Dr. Stewart's DNA Paper...

[Ralph Man]

In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence and I want things to make rational sense.

Just curious, but what good does objective reason do you when a terminally ill child asks what will happen to them when they die? Or when a man loses his whole family in the blink of an eye to a drunk driver?

Science can offer all kinds of answers, but in the end it can never offer the one thing that really matters to most people: Hope.

Somehow, I can't imagine looking into a dying child's eyes and telling him or her that at the very least he or she is biodegradable.

C.I.

Well, the most desirable thing to tell a child is that no matter what they do, the bestest, most awesome thing will happen to them after they die. Granted, that's not what Mormons believe, but if were basing our beliefs simply on what promises us the most rewarding picture, regardless of whether or not it is reasonable to believe it, then that's what you should be C.I. When do you plan on turning in your resignation letter?

[Greg Smith]

One thing I'll quibble with, though, is the part of this I quoted.  Is this really the Mormon position?  Here is Alma's position:

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

I don't know that there is a "Mormon" position on the matter. As I've said, I find it surprising that more LDS don't embrace the attitude I outlined above, but maybe they know something I don't.

I think 2 Nephi 2:11 is fairly good evidence that it is not utterly foreign to LDS thought, however.

Alma could have replied, "You don't really know whether or not I know.  But besides that, I find your position to be plausible.  In fact, your position must be rational in order to preserve free agency among the rational and sane."

But of course, he cursed him.

You have misunderstood me if you think that I'm saying Alma (or other believers) do not know. He did and they can. Signs _follow_ them that believe. The equipose between faith/doubt must come before one ventures too far in favor of one or the other; as one proceeds, more evidence is forthcoming.

I would consider myself intellectually dishonest (if not incoherent) if I decided God didn't exist. But, I can see how people at a different point in their lives would not, which is as it should be. Nor do I expect that my explanation would sway them any more than all the condescending "God is merely a sop or comfort in hard times" boiled-down Freud persuades me.

As for being cursed, Korihor asked for a sign, and Alma warned him what the sign would be. Korihor insisted, and got it. (Alma 30:47-49.) Korihor was subjected to no secular penalties, was not executed, etc. Korihor got what he wanted, ultimately, and Alma left it up to God whether to heal him.

And, I am certainly not arguing that prophets or believers are under some sort of obligation to find both sides equally persuasive, or to argue both sides.

The message seems to be that [belief] in God is not only the only rational position, but also the only position that deserves the right of free expression; Alma compelled Korihor to believe.

To Alma, as anyone who has had revelation, such belief IS the only rational position. My argument is not that both positions must be equally plausible for all peoples at all points in history. It means simply that the playing field must be more or less level, and that those who choose to can find reasons for disbelief--or, at the very least, that nothing about disbelief will be threatened to the extent that disbelief would be incoherent.

One should not, so to speak, be able to look be behind the scenery and see that it's all just a mock-up, with God as the set decorator caught blushing with a Star-Trek styrofoam rock. However far you dig down with scientific tools, one ought not to run up against something that says "God was here." (Or "there was no God here.")

(Besides, we later learn that Korihor has seen an angel, which has told him that people have gone astray after an unknown God, and is taught what he ought to say. So, Korihor ought to know that he's being told to teach something he knows is false--he denies a supernatural realm, when he's seen an "angel"! The angel tells him to "redeem" the people, even though Korihor teaches there is "no sin." Even Korihor's witness of what he is teaching is witness of its falsity--but, he doesn't care.)

Alma's stance is also an interesting one from another point of view. I'm not arguing that all options regarding all beliefs ought to be equally available to all people at all times. No one today worries much about whether Baal or Zeus should be chosen instead of Jehovah. (And yes, I'm aware of Bertrand Russell's explanation that he disbelieves all the old pagan gods plus one, so no need to be clever and bring that up here....)

But, given the primitive state of scientific knowledge at the time, an existence of SOME sort of supernatural entity was probably an intellectual given for many people, and _that_ seems to have been the predominant discussion. And, I expect evidence for/against Zeus/Baal could be adduced given a certain state of the science, just like for/against ANY GOD can nowadays.

