Rob Osborn
-
Posts
3852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rob Osborn
-
-
I know a family where the father turned out to be transgender. A few years later the mother came out also as transgender so they pretty much swapped roles and still love each other. Personally, I feel bad for their children and think they are selfish immoral petty parents. I too think its a type of mental illness for the most part. Its a choice people make.
-
2 hours ago, Traveler said:
Something you may find interesting is a diagram drawn by Parley P Pratt - looks something like this: (Rats the diagram was deleted with the formatting)
try to Google "Parley P Pratt kingdom diagram" - look under images (see diagram with (see diagram with crown at the top)
And then compare it to the map of the Laniakea Supercluster that includes our Milky Way Galaxy (red dot): Hmmmmmm had problems copying – Google Laniakea supercluster.
The Traveler
Thats really cool. Thanks!
-
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:
Kind of moot, though, as the story isn't literal.
See that in which I demonstrate a worldwide flood would require more an 36,000 Atlantic Oceans.
The flood waters are still there in our oceans.
-
Speaking of the ark. A group of physicists proved scientifically that not only could the ark float but could be filled with over 2 million sized sheep in weight. Anyway, heres the article-
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/
-
4 minutes ago, Traveler said:
Thanks for the question @Rob Osborn. Scientist have known from the very introduction of the Big Bang theory that there were problems. The reason the Big Bang theory gained favor is because it was the best we had. But on to the question. I assume that you are onboard with the concept of an expanding universe? But let’s say the universe is infinite. The concept of infinite has sort of evolved in modern time. The concept of the universe being a 4 dimensional sphere goes along with the concept in the video of the curved flatland into a sphere – just at the next dimensional level. Einstein theorized and it has been proven that our 3 dimensions are not Euclidian but that straight lines are curved (a definite oxymoron). Since our universe is expanding – think of a balloon being blown bigger. All the points on the balloon are constantly getting farther away from each other. But there is another problem – in essence more points are constantly being created. This is another oxymoron – where is the additional stuff coming from?
There is another problem – what is our dimensional space expanding into? One theory is singularity. In essence that all points “outside” our universe are the same single point – including the singularity of Black Holes. This theory has given rise to what we call Worm Holes – a concept first thought up by Carl Sagan. But this would mean that all points of the universe are both interior and exterior – in essence a Klein bottle – if you want to Google something.
Now back to your question about the initial small mass. One theory is that infinite energy would make up for the missing mass. One theory is that an 11 dimensional space universe clasped. But that theory has it obvious problems. One problem with the Big Bang that has never been solved is that the matter and energy of this universe currently understood would be too much to exist in a singularity. In essence if there was a Big Bang it would have goon off two soon and left our universe much smaller (by magnitudes of 10). One possible solution would be that there were (and continue to be) Big Bangs. But that has its problems as well.
In ancient scripture the symbol of infinite was the number 70 – so when Jesus said we should forgive 7 times 70 – in essence he was saying to forgive 7 times infinity. In modern time even the number 7 times 70 is not even close to our understanding of infinity. From an LDS perspective we can understand infinite that even finite continues to increase – forever. That is also one of the mathematical definitions. Thus even if G-d’s current kingdom is finite the fact that it is eternally increasing – G-d would be correct in saying it was infinite – even by our modern terms.
There is one other point – that is that we really do not know exactly what G-d means when he says his work is infinite. But we try to think of ways to visualize what he is talking about. For me I find some rational in the science of physics and mathematics that I do not find in the traditional religious concepts. So for me – I do not understand why so many in our modern society dump science for outdated traditional religious concepts. I am convinced, for example, that the Creation as understood in the context of the Plan of Salvation – is not nearly the same as the origins of this empirical universe. The term in singular of universe many believe to be the same spoken of in ancient scripture as the plural term of heavens – as when G-d created the heavens and the earth. The more I study this the more I am convinced – science and scripture are talking about two very different “things”.
The Traveler
I have long felt that when God created the heavens he was speaking more along the lines of our galaxy. Gods creations to us are as numerous as the sands on the beach but to God they are numbered. I can thus see God always having a finite (numbered but ever increasing) number of creations but because he will do it forever they are or can be fonsidered without number because it will increase forever.
