longview

If you are just going to make up your own interpretation of the text and supplant the plain meaning then I think we are done here.

It appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing and not coming to grips with the plain language of the scriptures provided by Rob Osborn.

So, do you think the inspired book of Moses is translated correctly? It speaks of the global deluge there. Just admit that the church doctrine believes the flood was global and lets move on. You can choose to disagree with church doctrine but at least admit it.

I do believe in the Global Deluge and that all land had to be simultaneously "immersed" some way or the other.  But we simply don't have all the details.

I do believe the Book of Moses is inspired but I recall an Ensign article a while ago that Joseph Smith's work was still ongoing in translating this book.  In fact he was making several passes through it refining and still correcting the book.  He had two copies for this work.  The latest version ended up with Emma Smith and eventually passed to the RLDS.  Apparently the main church ended up with the older version.  The new version has details that our current Book of Moses do not have, such as the lifespan of Adam and Methuselah, both of whom lived to be 999 years and 6 months.  If Joseph Smith had not be assassinated so soon or if he had not been harried so much by mobbers, we would have a lot more accurate and complete version of the Book of Moses.

In any case, the argument in this thread is pointless.  The scriptures cannot be exhaustive in describing all that transpired in earth history.  Neither can science account for conditions throughout history.  Its methods for estimating ages are not 100% foolproof.  It is very dependent on making a whole raft of assumptions and conjectures.  Even the very "facts" are subject to interpretations and evaluations.  Isaac Newton certainly did not have the "last word" when he developed his gravitation formulas.  Neither did Einstein have the "last word" with his earth shaking theories.  Even today we expect further revisions and alternatives.

There is no doubt Joseph Smith played a special role. I am not here to rank the prophets, as I believe such a thing is pointless (they all represent the same God). In fact, if you had to rank them I think they would all tie for 1st for that very reason. I will say the most important prophet of this dispensation is Thomas Spencer Monson (at the current time). 

 

I think your answer falls short.

Keep in mind Joseph Smith holds a special place as the head of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.

It has been stated many times on this board and elsewhere that if there is disagreement on anything or something controversial, then it has to be discussed among the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve before reaching a decision.  There has to be unanimity before it can be taken with solemn seriousness.

For example, Orson Pratt and others argued against Brigham Young and Heber Kimball on the Adam/God theory.  One time Brigham Young had a disagreement with Edwin Woolley (SLC bishop) and BY asked Woolley if he was going to leave the Church.  Woolley replied (paraphrasing):  "NO, because the Church does not belong to you!"

an illustration of co-dependent evolution . . .

https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience/photos/a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035/811064962247850/?type=1

(warning:  one humorous use of the f word)

I have read the Bible (King James much preferred) and the standard works numerous time in my 40 year journey.  Faith, works, and grace (and their interrelationships) jump out in many places in the NT as well as in the BoM.  From my point of view there is no ambiguity concerning the purpose for mortal experience.  This returned missionary probably lost his determination to "endure to the end" and to exercise himself on the words of Christ.  He could have latched onto any little thing in the Gospel for an excuse to leave the Church (which is his choice, he will have to account to his God for it).  Everybody needs to do what Jesus has counselled:

• Alma 14:1

  1 And it came to pass after he had made an end of speaking unto the people many of them did believe on his words, and began to repent, and to search the scriptures.

• John 5:39

  39 ¶Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

• Alma 33:2

  2 And Alma said unto them: Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship your God because ye are cast out of your synagogues. But behold, I say unto you, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship God, ye do greatly err, and ye ought to search the scriptures; if ye suppose that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them.

Long view:

 

I'm not going to address going to address all of your posts. I will address one.

 

1. CO2 is a pollutant to all animals. It always has been a pollutant. We exhale it to get rid of it out of our bodies. Too much CO2 and you die.

 

2. The burning of fuels produces CO2 whether in our bodies, or anything we burn.

 

3. CO2 traps heat. This was proven in the 1890's.

 

4. We are dumping excess CO2 into the air.

 

5. Repeat from number #1.

CO2 is a natural byproduct of oxidation in living things.  CO2 is utilized by plants and other processes.  Hence CO2 is an important part of the cycling in the edcosystem.  Why then are you demonizing CO2?  Please reference post # 6 of this thread about the proportions naturally produced CO2 as compared with man-made.  And lets cut out the hysteria, my friend.

