Satan And Science

[keith_brian]

Thanks for your replies. It is my understanding that the delta is quite young so no I would not expect to find dinosaur bones there unless they had been moved by some transport system. Now I am curious if we look at other ways to date the features of the earth if you would then start to question the atomic dating of rocks? If it could be shown by straightforward simple techniques that some of the atomic dating of geology is wrong should that cast doubt on all atomic dating? Or would you just put it aside as an anomaly and ignore it like most do? What I presented in biology is a simple technique on a complex system. The same can be done in geology. But in geology the data is much more solid and is not subjective like biology. What if we went down this path and we found that atomic dating is wrong. Would you then consider that since one field is so wrong that another could also be in error? Would you then question the link between atomic dating of rock and the projections of fossil remains back in time?

I think that people would find your posts more convincing if you would take positions instead of asking leading questions.

Edited June 4, 2011 by keith_brian

[shalamabobbi]

All atomic reactions can be traced to certain qualities of space.

Could you elaborate on this thought a bit. What do you mean by qualities of space?

So let us sidestep atomic dating

Anything like "let us side-step science"? And replace it with what?

Nuclear decay rate and energy of decay are inseparably connected. You can't change one without the other changing. The fact that Uranium halos exist is proof that the energy of the decays is constant. The fact that the energy doesn't vary is proof that the decay rate doesn't vary.

If some qualities of space changed the decay rate, then the energy of decay would of necessity change as well. Then we would not get nice decay halos formed in the rocks.

Let us instead date some features in geology that use erosion and not atomic means. Then once we come to some conclusions about time frames we can compare those time frames against what is obtained by other methods. If indeed the time frames are way off then we have to decide which is more likely in error. Actually a simple process. Shall we try it?

As it appears we have a geologist(blarsen) in our midst, fire away then..

[thesometimesaint]

If you have to put Gods or Devils in your science to make it work, it is no longer science.

[Franktalk]

Blarsen,

You seem like a reasonable person. Just so you know I am not looking for any radiometric dating of the delta. It would be very hard to do so since things to shift around so the past is not very defined. Also anything found would probably have been moved from some distance away. I would like to just talk in general terms about the age of the whole drainage system but start at the delta. I have been gathering data for a couple of years. I find the study of soil transport interesting in itself and the dating thing just comes along for the ride. But like any projection back in time we have to make some assumptions. I think we have to agree on how much rainfall has happened. There also has to be some discussion of land rise and elevations. But here we can take most of the standard model and see what fits. I don't get too overly concerned about some of the details since close numbers will all work.

[thesometimesaint]

We're actually loosing ground(50 acre's a day) in the Mississippi Delta.

[shalamabobbi]

Franktalk,

I would like to just talk in general terms about the age of the whole drainage system but start at the delta...Just so you know I am not looking for any radiometric dating of the delta.

So how are you going to cast any doubt upon radiometric dating, which you have previously stated was your goal, since it is not used in the dating of the delta and since the delta is so young and it is a subject upon which you are actually in agreement, more or less, with geological thinking?

Edited June 4, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[cinepro]

Franktalk, I've got another question for you to non-answer.

Do you believe that the Grand Canyon is 270 million to 2 billion years old?

[Franktalk]

I think that people would find your posts more convincing if you would take positions instead of asking leading questions.

I think people would think your post were meaningful if they were more meaningful.

[Franktalk]

Cinepro,

Nice picture. Being in Arizona I have seen many parts up close and personal. What I like best is what I call the debris field on the California Arizona border. The Canyon is a nice study but way to subjective for me. I just like to look at it.

[Franktalk]

We're actually loosing ground(50 acre's a day) in the Mississippi Delta.

I am pretty sure that depending on the speed and volume of water moving down a river the sediment either deposits or is gathered and transported. Since we have had a big snow melt it would not surprise me to find erosion in some areas that typically had deposits. But all of these short term effects should not concern us.

[HeatherAnn]

I'd like to see spirituality and science collaborating again.

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth let it comes from whence it may." -Joseph Smith

A friend said, "Truth is not fact. Facts are but one possibility of the truth. Truth has infinite possibilities."