One could argue that Korihor hardly had the intellectual tools to plausibly account for celestial motion without recourse to some deity. (Alma's appeal to celestial motion as evidence intrigues me--I wonder if such a thing would have been generally a credible argument in Joseph Smith's day? Appeals to the wonders of animal creation, yes. Celestial motion? I'm not so sure, but I guess it could. Alma sounds a lot more scientifically primitive than Joseph Smith would, to me anyway. Its an argument that would have had a fairly compelling strength in the century BC. No theist today would trot it out, I suspect, and I'm not even sure that 1820s USA would find it very persuasive--but, I don't know.)

Analytics, on this line, wrote:

There is no evidence from the scriptures that Korihor, or anybody else, even has the choice about whether or not to believe in God. All things denote there is a God and there is no way to not believe in God, much less a rational way not to believe.

Again, to Alma, all things _do_ denote there is a God. But, that is Alma speaking after a considerable amount of revelation.

Alma 30:9 would seem to disprove your scriptural hypothesis, at least according to the Book of Mormon text:

9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 30:9)

That strikes me as more than

[Tarski]

Analytics said: Alma compelled Korihor to believe.

Might I respectfully suggest that Alma didn't compel Korihor to believe. He (Alma) left it up to God, and God gave Korihor what he wanted--a sign. Upon receipt of the sign, Korihor believed. There was no compulsion involved.

I've known, during my life, people who are disbelievers. Some of them have said that if they received a sign, they would believe. I've been in the same room, at the same time as these people and seen them receive what I considered to be a sign.

I can only imagine what you might think counts as a "sign".

And I'm sure that's all you can do--imagine. (But wait! Can't objective science tell you, in demonstrable ways, what counts as a "sign," even for a rational believer like me? No? Well, dang. Guess science can't do everything. )

Nothing can do everything. Some things can't be done. (To be honest I don't know what your are getting at)

Which presumes that any sign or divine influence in one's life is neither repeatable or rational.

An example of a real event is in order. This is too abstract.

I have a funny feeling that all the types of things you expereince that you feel to be real I have also experienced. I once thoght I knew and experience the type of miracle stories one hears about, especially on my mission--including a women being instantly healed by a blessing (one I gave actually).

Tell me, Tarski--forgetting for a moment that you feel God is both mythical and impotent, how would you even know if God were touching your life?

Its hard to forget. Maybe you can see how that question strikes my by an direct analogy. What if I asked you: Tell me, awyatt--forgetting for a moment that you feel Zeuss is both mythical and impotent, how would you even know if Zeuss were touching your life?

I suppose that I wouldn't know if God didn't want me to know. If he did want me to know then I guess he would do what I do when I want someone to know I am present and active--I go talk to them face to face and explain - no games. If I were a creature suspected of being mythical I would make it obvious to all that I wasn't by showing up in a mundane way. If he has a body and is a glorified man then why oh why can't he shake my hand and have lunch? Why label seeking such a normal polite thing with another sentient being as "seeking a sign". Thats creating an artificial taboo so as to explain away why we don't see incontrovertible evidence of God. Sounds like an invention of the priestly class who need to secure power but deep down know God isn't showing up.

[asbestosman]

Well, the most desirable thing to tell a child is that no matter what they do, the bestest, most awesome thing will happen to them after they die. Granted, that's not what Mormons believe,

They just have to die before they turn 8.

Actually, telling a kid that the awesomeness of the afterlife is independent of their actions may not be the best thing to say. It might offend their sense of fairness as the concept of an untimely death might. Maybe you mean we should say that the afterlife unfair in their favor. I usually don't complain when life is unfair in my favor myself.

[asbestosman]

If I were a creature suspected of being mythical I would make it obvious to all that I wasn't by showing up in a mundane way. If he has a body and is a glorified man then why oh why can't he shake my hand and have lunch?

Even I can shake your hand and have lunch, but I'll bet only God could prove the Riemann hypothesis if we all go together for lunch tomorrow. It wouldn't be proof of omniscience, but I'd call it pretty good evidence.

