Are you ready?....For the next Apocalypse.

[hagoth7]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Meldrum is much more condemney (to coin a new word) then his opponents...

In my experience, the opposite has been true. The condemnation of him here is like clockwork, and is exhausting/disappointing.

That said, my exposure to Rod has been very limited. One DVD set, and a brief portion of one recent conference presentation.

Edited September 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/quartz-is-not-glass-so-what/

For volcanos only making glass...

"The fact is, however, that volcanic rocks–even the ones collected fresh out of the volcano vent–are not all glassy.  Glassy textures occur at the tops of lava flows or in material ejected high into the air from the vent.  But other than that, the rest is made of… CRYSTALS.  Yes, crystals, not glass.  They may be small, but you can still detect them with X-ray diffraction.  A team of British geologists, for instance, recently published a study titled “Controls on variations in cristobalite abundance in ash generated by the Soufriére Hills Volcano, Montserrat in the period 1997 to 2010 “.  These guys went in and collected the ash, often on the same day it erupted.  Then they analyzed it using various methods including X-ray diffraction.  In addition to the glassy material that is always in volcanic ash, they also found significant amounts of BOTH cristobalite and quartz!  A team of Argentinian and Italian geologists did something similar in their paper, “Pyroclasts of the First Phases of the Explosive-Effusive PCCVC Volcanic Eruption:  Physicochemical Analysis” in Advances in Materials Physics and Chemistry.  Here are a couple of their X-ray diffraction patterns.  The one on the left is for some ash that has just glassy material, and the one on the right has both glassy and crystalline material, including quartz, plagioclase feldspar, and magnetite."

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

That said, my exposure to Rod has been very limited. One DVD, and a brief portion of one recent conference presentation.

Hardly enough to judge overall behaviour.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Well, the UM starts off with disproving the existence of "magma." Now we've all been taught since Elementary School that many miles below the crust of the earth, there is a source of heat which is the source of and creates volcanoes. Simple enough. Scientists have observed volcanoes spewing hot rocks and liquid rock - and logically the question arises, where does this lava, ash, steam, come from? Thus the theory of magma was created.

He disproves it, because the existence of magma has never been proven. He cites, quotes, references, attempts by scientists who have drilled in shallow below-sea-level basins (So. Ca. for one) in an attempt to reach magma. It's never happened. Magma has never been observed. Magma is a theory.

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/does-magma-exist/

There is not a summary section that states the main premises, you have to read the page as he addresses the claims made by Sessions one by one and shows how they are false.

However, here is an example of an error to demonstrate the type of evaluation going on:

"

Geophysicists have not been able to explain why heat flow through the thin oceanic crust is less than the heat flow through the thick continental crust. The thicker and more insulated continental crust areas should have a significantly lower amount of heat flow whereas the thicker continental crust should theoretically be cooler than oceanic crust because of the distance from the heat source as predicted within magma theory. (p. 92)

Wait… look at that figure again.  On average, at least, the ocean floors do show higher heat flow than the continents, and in fact geophysicists estimate that the average heat flow from the continental crust is 65 mW/m^2, whereas the average heat flow from oceanic crust is 101 mW/m^2.  Why is Sessions now saying that there is less heat flow through the oceanic crust?"

Edited September 20, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hardly enough to judge overall behaviour.

Correct.

Doesn't mean we can't do better.

I've contributed here for about a decade now. And have seen him be the target of rancor for much of that time. It gets old...quickly.

Can't we please just let him/them be?

Edited September 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

"Ask your Grandmother. She likely used crystal goblets during those special dinners. Not glass. ugh. glass is cheap. Get my point?"

You are confusing two different things called crystal if you are not just trying to be funny,  which I was assuming you were, but now wondering.

"Lead. Crystal—unrelated to naturally occurring crystalline solids—is really glass with 24% or higher lead added to it. For that reason it is also known as lead glass. Sometimes glassware is made with less than 24% lead in which case it is called crystal glass. Only experts can really tell the difference at a glance, but real crystal-ware is heavier than glass and rings brightly when tapped....

Lead crystal is not the best term to use when referring to lead glass because true crystal has a crystalline structure whilst lead glass (and regular glass) are amorphous solids. The health risks of lead mean that much of todays lead glass is actually manufactured with substitutes for lead which makes true lead glass more valuable due to scarcity. Some companies (such as Swarovski and Waterford) still use real lead which is why their crystal is so expensive."

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/07/14/difference-between-crystal-and-glass/

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Correct.

Doesn't mean we can't do better.

