the incredible expanding, shrinking, and disappearing Lehites

[morgan.deane]

From Hugh Nibley, "The World of the Jaredites"

By the way, Lehi in the Desert and The World of the Jaredites is what made me realize that not only was the Book of Mormon what it claims to be (which I already knew) but that it virtually could not be otherwise.

Yours under the historically valid oaks,

Nathair /|\

Good post. Hugh Nibley's work on studying the Book of Ether with an Asiatic eye is the impetous for my research.

[Dr. Jd]

It certainly can. What an odd position to take. Something can't be proven no matter how much evidence there is?

it is not an odd position. It is a scientific position. There is no such thing as scientific fact. There are scientific theories but no scientific facts. That being said I believe in evolution, but not human evolution (there is simply not enough evidence).

[erichard]

It's been proven already. You simply need to educate yourself.

Hi Semlogo,

Well, to educate myself, I read this article by JONATHAN WELLS, who has a Ph.D. in cell and development biology. He is not convinced, even though he originally wanted to be. Why should I be convinced?

In fact he is appalled at the many apparently deliberate frauds that have been used to push evolution. It does not make any sense to me that evolutionists would have to resort to fraud if their science was "proven."

Richard

[steelyray]

Hi Semlogo,

Well, to educate myself, I read this article by JONATHAN WELLS, who has a Ph.D. in cell and development biology. He is not convinced, even though he originally wanted to be. Why should I be convinced?

In fact he is appalled at the many apparently deliberate frauds that have been used to push evolution. It does not make any sense to me that evolutionists would have to resort to fraud if their science was "proven."

Richard

That paper is simply a collection of old rehashed strawmen, and your appeal to a supposed authority in biology fails miserably because of it. Really, the guy's case is nothing but harping on about textbook pictures and then goes to back up his case with a 1950's experiment? Is he not aware of any modern experimentation? If you want to actually take some time to do some research about real evolution, then be my guest. But do it before you bother talking about it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+science+journal&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

"And it came to pass that I did laugh exceedingly, yea, at the responses I did receive, because the errors they had were many."

[semlogo]

it is not an odd position. It is a scientific position. There is no such thing as scientific fact. There are scientific theories but no scientific facts. That being said I believe in evolution, but not human evolution (there is simply not enough evidence).

There is just as much evidence for human evolution as there is any other creature - that is to say, a great deal.

[semlogo]

Hi Semlogo,

Well, to educate myself, I read this article by JONATHAN WELLS, who has a Ph.D. in cell and development biology. He is not convinced, even though he originally wanted to be. Why should I be convinced?

In fact he is appalled at the many apparently deliberate frauds that have been used to push evolution. It does not make any sense to me that evolutionists would have to resort to fraud if their science was "proven."

Richard

That's a religious fundamentalist site. Please seek credible scientific sources.

[Dr. Jd]

That paper is simply a collection of old rehashed strawmen, and your appeal to a supposed authority in biology fails miserably because of it. Really, the guy's case is nothing but harping on about textbook pictures and then goes to back up his case with a 1950's experiment? Is he not aware of any modern experimentation? If you want to actually take some time to do some research about real evolution, then be my guest. But do it before you bother talking about it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+science+journal&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

"And it came to pass that I did laugh exceedingly, yea, at the responses I did receive, because the errors they had were many."

As I mentioned, I don't really have a dog in this fight. But if those that argue for evolution still use Darwin's Finches as evidence, than why can't he use an experiment from 1950. Now mind you I have not reviewed the experiment. If it has been shown to be lacking in some way than consider my comment null and void. However, if such evidence has yet to come forward than it stands.

[Dr. Jd]

There is just as much evidence for human evolution as there is any other creature - that is to say, a great deal.

is that why there are huge gaps in the supposed chain. Show me the gap fillers or else all you have are seperate species.

[Dr. Jd]

Semlogo,

you are taking pieces of evidence and overstating the conclusion. But what should I expect from someone who believes in scientific fact.