Just so you know, the first thing I'm gonna do after the handshake test for angels is ask them to solve a difficult mathematical problem. If they can't do it, they probably don't have connections with an omniscient being.

[The Dude]

The Dude said: I take note of Allen Wyatt's earlier attempt to harmonize science and pseudoscience as true, as long as both approaches help people maintain faith.

Mind telliing me how you got that out of anything I said?

The point is that Stewart finds the way DNA evidence is used by critics to be non-persuasive to him, and he can articulately state why he comes to the conclusion he does. Several other LDS (scientist or not) can do the same, and we have read their contributions to this debate over the last several years. If Stewart is right about a hemispheric model, that's great. If Woodward (or others) are right about a LGT model, that's great. Either way, the critics are wrong on two counts...

= it doesn't matter if Stewart is right, all that matters is that the critics are wrong.

= members of the church can maintain faith by either route.

= that's what matters, not if one or the other is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

You also said:

Indeed, one only need to compare Stewart's analaysis to the analysis of others and find that both are faithful, although they arrive at their conclusions in entirely different manners.

And

I agree that the two analyses are not equivalent. But that does not make one right and one wrong. There can be elements of rightness and wrongness in both of them.

= an attempt to harmonize science and pseudoscience.

[Confidential Informant]

Religion can give hope in ways that science never can.  Of course you tell the dying child a fable -- what harm is there in that, even if you don't know what's going to happend when she dies.

But of course, someone like you is far too intellighent to believe in such fables. That's for us poor, unlightened souls who just aren't as "bright" as folks like you and Tarski.

However, can you prove that it's a fabel? Oh, you might be able to knock out a specific dogma or two here and there, but you'll never be able to disprove an afterlife or that human consciousness continues on after death.

IMO, that's where religion does it right, and that's probably how religion started.

Maybe so. I've often said on this board that the notion of simply winking out and ceasing to exist, like a candle, is far more disturbing to me than the any vision of hell that any Christian ever cam up with.

Then it got hijacked by ideas (memes) like divine right, priesthood authority, monotheism, cattle worship, fertility management, and jihad against the infidel (to name a few).  These ideas cling to all religions, modifying their fitness in the competition for a finite number of adherents.  Religions that spread readily and hold tight to their believers have survived the centuries.  The ones that don't have the right features fade away.  Mormonism has a neat ability to adapt to changing times... it's called continuing revelation.

Yes, isn't it nice that you're so intelligent you were able to avoid all that.

Trim said it would be sad if I left my religion because of the competeing theories of scientific understanding.  Not at all.  I left because of the competing theories in the evolution of religion

I'm curious as to where you got the original notion that religion should not evolve.

The great apostasy began when the memes took over the simple fables we tell our children about what happens when we die.

As yes, those simple fables that you are too smart to fall for. I must really hurt being so intelligent and having to suffer fools like me who actually believe in those fables.

C.I.

[katherine the great]

I came across something pretty interesting today. It would make sense that Samaritan dna may give us an idea of what the Y chromosome dna of the Israelites would look like today, but give us no idea about mtdna.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebre...ber/021345.html

I'm of the early Lamanite intermarriage mindset, so this isn't upsetting to me, but it is convicing to me that the Book of Mormon could not have taken place in both North and South America.

[Ralph Man]

But of course, someone like you is far too intellighent to believe in such fables.

[awyatt]

The Dude said: I take note of Allen Wyatt's earlier attempt to harmonize science and pseudoscience as true, as long as both approaches help people maintain faith.

Mind telliing me how you got that out of anything I said?

The point is that Stewart finds the way DNA evidence is used by critics to be non-persuasive to him, and he can articulately state why he comes to the conclusion he does. Several other LDS (scientist or not) can do the same, and we have read their contributions to this debate over the last several years. If Stewart is right about a hemispheric model, that's great. If Woodward (or others) are right about a LGT model, that's great. Either way, the critics are wrong on two counts...

= it doesn't matter if Stewart is right, all that matters is that the critics are wrong.

= members of the church can maintain faith by either route.