-
2 hours ago, Traveler said:
I have long been interested in the concept of our universe being a 4 dimensional sphere and also the possibility that spirit matter exists in a higher dimension. Some think of time as a dimension but time under certain circumstances is not continuous which would eliminate time as a dimension but could be what some refer to as a pseudo dimension. Is short it means that time can be manipulated even in this dimension but much more from a high dimension.
I have also projected that mathematics can be used to predict influences of a higher dimension in our space time. Carl Sagan gave some simple examples. I have suggested previously on this forum that Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Dark Radiation can be explained mathematically with fractals as influences of an additional dimension in intersection with our universe. I am surprised that I have not seen any white papers published on this theory – it may take some time
I do believe that we are at a threshold of discovery that will or can bring science and religion much closer – at least for us LDS types. But at the same time – I am saddened that so many in the religious community (including LDS) are ignoring what is being revealed to us concerning our empirical universe. As I have stated previously that our Milky Way Galaxy is but a small part of a supercluster of galaxies (Laniakea) that all by itself is bigger than what anybody (including religious thinkers) perceived the universe just 100 years ago. Also I have posted Hubble pictures of distant superclusters and electron microscopic pictures of nerve cells – and few readers could tell which was which.
The Traveler
Im of the firm opinion that the universe perhaps goes on forever. If that is true, how would science account for it? Especially in light of their theory that it was all a small mass before their big bang?
-
8 minutes ago, Traveler said:
The term evolution and the theory of evolution simply means change. Every human is conceived as a one cell creature and over the next 9 months or so evolves into a multicellular creature. After birth a baby will continue to evolve and become an adult. As an adult the human creature continues to evolve with a process we call aging. Every living thing you come into contact with (including yourself) is observably evolving. If you have never observed the theory of evolution it is ether because you do not understand what the theory of evolution is or because you refuse to look.
On another scale we can observe evolution taking place in generations of creatures creating new breeds and in some cases creatures that are called hybrids. These are all demonstrations of the theory of evolution.
The Traveler
We did not see dinosaurs evolving into birds. Thats what was meant.
-
I see space as being truly 3d and nothing more. However, within that 3d space you have matter that occupies the space on different levels from small to large. Within that space we have different degrees of light or spirit matter that all can occupy the same space. Its our senses and measuring tools that only hamper our ability to see "all" the matter in any given space. Its this same principle of how its possible for our spirits made up of finer particles of light to go through matter of much larger bits. Kind of analogous to filtering water through a bed of large stones. Our eyes and bodies see and feel according to wavelengths of this light that our perception is on frequency with. Kind of like not being able to see certain wavelegths of light, there are many levels of this frquency far smaller and larger that are just outside our ability to see or feel with even specialty tools and equipment. And, because we can occupy the same space without discplacement we do not feel ourselves walking through other forms or levels of matter.
-
16 minutes ago, askandanswer said:
After my death and resurrection, I will receive a glorious immortal body, that will never die. That sounds like a form of evolution to me. As to the idea that we have shortened life spans, yes, there was a time in the first 1500 or so years after Adam when some people apparently lived far longer than most people do now, although this longevity may have been limited to only those very few who were most righteous, but since that period ended the average life span now is decades longer than it was just a century ago, and it continues to increase.
I suppose one could call it evolution in a sense but for all eternity we will always be what we define ourselves as humans.
-
8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
Sure... if you actually try to discuss things... So I look forward to that day
-
5 hours ago, askandanswer said:
My understanding of the theory of evolution is that if an organism adheres to certain laws, in this case, the laws of survival of the fittest, then that organism is likely to progress and improve in relation to other forms of life. My understanding of the law of the gospel is that if I adhere to certain laws, in this case the laws of Heaven, then I am likely to progress and improve in relation to other forms of life. I see some similarities, although I suppose there are also some differences.
I think the biggest difference would be that physically, we arent evolving. We are created in Gods image- we look like him. God is an eternal being, he is not physically evolving. I personally believe that since Adam, our race has become more and more plagued with disease, sickness, and ills that have shortened life spans, effected looks (we are not as beautiful), etc.
