In apologetics, all is permitted.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _John Larsen »

Here is further proof that there is no argument so absurd that it cannot be used as apologetics. The frequent MAD poster cjcampbell offers this gem:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=41723
Accepting the message of the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, that the atonement of Jesus Christ was for all of God's creations, is it possible that the atonement represented a fundamental change in the laws of physics?

For example, we know that the universe is not only expanding, but that the rate of expansion is increasing. Or, at least, it appears to be increasing. But really, where is the energy coming from to cause everything to accelerate? Suppose instead that the expansion is constant. Everything with which we measure time, especially before the time of Christ, is generally based on assumptions such as a constant rate of decay of radioactive isotopes and things like that. The trouble is, it is this same rate of decay, as well as the rate of cooling in the universe, that forces us to conclude that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Is is not equally possible that the rates of decay and cooling were much slower in the past, and that these rates have been speeding up exponentially? Perhaps because of the atonement? So that the further back in the past you go, the greater the error in measuring how long ago an event took place is going to be -- and that error will grow at the same rate as the apparent expansion of the universe? Thus, an event that appears to have taken place 2000 years ago might have occurred, say only 1900 years ago, or at least close enough for a reasonable margin of error. But an event that took place 2500 years ago might appear to have occurred 14,000 years ago. And one that took place 6,000 years ago might appear to have taken place millions of years before that.


You can almost see how the mind works. Just trying to make it work and literally, bending the space time continuum, at least in argument, to make the pieces fit. Sometimes, even after all of this time, I am still amazed.






>
_Black Moclips
_Emeritus
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:46 am

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _Black Moclips »

I would submit that a religion that does not require you to bend the space time continuum never has the power to save. :eek:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _The Nehor »

Probably wrong, but it's just a random untestable guess.

I've heard equally absurd arguments from our critics.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _skippy the dead »

I saw a hint of that in response to the ridiculous Mr. Ed's DNA thread, where cjcampbell posited that dating methods were inconclusive because - well, paraphrasing can't do it justice. Here was his reason:

Any assumption about the age of prehistoric horse remains is founded on the belief that things happen at a steady, constant rate. My own experience with everything in the world is that nothing happens at a steady, constant rate, whether it is the decay of radioactive isotopes or the laying down of sediments. Indeed, I suspect that it is possible, using modern archaeological methods, to prove that my own driveway is 14,000 years old.


In other words, this guy has figured out the secret of the universe all on his own, and all of science is terribly, terribly wrong.

*eyeroll*
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _The Nehor »

You do realize that message boards that allow anyone in never have been and never will be places of serious debate where all involved are equally intelligent and all arguments come from some monolithic entity. I can hit any of a hundred anti-Mormon websites and find stupid arguments and then attempt to ridicule all the critics here based on them and show that in anti-Mormonism, all is permitted. Should I?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _John Larsen »

skippy the dead wrote:I saw a hint of that in response to the ridiculous Mr. Ed's DNA thread, where cjcampbell posited that dating methods were inconclusive because - well, paraphrasing can't do it justice. Here was his reason:

Any assumption about the age of prehistoric horse remains is founded on the belief that things happen at a steady, constant rate. My own experience with everything in the world is that nothing happens at a steady, constant rate, whether it is the decay of radioactive isotopes or the laying down of sediments. Indeed, I suspect that it is possible, using modern archaeological methods, to prove that my own driveway is 14,000 years old.


In other words, this guy has figured out the secret of the universe all on his own, and all of science is terribly, terribly wrong.

*eyeroll*

Yes, I thought it interesting that he claims personal experience with the "decay of radioactive isotopes".
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _Gadianton »

The Nehor wrote:that allow anyone in never have been and never will be places of serious debate where all involved are equally intelligent


Speaking of which, the critics are at a great disadvantage here. As a student of apologetics, I've performed a number of anthropological studies of the apologists. One time, I calculated the average IQ of a junior - mid-tier apologist, and it was over 150. And yes, that's just the average. CJCampbell is off the charts weighing in at 184 as he disclosed on MAD once, quite some time ago. So I think John Larson ought to be very careful about dismissing his arguments so quickly.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Pokatator
_Emeritus
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:38 pm

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _Pokatator »

The Nehor wrote:You do realize that message boards that allow anyone in never have been and never will be places of serious debate where all involved are equally intelligent and all arguments come from some monolithic entity. I can hit any of a hundred anti-Mormon websites and find stupid arguments and then attempt to ridicule all the critics here based on them and show that in anti-Mormonism, all is permitted. Should I?


Sure, go for it.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _solomarineris »

The Nehor wrote:You do realize that message boards that allow anyone in never have been and never will be places of serious debate where all involved are equally intelligent and all arguments come from some monolithic entity. I can hit any of a hundred anti-Mormon websites and find stupid arguments and then attempt to ridicule all the critics here based on them and show that in anti-Mormonism, all is permitted. Should I?


Ja,
You should dude!!!!
I claim nobody can be that stupid, reetard....
You're on! Produce an Anti stupidity, equals to this idiot's predictions?
PS:
Stop eating your KFC, get 2 work!
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: In apologetics, all is permitted.

Post by _The Nehor »

Well, I'll start putting it together.

Might be fun.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Post Reply