= that's what matters, not if one or the other is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Ahhh, I see how you got that--I just don't agree with your conclusion, because you are including assumptions that I don't include. You are presuming that one (Stewart?) is "a gross misrepresentation of the facts." I do not presume such, and if it were proved to my satisfaction that he does grossly misrepresent the facts, then I would agree with you--they would not be equal.

Until such point, however, please don't mischaracterize my position as being that it is OK to harmonize science and pseudoscience as long as both help maintain faith. That is not my belief.

The Dude said: You also said:

Indeed, one only need to compare Stewart's analaysis to the analysis of others and find that both are faithful, although they arrive at their conclusions in entirely different manners.

And

I agree that the two analyses are not equivalent. But that does not make one right and one wrong. There can be elements of rightness and wrongness in both of them.

= an attempt to harmonize science and pseudoscience.

Your conclusion presumes that Stewart's approach is pseudoscience, and is therefore in error if I don't share that presumption. You may be right in your presumption, but such rightness has not been demonstrated. Until it is demonstrated--again, to my satisfaction--then it is incorrect to attach motive to my statements.

-Allen

[awyatt]

Ralph Man said: You also seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder as being viewed as less intelligent. If it helps, I think a person can be brilliant and religious. There's nothing inconsistent about a person being bright and holding unreasonable beliefs. It happens all the time. Now, in your case, I don't think you're all that sharp, but no one here was saying that those who are believers are less intelligent. No one. Maybe your chip comes from others viewing you specifically as less intelligent than them. I don't know. But no one said anything to the effect of being a theist requires one to be less intelligent. So quit acting as if that's what was said. Smart people can believe in dumb things. Cites: History.

Doesn't the bolded verbiage show the accuracy of C.I.'s indirect assertion that you feel believers are somehow less enlightened; less intelligent? Interesting personal attack, Ralph Man.

For what it is worth, I personally know C.I., regularly meet with him, and find him quite intelligent.

Ralph Man said: Notice in this thread a curious split between some believers and nonbelievers. The believers seem to be comfortable with any approach so long as it results in faith in their religion, no matter how arational or irrational it is. The unbelievers are aghast at the prospect. There's a real core distinction between those two groups of people.

If you are basing this on The Dude's earlier statements, please see my previous post. He arrived at his conclusions based on faulty presumptions. Unless you can show that you are arriving at your conclusions based on more accurate presumptions than he, then you might not want to stake out a position on such shaky ground.

-Allen

[Ralph Man]

Doesn't the bolded verbiage show the accuracy of C.I.'s indirect assertion that you feel believers are somehow less enlightened; less intelligent? Interesting personal attack, Ralph Man.

For what it is worth, I personally know C.I., regularly meet with him, and find him quite intelligent.

-Allen

Not really. I think DCP is sharp. I think Kevin Barney is sharp. I think Clark Goble is sharp. Etc. Etc. I wasn't intending any personal attack with my statement, even if I was aware it doesn't say anything pleasant about C.I. It was a relevant statement to his line of reasoning which has the incidental side-effect of stating something likely insulting about him. Not everyone is intelligent.

I can't help it if C.I. continually tried to play the intelligence card when no one else impugned the intelligence of anyone who believes. After all, smart people can believe in poorly reasoned things. For instance, while it is possible you are intelligent - I do not know - inferring from my specific comment about the intelligence of a single believer that I must think believers in general are less intelligent (englightened is a different concept) is pretty dumb, even if you yourself may not be dumb.

If you are basing this on The Dude's earlier statements, please see my previous post. He arrived at his conclusions based on faulty presumptions. Unless you can show that you are arriving at your conclusions based on more accurate presumptions than he, then you might not want to stake out a position on such shaky ground.

I'm basing it on your comments in this thread. We could simply replace Dr. Stewart for Dr. Hugh Ross and they would hold just the same.

[awyatt]

If you are basing this on The Dude's earlier statements, please see my previous post. He arrived at his conclusions based on faulty presumptions. Unless you can show that you are arriving at your conclusions based on more accurate presumptions than he, then you might not want to stake out a position on such shaky ground.

