World Wide Flood Of Noah

[LeSellers]

You have plenty of options.

1. You can avail yourself of a publicly financed education system.

Which the government controls.

2. You can send your kids to a charter school.

Which is just another gctf welfare school.

3. You can send your kids to a private school.

Yes, which is one of my recommendations.

4. You can start your own school, and collect any amount of tuition that you and the student/or their parents agrees to pay.

I strongly suggest teachers do this. They can earn far more money than at a gctf welfare school, and do much more good than at the government's youth concentration camps.

5. You can home teach your own kids, as long as you meet minimal state standards the state will not try to stop you.

Yes, there's the rub. Even when a family tries to take over its natural/God-given responsibility, the state shoves its unwanted and unneeded (and filthy) nose into the family's business and does its best to weaken that family.

Nevertheless, yes, family-centered education is the best option in nearly every case.

6. You can start you own school, and still send your own kids to a publicly funded school. Though I don't see why anyone would do that.

No, no one would. That's why gctf welfare school teachers send their own children to private schools at a far higher rate than the rest of USmerican society. They know what's going on.

One option you did not list was the option of not paying for the government's schools and using the money to pay for your own child's education. Oh, wait, they throw you in jail if you try that, and if you really try, they kill you, as they did John Singer.

A little knowledge is always a dangerous thing. From before the times of Socrates(We know what happened to him) some parents have riled against anything they neither know nor have the wit to understand.

So now you pull the "you're stupid card", as you frequently do whenever someone disagrees with you. I was expecting it sooner.

Lehi

Edited August 25, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Private schools have the option of kicking low performing or unmotivated kids out.

Straw man.

There are private schools that cater to just those students. In fact, that do it so well that the states send their inmates there because their own schools can't handle them.

There are schools that cater to medical issues, and almost any other problem. Problems the state schools cannot deal with.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Neither I nor you can make parents care. Some kids succeed regardless of their parents nonconcern, most do not. Exactly just HOW is any teacher public or private to make a parent care?

The fact is that parents learn, early on (in fact they learn when they're children), to palm their responsibilities off on the state. There are many people who actually believe that the state is responsible for education. The believe they have no responsibility because the state has carefully indoctrinated them.

People are lazy, and they are quite willing to achieve their aims at the lowest possible price. It's called maximizing returns. But that does not mean the responsibility is the state's.

Another fact is that gctf schools cost far, far more than private schools. There are very expensive private schools, to be sure, but the vast majority of them cost much less than the publicly admitted price of gctf welfare schools. And the difference is not trivial.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

[Teachers] spend innumerable hours after the school day grading papers, preparing for the next day, and yes even calling parents to see why their little Johnny was absent that day. Proof positive of a care less attitude.

Don't bother trying to pull the over-worked under-paid trash on me. I was a gctf welfare school teacher. It's a posh job, and teachers are over paid.

Everyone thinks he's worth more than he's being paid. Everyone thinks he's over-worked. Teachers think they are under paid, but they are not.

Poor babies, doing what the job requires.

Don't claim that they have to go back to school on their own dime, either. There are very few places where someone can go to school with another party paying for it.

Don't try to claim that teachers have get CTE units. Tough, so do doctors and lawyers and a myriad of others.

Lehi

[jo1952]

Utah. And, I wasn't flirting, lol. I wasn't even sure if you were a guy or a girl. I will meet almost anyone to talk about anything related to science, religion, etc. I am very social that way.

Next time you come to Utah, bring your hubby and the three of us will have a grand old discussion .

I do believe we would have a grand old discussion!!

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I hope you won't be having this discusson in a milkshake.

Lehi

Lemonade is out as well....water it is.

Okay, the new emoticon is just soooo cute, I HAD to use it.

jo

Edited August 25, 2011 by jo1952

[jo1952]

Are you sure you want to meet with them in person? The tag team of Franktalk and jo1952 is tough to beat..

eweee...now that is just disturbing.

jo

[Franktalk]

Let us walk down memory lane a little ways.

In 1963 it became unconstitutional to recite from the Bible in public schools.