I've contributed here for about a decade now. And have seen him be the target of rancor for much of that time. It gets old...quickly.

Can't we please just let him/them be?

The extended conversation about Meldrum came about because you challenged the connection of him and tents.  Maybe if you ignored comments of Meldrum, there wouldn't be as much criticism?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Well, the UM starts off with disproving the existence of "magma." Now we've all been taught since Elementary School that many miles below the crust of the earth, there is a source of heat which is the source of and creates volcanoes. Simple enough. Scientists have observed volcanoes spewing hot rocks and liquid rock - and logically the question arises, where does this lava, ash, steam, come from? Thus the theory of magma was created.

He disproves it, because the existence of magma has never been proven. He cites, quotes, references, attempts by scientists who have drilled in shallow below-sea-level basins (So. Ca. for one) in an attempt to reach magma. It's never happened. Magma has never been observed. Magma is a theory.

So what! you may ask. That's crazy! Well, the theories of geology are based on the existence of magma. We all know there are three main types of "rocks" in geology. Sedimentary, Igneous and Metamorphic. He disproves this also by showing that most rocks are made from water. Modern Science says no, the rocks all came from a melt, from magma, as the Earth cooled.

Water? What? The jeerers jeer! Surely you jest! Except, of course, for rocks made from a melt, from volcanoes and the like, are called glass - lava, pumice, etc.

Modern geology claims, for example, that crystals come from a melt. He proves otherwise. He has created crystals out of water in an Autoclave. And guess what, modern industry has made crystals for years; for radios, for watches, etc.

Granite, considered a metamophic rock that modern-day science claims came from a melt, contains - you guessed it - crystals! Crystal and Glass are not the same thing.

Ask your Grandmother. She likely used crystal goblets during those special dinners. Not glass. ugh. glass is cheap. Get my point?

Sedimentary rocks are made from - you guessed it Water! Igneous rocks from heat, or a melt, they're glass!

So what's the point. The point is, the Earth, the moon and other planets were made from water. That's why they are spherical. Water in a weightless environment coalesces into a sphere. DUH!

Read Genesis 1:2 about water.  He also refutes modern theory on how planets were formed: rock smashing into each other and sticking - are with me with this?

This is a very small part of what the UM contains.

He refutes other modern-day theories - such as Evolution. He proves fossils can be made in weeks, not millions or billions of years.

So you get the point? The Creation was not a long process. Hey! what a novel concept here at MormonDialogue!

So what do you want me to do? Photocopy all 800 pages and spoon-feed it to you?   Quit squawking and fill your own lamp with knowledge. 

 

 

Magma is molten rock below the surface of the earth. Lava is molten rock above the surface of the earth. So if you put lava under the earth or if it was ever molten rock under the earth magma exists. They are the same thing just in a different location.

We can measure seismic waves traveling through the earth and know what is down there because we know how substances change the waves because we can test it on molten rock above ground. Sessions ignores that fact.

Not all the products from a melt are glass and Sessions ignores the repeated studies showing this is the case. You can create crystals in water. That does not prove that is how it happened on the earth and there is no reason to believe that is true.

I would go on but someone with way more time already pointed out what Sessions chooses to ignore on this topic:

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/quartz-is-not-glass-so-what/

 

On to water earth. The primary idea here is the idea that the Earth is filled with water with an ice core. The first problem with that is we have a good idea of the mass of the earth because we can track its mass to a pretty good approximation because of how gravity and inertia effect it. Water and ice are much less dense then magma and a largely iron core. So why does gravity treat the earth as if it is heavier then a big sphere of water and ice with a rocky exterior?

To explain why the earth defies the laws of physics and the rocky mass is outside when heavier material should sink he explains it is all centrifugal force. He ignore the fact that at the earth's poles centrifugal force is absent and Antarctica should have sunk long ago. Centrifugal force is not as powerful on the Earth's mass as gravity is (though it is still there though not at the poles).

 

His idea is that fossils all formed in the great flood in superheated water at the bottom of the ocean which sped up the "aging process". Problem is if the bottom of the ocean was that hot we get covection. Short story: The oceans boil. Noah and everyone and everything on the ark dies. He also has no explanation for layered fossils of differing ages if they all boiled up in less then a year during the flood.

 

Sessions is like a really stupid Greek scientist. Allow me to explain. The Greeks loved experimenting but they reached their conclusions based on intuition and reason. They came up with humors and the elements and their relations because it made sense based on limited observation. It was the string theory of its day. We cannot really prove it but it makes philosophical sense so we will run with it. This kind of scientific thinking has limits in how wrong it can be. It will not contradict direct observations but the underlying theories are whimsical but logical in their own way.