I'm basing it on your comments in this thread. We could simply replace Dr. Steward for Dr. Hugh Ross and they would hold just the same.

Since your assertion is based on my statements, can you provide a more accurate basis for that assertion than the faulty one provided by The Dude? Otherwise, it would appear that your conclusion misrepresents my position just as much as his does.

-Allen

PS: It is "Dr. Stewart," not "Steward." And I have no idea who Dr. Hugh Ross is.

[Ralph Man]

Since your assertion is based on my statements, can you provide a more accurate basis for that assertion than the faulty one provided by The Dude? Otherwise, it would appear that your conclusion misrepresents my position just as much as his does.

-Allen

PS: It is "Dr. Stewart," not "Steward." And I have no idea who Dr. Hugh Ross is.

I think you've backpedaled on your clearly stated position when it was exposed for the silliness that it represents.

To recap, this is your position:

The point is that Stewart finds the way DNA evidence is used by critics to be non-persuasive to him, and he can articulately state why he comes to the conclusion he does. Several other LDS (scientist or not) can do the same, and we have read their contributions to this debate over the last several years. If Stewart is right about a hemispheric model, that's great. If Woodward (or others) are right about a LGT model, that's great. Either way, the critics are wrong on two counts...

Those are your words. You can say, "What I really meant is McDonald's is a cool resturaunt," but that doesn't change the reality of what is here."

You're are no different than someone who praises both young earth creationists and theistic evolutionists because they both manage to offer arguments that reconcile a faith you find desirable with what we know about the world. That one is an incredibly poor account of the relevant science clearly is playing second fiddle to the importance of supporting faith. The important point is that both find ways to intepret the science such that it doesn't harm one's faith. The Dude's rather clear point that one intepretation is clearly up in the night just bounces off the bubble. If this wasn't your general outlook, you would've been quicker to point out that you also disapprove of any attempts to reconcile faith with our scientific understanding of the world when that reconciliation is not scientifically sound. You might have voiced your disapproval for an apologetic organization relying on it, for instance. Perhaps you wish to argue that you like Whiting, et. al. because they argue that the BoM can theoretically be intepreted in ways that does not contradict the a given scientific picture (forgetting the debate over whether that is a reasonable interpretation and not ad hoc thinking), but you like Stewart because he's right and Whiting, et al. is wrong about the implications of th evidence. While this is not as likely as you simply praising Stewart because he found a way to interpret the science in a faith-promoting way, that then leaves you under the full assault of the Dude's earlier comments.

(I corrected by typo the second I saw it)

[Tarski]

  I've often said on this board that the notion of simply winking out and ceasing to exist, like a candle, is far more disturbing to me than the any vision of hell that any Christian ever cam up with.

Have you ever asked yourself why? Maybe "winking out" is some wonderful zen-like melting into universe. The little "me", the ego, dies but the "big me" (Being itself)--goes on.

The instinct to survive is built into us by evolution. But that is our gene's agenda so to speak.

Why does ceasing to exist seem more horrifying than existing in endless suffering?

The more I think about that, then more it seems ridiculousl

A thought:

Time is a dimension like spatial extension. My body extends 6 feet and one inch in a spatial direction and probably less then 100 years in the temporal direction. If the first doesn't disturb me why should the second? Answer, because we just are temporal creatures designed by nature to try to extend our temporal exitence.

Another, thought: My friend David asked his 90 year old atheist aunt if she was afraid to die (it is soon for her). Her reaction surprised him. She said she is ready and feels fine about it.

You know; we are surounded by things that come and go. Mountians form and erode, flowers bloom, then wilt and die. Even suns ignite under enough gravity and then burn out after millions or billions of years.

In heaven will there be no new flowers? Will they die? If they don't die, then either the joyous miracle of a new flower growing from seed will be absent or the flowers will take over. What about new babies in heaven? If every life that was ever born lasted forever what kind of impossible world would it be?

[The Dude]

You're are no different than someone who praises both young earth creationists and theistic evolutionists because they both manage to offer arguments that reconcile a faith you find desirable with what we know about the world.

Good comparison.

