Jump to content

Rob Osborn

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rob Osborn

  1. No, actual evolution is reality. Your distorted claims about evolution are the fairy tales.

    How does it really stack up? Have we ever documented or observed a living species evolve into an entirely different species? No. Have we really shown where abiogenesis is even a viable theory? No, it cant even get passed the stage of being a hypothesis by science standards. Its not that we can show species can vary, they do, its that we cant prove that the variance involved can answer why we have such a great and diverse amount of highly functional and intelligent lifeforms. So when you say "reality" it doesnt mean much because all of your evidences rely so heavily on conjecture rather than the scientific method. The scientific method shows the "reality" that intelligent life is very very precise in its copy mechanisms and that species show stasis to a high degree over the course of time. Just because all species share common elements is not because they share a common ancestor and thus the "reality" you paint is on an invisible canvas that no one can see and measure by scientific standards.

    We have brought up various cases like the evolution of the eye, and have shown cases of supposed different levels of eye evolution development, but there is no reality of evolution but rather a reality that different species are created different for their environments. I would really like to fly but how do I get there by evolutionist theory? Is my reality just a matter of finding the right mate that likes to climb trees, or can jump high? Perhaps its not ever in the cards for humans to fly, but by evolutionary theory, the reality of it is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow because after all- I dont really have to show scientific proof, I just have to sell it to my colleagues and get it printed in enough books to convince the mindless masses.

  2. That is a joke, right? It amazes me that people just casually dismiss a field of hard science that they haven't even shown any understanding of.

    Whats there to dismiss? If they actually had something to start with that would be one thing. All I am dismissing is their overactive imaginations.

  3. Rob you can continue to deny evidence all day long if you wish. It may help you to personally keep you grounded in a testimony that may crumble if you wanted to challenge yourself. And I know... that is a painful thing. So in a way I don't blame you.   On the other hand, relying in documents that cliam to be the word of God when evidence shows that maybe this is really not the case, well I don't know.  Truth is more important to me at least than maintaining false assumptions no matter how painful.

    The truth has already set me free. Now I just need to convince those atheists...

  4. First that is an Ad Populum argument. Secondly, there is no scientifically verifiable way to posit any God. Thirdly, the Scriptures don't claim that we are biologically related to God. They claim we are made out of a pile of dust God breathed into. That we are the "SPIRITUAL" children of God.


    The idea of evolution is thousands of years old.

    SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought


    What they didn't have a way to substantiate it. We have that now.


    BTW The earth isn't flat covered by a solid dome either which is claimed in the Bible


    I have never said it is without flaws. It is the fact that after some 150 years after the Theory of Evolution was proposed every scientific test against it has failed to falsify it. As has been repeatedly ask of you is that you falsify it using the tool of science. Go down in history as the man who disproved evolution.


    The Theory of Evolution doesn't say that.



    The term "kind" is undefinable by science.

    Macro-evolution has already been debunked. Problem is that evolutionists dont want to see that truth.

    All things denote their is a God. Atheists try to discount this fact.

  5. Science is based on the human ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions about our natural world/universe. IE;  No one has ever seen an electron. Yet you right now are using the Electron Theory with your computer.

    SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

    Well, we certainly would hope that science would be based on the human ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions. Its the sad truth though that in the name of that science we make predictions and conclusions based on the imaginations of a few void of any rational thought or observations. Abiogenesis is one such imagination claimed as science.

  6. What I said . . .

    Of course logic tells you that, and of course your knowledge of modern directions is all you need to know what you need to know, etc.  No one need consider what Mesoamericans thought of such matters.  Anthroplogical reality doesn't exist for you, just as it doesn't for the anti-Mormons.  You and your opposing buddies live in the same fever swamp, never caring that their version of rational and logical thought might be very illogical and irrational.  Blissfully unaware of the facts . . .

    Well, lest loo at the text-

    5 And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward. (Alma 63:5)

    32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward. (Alma 22:32)

    29 And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward. (Mormon 2:29)

    The neck, as described in the BoM is not described as a point where the land was narrowest. It is described almost separately as a place where one traveled through to get between the land northward and the land southward. Note in Mormon 2:29 that the Nephites got two lands essentially- the land northward and the narrow neck of land that connected it to the land southward. The isthmus of Tehuantepec cannot be described this way because there is no elongated narrow neck, its just a narrow point. When one looks at the meso-American model with the isthmus of Tehuantepec as the narrow neck one wonders why this isthmus is a narrow neck when in fact the whole area of Central America and southern Mexico is on this same shape of being narrow. For example- the Yucatan peninsula is how wide? A little less than 200 miles. How about the width of Guatemala from ocean to ocean? Again- less than 200 miles. In essence, this whole area can be described as a narrow neck. Besides that, the land southward connects to South America which goes against what the BoM states with the land southward being completely surrounded by water except for the narrow neck in the northern part of its land. On top of that one cannot really argue that a Nephite could travel across the 120 mile wide isthmus in a day and a half.

