Jump to content

B. John Jones

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by B. John Jones

  1. Science isn't elevated above nature. It is ruled by, limited by, and tested against nature. Science is subservient to and dependent upon nature.



    That's the way it should be. But it hasn't been. Not modern science.



    Please provide some evidence to support this claim.


    The part I disagree with is where you say "Science is subservient to [and dependent upon] nature."


    If that were the case, society's science-based inventions would be organic, contributing more than taking. As Jack Johnson so nobly sings, "They paved paradise . . . and put up a parking lot!"



    What is this second light? And how does it track the time?


    And the sun only casts a shadow between sunrise and sunset. What do you do the rest of the time?




    What is this second light? And how does it track the time?


    And the sun only casts a shadow between sunrise and sunset. What do you do the rest of the time?


    Carry a flashlight as you would an umbrella.


    It tracks time relative to the second shadow.


    The sun casts light throughout the night while the moon is present. It's not dark at night. The light of night is a lesser light. Use your entire stature--your hands, some paper and a pen or pencil.

    word salad


    That one must take a chemistry expert.


    [i'm sorry, I couldn't help it]


    I notice that these four statements went by unchallenged. B. John Jones, can you substantiate what you presented as "factual" statements?


    Is it a fact that if you're not careful when striking a nail with a hammer eventually you'll get hurt? I couldn't substantiate that nor could you, unless you're so foolish as to prove it. If you would look with as much respect to the stellar regions as to the microscopic regions and as to the natural order, you would acknowledge that matter decays because that's the course nature takes. I don't prove it to state it as fact, because it is indeed fact.


    Yet I will offer the comparison of the stellar regions to decaying matter. Without gravity, matter would decay outward, as the "satellites" do in the atmospheres.



    Did someone rename this to "Random Nonsense Forums" while I was away?


    If something explodes, it acts in the same form of the appearance of the universe, outward, but gravity restrains it and it comes to rest. Explosion is comparable to decay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but decaying matter is simply the breaking down of molecules, correct? It's the same thing at a macro-particular/macro-molecular level with gravity removed. The universe is breaking down.


    I wonder why such things exist?


    I do have the answer but you don't usually care for my answers.


    At one level of magnification things might seem like chaotic arbiters of death, when at another they are part of the natural order of life.


    Take earthquakes and volcanoes: they bring nothing but death and destruction, right? Take a different perspective though and you see they are necessary manifestations of the planet having a healthy geo-system. Remove earthquakes and volcanoes and we'll soon have a dead planet.


    They only seem at enmity with life because we predominantly like to see things from our own perspective, but it's an arbitrary distinction: unnatural dare i say.


    I disagree.

  5. I don't understandInstead of just one infinite universe, I think that is an infinitely small fraction of existence. An analogy that makes sense to me is that instead of just having just one infinity such as infinite apples- that infinty is just one of infinite infinities which they themselves are just one of infinite infinities and so on. I suppose I am very affected by my religious standpoint of a perfect infinite God, I just feel like this theory is basically the past possible existence because it is the most infinite it can be. Hence ultimate infinity. In fact I think creation it self is just one action of God and is one of infinite and you get the idea - I hope

    The universe appears to be expanding, but is not. It's being broken down into infinitely smaller parts. In the end certain parts will be mended and perfected. Others will continue their destruction (death).

  6. And so the Bible tells us that Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were telling the truth about the Jews.


    The truth about the Jews was already established. Satan's men are against themselves, which is why they destroy.


    Not if you are being biblical about it.


    tells us

    "A moment (momentum) was a medieval unit of time. The movement of a shadow on a sundial covered 40 moments in a solar hour."

    and you have said elsewher that sundials are the hip and happening thing (or something like that).


    The Bible is in Hebrew and Greek (Aramaic not relevant here). The authors' intents were in Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew terms usually used are several, together comprising a short amount or a marker of time, that will be swallowed up, with a yet a tone of peace and tranquility. The Greek conveys a quick or swiftly passing portion of time. News is most accurate nearer the event. I'll bank with the ancients.