But you have to understand, Allen is not yet convinced that Stewart's approach is comparable to young earth creationism.

Notably, Stewart and young earth creationists must grossly misrepresent elements of relevant science that inform us as to when things happened. Young earth creationists do mental gymnastics about radiometric dating. Stewart does the same thing with the molecular clock, and it absolutely plays second fiddle to the faith-based position he is trying to promote.

[The Dude]

Ahhh, I see how you got that--I just don't agree with your conclusion, because you are including assumptions that I don't include. You are presuming that one (Stewart?) is "a gross misrepresentation of the facts." I do not presume such...

I assure you I am not just "presuming" Stewart is wrong. I guess I did, however, presume you understood and accepted my criticisms.

...and if it were proved to my satisfaction that he does grossly misrepresent the facts, then I would agree with you--they would not be equal.

You already have agreed with me that they are not equal -- you said "not equivalent" (they are not similar or identical in value, meaning or effect; they are not virtually equal):

I agree that the two analyses are not equivalent.

I note that Ralph Man accuses you of backpedaling. I can't blame him (we should call him Ralph "take-no-prisoners" Man ). But maybe you did mean something different by "equivalent" than we thought you meant. People sometimes say things without giving them full consideration, and I grant anyone the opportunity to clarify their position once they've thought about it some more.

Until it is demonstrated [that Stewart's approach is pseudoscience]--again, to my satisfaction--then it is incorrect to attach motive to my statements.

As you wish.

[The Dude]

One more thing for Allen, now that I understand his position:

If you were convinced that Dr. Stewart's analysis is pseudoscientific, what would you do? You have some influence over the FAIR, don't you? Again, I point out that the lds.org newsroom has a link to FAIR, to Stewart's presentation, and as it stands a media researcher or questioning saint could easily be misled into thinking Stewart's "pseudoscientific" view is an equivalent alternative to the other eleven links (i.e. the expertise of Whiting, Butler, et al).

So if my criticisms become more convincing to you, what would you do about Stewart's analysis, on the FAIR end of things?

Given that you do not think it is OK to harmonize science and pseudoscience as long as both help maintain faith, I would expect some action on your part.

[Tarski]

Tarksi said, In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence

That, my friend, is a sign. :-) It uses science-based, rather than religious-based, terminology, but it

[Greg Smith]

Well, I don't think it is quite the same thing since I ask not for anything miraculous necessarily but, hey, if you want to define terms that way then I say simply that seeking a sign is a good noble thing and there should be great praise for anyone who does seek a sign.

I guess I was presuming that receiving evidence of the existence and communication of an immortal, omnipotent being would qualify as "miraculous," in the sense that miraculous means "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God" (American Heritage at www.dictionary.com

That is, witness of God's existence would seem to me not to be typical of everyday experience or the normal operation of natural law, since clearly you don't think that the existence of such a being is required by the 'laws of nature' as currently understood/constituted.

After all, if an event was completely explainable by laws of nature without appeal to God, wouldn't that make it pretty useless (from your point of view) as a proof for the existence of God?

Maybe you can give me an idea of what you would consider to be such proof, hypothetically. You say you want objective, repeatable evidence. So, what would that involve that wouldn't be "miraculous"?

Perhaps this is merely a failure of my imagination....

Kind regards,

Greg

[Tarski]

Well, I don't think it is quite the same thing since I ask not for anything miraculous necessarily but, hey, if you want to define terms that way then I say simply that seeking a sign is a good noble thing and there should be great praise for anyone who does seek a sign.

I guess I was presuming that receiving evidence of the existence and communication of an immortal, omnipotent being would qualify as "miraculous," in the sense that miraculous means "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God" (American Heritage at www.dictionary.com

That is, witness of God's existence would seem to me not to be typical of everyday experience or the normal operation of natural law, since clearly you don't think that the existence of such a being is required by the 'laws of nature' as currently understood/constituted.

After all, if an event was completely explainable by laws of nature without appeal to God, wouldn't that make it pretty useless (from your point of view) as a proof for the existence of God?

