Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by snowflake

  1. "the plates weren't big enough and we changed the Hebrew...that's why the record we made isn't perfect"......sounds good enough for me! I'm glad the Hebrew scribes in the Old World had a little higher standard!
  2. Are the Mayans the Nephites or Lamanites? I thought that was a different culture and time period all together?
  3. Do you think there was a scribal class creating the many different records or was it mainly the prophets? The records that existed the Old World were typically papyri or animal skins...referred to as scrolls....why switch to the gold plates?
  4. This has to be one of the most bizaare verses in the BOM!! This makes no sense whatsoever!
  5. Thank you for your answer...I definitely think you are on the right track that there must have been some kind of scribal class as in the biblical narrative. Having come from the old world, any idea why these scribes started recording on plates as opposed to the tradition animal skin or papyri? Possibly a newer technology?
  6. There are literally tens of thousands of Biblical manuscripts that support the biblical narrative and story. In both the Old and New Testaments, the biblical record tells of “scribes” whose job was to accurately reproduce the text of scripture. In searching the BOM the term “scribe” does not appear. Were the BOM prophets the only ones to record the BOM narrative, or were there scribes who made multiple copies of the record similar to the biblical scribes? If there was only a single copy of the BOM narrative (gold plates), how would the Lamanites and Nephites read, study or comprehend their history and their history with God?
  7. I have not heard his Bible lectures but many of his debates and commentaries are on youtube. He interviews with Joe Rogan quite frequently and has discussed some of his views on the "person of Christ"....and I agree that his take is fascinating!
  8. There is zero textual evidence that support the JST.
  9. Where am I wrong? Or where is Dr.Meyer wrong?
  10. If you want to build a new form of life (a new animal), the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information (new code). How does it do that? How could it do that? Random mutation cannot create new code! Natural selection cannot create new code! You need new information. We know from experience (in computer code) that if you start randomly changing code in information systems like DNA and computer code you are going to fundamentally degrade that code before you get anything that is new and useful. If you are a computer programmer and randomly start changing 0's and 1's, are you going to create a new program or operating system?, or are you going to introduce glitches and bugs into the program you already have? (credit do Dr. Stephen Meyer). Information sciences have shown that these typse of random mutations are incapable of generating something fundamentally new.
  11. I think those creatures would probably fall into the "creeping things" category? [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
  12. The only thing the fossil record can truly tell us is that a bunch of animals got buried.....the bible tells us it was by a huge flood (Genesis 7). The fossil record makes perfect sense, but only if there was a global flood. Genesis 7: [17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Remember the global flood lasted a year. I'm not sure why such an intelligent man as yourself would struggle reading Genesis 1. Try reading it as literal days like it says, morning, and evening......throw all of your pre-conceived ideas out. Just read it for what it say and don't force your erroneous "scientific" ideas into the text. I'm just saying that you should hold scripture as more true than your science, it very well could be incorrect.
  13. There is zero textual support for the JST, not a single manuscript of the tens of thousands that exist, support the JST. So God gave us his creation story, and you find it irrelevant....
  14. I would disagree with you on no death before the fall...you are correct that Genesis does not say anything died prior to the fall. However, the first death in the bible is after then fall when in Genesis 3:21 God skins animals to clothe Adam and Eve (and their sin). But lets look at genesis 1 and compare that with Darwinian evolution. God creates all the plants on day 3, birds and fish day 5, beasts of the earth, creeping things and man on day 6. All created differently and distinct, male and female. Morning and evening clearly mentioned each day. This simply does not jive with Darwinian evolution.
  15. Evolution is incompatible with the scriptures, no death before the fall would be one specific.
  16. Ok, i was a believer in your religion as well for quite some time. What's your take on the abiogenesis problem?
  17. This is the classic "escape hatch" answer you get from most biologists. Well....we don't really know how that happened but we know that it DID Happen....since we are here and exist it has to have happened. Pure religious fantasy..... and if you believe that it happened that is fine.....but don't call it science. Do you really believe that a single cell organism with enough time was capable of evolving into the human race?
  18. ? please explain....and thank you for you answers.. you seem very honest with me and i appreciate that!
  19. For a genetic mutation to be passed on to the next generation and introduced into a population, the individual with that specific genetic mutation would have to reproduce with another individual who has that specific mutation as well correct? Then the offspring would have to survive, grow to maturity and find another individual whose parents had developed the same mutation and that mutation would need to be beneficial to the individual to influence the gene pool in a population. Am I understanding this correctly? It seems to me that natural selection actually leads to the elimination of these types of genetic mutations and not encourage them.
  20. Wow....quite a rant there. Hovind's biggest rejection of evolution is based on his rigid belief in the bible as an accurate God breathed text. And I will admit that much of my rejection of evolution is based on this as well, I see the theory of evolution as a direct attack on the book of Genesis. And in Genesis we have many events that nobody saw......it is a religous belief that the text and events are correct, true and accurate. That being said, much of what is being discussed in this thread is about events that took place in the past, that nobody has been able to see. If genetic mutation as the only way to introduce new genetic material into a population, it's a pretty weak explination for the amazing diversity we see. I find this explination on par with my religous faith. How can a genetic mutation explain the development of a circulatory system? Oh yes.....I forgot......billions of years......it takes a lot of faith to believe in that. How did the genetic code get started? The scientific explination for this is completely based on faith as well.
  21. Here is a great article by a mathematician I think you would enjoy Clark....katherine the great too! http://math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
  22. Please explain this mechanism of evolution.....is it survival of the fittest or genetic mutation?....or something else? I was always taught these were the mechanisms. I just find it incredible that there are no sufficient mathematical models to explain the rise of life and Darwinian evolution...or am in incorrect?
  23. It can't tell you if it reproduced, it can't tell you if it relocated from somewhere, and no you are incorrect, tooth shape gives you zero information on what the diet of an organism was....for example....look at my wife's grill.........is she a vegan, or on the adkin's diet .....all of this is speculation no?
  24. Stephen C Meyer, David Burlinski, here is a group of scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution. https://evolutionnews.org/author/pnelson/
  • Create New...