear to be facing the same
problem, and I already know that there is something in human nature that
leads people to become very diligent about promoting incorrect ideas,
and sometimes very skilled at convincing the less-educated about their
correctness. From my perspective, the situation with evolution in
biology looks very similar to Mr. Olcott's complaints about the halting
problem, or various people's complaints about cardinalities of infinite
sets. I don't know so much about biology that I can judge everything
from first principles, but that gives me a good idea of where to place
the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, you probably can't convince me,
unless you first convince other people who are more qualified (or
convince me to go pursue a Ph.D. in biology and become qualified myself;
but's that's not likely to happen, since I find biology to be a dreadful
bore.)

Again, historic fact. Never read Mein Kamph or is it Mein Camp?

No. I believe you, if your claim is that Hitler believed in evolution.
I just don't believe that's was the big problem with Hitler. The
slaughter of millions of Jews (and Gypsies, and many others) is closer
to the big problem with Hitler. If that had something to do with
evolution, then it is only through a misunderstanding of evolution; some
kind of belief that evolution has something to say about the moral
plane.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is also the facts dealing with Luthernism and Luther's position
concerning the Jews. It's all related and all documented.

I am definitely aware that Martin Luther wasn't too terribly fond of
Jews. That's very sad, but again not too terribly related to evolution
(a concept that postdates Luther's death by many years).

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Earlier you dismissed the proposition concerning the "fundamentals"
and yet in the same vein you are here doing exactly the same thing
that you accused me of.

I'm not aware of having accused you of anything, and I'm not sure what
you mean here. If you feel that I'm redefining words, please let me
know what definitions you'd like to nail down, and I'll be happy to do
so.

Again, though, I'm not really terribly qualified to discuss physics, any
more than biology. I will give what answers I can.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, explain to me how a beach ball can spin off of the
merry-go-round universe in a counter-revolutionary orbit. You
cannot reproduce this and yet the universe displays the fact.

I don't have to ability to produce the same kinds of densities, masses,
or distances that make up the universe, using only a beach ball.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If the "big bang" is presumed and taught as being
THE beginning (as necessitated by the evolutionary theory),

I don't see any connection at all between evolution and the big bang.
Do you?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why, in these debates, are evolutionary scientist only equipped to
defend micro-evolution?

Back to biology, then. Okay. I can only say that in general, it is
possible to reason about large observations by extrapolating from
smaller ones. The smaller observations are generally easier to make
(or, as in this case, the larger interactions are impossible to directly
observe), so this is often a convenient way to work. As for the exact
reasoning that establishes the larger phenomenon, I don't know enough
that I'm willing to make definite statements. But it would be
unrealistic to expect a direct observation of large-scale evolution.

Anyway, I'm guessing, so this conversation is getting increasingly less
interesting. On second thought, perhaps we should drop the science part
of it unless you know of a reasonable way to proceed, neither of us
having expertise in the matter.

--
Chris Smith

l***@hotmail.com

2006-12-20 03:46:00 UTC

Post by Chris Smith
Ultimately, though, this seems to be the oldest rhetorical
trick in the book: no one can say things you find threatening if you
take away their words to say it.

Not at all. It is restricting the definition of the term to those
who hold it, not to those who stand on the outside and wish to
characterize it as you have done.

[For context, we are discussing the definition of fundamentalism.]
Do you intend to say, then, that fundamentalists do not hold the other
opinions I put forth?

I am saying, that at its genesis, the fundies were very specific.
George
Dollar writes the battle out of which fundamentalism grew lasted
approximately
twenty five years, from 1875 to 1900.

Quote:

A massive attack was raised against the verbal, plenary, and
infallible authority of the Word of God. Scholars, teachers,
denominational executives, and educators joined to reject the essential
truths of historic Christianity. It was a war begun without a formal
resolution of hostilities, without the marching of armies and the
firing of the guns; it was even more than deadly for it sliced away the
spiritual foundations of our nation and our heritage. It was in the
midst of such a vast deterioration that a valiant few arose to preserve
the doctrines of the Word, the faith of our fathers, at any and all
cost. These were the pioneer fundamentalists and, like early believers
at Antioch, they existed for a while before the tag of Christian was
applied. So complete was the attack of the enemies of the Word that, in
the words of a careful student of this period, the faith which had
dominated the country for 150 years "perished from the earth in a
night."

Continuing.....

....early fundamentalists were "disturbed by the presence of vast
neglected fields, neglected forces, and neglected truth." The Bible
now became an area of closest study and exposition. The method of
interpretation (hermeneutics) was a strict literalism, for the Book was
both given and must be taken literally, or, as Dr. Gordon once wrote in
his paper "The Watchword," it must be taken literally or liberally.
Consequently, they held it as verbally inspired and without error or
lack. Such an attitude and study produced doctrines which not only did
not agree with higher criticism, new sciences, and evolution, but
openly espoused Biblical concepts hidden for centuries, once the
deposit of apostles and believers of early Christianity. These truths
were the different plans of God for Israel and the church, literal
fulfillment of all prophecy, the "any-moment" coming of the Lord to
rapture the church, the certainty of the thousand-year reign of Christ,
the total separation of Christians from all forms of worldliness, and
the urgency of soul-winning and world-wide missions before Christ
comes.

End quote.

Harrington wrote that "Fundamentalism was a militant religious
conservatism." In this he has struck a strong note of the entire
movement, its attitude of militancy, opposition, exposing and attacking
false teachings, and willingness to defend the faith. Fundamentalism
has always been a defense as well as an attack on error. To early
fundamentalists the truths they taught were God-given, more precious
and more worthy to be defended than anything they knew. Jude exhorted:

..."appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once
for all delivered to the saints."

"The Faith" or the fundamental doctrines as the writer of Hebrews
stated as well in 6:1.
"Delivered once and for all" speaks of the plenary aspect of Scripture.

Post by Chris Smith
I thought I was being fair. I believe in the
literal reality of the miracles of Jesus; in the virgin birth and that
Jesus is God; in Jesus' bodily resurrection. I believe in the essential
inerrancy of scripture in that its human authors were inspired by God to
write the big-T Truth, and were protected from inadvertent error in
doing so, but I disagree with the use of scripture to derive support for
ideas that are contained only by reference and are apart from what the
text was intended to convey.

Such as?

Post by Chris Smith
I believe in the atonement of Christ,

Vicarious?

Post by Chris Smith
I see the myriad of metaphors used by scripture to explain it, and I
understand that the truth about the atonement is beyond human language
but that each of the scriptural metaphors -- including the
substitutionary punishment of Christ for our sins -- conveys an
important part of the meaning.
Do you consider me a fundamentalist, then? If so, then I think that we
shall need a new word to express what the rest of us mean by
fundamentalism. I certainly don't consider myself a fundamentalist.

Compared to Matthew, you're a fundy!

What about imminency? Yes? No?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, this is wrong. This is the old "which came first, the chicken
or the egg."

This is not fundamentalism and certainly not dispensationalism. A
literaly reading of the OT prophets clearly teach that Israel is yet to
be purified and to inherit the promises made specifically to them as
an elect nation.

Post by Chris Smith
But in that case, it seems
pointless to complain about other traditions that originated from non-
Christian religions. Why would they not have their ultimate end in
Christianity as well? I am looking for anything that delineates which
traditions validly entered Christianity from non-Christian religions,
and which did not; you haven't provided that.

There is only one "tradition."

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He
explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I have. In the past I have quoted them extensively and given all
the proper references.

I don't blame you in the least. "tedious" is being kind.

I mean that the RCC has historically taken the religious icons and
beliefs and transmigrated them into "christian" beliefs such as to
endear and entrap the indigents. Again, I really don't care to rehash
all of this.

Post by Chris Smith
The second is, at worst, unwise stewardship. But before you judge
others' stewardship of God's gifts, remember that the Catholic Church is
also the largest philanthropic organization in the world.

But is this doing the Lord's work the Lord's way or is it merely
doing the Lord's work in the flesh?

Post by Chris Smith
If I had to
list groups who are doing important work to improve the lives of others,
I'd include quite a few Catholic organizations -- CCHD and Catholic
Relief Services, for example -- on the list alongside Habitat and Red
Cross. In other words, the Church is anything but miserly. I won't
presume to second-guess the decision to spend money on religious
artifacts, when many times throughout history the poorest members of
every society have counted it among their greatest achievements to
dedicated their unpaid labor and what little money they have to the
glory of God.

The pope takes the title "Servant of Servants" and yet I've seen him
carried on the backs of men, dressed in costly garments so heavy
laiden with gold and jewels that he needed others to help him stand
up. When he eats, he eats on a dais. "Servant of Servants." What
a fantastic title. Yet where is the image of Christ in all of this?
Where is the poverty? Where is the identity with common man? And
I suppose while I'm at it, I'll ask, where is the scriptural support
for
another priesthood with another sacrifice?

This sounds like something from the realm of superstition, not
Catholicism.

Hey, this is how much of Cism plays itself out in the lives of the
ordinary
communicant. My wife's family are all RC's. I was raised Anglican in
diocese that were "high church" or very catholic in nature. I dated
girls
from the RC schools. I got to know men who wrote for the Chicago
area RC diocese theological journals. I have studiously watched not
only the common RC, but have at length discussed and debated in
RC seminaries. I know their formal theological stance as well as
what actually plays out. In total, it is not Biblical Christianity.

Post by Chris Smith
Again, I can only say that there is no official
encouragement of anything like this,

Oh really? Never been to Mexico have we?