Maybe you can give me an idea of what you would consider to be such proof, hypothetically. You say you want objective, repeatable evidence. So, what would that involve that wouldn't be "miraculous"?

Perhaps this is merely a failure of my imagination....

Kind regards,

Greg

Simple, God convinces the world that he is real the same way I do. By showing up for all to see and interacting with us in a normal (non dream-like non-visionary) way. That last thing we need is another person seeing God in another dream, vision, epileptic episode or mushroom trip.

It needs to be public- and why not??

Since he also claims to be all powerful etc. he ought to demonstrate that because anyone could show up and say they were God and then do nothing but smile a lot and eat pizza.

So...

How about he shows up in his amazing vehicle of fire but then has dinner with the president and few regular guys like me. He sticks around for a while and demonstrates his Godly powers by solving some world problems like cancer, poverty, quantization of gravity and then heals some famous amputees and maybe heals some blind people like Stevie Wonder. Jesus supposedly did such things, so it can't be wrong.

Wanting a demonstation of identity is not wrong -- it is wise. Thats why cops have badges and doctors had degrees hanging on their walls.

[alter idem]

Tarksi said, In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence

That, my friend, is a sign. :-) It uses science-based, rather than religious-based, terminology, but it

[awyatt]

Since your assertion is based on my statements, can you provide a more accurate basis for that assertion than the faulty one provided by The Dude? Otherwise, it would appear that your conclusion misrepresents my position just as much as his does.

-Allen

PS: It is "Dr. Stewart," not "Steward." And I have no idea who Dr. Hugh Ross is.

I think you've backpedaled on your clearly stated position when it was exposed for the silliness that it represents.

To recap, this is your position:

The point is that Stewart finds the way DNA evidence is used by critics to be non-persuasive to him, and he can articulately state why he comes to the conclusion he does. Several other LDS (scientist or not) can do the same, and we have read their contributions to this debate over the last several years. If Stewart is right about a hemispheric model, that's great. If Woodward (or others) are right about a LGT model, that's great. Either way, the critics are wrong on two counts...

Those are your words. You can say, "What I really meant is McDonald's is a cool resturaunt," but that doesn't change the reality of what is here."

Backpedaled, huh? Righhhhhht!

If it makes you feel beter to say that, go for it. But for the record, look again at what I said. Did I say that Stewart was right? No. Did I say that he made good scientific arguments? No. Did I say that he made arguments on the same par with Whiting, Butler, Barney, et. al.? No.

I did say that Stewart finds the critics unpersuasive. (Do you disagree?) I did say that Stewart articulately states why he comes to his conclusions. Does that mean he is right? Of course not, and both you and The Dude can disagree with him all day, if you like. It doesn't change the validity of what I stated, however.

I also stated that it was perfectly fine if Stewart was right about the hemispheric model, and it would be equally fine if others were right about the LGT model. Why, pray tell, does that bother you?

Ralph Man said: You're are no different than someone who praises both young earth creationists and theistic evolutionists  because they both manage to offer arguments that reconcile a faith you find desirable with what we know about the world. That one is an incredibly poor account of the relevant science clearly is playing second fiddle to the importance of supporting faith. The important point is that both find ways to intepret the science such that it doesn't harm one's faith.

So quick to stereotype. Why is that, I wonder? (And you don't even know me!) I said nothing about reconciling faith; that is The Dude's mischaracterization, and now (apparently) your mantra. You really should read, again, what I said concerning faith, because the word "reconcile" or any synonym to "reconcile" was not in there.

I did say that I find it interesting that believers in the HGT (such as Stewart) and believers in the LGT (such as Whiting, Butler, et. al.) can both state their cases and both be faithful Mormons. I said nothing about their views being reconciled or even reconcilable. I just pointed out that the very fact that they can hold such divergent views and still be faithful just goes to show that Mormons aren't as monolithic in their thought as critics say they are or must be.

Does that make my point clearer?

Ralph Man said: The Dude's rather clear point that one intepretation is clearly up in the night just bounces off the bubble. If this wasn't your general outlook, you would've been quicker to point out that you also disapprove of any attempts to reconcile faith with our scientific understanding of the world when that reconciliation is not scientifically sound.