"The main mission of Yale College at its founding in 1701 was religious training, serving the Congregationalist churches of Connecticut. In its charter, it was designed as a school "wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts & Sciences who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church & Civil State." A professorship of divinity was established in 1746 and in 1822, a separate department developed, later known as the Yale Divinity School."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Divinity_School

This is not the Yale of today where the creed of secularism is normal.

"On into the colonial and founding periods of American history (early 1600s to the late 1700s), Christianity, the Bible and creation were taught openly in public schools, and incorporated throughout the various topics of education.For example, in a 1749 booklet on education, Benjamin Franklin said the teaching of history in schools should “afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion … and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others.”2

When the use of the Bible was threatened to be diminished by an abundance of new textbooks available around 1800, prominent American educators spoke up to ensure the Bible’s place as America’s premier textbook.Fisher Ames, an educator and prominent statesman, said, “f these [new] books … must be retained, as they will be, should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?”3 In a widely distributed pamphlet, Benjamin Rush (the “father of public schools under the Constitution” as well as a signer of America’s Declaration of Independence) argued from reason and revelation for the continued use of the Bible as a schoolbook.4

Even Thomas Jefferson was involved in religious aspects of education, for while US president, he made the Bible a primary reading text for Washington, D.C., schools.5

Noah Webster, one of the greatest of American educators, wrote an appendix to his 1832 school history text reminding students of the importance of the Scriptures, and warned that “miseries and evils” result from a lack of following the Bible.6 In 1844 the US Supreme Court ruled that a college could not be built that excluded teachings from the Bible.7 In fact, it was lawyer and senator, Daniel Webster, the famous “defender of the Constitution,” who argued before the Supreme Court that Christianity is inseparable from education.8"

http://creation.com/evolution-in-american-education-and-the-demise-of-its-public-school-system

And the list goes on and on.

So when Brigham Young said he supported schools his vision of public schools is not what it is today.

[jo1952]

Jo1952:

Good morning.

"Evolution also teaches that through natural selection that the good things, stong things, healthy things, will survive. Yet the human genome is failing. What does evolution have to say about that? Are we a species that is doomed because we don't meet the standards wherein only the strong survive? Or is it possible this is all part of the plan which God initiated which is something that was missed while everyone was following god Darwin, rather than God the Father? The Bible clearly indicates a change in entropy - amazingly one of the biggest impacts was The Flood. Go figure. It's all in there if you look for it. I would offer that man in his pursuit of science should use what the Bible teaches as a guideline in order that they can be led in the right direction and toward the correct interpretations of their observations creating theories which would then be more dependable than those theories which are moving targets. Of course, I doubt seriously the could become peer review approved. I asky, why give man so much more power than where the Holy Ghost can lead us? I believe we need to re-evaluate and recognize who it is we giving power to.....is it man? Or is it God?".

That is not what evolution says. It simply says that organisms, such as man, change over time. IOW Those that reproduce win.

The human genome is not failing it is surprisingly robust, and has been for the last 200,000 years. What it is not is stagnent. We are changing. Among those changes are we're taller, have smaller jaws, and live longer than our ancestors.

Evolution is not about physical strength. We would have died out a long time ago if it we're. Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis was much physically stronger than us. Yet there are no more of them. While there are some 6-7 billion of us right now on this planet.

We're not "doomed". Of course that half asteroid could come in and then we're doomed, but that's not evolution

I have nothing against Gods' plan. I'm a LDS believer in his plan for me. I intend to take full advantage of the Resurrect of the Just, and joining with God after my sojourn here is over.

Darwin is not my God. He was simply a man, not much different than you and me. He didn't even know the word genome, or gene for that matter. But I believe my God knows all about gene's and genomes.

Entropy hasn't changed since the Big Bang. It says that in any closed system matter/energy becomes less organized. This world is not a closed system. We have the sun. Nor is this galaxy a closed system. We get light, though not heat, from our galactic center, and we even get light from galaxies across the universe. That is how we know about them.

I don't believe there was a world wide flood. I am content with a very big albeit regional one. Hugh Nibley and I are on the same page here. No one in the Church that I know of calls into question his membership standing in the Church.