[semlogo]

is that why there are huge gaps in the supposed chain. Show me the gap fillers or else all you have are seperate species.

No there aren't. There are very few gaps. The fossil record shows a smooth, continuous evolution from primitive primates to humans.

Perhaps you should take a class on evolution. Or visit a museum of natural history.

[Deborah]

No there aren't. There are very few gaps. The fossil record shows a smooth, continuous evolution from primitive primates to humans.

And yet they keep discovering new fossils. Imagine that.

[semlogo]

And yet they keep discovering new fossils. Imagine that.

Yes, they do.

[ERayR]

And yet they keep discovering new fossils. Imagine that.

Many of which don't fit smoothly.

[Dr. Jd]

No there aren't. There are very few gaps. The fossil record shows a smooth, continuous evolution from primitive primates to humans.

Perhaps you should take a class on evolution. Or visit a museum of natural history.

I have reviewed the fossil record AND THERE ARE GAPS. Any researcher worth his salt would have to admit that there are significant gaps. I sure hope that your theories are based on a little more than visiting the children's science museum.

[mfbukowski]

Semlogo,

you are taking pieces of evidence and overstating the conclusion. But what should I expect from someone who believes in scientific fact.

I think you are introducing a direction you don't want to take here- "facts" ARE scientific; statements of a religious nature are based on faith, not fact.

The two realms have nothing to do with each other. And we have been over evolution many times here, I suggest you should consult some of the older threads on it.

This thread is not about evolution except tangentially.

[Dr. Jd]

My belief is based on faith but it does not defy logic. I don't disagree with the evidence, I am stating that he is assuming too much from the evidence that is given. I will restate what I said before there is no such thing as scientific facts.

[mfbukowski]

My belief is based on faith but it does not defy logic. I don't disagree with the evidence, I am stating that he is assuming too much from the evidence that is given. I will restate what I said before there is no such thing as scientific facts.

An unusual point of view.

And what kind if facts are there, if scientific facts don't exist? Most people would think that H20 is water, but I guess it is not a fact then?

And Mars is not a planet?

[Dr. Jd]

An unusual point of view.

And what kind if facts are there, if scientific facts don't exist? Most people would think that H20 is water, but I guess it is not a fact then?

And Mars is not a planet?

One of the first things a person learns while studying the sciences is that there are scientific theories but there are no scientific facts. Ask anyone with a PHD. Oh and about Mars people would have said the same thing about Pluto a few years ago.

[Dr. Jd]

And H2O is not water it is a water molecule.

[cdowis]

Please stay on topic.

There are many threads on evolution, and you can start a new one if you wish. This thread is basically on DNA evidence (or lack thereof) for the BOM.

[Dr. Jd]

Sorry, I keep doing doing that.

[mfbukowski]

One of the first things a person learns while studying the sciences is that there are scientific theories but there are no scientific facts. Ask anyone with a PHD. Oh and about Mars people would have said the same thing about Pluto a few years ago.

I am not impressed by academic credentials. Many of us have them and do not have a need to brag about them. Doing so simply shows insecurity.

If you want to discuss the philosophy of science, I will be more than willing to discuss it on another thread, but I warn you, I know this area well.

What you brought up was the ordinary language definition of the word "fact" and to use this term in its ordinary context, and to say there are no scientific facts is clearly a case of special pleading, strains credibility and is just plain a strange statement. Clearly one is creating a very strange definition of the word "fact" in that kind of a statement.

Perhaps a better way to state it is that scientific "facts" are subject to change.

And H2O is not water it is a water molecule.

You forgot the "NA NA NEE NA NA"

[mfbukowski]

deleted

[Dr. Jd]

I felt the na na nee na na was implied.

"I warn you I know this area well."

Dun Dun Dun

Bring it on.

And I never tried to brag about credentials, my doctorate was not in science. My statements were based on what my science prof's said. The way they said it I thought it was understood that there is no scientific fact.

[Dr. Jd]

As we have been warned. Let's get back on topic.