I do think that blending a particular form of conservative political philosophy with Book of Mormon and New Testament teachings is a form of priestcraft of the worst sort.  The gospel is true but politics are not necessarily true.

As I stated in my opening post, I am not focusing on the politics but to discuss the evidence and motivation for the "misuse" of science.  Hence the concern for priestcraft.

There many places in the Book of Mormon that describe all kinds of agendas of "power seekers" such as "King Men" or Gadianton or various other deceivers.

Hey Nehor, the vast majority of people think that the global warming is a bunch of ****. So go ahead and worry your self to sleep at night for fear we are destroying our planet. Look at any national poll. No one is buying.

 

The best part of this load of a hoax is that all they have is climate models. They don't even have real data. They have nothing but a model to go off of, a model to project the future. And there are so many unknowns.  They have been wrong on so many levels. It really is a shame that some one as intelligent as Nehor would buy into it.

That is right.  It is downright scary that they refuse to allow outsiders to review the code for the climate model programming.  It probably is jury-rigged to produce the outcome they want to use scare people into the "new order."

Translation: I am a failed climate scientist and this gives me a platform to call those who made it idiots.

Add in a bit of Dunning-Kruger and stir in blatant logical fallacies and we have Adrian Vance: failed climate scientist, hack writer, and all-around idiot. Oh, don't forget to add in a shadowy cabal of socialists who want to trash the economy under the idea that it will somehow make them popular for some reason.

I am not going to refute your last long post point by point. I could but it would be a waste of time. Maybe someone else has the time to waste. There are three ways to learn the truth about climate:

Failed climate scientist?  Where did that come from?  It appears you are venting a great deal of heat and emotion without coming to grips with reason and documentation.  Adrian Vance is/was a very accomplished teacher of science, producer of audio/visuals, patent award holder, a great variety of professional interests, etc.

Hack writer?  I am a fan of his blog site.  I greatly appreciate his careful review of facts and measurements.  He does a good job of contrasting different viewpoints and provides wonderful commentary.  You should have googled his name before going off on a tirade.

Pointless?  I  guess you are a little tired today.  I appreciated your willingness to discuss with me the red-shifting of photons in a previous thread.

Why is this in social?

My impression from previous threads is that topics of a very controversial (even contentious) nature should be placed in social (if I remember right).  What forum do you think it should be placed?

In comments section, Adrian made an interesting statement:
 

Adrian Vance10:33 AM, April 01, 2014
CO2 in the seas is really two stories. The greatest source of new CO2 in the atmosphere is the solution of limestone, CaCO3, in the fresh water coming from rain into all the streams. It is a major fraction, like 80% of the 160 gigatons of new CO2 every years. Man makes only six gigatons and America makes 20% while feeding half the world as our agriculture is twice to three times as efficient as any on the planet.

When the fresh water CO2 mixes with salt water a lot of CO2 comes out as it is less soluble in salt water. This is far-and-away the major source even though much CO2 from air also dissolves into the oceans. It is an equilibrium reaction situation that can be estimated, and the numbers are mind-boggling. They make this business about man a big joke to honest science guys.

The other joke is that the story the "missing heat" is in the abyssal zone, deep sea, is without a mechanism even postulated much less proved and causing a lot of smiles in the halls of oceanography..

This whole thing is a giant fraud and myth for money from you and me in higher taxes as many Ph.D. scientists think they are entitled to more from us because they are smart, but as I am from that world let me say that many of the guys with that degree were better as butt-kissing that the candidates that did not make it.

I did look at it and had a good laugh. Let's take a look shall we?

 

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is out and more alarming that any earlier release.  Of course we know why:  International socialism, must have something to hate and carbon dioxide, CO2 is the skunk of the atmosphere.