Post by Chris Smith
and all the records are available.
There is nothing in canon law, nothing in any major encyclicals, nothing
in the CCC, nothing in statements of the USCCB, relating to magical
statues of Mary. I have read them. If this occurred as you explained
it, it demonstrates that someone has a very poor understanding of their
faith, which is sad.

Hey, this would include the three priests of the local church plus the
bishops. So this isn't imaginary nor ad hoc stuff. I've been in the
basements
and under the foundation stones of many a RCC. What I have found there
has often sent wooly spiders down my back. I've been in the presence
of
a man who's family counts back 15 generations as being medians. The
dark power that radiated from him electrified every spiritual bone in
my
body. But then again, I have been in the presence of both bishops and
two archbishops and in a more finely veiled way, that same presence
was there. You may certainly think me superstitious or just some
fundamentalist wacko, I really couldn't care less, but I know the
difference
between being in the presence of a real giant of God and that of being
in
the presence of a lieutenant of Hell. I've seen people levitated at
the
touch of a finger. I've been a car that suddenly died in the middle of
a
deserted highway only to have every bottle, can and highway debries
springing against it. I have been formally schooled in demonology and
angelology. I have studied the ancient mystery religions for years. I
know that they did not vanish because the power behind them has never
been chained up. They were absorbed and synthesized.

Post by Chris Smith
Again, you have established correlation, which is not causation. Among
other things, consider that those living in poverty tend to be more
Catholic,

And why is that? Why do neighboring countries that are Evangelical
educated and sharing in easier life styles and freedoms? There is
such a thing as cause and effect outside of just chemistry you know.

Post by Chris Smith
especially in Latin America, and that democracy doesn't work
nearly so well for those living in poverty as it does for those who are
well-off, even in the U.S.

And do you not think that the early settlers of this country were not
bitterly poor? Many gave every last penney they owned just book
passage over here. You have not studied our history.

Post by Chris Smith
sponsored "democracy" very likely, with no need for your "Catholic
Church causes darkness and strife" hypothesis.

Again, history speaks for itself. We'd still be in the dark ages if it

were not for the Protestant Reformation. Look at Schaeffer's "How
Then Should We Live" and read for yourself all the freedoms and
beautiful fruit that were birthed from the Reformation. The RCC
has historically kept the scriptures from the populace except when
forced otherwise. In just the last 100 yrs I can give two accounts
where the RCC has had bible burnings. One in the Philippians and
one in Quebec. Having grown very close to the Latin community,
I have witnessed more than once people leaving the room simply
because a bible was opened without a priest being there. Before
God I am not lying in any of this.

Post by Chris Smith
I am fairly knowledgable about math. There are some difficult concepts
in mathematics that have been proven to be true, but which are counter-
intuitive to most people.

Yet Nobel laureate in math, Sir Fredrick Hoyle, now discounts the
common explaination of evolution. This is old news. About 20 yrs
old. Ever wonder why?

I will get to the rest of you post tomorrow. No time tonight.

Question, being mathematical, how do you resolve 2 Chron 4:2?

Chris Smith

2006-12-21 05:23:42 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I am saying, that at its genesis, the fundies were very specific.
Harrington wrote that "Fundamentalism was a militant religious
conservatism."

Yep. All of this seems reasonable to me in terms of definition. Note
that it's above and beyond merely believing in five statements of fact.
It has to do with beliefs about the relative importance of those five
statements, and their interpretation. In particular, fundamentalism
takes a specific opinion on what constitutes good authority to question
one's interpretation of scripture. It's this last bit that made the
statement you responded to somewhat reasonable, and what I was bringing
up.

Post by Chris Smith
but I disagree with the use of scripture to derive support for
ideas that are contained only by reference and are apart from what the
text was intended to convey.

Such as?

Actually, you provided a reasonable example later in this post by
quoting 2 Chron 4:2. I don't interpret it as claiming that the ratio of
diameter to circumference of a circle is anything other than pi; the
author didn't intend to make a statement about geometry, so it's
entirely reasonable that the numbers given there are approximations.
Perhaps it was really 31.4 cubits in diameter, but 30 was a nice round
number. No problems. For similar reasons, I don't believe that the sky
is a dome of water suspended above the Earth; that the Sun really moved
backwards several thousand years ago in physical fact, as opposed to the
perception of people involved in a specific battle; or (and I know you
will disagree here) that the first creation story in Genesis is really
talking about 24-hour days, or giving the appropriate order, or the
mechanism of creation.

Post by Chris Smith
I believe in the atonement of Christ,

Vicarious?

Yes, but not entirely.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What about imminency? Yes? No?

Perhaps you can clarify the meaning. The information I can find seems
to suggest that imminency is a debate about details of the rapture. I
see no valid support for the rapture; so I suppose that means you can
count me as a no for imminency as well, unless I've misinterpreted. If
imminency only means that the return of Christ can happen at any time,
then clearly no one could read the Bible and deny that.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is not fundamentalism and certainly not dispensationalism. A
literaly reading of the OT prophets clearly teach that Israel is yet to
be purified and to inherit the promises made specifically to them as
an elect nation.

Right, but only if you accept that the modern-day nation of Israel is
what is meant when scripture talks about Israel; and in consequence that
scripture deceived millions of people over a course of many centuries.
I have trouble swallowing that one.

So there's something else that you count as "fundamentalism", which I
would previously have been reluctant to add to the definition, since the
modern-day nation of Israel post-dates the coining of the term. But I
understand that the vast majority of fundamentalists accept that
position, and it must be added into the "interpret scripture the way we
do" condition.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is only one "tradition."

There are, of course, many levels of tradition. My family has
traditions. So do my country, my religion, and all of humanity. Not
sure what you're getting at here, but that's what I meant when I spoke
of different traditions.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I mean that the RCC has historically taken the religious icons and
beliefs and transmigrated them into "christian" beliefs such as to
endear and entrap the indigents.

Entrap is a strange choice of words. But yes.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The pope takes the title "Servant of Servants" and yet I've seen him
carried on the backs of men, dressed in costly garments so heavy
laiden with gold and jewels that he needed others to help him stand
up. When he eats, he eats on a dais. "Servant of Servants." What
a fantastic title. Yet where is the image of Christ in all of this?
Where is the poverty?

These are good questions. I have no desire to defend the earthly
excesses of the papacy. I merely recognize that despite these excesses,
the Pope was placed in his position by God, and I grant him the respect
and benefit of the doubt that is due. I do not hold to the doctrine of
papal infallibility, but I do recognize, as a matter of my faith, that
it requires grave cause to explicitly and publicly dissent against the
actions of the magisterium, and as a matter of practicality, that there
are theologians in the Church far more qualified than I to answer
difficult questions.

Incidentally, the title "Servant of the Servants of God" was coined by
Gregory the Great, who was like the most sincere and, in most senses,
"best" pope in the history of the church. It is an ideal; many have
failed to meet it at all; and all have failed to completely live up to
it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Hey, this is how much of Cism plays itself out in the lives of the
ordinary communicant.

Given that I spend a good part of my life with "ordinary communicants",
I think I have a fairly good view, and I don't see the same thing. I
suppose if one is only looking for the problems with the Catholic faith,
one will find them; but to pretend that they are universal does not make
it so.

Unless you care to bring up something other than anecdotes, that's all
that can really be said.

Post by Chris Smith
Again, you have established correlation, which is not causation. Among
other things, consider that those living in poverty tend to be more
Catholic,

And why is that?

Good question. It's one that you haven't answered. When I point out
that "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is the name of a logical fallacy, the
implication is that suggesting a correlation is not a sufficient
argument for causation. You still have said nothing that might possibly
establish causation.

Post by Chris Smith
I am fairly knowledgable about math. There are some difficult concepts
in mathematics that have been proven to be true, but which are counter-
intuitive to most people.

Yet Nobel laureate in math, Sir Fredrick Hoyle, now discounts the
common explaination of evolution.

I'm not sure where this got lost; I'm not looking for experts in math
who don't believe evolution. I am asking whether there is a general
consensus among experts in biology. The answer is no. Mathematics was
a metaphor here; I would be silly to trust a mathematician on a question
of appropriate scientific models. At best, mathematicians can propose
questions and point out inconsistencies in the model, which are then
addressed by research (*). Mathematicians are not higher forms of human
beings, and they have no particular expertise on evaluating when it's
time to drop a general model like evolution.

A great example comes from Schutzenberger, who famously decided in 1966
that information theory precludes the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Although
this raised problems with the then-current model of evolution,
researchers have been propelled by Schutzenberger's argument to discover
new carriers of genetic information which answer his questions, despite
his rather combatitive way of presenting it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Question, being mathematical, how do you resolve 2 Chron 4:2?

Above.

--
Chris Smith

k***@astound.net

2006-12-22 22:13:35 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Yet Nobel laureate in math, Sir Fredrick Hoyle, now discounts the
common explaination of evolution. This is old news. About 20 yrs
old.

I almost missed this one because I am bored with arguments about
evolution.

However, for the record, Fredrick Hoyle was an astrophysicist, not a
mathematician. There is no Nobel prize for mathematics.

Hoyle's objection was not to evolution itself which he acknowledged it
freely. Hoyle, however, doubt that evolution could explain the creation
of living forms from non-living matter. This is generally assumed by
biologists, but it is not actually part of the theory of evolution.

Hoyle was not a statistician and his numerical calculations of
probabilities are generally laughed at by people who know something
about statistics. The general consensus is that Sir Fredrick went off
the deep end and not for the first time.