    You seem prepared to answer- but the answer you give is wrong- as the Bible bashers' answer to this question usually is.

    The Christian faith takes the Gospels as the Gospel truth.

    And it's in the gospel that we find Christ making it abundantly clear that He has not come to condemn the scriptures.

    Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"


    Which brings either you or Matthew into the problem of bearing false witness. I don't care which of you is wrong, but one of you must be.





    Christ was very clear that Moses' law was to a purpose, to perfect persons. Yet Christ raised the bar of law to such extreme requirements, that every person would be put to shame, who would attempt to keep it. Ignoring the laws of conscience, of Moses or of Christ is utter contempt. Christ obeyed them absolutely, and paying close attention to them is the only means of perfection for common persons.


    Matthew 5:17“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved."

    Clearly bollocks.

    Atheism was, until recently a rare thing. Up till, say the middle of the 20th century nearly all scientists in the Western world were Christians.


    And then we learned better.

    We learned, for example, that the Bible says things that are simply not true.

    And this is the third time I have pointed that out to you.



    You haven't pointed it out. You've made a general claim. Show me what the Bible says, that "just isn't true."

  7. OK so it's a motive, but is isn't the motive of a person or group.


    It is the motive of a person and group (in my view). That person and group are indeterminable, thus, not assigned.


    Anyway, you seem to have ignored my point that your shadow won't behave in the same way as mine- so yours must be wrong (because mine is- so you tell me- perfect).

    Or is that just another example of how little sense you make.


    Neither. Your shadow tells time on the basis of where you are relative to the sun. So does mine, keeping perfect time. Even when the sun is obscured by the clouds, a nearer, stronger light will cast a second shadow. As the sun continues his course, the first shadow will extend, contract or turn clockwise or counterclockwise. Perfect time.


    But when sun and moon are no more, one day remains.

  8. Sure, music for example can be studied mathematically. But it can't really be studied scientifically or analytically. You can try, but it doesn't work that way. My guitar and technique can be analyzed but my musical approach and performance cannot really be evaluated scientifically. There are an infinite number of processes I could apply on my guitar if time permitted. But music requires more than processes and infinity and analysis. Nature and life are more musical than analytical.

  9. Of course infinity is infinitely dense. But infinity is always finite, and is only understood in the context of eternity.


    These are 2 very different concepts.



    [The second line of my answer was edited in.]

  10. You should google 'free planetarium' or something similar. The one I used to use is no longer free for trial.


    Fascinating. Is there something like this at the molecular level, as you would observe any kind of matter through a microscope? And an electron microscope?

  11. [Mod notation: this is in answer to Memammal's question. I'm attempting to answer him precisely, not preaching.]


    Since you ask, I mean the body of Jesus of Nazareth, struck and crucified; raised physically and having appeared alive to hundreds of his closest friends, as promised throughout his ministry and from the dawn of time. He himself had said before his arrest that his words are his very life that proceed from God his Father. His closest follower, John the apostle, writes long after, that God's Word became flesh. So it's his Word, living and being in people who are of faith. So the entire body of evidence today is the written and spoken testimony of the Bible and of the church.


    [edited: "and spoken" was omitted initially by mistake]


    There is no "similarly." 90% of Muslims believe Jesus never died, despite what the Quran says, both testimonies being contrary to the Bible, not to mention each other. Traditional Asian religions range from meditation precluding the notion of a personal god or God, to millions of impersonal or personal "gods," every one of them completely contrary to Biblical faith. Even when they acknowledge the being Jesus, they don't know him through faith, or worship him as the living God. Mormon religion, Jehovah's Witness religion, Catholicism, animism, astrology, occult, you name it, nothing is consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.


    [Note to mods: I realize the risk I'm taking here. But I am answering the question, and it does pertain directly to the thread. I am not violating anything here.]

  12. This is only evidence that people can change... not really evidence of anything 'higher'. You will have to do better.