 

Apparently I am supposed to buy right out of the gate that socialists need to hate something. You would think they would hate other economic systems like capitalism or communism or feudalism but nope, they are obsessed with the weather for some reason. Not only that but they are organized on the international level. No doubt they meet in dark rooms and smoke cigars while they pull the puppet-strings of the world.

 

--How do you explain the EPA wanting to classify CO2 as a pollutant?  Since the "socialists" privately know global warming is bunk, they only need the common people to get worked up over CO2 emissions and getting them angry at businesses for supposedly producing too much carbon.  Their only motive is to mislead the people into demonizing CO2 and get them to agree to severe (but needless) restrictions on their quality of life but in the process "redistribute" the wealth from producing countries to 3rd world nation.  A form of taxation that is totally unwarranted.

 

 

If the IPCC’s “Worst Case, Tipping Point! We’re all gonna die!” predictions came true it would be a period of plenty for all as it was 1000 years ago before we had liberals to blame man for everything bad.  Their case is not even supported the geologic history written and recorded forever in Antarctic ice.

 

You can tell this is a professional paper by the creative use of grammar. I am wondering why he considers 1000 AD a time of plenty. A vague reference to the ice saying global warming is not happening while conveniently failing to explain why. Hmmmm.....

 

--it is common knowledge that it was so warm that Vikings were able to do a lot of farming on Greenland (get it?  It was called that because it was then warm enough, now Greenland is a frigid place).  Adrian Vance has explained in several posts in the past that global warming has preceded the increase in CO2 (not the other way around).  And also, the sun is the major determinant of world climate.

 

 

Also most global warming predictions do not involve catastrophic world problems. A few do and they get press from hysteria because hysteria sells. Most climate scientists see it as a negative and that it will have repercussions but not that we are all going to die.

 

--It is not just a "few", entire school systems, most universities (with vested interest in grants from government), high profile leaders such as Al Gore vigorously pushing for major shifts from very efficient carbon based energy to troublesome "alternate" power such as wind, solar, etc.  Children are being "terrorized" about the extinction (falsely, as it turns out) of polar bears, massive rise in sea levels by 40 feet, etc.

 

 

The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect; not the other way around.  This one study dashes the whole “global warming/climate change” argument.

 

A myth created by badly interpreting data.

 

--I have seen multiple sources from other scientists that global warming occurred first, followed by increases in CO2 levels.

 

 

The IPCC claims their report is based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals which would have to include every one published.  Be that the case we have reported extensively on said studies and they are not in agreement with the IPCC.  A greater majority of the authors failed to endorse the hypothesis and rendered no opinion.  Naomi Oreskes and other such “meta-analysts” have falsely claimed these people endorsed the concept when they avoided making a comment on it.

 

This report was about those who tacitly support global warming and is accurate. Of course a lot of studies do not reference global warming. Silence does not mean disagreement.

 

We feel it is abundantly clear the UN IPCC Report on Climate Change is a political document devoid of scientific basis, support or impact.  The UN wants more American money\and International socialists want more power.  It is just that simple.

 

Get out your tinfoil hats. The UN is stealing our tax money and the evil cabal of socialists are coming to eat your babies.

 

--The UN is not a very credible organization.  The world body voted to condemn Israel as an apartheid state which flies in the face of the great egalitarianism found in ethnicities having representation in all parts of Israel.  Yet they do not confront the nations that call for genocide against Israel.  The UN have voted notorious nations onto "human rights" panels.  So yes, the UN is a socialist organization in a multitude of ways. 

 

 

IPCC panelist University of Sussex economist Richard Tol wrote in the report, "Rich people benefit from using all these fossil fuels, Poorer people lose out,” which is pure redistributionist socialism, but then Dr. Tol asked that his name be removed from the list of authors as he found the report “too alarmist and harping too much on risk.”   Even scoundrels have limits in the UN IPCC Report

 

It is amazing how this person can read the motives of everyone.

 

--It should be obvious to everyone that all people benefit from the use of fossil fuel that are in fact highly concentrated forms of energy and very economical.  There is no sane reason for any kind of restrictions on the quality of life.  Except for some elements wanting to cut back the population of the world, impose their "visions" of a new world order . . . (yikes, get out the tin foil hats) . . .