And, yet, when I saw The Dude clearly misstate and mischaracterize my position, I did say something. Are you denying that I am, by definition, more intimately aware of my position than either The Dude or you? (If you think you or The Dude have better credentials to state my position, please feel free to share them. We can all have a good laugh together.)

Ralph Man said: You might have voiced your disapproval for an apologetic organization relying on it, for instance. Perhaps you wish to argue that you like Whiting, et. al. because they argue that the BoM can theoretically be intepreted in ways that does not contradict the a given scientific picture (forgetting the debate over whether that is a reasonable interpretation and not ad hoc thinking), but you like Stewart because he's right and Whiting, et al. is wrong about the implications of th evidence.

And yet I said nothing concerning the validity of anyone's positions, or lack thereof. I only commented on their ability to clearly develop a position and state it articulately.

Ralph Man said: While this is not as likely as you simply praising Stewart because he found a way to interpret the science in a faith-promoting way, that then leaves you under the full assault of the Dude's earlier comments.

You really can misread, can't you? Did I say anything about Stewart's position (or anyone else's) being "faith promoting." Nope. Go check if you'd like; I'll wait right here for you to return.

Back now? Good. What I said is that they (the people) were faithful. I said so because I know that it utterly astounds people that intelligent, rational, reasonable folk such as Stewart, Whiting, Butler, and any number of others I could mention could look at the data and maintain their own faith. Much as it may irk and confound you, the fact still remains that they are faithful. Whether their well-stated (and varied) positions related to DNA and the Book of Mormon are faith-promoting is besides the point.

It would be rather silly for me to state that their articles are faith-promoting when I can jump over to a sandbox such as RFM and pick out any number of commentors who say that their faith wasn't helped by those articles. Their faith (or lack thereof), and perhaps yours, was promoted quite a bit more by the positions stated by the likes of Tom Murphy and Simon Southerton and the fifteen-minutes-of-famers in the Living Hope Ministries video.

-Allen

[awyatt]

One more thing for Allen, now that I understand his position:

If you were convinced that Dr. Stewart's analysis is pseudoscientific, what would you do? You have some influence over the FAIR, don't you? Again, I point out that the lds.org newsroom has a link to FAIR, to Stewart's presentation, and as it stands a media researcher or questioning saint could easily be misled into thinking Stewart's "pseudoscientific" view is an equivalent alternative to the other eleven links (i.e. the expertise of Whiting, Butler, et al).

So if my criticisms become more convincing to you, what would you do about Stewart's analysis, on the FAIR end of things?

Given that you do not think it is OK to harmonize science and pseudoscience as long as both help maintain faith, I would expect some action on your part.

My action would be to suggest that you, Dude, throw your hat into the arena of ideas and write your own article. Prepare your own presentation and, perhaps, deliver it to an audience that might appreciate it. (That was not a tongue-in-cheek way to say it is not appreciated here. It is just that I believe that if you think your case is so strong, you are in the position to take more action than I am--and you should go for it.)

-Allen

[Greg Smith]

How about he shows up in his amazing vehicle of fire but then has dinner with the president and few regular guys like me. He sticks around for a while and demonstrates his Godly powers by solving some world problems like cancer, poverty, quantization of gravity and then heals some famous amputees and maybe heals some blind people like Stevie Wonder. Jesus supposedly did such things, so it can't be wrong.

Wanting a demonstation of identity is not wrong -- it is wise. Thats why cops have badges and doctors had degrees hanging on their walls.

Hmmm.

So, how is it not asking for something miraculous to ask God to:

* show up in a public theophany

* show up in a "vehicle of fire"

* heal the blind

* heal amputees

* solve poverty

and,

* quantize gravity and cure cancer?

The only one that strikes me at all unmiraculous would be the gravity issue and curing cancer...(since poverty would probably involve changing human nature on a grand scale, which would indeed be miraculous).

So, I guess I'm confused as to why you're insisting that you're not wanting signs or "something miraculous" when these would seem to qualify by virutally any definition?

Kind regards,

Greg (vanishing in a puff of smoke)