Which is not to say that his conclusion was not right. We still have no
demonstration that life can originate from lifeless matter. Perhaps a
divine creator is needed to reach down a finger and implant life
somewhere. However once life was created it began to evolve.

---

[Indeed, I treat arguments about the origin of life separately from
evolution. --clh]

Rodney Dunning

2006-12-25 06:14:08 UTC

I apologize for the delay in responding. I had final exams to write,
administer, and grade, etc., etc.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Well I'm sorry, I don't have my notebook handy to where I
can provide every detail. At the present I feel like just telling
to go do your own research. But if you will allow me to
reply to you without verbatim quotes or noted references, I
will.

Post by Rodney Dunning
From memory, I believe there are somewhere near 90 moons

I don't have to search it out, I'm familiar with what you're talking
about. If we view the solar system from above the Earth's north pole,
the planets and other objects are revolving about the Sun in a
counter-clockwise manner. I'm not aware of exceptions to this pattern,
but there are many objects orbiting the Sun so I wouldn't be surprised
if there are exceptions to the general orbital pattern.

Every planet except Mercury and Venus has natural satellites. Like the
planets, nearly every moon orbits its parent body in a
counter-clockwise fashion when the solar system is viewed from above
the Earth's north pole. Further, nearly every planet and moon is
rotating on its axis in a counter-clockwise fashion when viewed from
this perspective, as is the Sun itself.

There are several exceptions. These exceptions are explained by random
turbulence in the initial conditions of the solar system. The
existence of these exceptions does not discredit the current model of
solar system formation. Indeed, because the model can account for the
exceptions, the exceptions actually help validate the model.

I suppose that in your mind, Loren, the exact opposite is true.
Because there are a few exceptions to the general pattern of motion in
the solar system, the solar system could not have formed along the
lines claimed by professional astronomers. Why you would believe this
is beyond me, except that it somehow fits into your program of
interpreting the Bible as literally as possible.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But the point still applies. Why do some spiral one way while
others in an opposite direction? The Law applies no matter how
big or how diverse.

In any given spiral galaxy, all the arms spin the same way. The reason
some spin one way and some the other (clockwise vs. counterclockwise)
is simply because these galaxies are oriented randomly and thus we have
a different perspective on each galaxy. Imagine a clock with a clear
face, so that the hands could viewed from either side of the clock. If
a large number of such clocks are hung on the wall in a random fashion,
about half would be hung "backward," and the hands would rotate in a
counterclockwise fashion. But we would still understand how clocks
work. In the same way, the fact that galaxies are oriented randomly
and do not all appear to rotate in the same direction does not mean we
don't understand basic cosmology.

There are two important mistakes in this paragraph. First,
"evolutionism" doesn't require or suggest anything about the age of the
universe. Biological evolution and cosmology are distinct subjects.
The age of the universe is approximately 14 billion years, a figure
determined primarily from measurements of the Hubble constant. There
is no biology involved in this calculation.

Second, a spiral arm cannot lose energy, because it's not a thing that
posses any energy to lose. As I pointed out in an earlier post, a
spiral arm is simply a region of a galaxy where stars are more densely
packed. It's possible that a spiral galaxy will lose its structure as
the galaxy ages, but you're incorrect that this should have already
happened.

I'm sorry, but this paragraph and the ones that follow it are simply
incomprehensible. It's apparent to me that you have little if any
clear idea about these subjects.

The universe is a wonderful, complex, and fascinating thing. It's a
shame that you persist in attacking the beauty and truth of God's
creation.

--
Rodney Dunning
Assistant Professor of Physics
Longwood University
http://www.longwood.edu/staff/dunningrb

Matthew Johnson

2006-12-29 03:00:31 UTC

Post by Rodney Dunning
I apologize for the delay in responding. I had final exams to write,
administer, and grade, etc., etc.

[snip]

Post by Rodney Dunning
There are two important mistakes in this paragraph.

Only two?

Post by Rodney Dunning
First,
"evolutionism" doesn't require or suggest anything about the age of the
universe.

Actually, yes it does, since any realistic theory of evolution requires a very
LONG period of time for today's species to develop out of single-celled
organisms.

Post by Rodney Dunning
Biological evolution and cosmology are distinct subjects.

Of course they are. But so are chemistry and medicine, yet they have
implications for each other too.

Post by Rodney Dunning
The age of the universe is approximately 14 billion years, a figure
determined primarily from measurements of the Hubble constant. There
is no biology involved in this calculation.

Yet the 14 billion year figure has enormous implications for biology. Without
something about that long, it would be very hard to explain life on earth.

Post by Rodney Dunning
Second, a spiral arm cannot lose energy, because it's not a thing that
posses any energy to lose.

I think I know what you are getting at, but I have doubts that this was the best
way to express it. A spiral arm is a mechanical system, and any mechanical
system must have some energy.

Post by Rodney Dunning
As I pointed out in an earlier post, a
spiral arm is simply a region of a galaxy where stars are more densely
packed.

Which is why I think you could have made your point better by saying that a
spiral arm is not an isolated, permanent mechanical system; it must be viewed as
a fluctuation in the galaxy as a whole. In this case, your analogy with traffic
makes it clear that there is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Angular
Momentum, neither of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Post by Rodney Dunning
It's possible that a spiral galaxy will lose its structure as
the galaxy ages, but you're incorrect that this should have already
happened.

Some numerical estimates of how long this would take would be very handy here.
That would put to rest the fallacious claim of violation of the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics.

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I don't have to provide an answer. My paradigm has no objection to
it and it possess not problems. However, when one holds to the
big bang or someother evolutionary theorum, then it is they who are
then put to arms and find a need to provide an answer to the
contradiction. Either the Laws of the universe are absolute or they
are merely sometimes fast. But when you travel down this resolve,
then you end up with no absolute laws at all and therefore can't even
pursue a line of argument using decay rates or speed of light
constants. But if you will allow that A+B always = C, whether we
are speaking of chemical reaction or mathematics or even as
originally noted, "conservation of angular *momentum*" then
solutions are required when those "Laws" find contrasting
evidences.

I'm sorry, but this paragraph and the ones that follow it are simply
incomprehensible.

Once you understand that these paragraphs are based on a radical rejection of
the scientific method, the paragraphs are easier to understand -- for all that
is worth.

Yet that radical rejection is actually quite widespread today. It is present in
most, if not all, of the 'research' published by the "Institute for Creation
Research", and is also used by people who deny global warming.

But even more immediately relevant, the 'point' these paragraphs of Loren's make
is invalid, because the _assume_ that Loren's examples show that current
cosmological theories contradict known physical laws. They do not.

[snip]

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

l***@hotmail.com

2006-12-29 03:00:32 UTC

Post by Rodney Dunning
but there are many objects orbiting the Sun so I wouldn't be surprised
if there are exceptions to the general orbital pattern.

But this stands against both law and experience. You can place beach
balls on that merry-go-round from now till the end of eternity and they
will
all, without exception, spin off in exactly the same axial spiration.

Post by Rodney Dunning
Every planet except Mercury and Venus has natural satellites. Like the
planets, nearly every moon orbits its parent body in a
counter-clockwise fashion when the solar system is viewed from above
the Earth's north pole. Further, nearly every planet and moon is
rotating on its axis in a counter-clockwise fashion when viewed from
this perspective, as is the Sun itself.

I have not debated the fact that "nearly every" planet or moon spirals
"clockwise." My point was, why do ANY act in contrary manner?

Post by Rodney Dunning
There are several exceptions. These exceptions are explained by random
turbulence in the initial conditions of the solar system.

"Explained" but not proven. Certainly you or I can kick a beach ball
off that merry-go-round in a counter motion. However, when left to
itself,
(closed universe), this never happens. And just how do you explain
spiral arm gallaxies counter rotating? Planets or even solar systems
colliding with the like would only disperse the matter to begin with,
not establish a counter revolution. The Law needs to be reconciled
with what is.

Post by Rodney Dunning
The
existence of these exceptions does not discredit the current model of
solar system formation. Indeed, because the model can account for the
exceptions, the exceptions actually help validate the model.

You haven't establish anything. Put two plates on top of a dowel
and set them into motion, both clockwise. Then bring to touch.
It's an easy enough experiment to reconstruct. When the respective
plates crash to the floor, the resulting bits and pieces spin off in
what direction? As I said, you've established exactly nothing.
You've merely presumed the exception without any demonstration.
This is really bad science.

Post by Rodney Dunning
I suppose that in your mind, Loren, the exact opposite is true.
Because there are a few exceptions to the general pattern of motion in
the solar system, the solar system could not have formed along the
lines claimed by professional astronomers. Why you would believe this
is beyond me, except that it somehow fits into your program of
interpreting the Bible as literally as possible.

Stick to the Laws of the physical universe. One doesn't have to
bring any scriptural account at this time. Or, forgive me for my
own presumptiveness, do the Laws themselves evolve? BTW,
where did the Laws come from in the first place?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But the point still applies. Why do some spiral one way while
others in an opposite direction? The Law applies no matter how
big or how diverse.

Not so. The big bang presumption is that the universe is expanding
outward, does it not? Therefore when we look back either into space,
or the mass which occupies that space or the time in which both
space and mass exist, we do so from an established reference point.
An established reference point is the fundmental presupposition of
all measurement, is it not? Can you spiral back into time? Why
not? In the same measure, why, from a single reference point, do
some gallaxies spiral one way while others another way if both
stand "beneath" us in the expanding universe?