All the natural physical evidence so far is against a world wide flood even remotely in human times, let alone in the times of Noah.

Why should I, or any scientist, use any religiously inspired book, as a guide to how to persue science? Did Pi suddenly become equal to exactly 3 just because some ancient guy wrote it down? Did the sun suddenly start revolving around the earth? Can we fall of a literal edge of the earth? When was the last time you saw a literal snake talk? Did the Gods of Homer throw down lightning bolts at us just because someone wrote down a long time ago?

Scientific theories are just the best explanation we have so far for a natural event or cause. As such they are ALWAYS subject to change. They are what is called "Falsifiable". Meaning that under one or more conditions the theory is not correct, and further study, and research is needed. The Supernatural by defintion pertains to God. He is not falsifiable in any scientific sense of the word.

Why would a Hindu scientist look for natural evidence in a Christian Bible(There are many different ones). Why would a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, or any other religions' scientist for that matter? Would you accept his/her God based on the science they produced? What if they did know or didn't believe in any God. Would you therefore abandon your religious beliefs for theirs based on the science they did?

I have no problem with God or the Holy Ghost. I just can't put them into any science that I know of. Science is based on the natural world/universe. The Supernatural is not. It is based on a belief in God. While I do believe that someday religion and science will reconcil. That day is not today, and I don't expect that day to come anytime soon.

Good evening Sometimesaint!!

Here is some information on Dr. John Sanford who published a book titled "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome". Part of his bibliography states:

http://creation.com/john-sanford (emphasis added)

Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. While a professor at Cornell, John has trained graduate students and conducted genetic research at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. During this time, John bred new crop varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-emerging field of plant genetic engineering. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents.

Here is the brief summary Amazon.com gives about his book:

Product Description (emphasis added)

Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise - that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes can not evolve upward, Dr. Sanford presents strong evidence that higher genomes must in fact degenerate over time. This book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process.

Here is just a part of an interview which you can find at the website link I have provided; though I think readers would find it interesting to read the entire interview, since he also describes his conversion to Christ and the effect this had on him.

http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible (emphasis added)

• ‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.’

In trying to find some easy way to gather other information from those in the sciences who do NOT support Darwinism, I happened across a discussion that is taking place even as I type this, on Yahoo.com. Obviously, Yahoo.com is no authority - but it serves as a tool for people to be able to share their thoughts about various topics. They just happened to be discussing the very subject I am responding to you about. Anyway, if you will go to this site and scroll down until you find the poster known as "Paul H", you can read from several different sources from the scientific world which he included in his comments. Here are just two of his references:

""The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

(Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39) "

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences"

(Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), The Major Features of Evolution, New York: Columbia University Press, p. 360) "

Since everyone on this thread seems so concerned about education, as they well should be, I offer all of the above as additional knowledge to be considered in order for us to have available information both apposing and supporting not only the Flood, but also "evolution" (since it is also being discussed). Inasmuch as these are representative of the conditions which exist in the scientific community; i.e., that there are two sides to every issue and every theory, I present them in the hopes that those readers who have closed their eyes to any other possibilities than a one-sided conclusion from ANY theory, may wish to reconsider how they approach findings and theories offered to them BEFORE they make any choices on what they will believe. I especially do this in regards to any of those "findings" and "theories" formed from those studies which would place scripture in any type of negative light.

Respectfully,

jo

Edited August 25, 2011 by jo1952

[jo1952]

Yeah we all want our children to be uneducated.

Gosh! Is it possible that a parent just might want his child educated differently from the way the government does it without wanting that child to be dumasaroc? Parents have a vastly greater vested interest in well educated children than the state does. It's the state that wants citizens who cannot think or reason. That's why so many children "graduate" from high school unable to read their diplomas.

Lehi

Oh boy, could I get on a soap box on this issue, and how the educational system has changed even what they will teach; as far as I am concerned it has become a left-wing agenda-driven mess which has excluded God in order to be politically correct and "in-tune" with today's society. What a bunch of ..... This would be better left for a different thread, though.

Best regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Then you'd send him to a school that taught "orthodox" biology, right?