Modern science replaced that Intuition and reason with testing. So you come up with a theory and test it in some way. If it is disproven you adjust the theory or discard it.

Sessions reads like someone taking a High School science education and using it to reason out how things work. He reads people smarter then him but only uses their words when they support his theory or (more usually) can be made to appear as if they do. Then he pastes his theories together without any real tests and pronounces new fundamental scientific laws that are simple and easier to understand which makes them good somehow. They have to be simple and easy. They come from a simpleton.

Now the reason he is a stupid Greek scientist is that he has access to tests and direct observations and selectively ignores that data. This makes him either a deceiver or someone fundamentally stupid.

I suspect it is the Korihor situation. He knew it was wrong on some level when he started but preached it so much he started to believe it. Most of us presumably know people who are stupidly self-satisfied and proud of idiotic insights. Sessions just came up with a way to monetize it.

 

[PeterPear]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/does-magma-exist/

There is not a summary section that states the main premises, you have to read the page as he addresses the claims made by Sessions one by one and shows how they are false.

However, here is an example of an error to demonstrate the type of evaluation going on:

"

Geophysicists have not been able to explain why heat flow through the thin oceanic crust is less than the heat flow through the thick continental crust. The thicker and more insulated continental crust areas should have a significantly lower amount of heat flow whereas the thicker continental crust should theoretically be cooler than oceanic crust because of the distance from the heat source as predicted within magma theory. (p. 92)

Wait… look at that figure again.  On average, at least, the ocean floors do show higher heat flow than the continents, and in fact geophysicists estimate that the average heat flow from the continental crust is 65 mW/m^2, whereas the average heat flow from oceanic crust is 101 mW/m^2.  Why is Sessions now saying that there is less heat flow through the oceanic crust?"

Well, at least the site to which you referred, admits magma is a theory.

And this site admits friction causes lava:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/906385986.Es.r.html

What causes the heat flow is still up for debate. This site mentions earthquake swarms along a fault releasing gasses underground, without a crustal eruption.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040195101000981

 

In addition bbickmore complains: “Magma,” in geological parlance, means molten rock that exists below the Earth’s surface, whereas “lava” is the same thing after it is extruded out of a volcano.   https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/does-magma-exist/

Well no they are not the same. Magma is considered radioactive, the source of its heat. Lava is not radioactive. They should be treated differently in the Magma Theory, but they're not.

BBickmore should extroplate somewhat and then explain why all rocks are not glass, since the Magma theory assumes all rocks originated from a melt or from the Magma itself, the earth's crust having "cooled" after it was formed.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

In my experience, the opposite has been true. The condemnation of him here is like clockwork, and is exhausting/disappointing.

That said, my exposure to Rod has been very limited. One DVD set, and a brief portion of one recent conference presentation.

He needs to be condemned.

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Correct.

Doesn't mean we can't do better.

I've contributed here for about a decade now. And have seen him be the target of rancor for much of that time. It gets old...quickly.

Can't we please just let him/them be?

No.

[PeterPear]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Magma is molten rock below the surface of the earth. Lava is molten rock above the surface of the earth. So if you put lava under the earth or if it was ever molten rock under the earth magma exists. They are the same thing just in a different location.

We can measure seismic waves traveling through the earth and know what is down there because we know how substances change the waves because we can test it on molten rock above ground. Sessions ignores that fact.

Not all the products from a melt are glass and Sessions ignores the repeated studies showing this is the case. You can create crystals in water. That does not prove that is how it happened on the earth and there is no reason to believe that is true.

I would go on but someone with way more time already pointed out what Sessions chooses to ignore on this topic:

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/quartz-is-not-glass-so-what/

 

On to water earth. The primary idea here is the idea that the Earth is filled with water with an ice core. The first problem with that is we have a good idea of the mass of the earth because we can track its mass to a pretty good approximation because of how gravity and inertia effect it. Water and ice are much less dense then magma and a largely iron core. So why does gravity treat the earth as if it is heavier then a big sphere of water and ice with a rocky exterior?

To explain why the earth defies the laws of physics and the rocky mass is outside when heavier material should sink he explains it is all centrifugal force. He ignore the fact that at the earth's poles centrifugal force is absent and Antarctica should have sunk long ago. Centrifugal force is not as powerful on the Earth's mass as gravity is (though it is still there though not at the poles).