Post by Rodney Dunning
Imagine a clock with a clear
face, so that the hands could viewed from either side of the clock. If
a large number of such clocks are hung on the wall in a random fashion,
about half would be hung "backward," and the hands would rotate in a
counterclockwise fashion. But we would still understand how clocks
work. In the same way, the fact that galaxies are oriented randomly
and do not all appear to rotate in the same direction does not mean we
don't understand basic cosmology.

All that is based upon an unestablished presumption. You are presuming
that spiral arm galaxies which spin "clockwise" are above us while
those
that spiral 'counter clockwise" are beneath us in the expansion of the
universe (an assumption in itself). Where is the established reference
point? It has to be in relationship to earth, does it not? And earth
has
to be in relationship to the sun, yes? ex. Are we looking out into
the
universe away from the sun in the January sky or in the July sky?

I understand your point and accept it's validity but only when you
firmly
establish the reference point. How is expansion proven? Does it not
too have to establish a reference point?

Post by Rodney Dunning
There are two important mistakes in this paragraph. First,
"evolutionism" doesn't require or suggest anything about the age of the
universe. Biological evolution and cosmology are distinct subjects.

But they must both "fit" into the same "box." That is, they must
both conform to what it.

1) this age is based upon the presumption that the universe was
started off by some sort of big bang.
2) it presumes that light is a constant when physics has blown
that theory out of the water in "light" of its bending by gravity.
3) biology must fit within the box of time

There are many things which argue against and old universe -
physical arguments. If earth's moon is rotating away from earth at
3 inches per year, measured by laser, then how long ago was it
when it was so close that its gravity ripped all the oceans of earth
off of it? And would not the heat of it been so great as to boil
them off even before that time?

Sorry, but many things do not add up in this equation of, as
Sagon put it, "Billions and billions of years old."

Post by Rodney Dunning
Second, a spiral arm cannot lose energy, because it's not a thing that
posses any energy to lose.

Really? This stand counter to everything I've ever heard. This
doesn't
even stand consistent to what is photographed in partical decay. And
the macro universe must conform to the same laws as the micro
universe. Like everything in the box, unless energy, and a very
specific
energy and a very specific mechanism to correctly order and apply that
energy, be added from the outside, then it cannot maintain itself.
Whether large or small, there is no such thing as a self-perpetuating
engine. If you know of one, the oil companies would kill you just
to suppress it!

Post by Rodney Dunning
As I pointed out in an earlier post, a
spiral arm is simply a region of a galaxy where stars are more densely
packed. It's possible that a spiral galaxy will lose its structure as
the galaxy ages, but you're incorrect that this should have already
happened.

If the universe is 16 billions of years old, then not only should these
giantic spiral arm galaxies have depleted their energy, but so too
Saturn's rings. It's the same difference. We don't have to go off
into the stratosphere in cosmological discussions to find a simple
resolve. That beach ball which spins off of the merry-go-round will
stop spinning long before the larger mass of the merry-go-round
ceases to spin. However -both will stop unless an outside energy
force comes into the equation.

I'm sorry, but this paragraph and the ones that follow it are simply
incomprehensible. It's apparent to me that you have little if any
clear idea about these subjects.

Again, very very simple illustrations prove the larger issues as being
either true or false. I haven't seen a single illustration which
you've
presented that reflects this in anyway. You've basically done what
I have witnessed time and again, saying, "You're too stupid to
understand these complex issues." Now who has established a
new priesthood? And that is exactly how it comes off. I've had
world renown physicists walk off, spouting profanities instead of
explaining profundities when using just this very simple illustration
of the beach ball and the merry-go-round. Evolutionism speaks
of the "Laws of the Universe" but then it runs away when it is
forced to give an consistent account to them.

Post by Rodney Dunning
The universe is a wonderful, complex, and fascinating thing. It's a
shame that you persist in attacking the beauty and truth of God's
creation.

What is more wonderful, the deistic approach where God just
placed things in motion and then left everything to spin off into
its own resolve or, that by a single word, He called everything
into being? Uni -"single". Verse - "spoken sentence."

Science has made the earth a neighborhood but only Christ
bringsforth a brotherhood. Christ did not dismiss a literal
understanding of opening chapters of Genesis. Rather, He
established it.

----

[I'm a bit concerned about this discussion. It isn't specifically
prohibited by the charter, as cosmology and evolution are different.
However I'm not aware that we have any active participants who
are qualified to answer your questions.

I do know at least a couple of things though.

First, you mention the bending of light as saying that light doesn't
have a constant velocity. The bending of light was one of the first
major tests of general relativity. GR predicts it quite accurately. GR
takes the speed of light as constant.

Second, I'm not clear whether you understand the "bang" or not --
there's enough ambiguity to your language that I'm not sure. I hope
you're aware that the big bang isn't actually an explosion. You
shouldn't envision some place from which things exploded. Rather, the
whole space expanded. When we look in the sky we don't expect to find
some direction from which the bang occurred. Rather, radiation from
the big bang is visible in all directions. Variations in that
radiation are used to discriminate among various models.

--clh]

l***@hotmail.com

2006-12-29 03:00:34 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
That is, in the solar system, we interpret the correlation between
directions of orbits in one way, but the directions of rotations of
spiral arms in a different way. For the way they are formed is
different.

It is so funny to watch how people try to wiggle their way out the
corner they find themselves in. My office was right next door to
physcists who later left to head the astrophysics division at the
radiotelescope in, where? Arizona I believe it is. He had this
neatest little program in which he could pull all this stuff on his
computer and we could watch stars or gallaxies as if it were
the real thing. We had some most interesting conversations
but never did he raise the objection you have made above. I
think I'm going to hold his explainations is a bit higher regard
than your own, okay?

No, he was not a Christian though he respected my belief of
it's teachings. Really nice man. Never any put downs, just
explainations or, "Gee, I don't have an answer to that." He
didn't in the least have any "agendas" that required protecting.
He was a true scientist. Spiral arms were created exactly
in the same way and at the same time IF the Big Bang
theory is consistently applied (which presupposes that it
actually happened) as all the other gallaxies, planets,
stars, moons, comets, etc.

Perhaps I missed it. Why isn't matter equally scattered
across the cosmos if, indeed, the Big Bang is the orginating
moment of the present uni-verse?

Post by Matthew Johnson
In the former, we have good reason to believe that it is a
specific result of the way the planets were formed, that they mostly
rotate the same way.

Why "mostly." The Law requires that they ALL rotate in
the same direction.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Thus, for example, one proposal was that they all
evolved out of a disk rotating around the sun.

"ALL" what? All planets? All gallaxies? Besides, this
"proposal" is absurd as the make up of moons does not
consistently match the planets they revolve around.

Post by Matthew Johnson
ONLY in such a case
does the coservation of angular momentum explain rotation in the same
direction.

Absolutely not. Other than the speaking forth of God in creationism,
there is only one other paradigm being proposed -Big Bang. But not
only has matter not been equally distributed, but the inconsistency
with other laws, such as angular momentum/motion, speaks against
such a theorem. This is your belief, is it not? i.e. Big Boom

Post by Matthew Johnson
But if the principle of formation is different as IS the
case with galaxies, there is no such consequnce of c. of a.m. Eddies
can form, allowsing galaxies to rotate in all different directions.

Ever studied eddy currents in a river. If you were much of a
fisherman you would have. Eddies never counter that which
produces them. The same rock does not produce both
clockwise and counter clockwise rotating eddies off the
same side. But the application of eddies to the Big Bang,
and certainly to such massive material masses as spiral
arm galaxies, does not apply. Your eddy argument
presupposes that there was something already in the
"river" off of which these galaxies collided or spun off
of.

Again, the best explaination is a simple illustration. The
Laws apply to the large as well at to the little. Eddies
require something which wasn't there if one consistently
applies the presuppositions of the Big Bang theory.

Post by Rodney Dunning
As for spiral arms: a spiral arm is not a rigid object. It's a
collection of stars, each orbiting the center of the galaxy much as
a planet orbits the sun. In a spiral galaxy, the arms are
basically traffic jams. In fact, models of spiral arm formation
are conceptually similar to models of highway traffic that predict
traffic jams at key points along a highway.

But the point still applies.

No, it does not.

Okay, provide a demonstrateable illustration proving otherwise.
River eddies do not support you. Even "traffic jams" don't
support you for the very same reason. Both suppose that
there is something out there which is already in place to
cause such an effect. Just what do you propose that to be?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Why do some spiral one way while others in an opposite direction?

Haven't you ever seen eddies in a river do the same thing? Some rotate
one way, others another.

Yes. But take a closer look. The eddies flow off of the right side
of the obstruction in one direction while the eddies on the left
side counter that rotation. But, again, the application of this
proposed resolve of the problem, requires an object or force
already there. Eddies are always effects. If the cause of all
this dispersion was the Big Bang, then it would always produce
the same effect as required by this law of motion.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Law applies no matter how big or how diverse.

Of course it does. But it does NOT iply that spiral galaxies must
rotate the same directions.

There is only two options available for this to be true. Either
there were two Big Bangs or the Big Bang wasn't that Big and
it only gathered in some of the universe's matter to once again
disperse it, having that disperment collide with some of the
mass/energy which did not participate in that particular
expansion. Sorry, either it is a Law or it is not. It must be
consistently applied if it is. So far you've provided no
supportable objection to its application to the event.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If the
cosmos is as old as evolutionism requires it to be, then there is the
added unanswered problem as to why spiral arms still spiral. i.e.
they should have lost that energy ages ago.