Lehi

Good one on so many levels, Lehi!!!!

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Lehi:

So are we going to teach Aristotles ideas about biology or modern biology based on Darwins evolution?

Hi Sometimesaint:

I'm only going to respond to your first sentence because you just captured what is WRONG with believing that the government teaches what is true. I have been around long enough to have experienced how what is being taught has progressed more and more to a politically driven agenda.

Darwinism is STILL ONLY A THEORY. Yet you have accepted it as Truth. Who taught you to believe that it is more than a theory???? Could it be that you were indoctrinated with this idea while you were in school? Since it was presented to you as truth you became a victim of preconception which has followed you ever since. Now, when you do any study in science concerning evolution you automatically filter it through this preconception that it is unquestionably true. This is directly connected to the education you received!

The very same phenomena happened in Orthodoxy. I would remind us all that it is "orthodox" belief as taught by the instititutions of the various Christian religions wherein the Apostasy occurred. Even more importantly, I would point out that they did so under the guise of their belief in God. Science can't even claim that; so how much more dangerous can the findings of science become when the main focus of the scientific world is godless?

In teaching members of the Church to pursue science and ALL education and world-based knowledge, I think Father is hoping that we will not lose Him in the process. You claim that you are fine in your relationship with God; I have no reason to doubt that you are. However, I would offer a warning that whenever science conflicts with what the Creator has taught us in scripture, that at that moment, whether it is intentional or not, we are no longer serving Him. At that moment we are serving the adversary. Just as when Peter, in his love for Jesus, was fooled by the adversary when he vocalized his desire that Jesus not leave them. Jesus' response to Peter? "Get thee behind me, Satan." Remember that this rebuke came from Jesus only a few verses after He had explained to Peter that it was the Spirit of God who had revealed Jesus' true identity to Peter. See how quickly we can be serving God and be in tune with the Holy Ghost; and the very next moment be serving Satan without being consciously aware of doing so.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Okay, that was rather disturbing.

Hey, I just saw this after I had already posted my response. GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!

Love,

jo

[jo1952]

Huh? I'm currently doing post graduate work in Anthropology (including some Biology) and I've never heard that the human genome is failing. Failing in what way? We are an enormously successful species. We have adapted to life on every continent except for Antarctica, and I think our genome is doing extremely well. Evolution (as others have pointed out) does not mean that all good and healthy things will survive. Populations often go through "bottlenecks" when certain segments of a population survive a catastrophe (disease, weather, natural disaster, etc.) because of a seemingly small or insignificant advantage. The Lord very well may drive these advantages or He may also have set the mechanism in motion with a full understanding of the outcome. Science is neutral on God because it only seeks to explain the natural world (true science.) For worldwide flood believers, Noah and his sons (and their wives) were the only survivors of a worldwide flood because they were the only people who listened to the Lord. In science, this would result in a bottleneck in the worldwide population because the entire world population thereafter would have descended from these four couples several thousand years ago. Unfortunately, Biology does not support that hypothesis. It would show up very clearly in our DNA. I can be counted in the regional flood camp.

Hi Katherine!!

I addressed this in my response to Thesometimesaint. You can find it in post #234. Hopefully it will at least give you something to think about.

Edited to add: I hope that you will be able to see that maybe, just maybe, whatever it is you are being taught in your studies has been filtered so that you are only being presented information which will lead you to conclusions which support the pre-determined conclusion which others want you to reach.

Best regards!

jo

Edited August 25, 2011 by jo1952

[keith_brian]

Hi Sometimesaint:

I'm only going to respond to your first sentence because you just captured what is WRONG with believing that the government teaches what is true. I have been around long enough to have experienced how what is being taught has progressed more and more to a politically driven agenda.

Darwinism is STILL ONLY A THEORY. Yet you have accepted it as Truth. Who taught you to believe that it is more than a theory???? Could it be that you were indoctrinated with this idea while you were in school? Since it was presented to you as truth you became a victim of preconception which has followed you ever since. Now, when you do any study in science concerning evolution you automatically filter it through this preconception that it is unquestionably true. This is directly connected to the education you received!

