How literally do you take the creation story?

[Zakuska]

Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are not.

But then they aren't the ones claiming that radiometric dating is a bogus science.

They probably understand quite well the irrelevance of such preliminary experiments on thorium to creationist fantasies. They know the difference between thorium under unusual or extreme lab conditions and C14 in nature. They most likely understand that our dating method are multiple and have been tested against each other! Tree rings, geological strata, multiple element radiometric dating on nonorganics such as rocks and C14 dating are all telling a consistant story to within understood margins.

If these dating methods were distorted by various unknown effects, they would not all magically be lined up with each other (to within understood margins--a concept I can see you don't understand).

You haven't been following the conversations. Geologic Strata is being questioned as we speak. Stara has nothing to do with age.

And this ones been peer reviewed!

Recent developments in sedimentology

The longstanding understanding of how some mudstones form has been challenged by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research, which appears in the December 14th, 2007, edition of Science, counters the prevailing view of geologists that mud only settles when water is slow-moving or still, instead showing that "muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly." The research shows that some mudstones may have formed in fast-moving waters: "Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records."^[1]

Macquaker and Bohacs, in reviewing the research of Schieber et al., state that "these results call for critical reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under still waters. Such rocks are widely used to infer past climates, ocean conditions, and orbital variations."^[2]

1. ^ Juergen Schieber, John Southard, and Kevin Thaisen, "Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples," Science, 14 December 2007: 1760-1763.
   See also "As waters clear, scientists seek to end a muddy debate," at PhysOrg.com (accessed 27 December 2007).
2. ^ Joe H. S. Macquaker and Kevin M. Bohacs, "Geology: On the Accumulation of Mud," Science, 14 December 2007: 1734-1735.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sedimentology

If these dating methods were distorted by various unknown effects, they would not all magically be lined up with each other (to within understood margins--a concept I can see you don't understand). Instead we would see a confusing disagreement.

Scientists know what they are doing. You don't.

You've got to love Tarski's scientific methods!

Im quoting scientists who call into question other scientists findings and interpretations and its me who doesn't know what he's doing?!

[Hughes]

Since when does it take faith to believe exactly what our instruments, all our tests, well established theory, mathematics, and in some ways, even our eyes are telling us?

The Bible story is a cartoon compared with the scientific version. I guess cartoons seem more real to a mind like yours.

What do you mean "I don't have that kind of faith"? Give me a break. Why would a person who believes in talking snakes have difficulty believing anything?

By the way, using phrase "I don't have that kind of faith" when referring to some part of science that creationist don't like has become such a habit I guess some of you are saying it in situations where it doesn't even make sense. It is an embarrassing and mindless parroting of a mere speech pattern.

Stop being a parrot.

We all have faith in something. It's our nature.

What is happening is people don't understand when they are putting their faith in something (such as scientific claims) or not using their faith (such as watching a sunset in real time).

It takes faith to believe that all this around us on the Earth took evolution 4.6 billion years to develop. Faith is located squarely in oneself, and those you believe. It could be scientists it could be philosophers. I don't know.

It's equal to one believing that God did as he said he did. The difference is almost all the scientists don't preface their statements with, "This is a faith based claim... We believe this to be true... which makes it a faith based claim..." but, religious leaders do make that statement.

I see Hawkings and other as being either, blatantly dishonest or delusional I'm not sure which most of the time.

If you think that record in the biblical text is "cartoon like" then you must not be reading or understanding what it actually means.

[Tarski]

It takes faith to believe that all this around us on the Earth took evolution 4.6 billion years to develop.

One word; Evidence! (tons of it)

[Zakuska]

One word; Evidence! (tons of it)

Ye evidence like fossil trees and other fossils that span 20 Million years of supposed sediment deposition.

http://www.mormonapo...edimentry-rock/

OOPS!

[Rob Osborn]

We've been through all this before.

Yes, this is definitely the official LDS position.

No, and if you taught this in church you would likely get more then a few raised eyebrows.

No, and if you taught this in church you would likely be laughed out of the room.

I have actually taught those points and everyone agreed with me- in Sunday School!

The church officially teaches the temproal age of the earth to be 7,000 years. If the millennium is approximately 1,000 years and we are within a very close time to that beginning then this places the time of Adam and his children at around 6,000 years ago. For sure, the church does not teach that Adam lived and had children before 7,000 years ago because that goes beyond the temporal age of the earth.

The church for sure doesn't teach that there were men before Adam let alone there being men on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years!

At least admit what the church stands by.

[Hughes]

Gelologic column is a false doctrine!

Study how these formations are formed (thanks Hughes for directing me too those videos) and you'll see where the errors are. Geological formations grow just as human bones do. Just as stalagmites/salagtites. Just as tree rings.

Oh? Geologic formations grow only like those you mentioned? Hmm... me thinks there's other ways.

[Rob Osborn]

Feel free to pick up the reins on this mind-numbing carousel Tarski.

I have lost too many brain cells trying to convince the flat-earthers.

Let's get something straight here- If you call us flat-earthers then we shall call you atheists. Is that fair? I am game, how about you guys.

[Zakuska]

I have actually taught those points and everyone agreed with me- in Sunday School!