 

His idea is that fossils all formed in the great flood in superheated water at the bottom of the ocean which sped up the "aging process". Problem is if the bottom of the ocean was that hot we get covection. Short story: The oceans boil. Noah and everyone and everything on the ark dies. He also has no explanation for layered fossils of differing ages if they all boiled up in less then a year during the flood.

 

Sessions is like a really stupid Greek scientist. Allow me to explain. The Greeks loved experimenting but they reached their conclusions based on intuition and reason. They came up with humors and the elements and their relations because it made sense based on limited observation. It was the string theory of its day. We cannot really prove it but it makes philosophical sense so we will run with it. This kind of scientific thinking has limits in how wrong it can be. It will not contradict direct observations but the underlying theories are whimsical but logical in their own way.

Modern science replaced that Intuition and reason with testing. So you come up with a theory and test it in some way. If it is disproven you adjust the theory or discard it.

Sessions reads like someone taking a High School science education and using it to reason out how things work. He reads people smarter then him but only uses their words when they support his theory or (more usually) can be made to appear as if they do. Then he pastes his theories together without any real tests and pronounces new fundamental scientific laws that are simple and easier to understand which makes them good somehow. They have to be simple and easy. They come from a simpleton.

Now the reason he is a stupid Greek scientist is that he has access to tests and direct observations and selectively ignores that data. This makes him either a deceiver or someone fundamentally stupid.

I suspect it is the Korihor situation. He knew it was wrong on some level when he started but preached it so much he started to believe it. Most of us presumably know people who are stupidly self-satisfied and proud of idiotic insights. Sessions just came up with a way to monetize it.

 

 

"Magma is molten rock below the surface of the earth. Lava is molten rock above the surface of the earth. So if you put lava under the earth or if it was ever molten rock under the earth magma exists. They are the same thing just in a different location."

Oh surely. And how does science state magma became and remains heated? Radioactivity. Lava is radioactive, isn't it? Just the same thing in a different location. You came up with that from the logic of a really stupid Greek Scientist or your high school education.

The rest is an ad hominem.

 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

 

"Magma is molten rock below the surface of the earth. Lava is molten rock above the surface of the earth. So if you put lava under the earth or if it was ever molten rock under the earth magma exists. They are the same thing just in a different location."

Oh surely. And how does science state magma became and remains heated? Radioactivity. Lava is radioactive, isn't it? Just the same thing in a different location. You came up with that from the logic of a really stupid Greek Scientist or your high school education.

The rest is an ad hominem.

 

No, an ad hominem is saying someone is stupid with no evidence and therefore what they say can be discounted. I am saying that what he is saying is stupid and it can thus be inferred that he is stupid. Not an ad hominem.

Magma heats due to radioactive decay and due to friction. Magma generally is radioactive but the more radioactive magma is deeper in the Earth because heavier elements slowly sink and they are the most radioactive (uranium for instance). Lava is radioactive, some of it more radioactive then other flows. It is just not dangeously radioactive.

And before you ask why uranium can be found near the surface if it sinks virtually all the heavy elements humanity has access to were deposited after the earth's formation via meteor strikes. It takes a long time for heavy elements to sink so the hit does not have to be recent.

12 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

You came up with that from the logic of a really stupid Greek Scientist or your high school education.

????

13 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

The rest is an ad hominem.

Nope, there was a lot more sciencey stuff which you were unable or unwilling to respond to.

[hagoth7]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He needs to be condemned.

In the essentials, unity.

In the non-essentials, freedom.

In all things, charity.

 

I know people who function best on a high protein, low carb diet.

Others function better on a different diet.

I view those drawn to Rod's content to be those in (temporary?) need of a specific dietary supplement.

You may not need or want it, but some do.

In the non-essentials (where it's not essential that there be unity), freedom.

If we can't just let heartlanders charitably hold to their heartland, something stinks in Denmark.

Freedom please. Charity. Please.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

He needs to be condemned.

Or you claiming to be his judge needs a gentle reprimand.

 

I'll say the same thing I said of the MoTab woman who had a different slant about inauguration performance.

Just let her speak/sing her view. It's a free country,

 

Until/unless the church teaches specific geography(/ies), we shouldn't condemn people for emphasizing one geography over the other.

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

The extended conversation about Meldrum came about because you challenged the connection of him and tents.  Maybe if you ignored comments of Meldrum, there wouldn't be as much criticism?

I normally don't ignore comments when people are being picked on behind their backs.

Expect me to speak up in objection when I see such things happen.