The very same phenomena happened in Orthodoxy. I would remind us all that it is "orthodox" belief as taught by the instititutions of the various Christian religions wherein the Apostasy occurred. Even more importantly, I would point out that they did so under the guise of their belief in God. Science can't even claim that; so how much more dangerous can the findings of science become when the main focus of the scientific world is godless?

In teaching members of the Church to pursue science and ALL education and world-based knowledge, I think Father is hoping that we will not lose Him in the process. You claim that you are fine in your relationship with God; I have no reason to doubt that you are. However, I would offer a warning that whenever science conflicts with what the Creator has taught us in scripture, that at that moment, whether it is intentional or not, we are no longer serving Him. At that moment we are serving the adversary. Just as when Peter, in his love for Jesus, was fooled by the adversary when he vocalized his desire that Jesus not leave them. Jesus' response to Peter? "Get thee behind me, Satan." Remember that this rebuke came from Jesus only a few verses after He had explained to Peter that it was the Spirit of God who had revealed Jesus' true identity to Peter. See how quickly we can be serving God and be in tune with the Holy Ghost; and the very next moment be serving Satan without being consciously aware of doing so.

Regards,

jo

It's only still a theory in the same sense that the earth is round or that germs, not elves, cause disease is still a theory. It is supported by literally volumes of scientific evidence. All of modern biology, from germ theory to DNA, makes absolutely no sense without it.

I think that people often make these statements because they are ignorant of just how many journals there are out there about evolutionary biology. Here is a list of scientific journals about biology. Please find even one article in any of those journals that discounts the idea of evolution.

Hint: you won't find even one.

Once you've found scientific evidence to discredit the information in all of those journals, we can talk some more. Until then, let's just consider evolution by natural selection to be as much of a scientific fact as there can possibly be in science. Thanks.

[jo1952]

It's only still a theory in the same sense that the earth is round or that germs, not elves, cause disease is still a theory. It is supported by literally volumes of scientific evidence. All of modern biology, from germ theory to DNA, makes absolutely no sense without it.

I think that people often make these statements because they are ignorant of just how many journals there are out there about evolutionary biology. Here is a list of scientific journals about biology. Please find even one article in any of those journals that discounts the idea of evolution.

Hint: you won't find even one.

Once you've found scientific evidence to discredit the information in all of those journals, we can talk some more. Until then, let's just consider evolution by natural selection to be as much of a scientific fact as there can possibly be in science. Thanks.

How about addressing the comments and sources I pointed to in post #234?

I think the problem stems from the peer review process. I doubt seriously that anyone on the review boards is going to allow something to be approved which might endanger their own livelihood - you know, the loss of funding, the possibility of being laid off when funds disappear, needing to find other work, changing their careers, etc. Another fear held intrinsically in this type of organization is one of the danger of becoming laughed at by your peers for taking a stance against what has now been accepted as truth. In fact ostracization is quite the motivator to discourage people. When they have a secure job, it is not likely they are going to question the establishment that puts bread on their table and supports their family. Those who have spoken up in the past have been silenced by losing their positions - you will not be able to easily locate the articles which then disgraced them in the scientific community simply because they never were approved.

Some people have so much faith in the peer review process that they don't even question it. Again, I would point to the global warming fiasco as a good example of all of the above problems with the current peer review board.

BTW, I do not adhere to a show of hands method to determine what I will or will not believe to be true. I suppose I take the road less traveled.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 25, 2011 by jo1952

[Franktalk]

It's only still a theory in the same sense that the earth is round or that germs, not elves, cause disease is still a theory. It is supported by literally volumes of scientific evidence. All of modern biology, from germ theory to DNA, makes absolutely no sense without it.

This shows just how little you know about the theory of evolution. When you wrap directly observed events with projections back in time you show little regard for reasonable thought. It becomes apparent that you are agenda driven.

We have other directly observed changes in the genome that violate the theory yet you ignore them like the rest of biology. For instance.