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh wait.......you're serious?

 

Allow me to debunk your whole worldview real quick. The purpose of secret combinations is to get gain and glory, usually by telling people what they want to here. The "global warming conspiracy":

This is not a secret combination. At least not a big one. If you are looking for lying flattering words and people after gain and glory I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

It seems apparent you have not looked in the article.  There is too much hysteria here.  Can you try to take a deep breath and address some of the elements in the article?

A man has to be worthy and ordained to the priesthood to enter the temple. A woman only has to be worthy. Is she already ordained to a priesthood by birthright? if so would not the "Priesthood" be somewhat redundant for her?

IMHO I think it is about power and leadership not priesthood rights

Do you believe the LDS church to be of men or of God?

Do you believe God runs the church by revelation?

What if the priesthood is intended by God to subdue the crudeness of males and encourage them to be gentle with females?

Do you believe that females will obtain the priesthood in the next world?

Do you believe that we all have specialized roles to perform?

Are you willing to "humbly" seek to do God's will?

And this has what to do with an LDS Theory of Evolution?  Hm?  Nothing.

My original post in this thread (#12) was focused on showing examples of science having many more questions than "facts".  Here are a couple of fragment from that post:

. . .

     . . .

 Religion does not have a conflict with science.  All "scientific" truths are wholly contained within God's truths.  The only problem with science is that scientists are forced to make numerous assumptions and projections about all kinds of factors in order to develop their theories.  We do not know how God performed His creative works but we can learn a few of the details, some figuratively, some literally.

 . . .

     . . .

 I could go on and on about various abuses various kinds of professors and researchers and scientists.  The debate is NOT settled.  Do not be fooled.  Keep questioning.

My apologies to the moderators for the political tinge of a few of our points. My concern is that the misuse of science has the real potential of causing people to become immoral and the government to turn increasingly tyrannical. I appreciate all your perspectives.

Yeah, not sure I understand what Al Gore has to do with any of this . . .

I would think you are already familiar with "carbon credits" or "Cap and Trade" or his book "Earth in the Balance" or his propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth" ?  Do you not understand that Al Gore wants the power of government to force a large reduction in the "carbon footprint" for each person and business entity?  Thereby diminishing the quality of life for the people?  Don't you see the connection between carbon credits with output of CO2 gas?

Word of warning since you are new, we remove those who derail threads into political squabbles.

A lot of this conflict is unnecessary. So long as we consider the Garden of Eden an actual garden rather than the whole planet, and discard the scientifically improbable young Earth theory, we can have our cake and eat it too with regards to Adam and Eve and evolution.

You are right that there is a serious conflict.  But when you consider that Al Gore had a vested interest in Enron with its preparations for trading carbon credits and his advocacy for governmental restrictions and coercions on the people.  This is just one of the ways that the left is using to steer the country into the dark age of Orwellian totalitarian nightmare.  Thankfully, Enron was exposed in 2001 to have engaged in fraud.  But Al Gore has not given up and still is pushing for ways to impose his scheme for "Cap and Trade" and a whole host of wacky agendas.  It is very necessary for all men to stand for the truth and to fight any attempt to deprive us of our Constitutional Protections that is threatened by these radical groups.

"Have your cake and eat it too?"   Playing around with vain speculations on evolution and other fanciful theories not gonna cut it.  We are encouraged by the Lord to truly search out all fields of knowledge and research and not be confined to the whims and questionable motives of certain groups of "men".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

 

Dr. Moore makes his living as lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.

 

That's right the earth is flat because nothing is settled in science.

No, Moore is still a committed environmentalist.  He would not stand still for the excesses and extremisms of various radical groups.

You are deflecting from honest discussion by implying that skeptics still believe in a flat earth (as well as using other means of demonizing the person).