What? Where do you think it would have gone?

Are you arguing for an open or a closed universe, Matthew? Why
do you have to keep your foot on the floor board of your car once
you have placed the flywheel in motion? Same difference. Why
do you have to change the shingles on your roof every 20-30 yrs?
Energy is not only lost, but energy needs a very specific
mechanism to optimize any energy brought from outside of itself.
The World Trade Center illustrates that factoid. There was
plenty of energy distributed into each of those towers, but it
did not evolve those structures into something "higher." No
matter how numerous they may be, no mutation ever produces
anything greater than itself. Why are only non-beneficial
examples of mutation given by the evolutionist camp? Because
it can never produce a good one.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics speaks against you.

I don't have to provide an answer.

Yes, you do. For it was YOU who claimed they don't obey it.

It's not a problem with the creationist, Matthew. You claim to be a
Christian who believes "nothing is impossible with God" and accepts
the mystery behind the fact that no two snow flakes are exactly
alike. Unity and diversity is only answered by Trinitarianism. I
don't
have to resolve the issue of diversity in a closed system because
I don't believe the system is closed to begin with. This is where
theistic evolutionism simply stands apart from Biblical Christianity.

You miss the point. You _do_ need to provide an answer to show that
there IS a contradiction.

Why is there a contradiction? You presuppose that I have to have
the very same presuppositions that you operate off of. I don't.
According my presuppositions, there is no contradiction. God
spoke them into existence. He did not explode everything into
existence, requiring vast amounts of time to evolve everything
into being.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Neither Rodney nor I see it.

You think I'm surprised by this?

Post by Matthew Johnson
In fact, I
daresay no bona fide cosmologist will see it. Even a lot of
non-bona-fide cosmologists will see that your 'contradiction' is no
contradiction at all.

:-) "see" and "admit to" are two different things. Again, I've been
at the debates with the specific fields of scientific study there to
present and to argue for their understanding. An interesting
observation from all these debates. Evolutionist rarely (actually
I can't recall it ever actually occurring) end up using their own
particular field of study to support evolution. We've already
seen this in this counter exchange of ideas. (This debate is
occuring also over in SRC-BS). The buck is eventually passed
to another field of science when their own particular field is
shown not to support the science.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Either the Laws of the universe are absolute or they
are merely sometimes fast.

But wait a minute: this IS a problem for you. For you are the one who
claimed that the rate of radioactive decay went through a big speed
up, i.e. was "sometimes fast", and sometimes not.

No it isn't a problem for me. You seem to be blind to the fact that
I do not have the same presuppositions that you have. I DON'T
BELIEVE IN THE BIG BANG!!!! Duh! It is not my Genesis because
I don't allegorize the text as you MUST!

Post by Matthew Johnson
Have you forgotten this? You are the one who requires the laws of
nature to change, so that the radioactive decay into helium ran much,
much faster for a period of time than it does today.

I'm not a uniformitarian. You are I suppose?

The basic premise of that argument was that uniformitarianism
is unsupported. (Read 2nd Peter lately, Matthew?) But evolutionism
has this as one of its presuppositions. As for radioactive decay,
it too has to answer to the laws of thermodynamics. There is no
such thing as a perpetual engine or any kind. I referred you to
a website were specifics of an 8 year studied revealed that the
decay rates are not constant. Your objection presupposes that
decay rates are equivalent to laws.

Oh, BTW, over the holidays I watched to programs on TV which
I found most interesting. One was on a Christian network, another
on PBS, decidedly non-christian. The was titled "Bible Tech"
and looked at supposed scientific dilemma's in the bible. It
answered all of them scientifically. The other one, the one on
PBS, was specifically about the magnetic fields of planets. The
two most referred to planets were earth and mars. In that
broadcast, one that was doing everything in its power to defend
the notion of uniformitarianism, it admitted that these magnetic
fields are dying and because of that fact, it is causing a
degeneration in radioactive decay rates! I'd seen the program
before so I didn't sit there with my mouth agape. You really
ought to stay current with the current set of scientific theories,
Matthew, if you want to debate such things.

Read the two books provided by this study. Let scientist
explain it to you. I got a little flier and it admitted that to
have it fully explained, one would have to be studied in the
points being discussed. I'm not a student of the physical
sciences to the degree that I understood the paragraph
of information they used to illustrate the fact that these
discussions are extremely complicated. But I worked all
those years in a high energy physics lab and I know that
there were less than a couple of handfuls of scientist there
who actually understood the breadth of what was being
proposed and hopefully demonstrated. So I'm not alone.
But that doesn't deny the facts of the case. Do you need
that website again? Why not order the books and then
tell me why all these scientists are wrong. I'll bet you'll
be just like me. You'll wait for others to bring their objections
and then seek to analyze the objections to see if they
have any weight to them.

Rodney Dunning

2007-01-01 07:05:43 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
Actually, yes it does, since any realistic theory of evolution requires a very
LONG period of time for today's species to develop out of single-celled
organisms.

Yes, the universe must be older than anything it contains, or any
process occurring within it. Well, duh. Do you really think I was
confused about that? My point was that biology and cosmology are
distinct subjects that proceed from different assumptions, examine
different data sets, employ different techniques, etc., etc.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet the 14 billion year figure has enormous implications for biology. Without
something about that long, it would be very hard to explain life on earth.

The universe's age doesn't have any special implication for biology,
beyond the inane observation that the universe must be older than the
planets it contains. It's possible Earth-like planets developed
complex eco-systems billions of years ago. And while it was very hard
for Darwin et. al. to explain life on Earth, that difficulty had
nothing to do with an immature cosmology. After all, they explained
the history of Earth's life decades *before* cosmologists established
the age of the universe through measurements of the Hubble constant.
So it follows they didn't need to know the age of the universe to work
out the basic concepts of evolutionary biology. And that was my point:
neither field *requires* results from the other one.

Post by Rodney Dunning
Second, a spiral arm cannot lose energy, because it's not a thing that
posses any energy to lose.

I think I know what you are getting at, but I have doubts that this was the best
way to express it. A spiral arm is a mechanical system, and any mechanical
system must have some energy.

Really, engaging in this kind of nit-picking is worse than what Loren
does. Please go away.

--
Rodney Dunning
Assistant Professor of Physics
Longwood University
http://www.longwood.edu/staff/dunningrb

Rodney Dunning

2007-01-01 07:05:44 UTC

Loren, in an effort to keep this reasonably short, I'm not going to
respond to everything you've written. You're making the same points
over and over again, so I don't think I need to. But if I've skipped
something you think is vital, let me know and I'll come back to it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I understand your point and accept it's validity but only when you
firmly
establish the reference point. How is expansion proven? Does it not
too have to establish a reference point?

We can't make measurements without a reference point (or a reference
frame), but no particular reference point is required to observe the
expansion of the universe. Imagine you're an ant on the surface of a
balloon that someone is blowing up. Imagine further that your
perception of your surroundings is entirely limited to the surface of
the balloon. You do not have to establish a particular reference point
to conclude the surface is expanding. No matter where you stand on the
surface, other ants on the surface are moving away from you as the
surface stretches. Thus, there is no "center," or fundamental
reference point on the surface. Any position on the surface allows you
to draw the same conclusion about the expansion.

The same is true for our universe. It's the nature of our universe
that no matter where you are located within it, you see the same
expansion. Just as there is no "center" on the expanding
two-dimensional surface of a balloon, there is also no "center" in the
expanding 3-D space of our universe.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If the universe is 16 billions of years old, then not only should these
giantic spiral arm galaxies have depleted their energy, but so too
Saturn's rings. It's the same difference. We don't have to go off
into the stratosphere in cosmological discussions to find a simple
resolve. That beach ball which spins off of the merry-go-round will
stop spinning long before the larger mass of the merry-go-round
ceases to spin. However -both will stop unless an outside energy
force comes into the equation.

These systems don't evolve as quickly as you think they do. Gravity is
a weak force and thus many systems in which it dominates require a very
long time to exhibit large-scale changes. For example, computer models
of the solar system suggest that either Mars or Mercury will eventually
be ejected from the system, but only after about twenty billion years.
(No need to despair, the Sun won't last that long anyway.) As for
Saturn, all computer models agree that the rings will eventually spiral
into the planet, but the predicted time scale is a few hundred million
years. As for spiral galaxies, the details of spiral arm formation are
not well understood. Any one of several mechanisms could be at work.
While it's possible that spiral galaxies evolve to other shapes,
computer models show that spiral galaxies maintain their structure on
time scales of several billion years.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, very very simple illustrations prove the larger issues as being
either true or false. I haven't seen a single illustration which
you've
presented that reflects this in anyway. You've basically done what
I have witnessed time and again, saying, "You're too stupid to
understand these complex issues." Now who has established a
new priesthood? And that is exactly how it comes off. I've had
world renown physicists walk off, spouting profanities instead of
explaining profundities when using just this very simple illustration
of the beach ball and the merry-go-round. Evolutionism speaks
of the "Laws of the Universe" but then it runs away when it is
forced to give an consistent account to them.

I'm sorry you were cussed at. I'll try to do better.

First, your general position is that the same laws of physics must
prevail in all systems, from merry-go-rounds, to river eddies (in
another post), to the solar system, and to galaxies. It's true that
several principles of physics apply in all these systems, such as
conservation of total energy and conservation of angular momentum. But
it does not follow that in each system we must expect exactly the same
behavior. To understand this, you must understand the concept of a
physical model, and not confuse it with general physical principles
such as conservation of angular momentum.