"So with three genetic deaths per person why are we not extinct? The data would suggest that harmful mutations need to be weeded out in clusters at a time. One way to achieve this would be if natural selection operated such that individuals with the most mutations are preferentially eliminated (e.g. harmful mutations interact). This could only happen in a sexual species where mutations are shuffled each generation by genetic recombination, and so the existence of such a high deleterious mutation rate has been taken as further vindication that sex (meiotic recombination) is an efficient way to eliminate harmful mutations."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7566/

In calculating the death rate to keep the genome stable (not improve) requires that each of us have 50 children in which 49 die before reproduction. This information is widely known but ignored. Since we don't have this death rate then we should see a gathering of defects in the genome. This is exactly what we see.

"(1) Single-gene (also called Mendelian or monogenic) - This type is caused by changes or mutations that occur in the DNA sequence of one gene. Genes code for proteins, the molecules that carry out most of the work, perform most life functions, and even make up the majority of cellular structures. When a gene is mutated so that its protein product can no longer carry out its normal function, a disorder can result. There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. Some examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Marfan syndrome, Huntington’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis."

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/medicine/assist.shtml

Yet when we look at all types and include those defects we have not traced to the source the number is around 40,000 defects. Why do you allow your self to be taken in by sorted articles that don't give you the true picture? Do the hard work of checking what others say. Don't be led like a sheep. When I read Sanford's book I checked out what he said.

[Ares]

Sometimes Saint and LeSellers,

Don't turn this thread political. It is already drifting from the subject.

[Franktalk]

If we take the dates between generations in the Bible as without gaps (using the Septuagint) then the earth is young. I don't know if it is or not but I allow for that possibility. I have read many things written about how the universe could look old but actually be young. All of these papers suffer the same direct "knowing" barrier. If we say that the Bible is a witness of events and people then the Bible becomes our only written witness of the past. If we trust it literally then we do in fact have a young earth. Now I also believe that the past was forced by supernatural events so exactly what trace evidence would be left over would be a guess at best. But in this environment we can still look at the trace evidence and see if alternative theories could be formed to fit the evidence into a short time scale. I have been following Barry Setterfield's theory on changes to the fabric of space. I mentioned this earlier but I wish to expand a little on the subject.

We have some quantities in physics we call constant but we don't know if they have always been constant. Many things in physics link back to the fabric of space in which they rest. If we think of this fabric as cloth then we can see this expressed in scripture in many places. We see that God stretched out the heavens and one day will roll it up. The word stretched can be applied to the fabric of space and we can imagine what that would do to space itself. If we say that that space was stretched and then settled over time what would that look like and what would it do to those constants in physics? Here is a link to one such theory. I don't know if it is true but I find the theory interesting.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5349.pdf

What prompted this paper was not a fitting of the past to the Bible but some observations of large bodies in space and atomic clocks. That history is here.

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

Since I do not trust man I look for anomalies in his theories. Once I find a valid anomaly I toss the theory. Science does not do this. They instead push the anomaly aside and keep marching along. Of course they do not teach about the anomalies in school. Here is a good link on anomalies.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/18/dominant_paradigms_in_science_and_their

So when all of things are taken together I can with a reasonable mind and faith see a flood occurring in 3554 BC. Where many see me and think that I have not studied science I say that it is they that have not studied. If you focus on one thought you will learn one thought. Open your mind, don't trust, check things out for yourself.

[katherine the great]

Hi Katherine!!

I addressed this in my response to Thesometimesaint. You can find it in post #234. Hopefully it will at least give you something to think about.

Edited to add: I hope that you will be able to see that maybe, just maybe, whatever it is you are being taught in your studies has been filtered so that you are only being presented information which will lead you to conclusions which support the pre-determined conclusion which others want you to reach.

Best regards!

jo

I'll make you a deal. I'll give you a list of textbooks written and updated in the last three years (with all of the latest data) to read and in exchange, I will read your list of thirty to sixty year old information and your book on the human genome written by a plant geneticist. Your statement about results being "filtered" is so completely wrong that I don't even know how to respond to such a thing. This is not North Korea. I suppose I could argue that you are the one using the filters in order to allow your (extremely unscientific) view to match your literal interpretation of scripture, but I've found that it is really impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists so I won't bother. It may come as a shock to you, but I am a very faithful and active member of the church and my scientific studies have not altered my spirituality at all. I accept science largely as a revelation from God in and of itself, and if there is a deception going on here, it comes from people such as yourself who ignore the scientific method and instead rely on either old or fringey sources to bolster their faith. I find it ironic that such people even bother trying to make scientific arguments at all.