-
15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
Yes you can ignore the fact that I dropped that discussion... And I am addressing the fact that you stated that you feel mocked for your heart felt belief while mocking the heart felt beliefs of others... But sure.. continue to ignore that fact because it doesn't match what you want to hear.
Have a nice day. Perhaps we can have a nice discussion in the future.
-
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:
Back at you... And again a perfectly clear example on how you fail to hold up your side in attempts to have discussion but instead shut down, ignore, and attack the person that make any points that you disagree with
I have clearly explained my points of argument. You were the first one to attack me when you decided to ignore that the 2002 statement trumps the 1931 statement. Not sure what else to say. One can ignore facts.
-
4 hours ago, MrShorty said:
As good a definition as any for "heresy". It doesn't necessarily change the thrust of the post I made. The Church has never officially declared evolution or "pre-Adamites" or "death before the fall" (as this last is usually thought of) as heresy. Many -- included some apostles (I'm looking at you Joseph Fielding Smith) have spoke rather strongly against these theories, but the Church has never officially declared them heresies. There are certainly philosophical and theological questions that these theories raise, and many different thoughts on how to reconcile them. As near as I can tell, the Church is not too worried about whether or not we adopt a "no death before the fall" philosophy, or something that looks like "God initiated the big bang and has let it all evolve naturally from there" or anything in between.
You are free to think whatever you want. My own interpretation is that the church has spoken on a lot concerning the very literal Adam, the fall, the global flood, etc, and there actually is official doctrine. But, there will always be the few cherry picked answers that please the minority. And so, there ya go.
-
6 hours ago, estradling75 said:
I don't know why I bothered... You refuse to accept anything that counters your own opinions... no you did not call anyone apostate in that exact word... you called them " atheist" and "secular", and printed out basic math equations that show they don't follow LDS beliefs... but no you never used the word apostate... that is simply the clear implication you are leaving... All While having the temerity to complain about people mocking your deeply held beliefs.
If you can't handle the micro-aggressions then, Good grief do not use them against others
Get over it. Good grief.
-
54 minutes ago, MrShorty said:
My mistake. I had read "apostate/apostasy" into your posts, even though you technically never said them. I found T&S's review of Peter Enns's book The Evolution of Adam (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the_evolution_of_adam ) earlier this week which appears to present some of these "theistic evolution" type arguments. You or someone else posting as Rob Osborn called the book heresy. Perhaps heretic/heresy rather than apostate/apostasy is more in line with how you would characterize this side of the discussion? Or am I still misunderstanding?
That was me over at T&S. And yes, I have every right to call the book heresy. Heresy is a completely different thing than apostate.
heresy
Translate Button[her-uh-see]noun, plural heresies.1.opinion or doctrine at variance withthe orthodox or accepted doctrine,especially of a church or religioussystem. -
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:
Ok lets start with your very first post
Easy equation
Three things being equal to each other
Which then logically becomes
LDS beliefs= Belief in Intelligent Design
Which leads very simply to If you don't belief in Intelligent Design then you are not in harmony with LDS beliefs aka Apostate.
That was just your first post. There are many many others where you claim to "Know" what the LDS belief are and others are wrong. Not just your beliefs but all of us.
Here is were you insult both someone intelligence and faith
instead if you know trying to have a discussion mocked his ideas and thoughts as godless(apostate) conditioning (aka without thought or in other words stupid).
Here is another one
Here is you responding after being call out on it
You double down that you are right and everyone else is ungodly... you mock them and label them secular which is pretty much calling them apostate
Here are some more
The hey if you paid attention in school you would agree with me is another way of calling some one stupid
Oh here is another attack
Given that the person responding is by all accounts a faithful LDS sister, yet call her response and attempt to discuss atheist
This is only to page 7 of this thread. You continue on through out the rest thread in a similar mannor
I could do more, but I know that I have proven the point that you have repeatedly mocked the faith and intelligence of other posters. So you should not be surprised that you are getting it back.
Well, don't suffer from a micro-aggression. Good grief. I see nothing there calling anyone apostate.
-
3 hours ago, estradling75 said:
Right back at you. You have repeatedly made it known that anyone that does not share your "honest heart felt belief" is an apostate idiot. That is not any attempt to have a discussion. Clear sign you desire an echo chamber.