A good example of a physical model is a computer program that animates
the orbits of objects in the solar system. The model consists of
assumptions (often related to things left out of the model) and a rule
that describes how the members of the system interact. To make sure
the model is working correctly, we test its consistency with broad
principles such as conservation of angular momentum, but such
principles cannot be equated with the model itself.

By its very nature, a physical model is somewhat limited in scope. It
can provide an explanation and make predictions about the behavior of a
particular class of systems--the solar system or the galaxy, for
example. Different systems require different models because different
kinds of interactions occur between the constituent parts. For
example, gravity plays the dominant role in the solar system and the
galaxy, but intermolecular electrical forces are more important in
merry-go-rounds and river eddies. So we don't use the same model to
explain and predict the behavior of merry-go-rounds and beach balls on
the one hand, river eddies on the other hand, and cosmological systems
on another hand. For gravitational systems, we use computer software
that calculates the gravitational forces and updates the positions of
the objects in a step-by-step manner. For river eddies, the forces are
too complicated for a direct treatment, so we use models based on bulk
properties such as pressure, density, and viscosity. Each model must
meet certain requirements, such as conservation of momentum, but the
models differ in fundamental assumptions, the range of predictions they
can make, and of course, the specific predictions themselves.

In physics, analogies are often helpful to illustrate complicated
points. I used the balloon analogy above to explain an important point
about the expanding universe. But analogies are never useful as
predictive models; using them as such amounts to imposing a model
designed for a particular class of objects (merry-go-rounds or river
eddies) onto a system that simply doesn't behave the same way (the
solar system). This is your primary mistake.

Allow me to apply these ideas to your merry-go-round analogy.

The point you're trying to make is based on the fact that everything on
the merry-go-round spins in one direction. The beach ball departs the
merry-go-round on a line tangent to its original circular motion, in a
direction consistent with the rotational direction of the
merry-go-round. From here, you jump to the conclusion that every object
in the solar system should be orbiting in the same direction, since the
same physical rules (read: predictive model) apply to both systems (not
correct) and since the solar system, like the merry-go-round, is "left
to itself."

But as I explained above, we need different predictive models for these
two systems. First, the typical merry-go-round is constructed so that
all parts of it revolve in the same direction. Random fluctuations in
the mechanism are suppressed by the procedure for constructing it: By
design, all the horses revolve in the same direction. Not so in the
solar system-- not only are random fluctuations in the "construction"
of the system not suppressed, they're guaranteed to occur.

Second, the typical merry-go-round does not evolve, beyond normal wear
and tear. As long as it's operational, all the horses will always turn
in the same direction. But the solar system slowly evolves through the
mutual gravitational interaction of its members. The end result
(current state of things) is that most objects in the solar system
revolve and rotate in a counterclockwise fashion when viewed from above
the Earth's north pole. But there are exceptions. They arise both
from the random fluctuations in the initial conditions and the
long-term interactions of the members.

A final point, although less relevant, is that the rotational motion of
the horses on a merry-go-round differs from that of the planets
orbiting the Sun. In a merry-go-round each horse moves with the same
angular speed, which is to say the merry-go-round is a rigid structure.
Not so the solar system. The angular speed of each object varies
according to its distance from the Sun, with objects farther out moving
at slower angular speeds according to a very precise empirical rule.
But note that in *both* systems both energy and angular momentum are
conserved. This is the essential reason why these principles cannot be
equated with the different physical models used to examine these
systems.

In summary, observing or contemplating the behavior of merry-go-rounds
and river eddies will not tell you very much about the behavior of the
solar system or a spiral galaxy. The superficial similarity of
circular motion combined with vague assumptions about broad physical
principles such as conservation of angular momentum does not the bind
these systems together under the same predictive conceptual framework.
Basically, you're reasoning by analogy, and that just won't work.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What is more wonderful, the deistic approach where God just
placed things in motion and then left everything to spin off into
its own resolve or, that by a single word, He called everything
into being? Uni -"single". Verse - "spoken sentence."

This is a false dilemma. But to answer your question, the deistic God
is far better because the other God is fundamentally dishonest. Yes,
it's impressive to speak a universe into existence. But there is
nothing about that concept that forces us to accept a very young
universe. However, fundamental considerations of logic and honesty
compel us to question why God would create a universe that is much
younger than it appears, and whose essential nature is very different
from what can be gathered by observation and reason.

I'm sure you feel the same way: considerations of logic and honesty
compel you to question why God would create a universe that contradicts
a literal reading of Genesis chps 1-2. Your solution is that God did
not create such a universe. You believe the universe really is
consistent with a literal reading of Genesis, and if scientists would
just open their eyes they could see this is so. To support your
conclusion, you bring out every example "problem" you've ever read
about in creationist literature, with little or no context, depth, or
analysis, and no alternative explanation of the phenomenon in question
except that God simply made it that way.

I find this approach too weak to be convincing. I'm not the smartest
physicist in the world, but I think I know what I'm doing, and your
objections and general approach make very little sense to me. So my
solution is that Genesis need not be read literally, your self-serving
claim about Jesus "establishing" an interpretative theory for the book
not withstanding.

On the word "universe," your etymology is cute, but flawed. The
"verse" in universe is from a Latin root meaning "to turn." The
literal meaning of "universe" is "all together," or "all turned into
one."

--
Rodney Dunning
Assistant Professor of Physics
Longwood University
http://www.longwood.edu/staff/dunningrb

l***@hotmail.com

2007-01-01 07:05:46 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
----
[I'm a bit concerned about this discussion. It isn't specifically
prohibited by the charter, as cosmology and evolution are different.
However I'm not aware that we have any active participants who
are qualified to answer your questions.

I understand your concern and have wondered about it myself,
that is, whether or not you would think it just another evolution
debate and draw it to a close. However, as to qualified rebutals,
since when has that ever been a defining qualifier? I have done
my best at provided very simple illustrations such as the beach
ball. Physics doesn't have to explained were only 200 of the
leading physcists in the world understand the concepts. It's
taught in HS. We teach it to our preschool children in various
ways such as "for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction."

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I do know at least a couple of things though.
First, you mention the bending of light as saying that light doesn't
have a constant velocity. The bending of light was one of the first
major tests of general relativity. GR predicts it quite accurately. GR
takes the speed of light as constant.

Two things wrong with this.

1) the argument was that an age prediction could be made for
light traveling from point A to point C. In a perfect vaccuum I
will grant that measurement. However, gravity fields bend light,
and retard its speed. Therefore to assume that the light from
a real life point A to a real life point C, passing all sorts of
point B's to arrive without any variation is not only bad science,
it's ludicrous.

2) April 2003, Discovery Magazine: Speed of light is NOT
constant. Also, there have been programs on PBS which
discuss the fact that cosmologist, physcists and astronomers
are now beginning to shy away from light having a constant
speed. In their trying to marry the macro universe to those
laws of the micro universe, they are re-evaluating this issue
very hard.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Second, I'm not clear whether you understand the "bang" or not --
there's enough ambiguity to your language that I'm not sure. I hope
you're aware that the big bang isn't actually an explosion. You
shouldn't envision some place from which things exploded. Rather, the
whole space expanded. When we look in the sky we don't expect to find
some direction from which the bang occurred. Rather, radiation from
the big bang is visible in all directions. Variations in that
radiation are used to discriminate among various models.

I'm not a cosmologist nor a physicists, though I love reading
and watching books and seminars on those topics. I think
I have a pretty good non-scientist grasp on the BB. I have
enough understanding to pose some really awkward questions
concerning its validity.

You are right about radiation being not only "visible in all
directions" but equal disbursement by measurements so
far recorded. However, why was there not an equal disperse-
ment of matter into space?

Here are the requirements of BB evolution:

1) Cosmic evolution or the BB itself. As the current scientific
journals are reporting, everything came out of "nothing nothing,
as in nada, zilch, zero." There was no space, no time, no
mass or energy. But all these articles then bring the continuum
in being without any explaination of causation. I wish I had
a dollar for every secular evolutionist who accused the young
earth advocate of "voodoo science" with its "miracle" explaination
when a void was found wanting of answer. Yet the whole
presumption of the genesis of the BB is just that, a miracle
that is unexplainable scientifically.

2) Chemical evolution. After the BB has brought forth the
continuum, then there is the need to fill it. Cosmic evolution
does not produce mass in its universe, it requires chemical
evolution to do that. Herein we have all the elements rising
out of Hydrogen. Tell me, how does one get uranium out
of hydrogen? If fussion does not take place beyond iron,
then how could their be all these elements that we find on
the periodic chart arising only from hydrogen?

3) Stellar / planetary evolution. Now here is the kicker
to chemical evolution. It's the age old dilemma of which
came first, the chicken or the egg. Did chemical evolution
produce mass or did stellar evolution? Both are claimed
and presented side by side in evolutionary scientific
argumentation. There has never been one single record
of observation of even one star ever being formed. There
are records of nova's and super nova's, but that is decay
not creation.

4) Organic evolution wherein all these rocks bring forth
"life." "Biogenetic Law" was long ago proven to be a
hoax yet you still find it in college level class books.

5) Macro evolution wherein whales turn into cows.

There isn't any scientific evidence for any of these five
requirements demanded by BB theory. They purely
religious conjecture. The BB theory rises out of one
presupposition, that creationism is not acceptable
under any form. Because creationism has historically
spoke of a young earth, secularism has required an
old earth/universe/cosmos theory. The BB is just
the latest stratagem to answer creationism.

