The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Rob Osborn says:

Stephen Hawking bases all of his opinions off of assumptions and conjecture none of which are based on science. His logic is so flawed it is amazing.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Calculus Crusader]

Tarski is not out of place when he says that in the framework in which modern cosmology is done, the past is finite. He only makes one overstatement when he says that is true for all FRW models (the de Sitter cosmology has an infinite past). Maybe he has failed to communicate the facts clearly, but that doesn't mean they are less true.

Anyway, I put up a small page that graphically shows how different universes work out. All of them extend to a singularity (a = 0) but have finite time with the exception of the cosmological constant dominated universe. However, the only browser that actually can do (x)html5+mathml+svg currently is Firefox 4 (beta). So, if you aren't using that don't bother with the link*.
expanding universe**

Here is a link to static graphic of the graph in the above linked page for those with lesser browser endowments: cosmos.png

* Firefox 3.6 will work if you enable html5 in the about:config.
** Links from that page aren't working since I haven't converted those pages to html5 yet.

OK, complex formulas with greek letters. I am accustomed to having the other person hiding behind technogabble.

In this forum, we speak plain English if we want to engage in a dialogue, so I assume you are addressing Tarski, and not to me.

Isn't cdowis precious?

[_Darth J]

It's all very fine to claim that the scriptures were originally inerrant, and all the rest of that, but, as you must readily admit, we do not have those writings now. So we are left with scriptures that have been translated (which, in 1842, meant "transmitted" far more often than "moved from one language to another") over 1900 years or longer in thousands of copies and which have all sorts of errors, from simple and unimportant to the complex and doctrinally significant.

There can be no total confidence in the words passed down from generation to generation (through, according to your dogma, an apostate and corrupt church) now found in the Bible because there is no way to identify the original message, as God revealed it to His prophets, lo! those many hundreds (or thousands) of years.

We Saints, on the other hand, can have confidence in the Bible because the Lord's living prophets have quoted, just as Jesus Himself did, from that book of scripture, and have done so even more frequently than from any other scriptural source.

Lehi

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208903944

The Bible is unreliable and inaccurate, but we can have confidence in it because our church's leaders quote from it!

[_Darth J]

Another from LeSellers, the human cattle rancher:

One wonders why one should abhor polygyny as your statement implies.

It is historically one of the most successful mating strategies around the world and across thousands of cultures.

This insanity of abhorring polygyny is mystifying and I'd like to hear a cogent, secular (or even a decent, non-LDS religious) defense thereof. So far, I have not.

I know all the LDS anti-polygyny arguments. We have all seen Doc&Cov OD1, etc., and have read Jacob. Essentially, I'm asking that Saints not reply, unless you can clearly and reliably present a non-LDS, religious perspective. But, on the whole, I assume that non-LDS of whatever type will be better able to present their case.

Lehi

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208894390

[_Darth J]

And finally for tonight, "Jason outwits himself:"

I think that people who believe the Book of Mormon is an inspired historical record have very good evidence to think so, and that in comparison things like "scientists haven't found any horse bones from the right time period yet" don't stand very well.

Kids believe in Santa Claus because the presents had to come from somewhere, and they have very good reason to trust their parents when they say the presents came from Santa. It is not a blind belief - it's a very reasonable one based on the evidence the kids have available on the character of their parents.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... -evidence/

[_Tarski]

I think Hawking is holding a personal grudge against God for his condition and taking parting shots to annoy.

-Handys003

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208905408

[_bcspace]

I think Hawking is holding a personal grudge against God for his condition and taking parting shots to annoy.

I think it's because he didn't get invited to the party.....

Many respectful physicists said they wouldn't go to stand for that sort of thing, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.
-Douglas Adams

[_Ray A]

I think religion can potentially help one become more objective and therefore more scientific. The scientific method was developed based on the idea that God, being good, would make the universe observable and predictable. Furthermore, religion can help one control fear of the unknown, develop character and fill basic emotional needs, allowing one to think outside the box and avoid group-think.

Science and Religious Belief Does the Latter Discourage Interest in the Former?.

The bold emphasis is mine.

[_Ray A]

Juliann:

From what I have experienced with these women, those who have had abortions know better than anyone else ever will how evil it is. Yet we have far too many members who aren't content with that. They have to pile on the unforgiveable sin. I don't understand what satisfaction they get from doing this to members who are already suffering horribly. And obviously, it makes me angry to see it done with callousness and an absence of any care for the fragile state of those seeking forgiveness.

Well, Julie, as the saying goes, "if you lie down with dogs, you'll get up with fleas".

[_Ray A]

Lamanite.

If I were to state the extreme, I could say that one cannot fully appreciate/know Jesus without also knowing of the Prophetic calling of Joseph Smith simultaneously…..

My Christianity was enriched by Mormonism.

All those poor Christians who cannot "fully appreciate/know Jesus" without Joseph Smith's help.