The scriptures are clear that what a person sowth so shall they reapth. If you are reaping "mocking of heart felt beliefs" it is because you sowed it, when you insulted and belittled others heart felt beliefs.
CFR on calling me calling someone an apostate idiot.
-
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:
Death/no death before the fall has been a hotly debated topic for a long time -- including the somewhat public debate between then Elder Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder B. H. Roberts (and Elder James E. Talmage when he decided to enter the debate in support of Elder Roberts). The first presidency was asked to intervene and settle the question of death/no death before the fall, and refused to take sides. To my knowledge, that position continues today. The statements from the first presidency mentioned in this thread all state that Adam was the first man, but do not declare anything about death/no death before the fall, or any other detail about what it means for Adam to be the first man. Until the Church officially takes a clear stand, I don't think it is right to declare "no death before the fall" the "one true truth" about creation, nor to declare anyone who believes in death before the fall as apostate or some other variation of "on the wrong side".
When did I call someone apostate? CFR please
-
12 minutes ago, Vort said:
What you call "mockery" was my attempt at humor. I am sorry for it, since it clearly offended you.
If you claim to "know" that your current beliefs "are pretty close to the truth", then that belies open-mindedness. For example, I am not open-minded on whether God lives. I can discuss it dispassionately, but at no point am I seriously going to set aside my belief in God. If someone makes a solid point that I am unable to answer, I might have to grant that he has bested me. But I won't be changing my opinion.
If this is the sort of "open-mindedness" you're talking about, then perhaps we can have a good conversation, but it's not what I meant.
We have pretty much spent 17 pages going back and forth on trying to define each others beliefs. You dont get anywhere like that. Much of the discussion has been a debate about if my beliefs constitues "science". Im not here to debate the topic, I have tried to wade through it to hopefully get to a higher plane of where progress is made. I conceded a long time ago that I would recognize evolutionists beliefs about abiogenesis as a valid "scientific" endeavor. So, it would be nice if others would concede that ID is also a valid scientific endeavor. If you come back with the line that "but ID isnt science" then there really isnt a higher plane we will get to.
-
9 minutes ago, Vort said:
My brother, I sincerely hope to find myself standing with you on the right hand of God at the last day. That is the only side I really care very much about.
This might be an interesting discussion to pursue. I have firm opinions that are unlikely to change, but I am willing to be open-minded. If you are the same, let's see if an entertaining and even fruitful discussion might result. On the other hand, if your mind is firmly made up and you have no interest in investigating possibilities, teachings, and their interpretations, then I think discussion would be not merely fruitless, but an exercise in frustration for all involved.
Kind of hard to have a discussion when honest heart fealt beliefs are mocked. But, yeah, Im willing to discuss things and have an open mind. I will say that I am firm solid in my beliefs, I know they are pretty close to the truth.
-
3 minutes ago, Godless said:
That statement contradicts this one:
I believe the matter that makes the earth is eternal- been around forever. As for how old the earth is in planet form- not sure, doesnt even matter. I am only stating how long life has been dying on the earth. Thats not young earth creationism at all.
-
12 minutes ago, Godless said:
What you're promoting isn't ID theory, it's Young Earth Creationism. And yes, there's a big difference. In my experience, it's very rare for ID theory supporters to suggest the age of the Earth as anything less than a 10 digit figure, and equally rare to dismiss macroevolution as a scientific reality (even if they don't accept all aspects of it). At best, you're operating on the fringe of ID theory. Good luck finding a credible scientist who supports your young earth worldview.
Im not a young earth creationist.
-
14 minutes ago, Vort said:
Huh. Strange, because MY understanding is actually spot on with "official church doctrine", too. How 'bout that?
Hum..so you too believe that there was no death before the fall. Right on, good to have you on the right side
Pyramid Scams still popular in your area?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Rob Osborn
I hate pyramid schemes and I always get saddened when one of my good friends or neighbors tries to butter me up only to pop some pyramid scheme on me. like stabbing me in the back! So now, whenever a neighbor invites me for dinner or shows up with the small talk I always tell them they better not pop some pyramid scheme on me or were done being friends.