Many point to the evidence supplied by radiocarbon
dating. However, there is one major presuppositional
error -that equillibrium has been reached. In Vol 50
, of "American Antiquity", 1985, pp 136-140, it states
that equillibrium has not been reached. In fact, its
measurements record that it is still increasing at
a rate of 28 to 37 percent beyond the rate of
decay. This really throws the proverbial wrench
into the clockworks of radiocarbon dating.

Also, in the Jan 1976 issue of the "American
Journal of Science," p. 54. O'Rourke himself
admits:

Quote:

Radiometric dating would not have been feasible
if the geometric column had not been erected first."

End Quote.

One small problem with this, however, The geometric
column is a lie. "Earth Science" 1989, p 326 admits,
"unfortunately no such column exists." Now it was
admitting that no geologic example exists in the
physical earth, but it too was not admitting that the
column was a hoax or fraudulant science. However,
in point of fact, there have never been more than 3
of the 8 strata found in their predicted chronological
order in the history of recorded geometrics. Lyell
just made it up and yet to this day you can go into
any world history museum or geological museum
and find it clearly presented as scientific fact.

So not only is radiocarbon dating disallowed, but
the entire superstruction based upon the geologic
column is disallowed.

"I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being
used to date fossils." New Science, 1/10/83,
vol 100. p 425.

The fossil record is completely disallowed as well.

"I fully agree with your momment on the lack of
evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of
any -fossil or living- I would have certainly have
included them. I will lay it on the line -there is
no such fossil."

And who could have written this confession?
Dr. Coliin Paterson, Senior palentologist of the
largest repository of fossils in the world, the
British Museum of Natural History.

The preponderance of scientific evidence stands
against all forms of evolution, cosmological or
otherwise.

---

[Since we've got a real physicist responding to you, I'm going to
avoid making guesses.
--clh]

l***@hotmail.com

2007-01-01 07:05:47 UTC

Post by Rodney Dunning
Second, a spiral arm cannot lose energy, because it's not a thing that
posses any energy to lose. As I pointed out in an earlier post, a
spiral arm is simply a region of a galaxy where stars are more densely
packed.

Do spiral arm galaxies have an axis? Do they "swim" around that axis
even as our own solar system "swims" around our sun? If there is
gravity,
there is energy. If spiral arm galaxies exist at all, that is, they
are true
objects of mass in space and time, then they of a necessity harness
and release energy. What puts them in motion if not energy? Both
Laws are not only applicable, but according to the BB theory, violated.

Post by Rodney Dunning
It's possible that a spiral galaxy will lose its structure

And what, pray tell, are the dynamics of that event? Could it be the
loss of (cough) energy? Could it be the natural play out of the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics?

Post by Matthew Johnson
as

Post by Rodney Dunning
the galaxy ages, but you're incorrect that this should have already
happened.

Some numerical estimates of how long this would take would be very handy here.

I have seen a 25 ton flywheel set into motion by a 150 hp electric
motor. Once in motion, it takes a little bit longer to stop spinning
than
the 5" clutch plate of today's typical automobile. However, it can
be replicated time and again. There are variables, of course. There
are the brake pads that rubbed against this 15 foot tall wheel. There
was also bearings and a rather thick grease to reduce friction without
the weight of the axle pressing all the grease out of the bearing. But
all these aside, within a minute or two, each occurance could be
predicted to last a determinate amount of time. It is no different for
that of a spiral arm galaxy. Both involve energy loss. If the
universe is 16-20 billion years old (today's estimate), and if it
proves
true that red shift is an indicator of decay (still highly debateable)
then what of these galaxies of galaxies spinning down?

Post by Matthew Johnson
That would put to rest the fallacious claim of violation of the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics.

This is an extremely complicated Law. I freely admit that I don't
have any great degree of comprehension of all that is involved
therein. I've heard the same confession made from nobel laureates
in physics so I guess I'm not alone. However, that does not
discount being able to see valid application of the law. As I
mentioned, all one has to do is look out their window over to the
neighbors roof to see an application. Put an orange in the front
window and leave it there for a couple of weeks. You'll see and
smell it there two. It's about decay which applies to ALL energy
forms, small or large. What is fallacious is the traditions which
are having a hard time defending.

Why do you yourselves transgress the Word of God for the sake
of your tradition? For God said, "I created the world and all that
is in it in six days" but you say, "billions and billions of years."
And thus you have invalidated the Word of God by subordinating
it to your tradition. That which is is hightly esteemed among
men is detestable in the sight of God. You hypocrites, rightly
did Isaiah prophesy of you saying,
....This people honors Me with their lips
....But their heart is far away from Me
....But in vain do they worship Me
....Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
Know this first of all, that in the last days, mockers will come
with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying
"All continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
For they are willfully ignorant of this fact (deliberately stupid)
when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by
the Word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth
was formed out of water and by water, through which the world
at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

And herein lies the whole presupposition of why Creationism
must be rejected -it speaks of Judgment.

But the Day of the LORD will come like a thief in which the
heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will
be destroyed with intense heat and the earth and its works
will be burned up. THEREFORE, since all these things
are to be destroyed in this way (such power!) what sort
of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness?

I've heard repeatedly from the lips of those who deny the
Creator and His created world, that they do so for no other
reason than to live without any consciousness of Divine
accountability. Darwin supposed this and even two of
the Huxley's confessed this. So why do you deny it
Matthew?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Once you understand that these paragraphs are based on a radical rejection of
the scientific method, the paragraphs are easier to understand -- for all that
is worth.

science \ 1a: possession of knowledge as distinquished from ignorance
or misunderstanding; b: knowledge possessed or attained through study
or practice. 3a: accumulated and acccepted knowledge that has been
sysematized and formulated with refernce to the discovry of general
truths or he operation of general laws: . . .the search for truth:
knowledged obtained and tested through the use of the scientific method

This is Webster's 3rd International Dictionary definition of
"science." What is radical is not my illustrations of my
claims, but your rejection of their scientific method of
attaining the truth. You've made a wide denial of the
applicability of the Law of Conservation, but you've not
said one word as to why the Law of Distribution does
not, by the scientific methodology, find conformity in
the BB. Why is that? In every debate I've ever attended
or watched from recording, this single scientific evidence
has never even received a single reply. It is ignored
completely. Yes, equal distribution (if you want to
presume that it was distributed at all) of radiation, but
why not mass as well?

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet that radical rejection is actually quite widespread today.

Yes, people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the
priests of "science" have no clothes.

Post by Matthew Johnson
It is present in
most, if not all, of the 'research' published by the "Institute for Creation
Research", and is also used by people who deny global warming.

"If not all?" You really let your tongue roll freely down the hill
don't you? HUNDREDS of scientist produce creationistic
research. But why do you never hear of it? Because if it is
taught in either public schools or universities, that teacher
quickly finds themselves on the outside looking in. Talk about
a closed universe! And scientific journals are equally as religious
about their denial of creationism, even when it is submitted in
scientific formulation. What is interesting in many of the
debates, is that the evolutionary scientist have never seen their
own conclusions in anyother light than accepted fact. When hard
and fast scientific facts are brought to bear on their assumptions,
they either run off into philosophic/religious denial or they though
fits of anger/frustration, or they just sit there without any defense
contrary to the evidence presented.

The bible talks about the unregenerate man being blinded to the
truth. I'll say this, I have rarely seen this better exemplified than
in these debates. The arguments used by leading proponents
of the evolutionary model, are just silly. After opening arguments
are presented and the actual debate occurs, evolutionist by-in-
large not only stop presenting scientific evidence in their defense,
but totally ignore all the scientific evidence presented by the
creationist. I will honestly admit, a time or two I have quite
literally chuckled at the responses. No, not laughing at the
men but laughing as God does when men deny Him. Evolutionary
scientific defense is nothing short of "vapor ware."

Post by Matthew Johnson
But even more immediately relevant, the 'point' these paragraphs of Loren's make
is invalid, because the _assume_ that Loren's examples show that current
cosmological theories contradict known physical laws. They do not.

I've provided quotes from evolutionary sources which contradict
your assumptions. You've provided nothing except (as per
usual) your opinion. I've tried my best to provide publication
titles, date and pages. I've probably attended or watched
over 200 hrs of debates -and that is a very conservative estimate.
I've read hundreds of books and articles related to the
scientific evaluation of creationism. I have personally had
many lengthy discussions with TRUE world class scientist.
I worked 25 yrs in THE leading high energy physics lab
in the world. So I think I have a little comprehension of the
arguments involved and have a little experience in what has
come to be the typical responses. You paragraph immediately
above is standard fair. Verbage without substance. Denial
without any scientific evidence to the contrary. From a purely
experiential base, the defense of the evolutionary model has
done absolutely nothing to convince me of its scientific
worthiness. If it cannot defend itself in the university setting
of "higher learning" and if over 3000 university and laboratory
evolutionary scientist have flatly refused to debate the issue,
then why should any believe it to be a forgone conclusion?

You speak of "the scientific method" but then, like other
debaters, you never employ it in the defense of your
position. Something doesn't square and its not me who
has the issue.

Matthew Johnson

2007-01-15 05:11:28 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
Actually, yes it does, since any realistic theory of evolution requires a very
LONG period of time for today's species to develop out of single-celled
organisms.

Yes, the universe must be older than anything it contains, or any
process occurring within it. Well, duh. Do you really think I was
confused about that?

No, of course not. You missed my point. You missed it in the way I would have
expected Loren to miss it. I was hopingh for better from you.