    The problem is, that the basis of what the Bible says goes like this: Faith comes first, then God himself proves what the Bible says. Scientific people won't test the Bible by faith, which is the only way to test faith or the content of the Bible. As children, we were willing to test things like trying to walk with someone's help, or riding a bike, even though we knew we might fall. We trusted someone. But most scientific folk never trusted the Christian testimony.


    When you make up your mind...

    In the mean time, since your shadow doesn't tell the same times as mine, may I remind you that mine is the perfect one- and yours is wrong.

    It's also daft to complain that clocks sometmes break down, then advocate sundials that fail every night

    Not assigning to anyone or to people. Asserting, and attesting (on the basis of a subjective conviction), hidden motives, in certain indeterminable groups of science. Very different from assigning to a certain someone or to people.


    It's a charge of vice, not a sentence of conspiracy.

  14. Buy some tide tables.

    They tell you that we know, in advance, where the moon will be.

    "Where the moon will be," is insufficient. You need to know from what places it will be visible, and invisible, during those places' night-times and day-times, which are always numerous.

  15. "What if 3,000 years is precisely a moment in time. "

    then you are making stuff up.


    No, actually every interval of time is in essence a moment, a moment by definition being of indefinite length--always relative to a point of reference. In the context of eternity, or even in the context of a mere million years, 3000 years is a mere particle of time.



    How do you explain away gods word demanding murder genocide, rape pillage and taking of little girls as sex slaves?


    I see why you use lower case, "god." Yes, the heathen religions all approved those. Judeo-Christian Scripture condemned them. (Yes, I'm prepared to answer)

    Still, not really evidence of anything.

    Certainly not evidence to the unbeliever, unless you know a devoted Christian well, before and after faith, and the transformation that took place.



    Actually all of them are just as alive as jesus...



    Faith is not a path to anything but gullibility... You take on this is wildly deceptive and blatantly dishonest, please give an example of biblical faith being evidence of anything but wishful thinking...


    Are you attempting to get me in trouble with the mods? Oh well. The Bible says that on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses, a truth will be established. Devoted Christians testify at large that the Spirit of God (a person of the deity) testifies directly to each believer. We testify as one unit to the truth which is confirmed in us. When one of your neighbors receives this testimony, the Holy Spirit again confirms it in them. If another neighbor rejects it, the truth of Scripture is still confirmed in the believing church, not by their agreement, as skeptics would presume, but through their common faith.


    John Jones stated that "The validity of every verse of Scripture hinges on exactly one truth in Scripture: Genesis 1:1-"


    This seems to me to be something of a circular argument, wouldn't you say? (Logic 101).


    Perhaps an equally relevant passage is " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." from John 1:1.


    But hey, we can see the same sort of claim in other religious, allegedly divinely inspired scriptures, e.g., "And Allah by His words [kalimati] doth prove and establish His truth, however much the sinners may hate it!"

    I think that the proper sequence to show that everything in the Bible is true and/or divinely inspired is to


    The point that I was making with Genesis 1:1, is that you have to believe this verse to believe anything else in the Bible. I thought that was pretty clear. You can't believe John 1:1 or anything else in the Bible, in unity with Jewish or Christian faith, without Genesis 1:1.


    First prove (or at least provide reasonable evidence) that such a God exists.


    Only God can prove this to the believer. I was answering this by stating that your estimation of any part of the Bible depends on your estimation of Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, for the unbeliever, this is not an obfuscation.


    Then prove (or provide reasonable evidence) that he divinely inspired those who wrote the Bible



    It was proven to the crowds, to the public, almost (sic) 2000 years ago. You and I are accountable to the human account of these events.


    Then prove (or provide reasonable evidence) that other Gods don't exist and that other religious scriptures weren't divinely inspired (as the scriptures of various religions often contradict each other....so that really only one can be the (one, true) Word of God.


    Unfortunately, as has been said severally in these forums, science has had this discussion and determined they are not worth their while: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95869-creator-god-plausibility-and-substance/?p=927085

  18. So how is it your faith differs from mine? If it's not subjective, it must be the same for everyone. But we already know it's not, so this strikes me as just being disingenuous.