The church officially teaches the temproal age of the earth to be 7,000 years. If the millennium is approximately 1,000 years and we are within a very close time to that beginning then this places the time of Adam and his children at around 6,000 years ago. For sure, the church does not teach that Adam lived and had children before 7,000 years ago because that goes beyond the temporal age of the earth.

The church for sure doesn't teach that there were men before Adam let alone there being men on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years!

At least admit what the church stands by.

This isn't quite true... The church teaches its been about 6000 years since the fall of Adam... but as far as the age of the earth is concerned. it leaves the door open for it being millions of years old, and doesn't reallty have a stance.

The Bible dictionary talks about the week of creation as 7 periods of "unspecifed length" of time prior to 6000 years ago.

[Jeff K.]

Absolutism is a dangerous way of thinking. Whether it be for science or religion. I prefer the idea that much of the creation story is analogy, but there are some things that are literal.

No one has accepted the challenge of finding the link or links that show man descended from a lower animal form, indeed, it is hard beyond supposition to connect the various forms together. I haven't seen it, so the best one can claim is a supposition. So the possibility exists that man while made of the same material but created in a distinct way came into being. One cannot rationally deny the possibility, but one could argue that other possiblities are more likely. The irrationalitiy is when you claim that only your point is the absolute truth. Our perceptions of fact and religion change as more truth is known, it goes without saying, and being absolutist in either case is teh equivalent of saying science can go no further and religoin or God's knowledge is now irrevocably closed. Neither is a reality I wish to contemplate.

[Tarski]

Ye like trees and other fossils that span 20 Million years of supposed sediment deposition.

OOPS!

You don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand the significance of any of the stuff you are presenting anymore than do the authors of the creationist web sites that collect all of this stuff (which is where you are getting all of this).

Why do you decide to exclude mention of overthrusting and other obvious and easiliy discernible geological disruptions that dislocate items from their original location in the strata to transverse positions? Why do you exclude mention that in every case it is obvious to the trained eye what has happened and that there isn't the slightest contradiction with our understanding of the relative as well as absolute dating of the earth and fossilized flora and fauna? Is it dishonesty or the lack of perspective and education that comes with reading creationist crap?

Do you not realize that you are harming your own church by promoting this fundamentalistic anti-science to fellow LDS and also embarrassing educated members?

[Zakuska]

Oh? Geologic formations grow only like those you mentioned? Hmm... me thinks there's other ways.

That is very true.

After watching that film, I realized that what people have done with the strata is taken a bar graph and swapped the Axis. The sediments form horizontally as flood water washes out to the delta... the water mixes up stuff and deposits it according to its gravity. It uses the exact same mechanisms we use to refine metals from ore, it seperates sediments like liquid metal into all the various types of metals by there chemical WEIGHTs.

So the starta has nothing to do with the age of the sediment or materials in it but has more to do with its bulk and mechanisms of depositation (water speed etc).

Now the sedimental bands (I think thats the term) on the other hand... those are like tree rings and show us the successive years of flooding and depositations. So what you have to do is match that up in the area tree rings and then you can get a history of the deposit. But that says ABSOLUTELY nothing about the true ages of the organic materials in the sediments. And thats where the sedimental rock dating to 20 million years ago falls appart. Do the mechanism we see at work today change just becuase they happend a long time ago?

No. So if we cant acuratly date things today... what makes us suppose we can extrapolate it back into the rock? Miilions of years ago.

[Hughes]

Because they are, by definition, ignorant (willfully even) to dating methods used to calculate the age of the earth, and certainly do not grasp the certitude they provide.

It's akin to looking at a scale weighing an adult human male that reads 190lbs. and claiming it is heavy by 189lbs.

Yes.

There may be plausibility to the claims that the Radiometric dating might be off within a few percentage points (millions of years).

But to claim they might be off by +/- 4.49 billion years, and that a 6000 year old earth is the true age - it's not ignorance, it's lunacy.

So you simply think that if someone was aware and understood the various dating methods then by that knowledge alone he/she would believe them to be accurate and true? (notice to "believe" is faith)

What about the instances when it isn't accurate? What do we say then?

[Hughes]

What is time to God? To God, is there a difference between a day and a billion years?

You avoided the question.

Sure God could wait around a billion years... but why would he do that when he doesn't have to? What is the point of waiting?

[cinepro]

cinepro:

"The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.".

That is a close to a heresy as it comes. There is only one omniscient being and Prophets aren't him.

If an Apostle (who subsequently became Prophet) says it, the Church publishes it as a "First Presidency Message", and 20 years later two seventies both reiterate the teaching in General Conference, I'm pretty sure that's doctrine, not heresy.

[Hughes]

You going to respond to my post or are you conceding?

Except that those noncoding regions aren't redundancies, and if they did code would cause all sorts of diseases.

Sorry... didn't take the time before. Now you have to tell me how you quote multiple levels... anyway..

Nylonase

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/

As for noncoding regions that would cause all sorts of diseases. I suppose one reason I didn't respond is because my original point isn't contradicted by this. If we have DNA that isn't coded in our system that would cause diseases, so what? How does that somehow demonstrate darwinian evolution?