My point was that biology and cosmology are

Post by Rodney Dunning
distinct subjects that proceed from different assumptions, examine
different data sets, employ different techniques, etc., etc.

But this point, while true, is really irrelevant to the direction the thread was
about to take, as is shown by the subsequent history of the thread. It also
gives a very misleading sense of the history of both scien`ces, since as Hoyle
points out, it was the _biologists_ who disproved the late 19th century theory
of the souce of solar power (gravitational collapse) on the basis of the
_fossil_ record. That is, even before radioactive dating became available, the
rough estimates of the times in the fossil record showed that the energy output
of the sun had been pretty nearly constant for millions of years, which would
have been impossible if the source of energy was gratitational collapse.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Yet the 14 billion year figure has enormous implications for biology. Without
something about that long, it would be very hard to explain life on earth.

But this is quite irrelevant, since life on Earth could NOT have inherited this
"compex eco-system" from them.

[snip]

Post by Rodney Dunning
Second, a spiral arm cannot lose energy, because it's not a thing that
posses any energy to lose.

I think I know what you are getting at, but I have doubts that this was the best
way to express it. A spiral arm is a mechanical system, and any mechanical
system must have some energy.

Really, engaging in this kind of nit-picking is worse than what Loren
does.

No, it is not. Rather, that was the more polite way of warning you that your
carelessness was leaving Loren far too much room for making his pseudo-science
look like science. Again, the subsequent history of this thread proved me right.

Post by Rodney Dunning
Please go away.

Looks like it was you who went away. Since you refuse to make yourself useful,
making only carelessly phrased comments instead, that is for the better.

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

l***@hotmail.com

2007-01-17 06:11:19 UTC

Post by Rodney Dunning
Second, a spiral arm cannot lose energy, because it's not a thing that
posses any energy to lose.

I think I know what you are getting at, but I have doubts that this was the best
way to express it. A spiral arm is a mechanical system, and any mechanical
system must have some energy.

Really, engaging in this kind of nit-picking is worse than what Loren
does.

Flipping through the channels between football this weekend, I happened
across a one hour NOVA broadcast titled, "Monster of the Milky Way."
The "monster" is a theoretical Big Black Hole. Several leading
astronomers
and physcists were interviewed who are now leaning toward the theory
that every galaxy has a black hole at its axis. But that is not
pertainent
to our immediate discussion. Rather, what I found interesting was two
specific mentionings.

1. Novas occurred not long after the BB itself. These scientist now
are thinking that these were particularly large novas. From them grew
the black holes of the galaxies. I found this an interesting notation
because, as the Astrological Almanac records, there are roughly
300 Nova rings observable even with Hubble in the sky.

2. Spiral arm galaxies. Now here's the rub against all that you have
been spewing forth. They have "lost energy" dynamics and in time,
our own Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy are set on a collision
course. They presented an animated representation of the two
colliding. The spiral arm from intersected the MW but the result
produced non-countering results. As I originally pointed out,
the Law of Conservation of Angular Motion/Momentum does
apply and it is in need of an answer as to why there are are planets,
moons and even galaxies that counter rotate the norm.

They also, in the same vein, mentioned Triton which counters
Neptune's rotation. They admitted to it being a puzzel as are
both Venus and Uranus. They speculated that Triton was a
lost planet that got caught in the gravatational pull of the
large planet. But they did not theorize as to how Triton had
a counter rotation prior to its attraction to Neptune.

So I think you had need to back off on your suppositions.
Apparently they are not in-line with what these world
reknown astronomers are concluding. One of the scientist
was once the director of JPL during the early space
probes up to the time of Voyager.

Matthew Johnson

2007-01-18 05:23:50 UTC

Post by Rodney Dunning
Second, a spiral arm cannot lose energy, because it's not a
thing that posses any energy to lose.

I think I know what you are getting at, but I have doubts that
this was the best way to express it. A spiral arm is a mechanical
system, and any mechanical system must have some energy.

Really, engaging in this kind of nit-picking is worse than what
Loren does.

No, it is not. Rather, that was the more polite way of warning you
that your carelessness was leaving Loren far too much room for
making his pseudo-science look like science. Again, the subsequent
history of this thread proved me right.

And it is still proving me right. You are still trying very hard to
make pseudo-science look like science.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Flipping through the channels between football this weekend, I
happened across a one hour NOVA broadcast titled, "Monster of the
Milky Way." The "monster" is a theoretical Big Black Hole. Several
leading astronomers and physcists were interviewed who are now
leaning toward the theory that every galaxy has a black hole at its
axis.

You are misquoting them. Alas, this is typical of you. It is only
certain classes of galaxies, such as spiral galaxies (including even
our own) that experts believe have giant black holes. And this belief
has been around for years now.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But that is not pertainent to our immediate discussion.

Except, of course, as an example how how you misquote, and fail to
understand what you do quote.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Rather, what I found interesting was two specific mentionings.
1. Novas occurred not long after the BB itself.

How soon? If a star forms that is massive enough, a nova could occur
within only a few million years. Do you know what timeframe a
cosmologist has in mind when he says 'soon'? He could easily be
talking about millions of years.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
These scientist now are thinking that these were particularly large
novas. From them grew the black holes of the galaxies.

And others think that the extra large black holes are accumulations of
smaller black holes.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I found this an interesting notation because, as the Astrological
Almanac records, there are roughly 300 Nova rings observable even
with Hubble in the sky.

You are trying to confuse the issue with irrelevant details. So _what_
if there are "300 nova rings observable"? The rings do dissipate
eventually, you know. The early novas your Nova program mentioned no
longer have rings. That is, their rings are long gone. The same is
true of the novas that produced most of the transferric elements on
Earth today.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
2. Spiral arm galaxies. Now here's the rub against all that you have
been spewing forth.

Not at all. As both Rodney and I have already pointed out to you, no
law of physics is violated by the formation of these galaxies.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They have "lost energy" dynamics and in time,

"Lost energy dynamics" sounds like a mumbo-jumbo term you just made
up, like your solecism "Law of Conservation of Angular Motion[sic]".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
our own Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy are set on a collision
course.

They are. But not for billions of years. So what is your point?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They presented an animated representation of the two
colliding. The spiral arm from intersected the MW but the result
produced non-countering results.

"Non-countering results"? What was this mumbo-jumbo supposed to mean?
It sounds like you are referring to the fact that when galaxies
collide, few stars actually hit one another. But this is NOT a
"non-countering result". They _do_ perturbe each others orbits, and
change the distribution and possibly chemical content of the
interstellar dust and gases. And who knows what it does to the dark
matter? This is still being researched.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As I originally pointed out, the Law of Conservation of Angular
Motion/Momentum does apply

And as I already pointed out, the Law strictly applies ONLY to
conservative mechanical systems. But once you admit "Lost energy
dynamics" (whatever that really means) you are admitting that they are
NOT conservative mechanical systems. So the Law is only approximate in
such a case.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
and it is in need of an answer as to why there are are planets, moons
and even galaxies that counter rotate the norm.

And I already answered this. Because of perturbations. Perturbations
_can_ change the direction of rotation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They also, in the same vein, mentioned Triton which counters
Neptune's rotation. They admitted to it being a puzzel as are both
Venus and Uranus.

That it is a 'puzzle' only means we do not know what the original
perturbation was. There is nothing wrong with this. Of course the
direct evidence of it is long gone. By NO MEANS does it mean any
physical laws were violated in its formation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
They speculated that Triton was a lost planet that got caught in the
gravatational pull of the large planet. But they did not theorize as
to how Triton had a counter rotation prior to its attraction to
Neptune.

You can't expect the program to cover everything.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So I think you had need to back off on your suppositions.

Well, so what if you think that? You are wrong. You never took a
course in planetary geology, or in celestial mechanics. I did. So I
know that these apparent violations are no violations at all, but are
the results of perturbations.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Apparently they are not in-line with what these world
reknown astronomers are concluding.

No, they _are_ in line with it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
One of the scientist was once the director of JPL during the early
space probes up to the time of Voyager.

Then I might actually have known him once. I overheard the JPL
scientists meeting in Jorgensen discussing the first evidence of rings
around Uranus. I was doing a take-home final while they were
discussing the results of the Voyager 2 flyby back in 1986.

How's that for irrelevant detail?

--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

l***@hotmail.com

2006-12-13 04:43:27 UTC

Those who are informed, view it as an attack on history. Just
as the President of Iran is now seeking to revisit the holocaust
so our own "historians" have all but rewritten the US history
books.

The actual historical record, easily found in history books dating
prior to the early 1900's, is that Christianity was The religion of
the Union. Jefferson, an Anglican by birth and a regular attender,
and elder, also later in life regularly attended both Presbyterian
and Baptist churches. In fact, while President, he tithed to 8
different churches, made the teaching of the Bible manditory in
all state funded schools, publically backed Christianity as the
church of the US, ordered the Marine band to play in church
services which were being held in both the War and Treasure
department chambers. He also authorized grants of government
own land to have churches built upon them and allocated
funds for missionaries to go to the Indians. He exempted
churches from paying taxes and inaugurated the "In God We
Trust" enstampment on money. He also established national
prayer and fasting days. Christian universities were both
established and funded by government tax monies.

It wasn't until after his wife, then mother, then daughter died
that he became a Unitarian while in France.

This is just the tip of the proverbial iceburg as to the
Christian nature of our founding fathers and their resolve
to impliment bible ethics into the foundation of the
state.

Tim Arview

2006-12-25 06:14:11 UTC