Even 14-year-old teachers in the Aaronic priesthood are taught not to let that  kind of backbiting happen.

In all things, charity. Please.

Edited September 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

In the essentials, unity.

In the non-essentials, freedom.

In all things, charity.

 

I know people who function best on a high protein, low carb diet.

Others function better on a different diet.

I view those drawn to Rod's content to be those in (temporary?) need of a specific dietary supplement.

You may not need or want it, but some do.

In the non-essentials (where it's not essential that there be unity), freedom.

If we can't just let heartlanders charitably hold to their heartland, something stinks in Denmark.

Freedom please. Charity. Please.

It is not the Heartland theory I object to. If someone used this kind of reasoning and misapplied and made up evidence to support the MesoAmerican Model I currently suspect is correct I would condemn them. It is not his goal I have a problem with. It is his methods which are quite frankly wrong and even sinful.

[hagoth7]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not the Heartland theory I object to. If someone used this kind of reasoning and misapplied and made up evidence to support the MesoAmerican Model I currently suspect is correct I would condemn them. It is not his goal I have a problem with. It is his methods which are quite frankly wrong and even sinful.

That degree of error or sin, if it were true, would be between him and his priesthood leader(s).

Backbiting. Again.

Can we please stop?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Or you claiming to be his judge needs a gentle reprimand.

 

I'll say the same thing I said of the MoTab woman who had a different slant about inauguration performance.

Just let her speak/sing her view. It's a free country,

 

Until/unless the church teaches specific geography(/ies), we shouldn't condemn people for emphasizing one geography over the other.

 

He has received lots of gentle reprimands. He continues to act wrongly and to deceive.

It really does not have to do with which theory is right. He is lying to establish his theory.

Some may remember Uncle Dale who used to post on this board. He was a proponent that Spaulding was tied to the creation of the Book of Mormon. I liked him. He was intelligent, spoke based on evidence, and had humility about potential flaws in his theory and even shared some. I did not agree with him but I respected him.

Meldrum is the opposite. I have every reason to agree with him. He is trying to prove the scriptures literally true. Something I should want. The problem is he is doing it in a deceptive and morally reprehensible way. He is complicit in the spreading of falsehoods amongst the saints. That is bad. That he is doing it for gain and glory makes it priestcraft. While I despise what he is doing I pity him. His actions are almost certainly break the faith of people one day when they discover they have been deceived and he is going to have to answer to God for that. If my voice crying in the wilderness telling people not to listen to him helps someone avoid that trap I feel I should do it even if it does seem to be mean.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

That degree of error or sin, if it were true, would be between him and his priesthood leader(s).

Backbiting. Again.

Can we please stop?

Backbiting would imply I am doing it behind his back and no, it is not between him and his Priesthood leaders.

90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.

91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.

[hagoth7]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Backbiting would imply I am doing it behind his back and no, it is not between him and his Priesthood leaders.

90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.

91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.

He or she shall be chastened...by whom?

He or she shall be rebuked openly...by whom?

 

Verse 89 (context)

And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.

 

I don't acknowledge you or anyone in this forum as his rightful judge. What am I overlooking?

Edited September 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

 

Quote

Meldrum...I have every reason to agree with him. He is trying to prove the scriptures literally true. Something I should want.

On that point, we agree.

Surprised I don't see more people acknowledging that to be his intent. Thank you for saying so. A breath of fresh air.

Quote

That he is doing it for gain and glory makes it priestcraft.

Why say he does it for glory?
What is the basis for that assertion?

Edited September 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

 

On that point, we agree.

Surprised I don't see more people acknowledging that to be his intent. Thank you for saying so. A breath of fresh air.

Why say he does it for glory?
What is the basis for that assertion?

I do not give him any points for having a goal I would find laudable if his methods are immoral.

I find missionary work laudable but if someone threatened to kill someone if they did not convert I would not give them credit for their good intentions.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

He or she shall be chastened...by whom?

He or she shall be rebuked openly...by whom?

 

Verse 89 (context)

And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.

 

I don't acknowledge you or anyone in this forum as his rightful judge. What am I overlooking?

I am not his rightful judge in terms of church discipline. I do not feel compelled to remain silent while he tries to deceive people in the mean time. I have the knowledge needed to cry 'fraud' and so I feel I should cry 'fraud'.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I do not give him any points for having a goal I would find laudable if his methods are immoral.

I find missionary work laudable but if someone threatened to kill someone if they did not convert I would not give them credit for their good intentions.

That doesn't answer the question.

What is the basis for claiming he does it for glory?