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

Good morning.

Evolution works in both directions.

Nice highlight. Do you know what a scientific theory is? I gave you a clue in my response to you. It is the best explanation of a natural event we have so far. As such it can always change.

Gravity is an absolute fact. The explanation for that fact(gravity) is a theory. Try jumping off a high cliff sans parachute next time you don't trust a theory.

Germs are a fact. You can see them with a microscope. That germs cause disease is a theory. ALL of modern medicine is based on that theory.

Evolution is a fact. We have the bones. The explanation of that fact is the theory of evolution.

BTW; BYU has one of the largest collection of those bones in the world.

Ps; The dreaded government did take prayer out of the public schools. As long as there are math tests in schools praying will too. What the USSC said was you can't have the state enforce a mode of worship. You know that pesky old "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That applies to all levels of government including local, and state government.

Edited August 25, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[katherine the great]

If we take the dates between generations in the Bible as without gaps (using the Septuagint) then the earth is young. I don't know if it is or not but I allow for that possibility. I have read many things written about how the universe could look old but actually be young. All of these papers suffer the same direct "knowing" barrier. If we say that the Bible is a witness of events and people then the Bible becomes our only written witness of the past. If we trust it literally then we do in fact have a young earth. Now I also believe that the past was forced by supernatural events so exactly what trace evidence would be left over would be a guess at best. But in this environment we can still look at the trace evidence and see if alternative theories could be formed to fit the evidence into a short time scale. I have been following Barry Setterfield's theory on changes to the fabric of space. I mentioned this earlier but I wish to expand a little on the subject.

We have some quantities in physics we call constant but we don't know if they have always been constant. Many things in physics link back to the fabric of space in which they rest. If we think of this fabric as cloth then we can see this expressed in scripture in many places. We see that God stretched out the heavens and one day will roll it up. The word stretched can be applied to the fabric of space and we can imagine what that would do to space itself. If we say that that space was stretched and then settled over time what would that look like and what would it do to those constants in physics? Here is a link to one such theory. I don't know if it is true but I find the theory interesting.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5349.pdf

What prompted this paper was not a fitting of the past to the Bible but some observations of large bodies in space and atomic clocks. That history is here.

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

Since I do not trust man I look for anomalies in his theories. Once I find a valid anomaly I toss the theory. Science does not do this. They instead push the anomaly aside and keep marching along. Of course they do not teach about the anomalies in school. Here is a good link on anomalies.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/07/18/dominant_paradigms_in_science_and_their

So when all of things are taken together I can with a reasonable mind and faith see a flood occurring in 3554 BC. Where many see me and think that I have not studied science I say that it is they that have not studied. If you focus on one thought you will learn one thought. Open your mind, don't trust, check things out for yourself.

Okay so you are basically looking for reasons to distrust all of science altogether. Once you have that worldview, nothing matters except what you choose to believe. A single anomaly is not a good enough reason to toss an otherwise valid theory. It is simply an anomaly. It could possibly be explained in numerous ways if more data becomes available. Now, when enough anomalies exist to cast doubt on an entire body of supporting evidence, a theory should be reevaluated and tweaked. This is exactly how science does work. This is really neither here nor there for me as far as a worldwide flood goes. Evidence against a worldwide flood in historic times extends across many different disciplines: Geology, Botany, Anthropology, Archaeology, Genetics (just to name a few.) When you talk about a worldwide flood as literally written about in the Bible, the implications are absolutely enormous. We would see genetic lines of every species dating back to a single breeding couple (or three or four for humans) who lived 5-6 thousand years ago. We would see evidence everywhere on the planet in the rocks. We would see pottery, weapons, buildings, bodies distributed in a particular way all dating from exactly the same year. We would have all of the animals which are completely unique to Australia (and shown to have an unbroken record of life there for many tens of thousands of years) living in the Middle East or at the very least, show that they once lived in the Anatolia area (or wherever Noah's Ark landed.) There would have had to have been penguins, kangaroos, three toed sloths, Pandas, (you get the picture) which somehow managed to migrate back to where they originally were from without leaving any evidence of their existence behind, and evidence that they did NOT exist in their native lands for a period of time. I must say that I have a very difficult time understanding how any thinking, educated human being can simply discard everything that seems to be in order to believe in the literal interpretation of an ancient story (which was recorded by people who's knowledge of the world was much smaller and very different from our own. Now, a local flood is an entirely different scenario. The flood of the Black Sea was in the right place and at the right time. It most certainly would have seemed like a worldwide flood to the people (Noah and his family perhaps) who survived it because that probably was the only world they knew. If I were God, I would most likely teach my people about Me and the important lessons I want them to understand by using methods they would understand. I think some of the early stories of Genesis fall in to this category. The lesson is the important thing and these lessons seemed to have been pointed at the people of the covenant of Moses.