    Well, faith in peanut butter and jelly for lighting, would fail you, as, I would say, faith in Buddha would fail you. Faith in a generic brand of light bulb is fairly useful faith. Faith that the sun will rise and set is substantial faith. Faith in an eternal light by a certain offensive name is perfect faith. My own faith in him is subject to my own estimation, making the evidence (his broken and redeemed body) subject to my own reason. If I were to subject my own reason to the Muslim religion or to science, then the evidence would have subjected me. I would not be studying or worshiping subjectively or objectively. I would have been subjected.

  19. Gee, if only there was an organization that certified that these devices have a certain accuracy. Oh wait! there is! http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html Most respectable labs ensure their devices are tested to meet or beat the ISO standards on the calibration schedule each device needs to ensure accuracy. You act like no one has thought of these issues before, but frankly, there is a tremendous amount of work done to ensure the necessary accuracy.


    However, if you're going to start assigning 'hidden motives' to people, then you've clearly drifted to conspiracy woo woo land; I do hope you'll come back to the real world.


    Not assigning hidden motives to anyone. I'm saying there is a clear impulse in science towards dependency on things developed by science. Digital stuff is inferior to organic stuff, yet the craze has seemed more and more scientific. This dependency (in my estimation) diminishes the general quality of life. People have far less appreciation for the stuff that really works. Society wants more and more short-lived convenience at the expense of timeless standards. At some point, the law of diminishing returns strikes, and the bottom drops out. Few people will know what hit.



    You make a good point, where I live I see animals altering "nature" to further their own goals quite often. I can't see how changing the environment to suit us is any different that a beaver building a dam or an alligator building a nest. The Idea of natural is rather dependant on the point of view of the observer. I'd be willing to bet a beaver looks at a road that interrupts it's dam as unnatural. If a beaver has thoughts of course and that would be a different conversation...


    Yeah. I would say roads are natural, and air transport, and even spacecraft. What's against nature is society's obsessions.


    Horology is a modern science whether the clock is electrical or not is irrelevant.


    It's totally relevant because people in general for the most part are totally dependent on devices that break.


    In this age, people fly everywhere and signals get lost and batteries die. If I turn my head slightly, near noon, I know it's noon. How cool is that? I'll tell you, it's cooler than iPhone or android. These phones are dumber than dust.

    Gosh, it's not as if the non-mechanical clocks are literally a million times better than mechanical ones, and are required for other modern technology like GPS.


    Oh, wait, that's exactly what it is.


    Claiming that your shadow tells perfect time, better than any digital device - really? Anything that easily debunked is a combination of profound ignorance and hubris.


    Time involves space. You wouldn't know it was daytime without a sun, which exists in space. If I need to get somewhere but my watch is broken and my phone hasn't a signal, I can calmly find my way to the east-side of town because I know I'm on the north-side. Digital stuff has no stealth see?



    Nonsensical word salad, just what I would expect...


    "Word salad," by definition is the use of words semantically incorrect. So which word's meaning is confused here? It should be noted, "penetrations," was edited to "stellar lights."

  23. The moon isn't "placed", so this is moot.


    Citation please?


    [i had to]



    Up until now I have taken you seriously despite your displays of ignorance but all you need do is google the moon and see how wrong you are. In fact I would say almost certainly that you know the moon orbits the earth in roughly 28 days and at times it would be lost in the glare of the sun and so not visible. The moon is often visible during parts of the day but it is so lost in the glare of the sun few people take notice. Get yourself a globe and a smaller ball and use them as visual aids.


    It's been said wisely, "answer your neighbor who insults you with wisdom, sometimes mere motions, sometimes life." In this case I'll answer you should see the anterior first. What's beyond the earth? The moon? Beyond the moon? Some depth of darkness? And beyond the darkness? Many stellar lights, quite intense to pierce through the darkness. So what would be behind the earth? The sun? But the sun's rays are striking the moon aren't they, not too distant. Where on earth are you? And where am I?



  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.