Both science & religion are limited in perspective, unless they open themselves to all truths.

Science is very much based on imagination & belief... starting with hypothesis. Yet, scientists will only be curious about what they're most passionate about, what funding dictates, and what is measurable using the same ol' tools.

Actually, I think religions can benefit from each other & from psychology. Muslims show daily dedication in prayers & rememberances. Buddhists tend to incorporate mind-body-spirit health. Christians, including us, tend to put the "love one another" into action by service. Those who explore their "psychology" ("the study of the soul") are studying the kingdom of God within. (Luke 17)

Satan, or evil is basically ignorance... & more specifically the persistent denial of ignorance, even when that ignorance obviously causes harm, or prevents progress.

"We cannot be saved until we have risen above all our enemies, not the least of which is ignorance." - Joseph Smith

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

It is a bit more complicated than one year of heavy snow/rainfall.

[thesometimesaint]

HeatherAnn:

True enough. Science is but one way of looking at the world/universe. It happens to be a very successful means, and you using one of the most advanced scientific endeavors ever made(The Internet) is absolute proof of that.

[Franktalk]

I'd like to see spirituality and science collaborating again.

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth let it comes from whence it may." -Joseph Smith

"We cannot be saved until we have risen above all our enemies, not the least of which is ignorance." - Joseph Smith

Yes truth. But who's truth? The problem is we all define truth with our own ideas in play. If we take our ideas and let them go and take God's ideas then I think we can find all the truth we can handle. But sadly we are weak and we all to some degree have our own ideas and view of truth. And of course looking through that lens of ideas truth is only accepted if it fits our preconceived notions. Once we let the world speak for us we become blinded. This is a spiritual blindness that is not perceived by the blind. In a similar manner the Jews are spiritually blinded to the Gospel. Their blindness will be removed one day. I suspect all blindness will be removed one day.

But God gives people over to their own lust.

Romans 1:20-24

King James Version (KJV)

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

People ignore the first part of the first verse. It is the invisible things which are clearly seen. If we look past the senses we find God and spiritual power. If we stop at just what is seen we do bad. In fact man then starts to worship the creation instead of the Creator. The point to my posts is to show that when we limit our view we get back just what is expected. A limited result. But the world has a strong draw over people and many seek evidence as Thomas wished evidence. But God will not supply evidence in a time of faith. So the worldly people point to the lack of evidence and say God does not exist. Then they turn right around and worship the creation. So the people of the world worship the delta smelt and refuse to grow crops for men around the world. So the men of the world worship a spotted owl and refuse to make materials for man's shelters. There are some who will say we should protect nature, but do we do so at the peril of man? Is that not standing the world on its head?

[thesometimesaint]

Such has been the excuse for the destruction of thousands of our fellow creatures. They have every right to live as we do.

[Franktalk]

Such has been the excuse for the destruction of thousands of our fellow creatures. They have every right to live as we do.

If I had the choice to save a human or save a fish the human would win every time. Please tell me how they have equal rights?

[Franktalk]

Without God and absolute moral codes we end up in a situation in which a fish can cause a famine. When the United States cut off the water to the San Joaquin valley it caused the price of food to go up. Many countries now spend an addition 20% more for food than two years ago. Many in these countries don't have 20% more money. So who wins the fish or starving families?

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/group/watchdogonthefederaldeltasmeltplancalifornia

and

http://www.xerraireart.com/blog/2011/02/20/delta-smelt/

So is this where science is heading us? To declare relative morals. No purpose to life. And equal rights to delta fish? Is anyone besides me concerned that science is not acting in our best interest?

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Most rational people believe the same, as do I. That is not the question. The question is would you if given the choice eat the last of a species of fish or just find another fish to eat. There are reasons why we put limits on fishing on certain fish. It helps preserve the species, and makes more fish available to eat in the future.

[Franktalk]

Franktalk:

Most rational people believe the same, as do I. That is not the question. The question is would you if given the choice eat the last of a species of fish or just find another fish to eat. There are reasons why we put limits on fishing on certain fish. It helps preserve the species, and makes more fish available to eat in the future.