See:   http://www.ask.com/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)?o=2800&qsrc=999

"In 2005, Moore criticized what he saw as scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism."[28] Moore contends that for the environmental movement "most of the really serious problems have been dealt with", seeking now to "invent doom and gloom scenarios".[29] He suggests they romanticise peasant life as part of an anti-industrial campaign to prevent development in less-developed countries, which he describes as "anti-human".[30][31] Moore was interviewed in the 2007 film documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, in which he expressed similar views. In 2007 The Guardian reported on his writings for the Royal Society arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming, noting his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops.[32] He has expressed his positive views of logging on the Greenspirit website.[33] In 2010, Moore was commissioned by forestry giant Asia Pulp and Paper to report on its logging activity in Indonesia's rainforests, resulting in a glowing review."

University of East Anglia still has not come clean:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/17/1-40/

Here is a scientific paper with 12 pages of level headed analysis and observations showing the enormous complexity of earth science:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

A Brief History of Environmental Science’s Doomsday Predictions:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/a-brief-history-of-environmental-sciences-doomsday-predictions/

Report by a panel of international scientists casts doubt that man is the cause of global warming or climate change:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/tait-trussell/more-bad-news-for-global-warming-true-believers/

For Heaven's sake the guy left Greenpeace almost 30 years ago? So why link him with it.

First off, I was struck by his point about the 4000 PPM level of CO2 found in two different time periods (one a flourishing ecosystem, then an ice age).  I was initially unfamiliar with Patrick Moore and not that heavily into reading up on Greenpeace activities.

Secondly, it was Greenpeace that kicked him out.  You would expect Patrick Moore to understand the mindset of all Greenpeace extremists and know how to talk their language.

Finally, neither you or TSS are responding directly to the cogent points being raised about the many paradoxes found in AGW (and also in other scientific theories).  Nothing in science can be safely assumed to be "settled", as much as I loved reading and studying all kinds of science (I also get a charge out of reading science fiction too).  There are a LOT more unknowns than there being proven "facts".

Here is the CO2 concentration for the last 400,000 years. I guess if you were a dinosaur it was OK.

http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich

This website claims that CO2 concentration is jumping from 360 PPM (parts per million) to 390 PPM.  Either figure is still trace amount, not even as significant or as powerful as water vapor which is far more effective as a greenhouse gas.

The point Patrick Moore was making was that there was ten times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (maybe as much as 4000 PPM) which did not even prevent the ice age from happening.  The Global Warming Fake Alarmists were predicting that all the ice would be gone from the Arctic Cap by now, that Polar bear population would be nearing extinction, that sea levels would jump by 20 feet.  All patently false.  All engineered by "hacks" such as Michael Mann and fraudsters at University of East Anglia.

It is very inappropriate for the Alarmists to say that the science is settled.  It is very wrong for EPA to declare that CO2 is a pollutant when it is a natural and essential part of the cycle of life.  There are several scientists that earth could use little bit more warming.  And we are dependent on the SUN as the major determinant of earth climate.  Mankind is incapable of having even an infinitesimal fraction of the power of the sun.

Here is what Greenpeace actually says.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/science/

Why this reference?  There is nothing in it about Patrick Moore, Ph.D.  Or anything about the fact of CO2 levels being higher by 10 fold in both times where life was flourishing (500 million years ago) and the ice age (450 million years ago).   Could you please clarify . . .

Greenpeace Co-Founder: 'No Scientific Proof' of Manmade Global Warming

In eye-opening testimony before a Senate subcommittee, the co-founder of the environmental activist group Greenpeace refuted assertions that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are responsible for global warming.

He also said a warmer temperature would be "far better" than a cooler one.

Patrick Moore, Ph.D., testified before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight on Feb. 25.

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," said Moore, who left Greenpeace in 1986 due to what he called its "sharp turn to the political left."

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: 'It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming' since the mid-20th century.

"'Extremely likely' is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law."

Moore, chairman emeritus of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, Canada, also told the subcommittee: "Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of "extreme certainty"™ is to look at the historical record. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.

"The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

"The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to 'human influence.' They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase since the mid-20th century. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by 'human influence,' when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?"

Moore went on to say: "Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

"It is 'extremely likely' that a warmer temperature than today's would be far better than a cooler one."

Here is an interesting article describing paradoxes found in the Big Bang Theory - - -

http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2014/02/get-it-right-next-time.html