    Nothing adds up. Logic says so.

  7. No. It is science.  Do you understand the scientific method? It has no vested interest in supporting one view or another.... so unlike religion and religious apologetics.   Apologetics starts with a premise that whatever the apologist believes is true must be defended at all costs. Science seeks for truth based on evidence and a method that allows for over throwing previous conclusions if the evidence shows otherwise.

    The scientific method isnt used for evolutionists and their theories of how the fossils got tjere or evolution for that matter.

  8. From the article-

    " Additional changes on the Church's end as part of the new arrangement also make LDS adoption accessible for more families. There are now only four criteria a potential LDS adoptive couple must meet:

    1. Be sealed in the temple to your spouse 2. Have current temple recommends 3. Get a Bishop's recommendation 4. Complete an Adoption.com home study

    Those familiar with LDS adoptions in the past will rejoice that some restrictive criteria, like medical documentation of infertility or a child limit of 2 per family, have been dropped."

    • Upvote 1
  9. I really enjoyed Rob's comments: "At that time when the earth is made into the celestial kingdom, all of the saved inhabitants of the earth will reside here. Only two places will exist- the celestial kingdom and outer darkness. Read in Revelations about this- all of the names of the saved will walk within the holy city (celestial kingdom on this earth) while those whose names are not found written will have no entrance to the city and will be cast into outer darkness.

    Read in section 76 where Christ will work until he has perfected the kingdom (inhabitants of the earth) and then presents it spotless to the father where then it will be crowned with celestial glory.

    Where will the telestial and terrestrial inhabitants reside?"


    I think he is on to something there but I'm wondering how to synthesize that with D&C 88: 21:  "And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom"

    In that same section there is a little obscure verse that might answer such a question. In Section 88-

    28 They who are of a celestial spirit shall receive the same body which was a natural body; even ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened.

    Note how it says "they who are of a celestial spirit" but then goes on to describe the resurrection. We are now in the telestial glory (telestial kingdom with the glory of the Holy Ghost) and certainly some have already been resurrected (quickened) by this glory. Being "celestial in spirit" just means that one is already prepared for the celestial kingdom but they may be resurrected first with telestial gloryand be quickened in due time from that to terrestrial and finally celestial.

  10. I don't expect it would to an ordinary Idahoan, or Utahn, who brought to the text the belief that all ancient peoples have the same culture that modern people do, that everything is always the same.  Makes sense, right?  Wrong.  


    Of course the narrow neck of land being at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec makes no logical sense, unless you know how to use logic.

    Logic already tells me your isthmus is not the narrow neck. Besides the obvious direction problems, the BoM describes the narrow neck as an actual piece of elongated real estate- a land that connected two other lands and was identified as a narrow land that leads into another land .

  11. Using Occam's razor to make a theory from the fossil record and genetics is having an overactive imagination?

    Its one thing to look at the fossil record but its a completely different thing to believe that each new layer evolved into the next suddenly changing. Thats a fairytale.

  12. "All I know is that if I don't understand abiogenesis or we haven't replicated it yet in a lab, then all of evolution is false and ID is true." This is the essence of your argument.

    Not at all. Abiogenesis has never been documented. In fact, countless scientific studies have shown that intelligent life only comes from intelligent processes preceding it. That is a fact, proven over and over again. Never has it been shown that intelligence can arisefrom nonintelligent sources precedibg it. If hardcore Darwinian evolutionists want to prove their beliefs, then they have to prove that intelligence can ariseon its own. Good luck.

  13. And, of course, all Mesoamericans thought the same way that commonsensical people in Idaho do today, right?  Don't confuse you with facts . . .

    The fact still remains that the geographical location of the narrow neck in meso-America makes no logical sense from reading the text. One can try to warp and distort what the text really says but the bottom line is that the location of the narrow neck in relevance to Zarahemla and other BoM lands just doesnt fit.

  • Create New...