If you define a rational person as someone who will save a fish and let a human starve then don't count me as rational. And by the way delta smelt are not eaten by humans to my knowledge.

[Franktalk]

Here is a link to what is happening with food prices. Is anyone going to connect the dots that fuel costs have gone up because we refuse to drill? Does a higher fuel bill drive the cost of food up? How about closed farms due to no water?

"Even with government subsidies and ration cards for bread, the true price of wheat in Egypt is nearly 30 percent higher today than it was a year ago—thanks to global prices for that staple cereal that have increased nearly 80 percent in the same span."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-high-food-prices-fueling-revolu-2011-02-01

When is the madness going to stop? When 4 billion people die? Ten billion? Will science recommend aborting children to reduce the population? Early murder instead of starvation?

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Not my definition. But then I don't have a problem with finding another fish to eat.

BTW Delta Smelt are an indicator species. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/fish/Delta_smelt/

Something is definitely wrong with polluting the environment to the point that fish die.

[keith_brian]

I think people would think your post were meaningful if they were more meaningful.

Wow, resorting to circular logic, eh?

But, on a more serious note, I find it somewhat hard to put too much time into making my posts because the arguments against science just get so tired after a while. I mean, the same people complaining about how the devil is manipulating the world through science are the same ones taking things like computer, electricity, and airplanes for granted. Shouldn't they be out there in a loin cloth in the middle of a desert somewhere instead? That way they could live a much purer life, free from the demonically influenced institution known as science.

Also, many of the other posters are doing a good job rebutting your posts, so I feel that I don't have to get too involved I am just enjoying the show.

[Franktalk]

Franktalk:

Not my definition. But then I don't have a problem with finding another fish to eat.

BTW Delta Smelt are an indicator species. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/fish/Delta_smelt/

Something is definitely wrong with polluting the environment to the point that fish die.

According to science millions of species came and went before man showed up. So why all of a sudden the blame gets heaped on man? Or is this some kind of agenda driven sideshow that is being used for other reasons? I thought survival of the fittest was supposed to be in play? Bye bye little fishy.

[HeatherAnn]

Thesometimesaint, (Iike the name!)

Thanks!

Yes truth. But who's truth? The problem is we all define truth with our own ideas in play. If we take our ideas and let them go and take God's ideas then I think we can find all the truth we can handle...

Romans 1:20-24

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

People ignore the first part of the first verse. It is the invisible things which are clearly seen. If we look past the senses we find God and spiritual power. If we stop at just what is seen we do bad. In fact man then starts to worship the creation instead of the Creator. The point to my posts is to show that when we limit our view we get back just what is expected. A limited result. But the world has a strong draw over people and many seek evidence as Thomas wished evidence. But God will not supply evidence in a time of faith. So the worldly people point to the lack of evidence and say God does not exist. Then they turn right around and worship the creation...

Thanks, Franktalk - lots to think about!

Yeah - who's truth? Right now, I could be freezing my toosh off & someone else in the same room is sweating hot. Both are different interpretations of the same reality - both are true. I believe our purpose is to love (God is love). How we love best is through understanding. The way to more understanding is being open to more perspectives. The more perspectives, the more truthful.

I like that scripture you quoted... a good reminder to look & sense deeper than superficial appearances & to do so with humility.

It reminds me of another scripture, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Hebrews 11:1

We (or astronomers) have discovered that about 95% of matter in our universe is made up of dark (or invisible) energy/matter. The only way it is known is by the evidence of it's influence on light etc. We also know that when you magnify something (including us!) enough times, you see mostly space!

Another great science-related scripture is, "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." -Proverbs 21:7

Among others, Dr. Bruce Lee has researched & shown that about 95% of genes are born healthy. What happens between birth & the development of unhealthy genes is realized to be influenced by environment, especially in the form of stressful thoughts/feelings.

As you mentioned, Franktalk, when we limit our view, we get limited results. We have much more power than we realize!

[HeatherAnn]

...Among others, Dr. Bruce Lee has...

Maybe we should incorporate Marital Arts into the picture too, huh? I meant, "Dr. Bruce Lipton." ha ha

"I need to stop confusing sign language for Kung Fu."