The harder question is where the complex DNA information comes from. Darwin has no answer.

[Hughes]

How come you feel free to pontificate about science if you don't even know the answer to this basic question?

By the way, when are you going to stop pretending that a 3% error is just as bad as knowing nothing? It doesn't bother me if it is really 100 Million plus or minus 15,000. That's darn good information and my point stands.

All scientific measurements are meaningless without some idea of margins of error. Real science includes these usually explicitly even if it is left out of popular accounts.

The real elephant in the room is how do you calibrate a million year clock.

"I say it's 4 million. No I say it's 3 million. No I say it's 20 million... well, since we all agree (and that the key here) that the decay rate is thus, and then by counting the ratio... we all agree that you are all wrong and it's 4.6 million years! Yippie! We are scientists! We know are right because we agree."

Problem is that you get out past say 10 thousand years or so and there is no way to verify if you are correct or not.

OH sure, we have ways of seeing if you agree with our brothers at the other universities. But as for a valid "objective" test. Not happening. So... margin of error... oh well guess again. You have no idea what the margin of error is, unless you assume evolution is a fact, and your previous views of sedimentation are correct, and index fossils are correct, etc...

I love science, but this has always bugged me.

[Brenda]

Brenda, trust me on this, when I even mentioned that evolution just might be possible, and I wasn't even the teacher, someone jumped up and ran to the bishop and told him that I was teaching apostate doctrine.

First of all, to clarify, you must have been talking about man evolving from apes? Because evolution within a species is a no-brainer. And if you are the teacher, then yes, suggesting that man evolved from apes or anything other than Adam would be teaching false doctrine. So that would be inappropriate. But as a class member, bringing up the science-based theories and the problems involved, is IMO legitimate and can be done respectfully, humbly, and constructively. This is what I'm talking about. This I've never seen.

[mfbukowski]

Your mother was wrong. Not everything in the Temple is symbolic. Some of it is exactly what it appears to be.

Not some of it, all of it is exactly what it appears to be: symbolic.

[Tarski]

The real elephant in the room is how do you calibrate a million year clock.

"I say it's 4 million. No I say it's 3 million. No I say it's 20 million... well, since we all agree (and that the key here) that the decay rate is thus, and then by counting the ratio... we all agree that you are all wrong and it's 4.6 million years! Yippie! We are scientists! We know are right because we agree."

Problem is that you get out past say 10 thousand years or so and there is no way to verify if you are correct or not.

OH sure, we have ways of seeing if you agree with our brothers at the other universities. But as for a valid "objective" test. Not happening. So... margin of error... oh well guess again. You have no idea what the margin of error is, unless you assume evolution is a fact, and your previous views of sedimentation are correct, and index fossils are correct, etc...

I love science, but this has always bugged me.

This hasn't the remotest relationship to what is really done. In real life multiple stands of evidence are used, sophisticated physics, statistical analysis, systems of differential equations etc. Thousands of pages of mathematically intense, deep and careful analysis in done which is clearly light years beyond what you imagine.

There is no naivet

[mfbukowski]

cinepro:

Post 44 by Maidservant

I have held in suspension that Adam and Eve could be historical figures versus my "Adam is many" understanding. Sometimes I think yes, sometimes no; and sometimes my "yes" and my "no" would not look like other peoples yes and no, since the way my mind works.

Post 54 by mfbukowski

Everything in the temple is symbolic- that is what it is for. It doesn't say "Science Museum" on the outside. Every nuance is symbolic- nothing is literal.

I just don't see it in Maidservants' post.

You may have a point with mfbukowski. But given the context of this and other of his posts. I understand his point.

I went away for 4 days and a 50 post thread became a nearly 700 post thread, so I am hopelessly behind, and perhaps don't even want to catch up. How many times have we discussed this?

But I do want to make the point that those who think that specific hand gestures will get them into heaven, hand gestures which can be seen on the internet, will be sorely mistaken. There is a simplistic naivete in that view that just boggles the mind. It is like voodoo and witchcraft.

If I make this doll and stick pins in it, you will get sick. If I learn the magic incantation to get me "past the guards" I can be a god. It comes from playing too many video games- if I get into the magic cave and find the magic sword then I will have the power to control the universe.

That is the central plot of practically every movie and video game out there

If that is anyone's belief, just hope no other "guard" asks any other questions about what it all means, I guess, because if they do you are going to be in big trouble. And should he say "what does this sign tell you about the resurrection?" I suppose you can just kiss it all goodbye.

[mfbukowski]

As well as ancient snakes with 2 legs.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7339508.stm

Conclusive evidence that satan was a man.

[Ceeboo]

It takes years to get up to speed on understanding the whole picture.

Or in the case of folks like Ceeboo, perhaps billions of years.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Zakuska]

I don't think you love science at all. You love its opposite.

You're just mad because he doesn't Worship it. Like yourself.

[Zakuska]

Conclusive evidence that satan was a man.

Well if snakes could walk back then... why not talk as well?

[mfbukowski]

Well if snakes could walk back then... why not talk as well?

Not to mention tap dance and sing songs! (reaching for his straw hat...)