[jo1952]

I'll make you a deal. I'll give you a list of textbooks written and updated in the last three years (with all of the latest data) to read and in exchange, I will read your list of thirty to sixty year old information and your book on the human genome written by a plant geneticist. Your statement about results being "filtered" is so completely wrong that I don't even know how to respond to such a thing. This is not North Korea. I suppose I could argue that you are the one using the filters in order to allow your (extremely unscientific) view to match your literal interpretation of scripture, but I've found that it is really impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists so I won't bother. It may come as a shock to you, but I am a very faithful and active member of the church and my scientific studies have not altered my spirituality at all. I accept science largely as a revelation from God in and of itself, and if there is a deception going on here, it comes from people such as yourself who ignore the scientific method and instead rely on either old or fringey sources to bolster their faith. I find it ironic that such people even bother trying to make scientific arguments at all.

Hi Katherine!

What you fail to understand is that I also believe that God has used revelations from science to assist mankind not only to improve the quality of our lives, but also, in general, to increase our overall knowledge. I think science is exciting and boggles the mind when we realize the magnificence of the Creation and that He allows us this type of access, via the advancements made in science, to this knowledge. Just 100 years ago, who could have guessed or even imagined the accomplishments mankind has achieved through their studies and advancements? In fact, our knowledge is growing in leaps and bounds at a seemingly exponential rate. As such, at any moment our knowledge has increased that much more from the last moment. It is awe inspiring and humbles me to try to comprehend what we still don't know, but what will become knowable to us as we progress from this life.

No, this is not Korea. However, studying the political history of the USA - especially from the beginning of the 1900's through to today - wherein you can be educated on the beginnings of the of the Democratic and Repulican parties, as well as the minor parties, what caused the differences, who was behind them, who was in office, what THEIR views were and whose political philosophies they admired and aspired to, would quite possible shock you. Then see which of the philosophies were used to effect the laws that govern our educational systems (most definitely with socialistic power), which gained momentum, you can then better understand what I am talking about.

If you do a little more learning into the history of some other countries, you will find similarities in how those nations evolved with those same socialistic venues; you will also see how those nations ultimately failed, became corrupted, etc.

Now, interestingly, the scientific community in Great Britain has embraced the findings of Dr. Sanford, and run with, so to speak; whereas the United States has not. The USA definitely has their own agenda-driven pet projects which are in bed with the political forces which fund them.

None of this is odd or beyond the simplest understanding of how mankind IS. We see these patterns being repeated ad nauseum throughout the history of mankind in all walks of life, especially in religion and in politics; both of which have a domino effect on all aspects of human life.

My caution with science is to warn how easily mankind's purposes can become at odds with God's purposes. Brigham Young's comments included the admonition that we would discover that in the pursuit of knowledge that nothing would conflict with our beliefs. Now, inasmuch as he believed in a worldwide flood, I would think that this was included in what the discoveries of man through education would also support. To many who are involved in the sciences, their findings DO support a worldwide flood. Unfortunately, there are also just as many, if not more, whose findings have caused them to conclude the flood was only local or even just a myth. So, when science begins to cause doubt in the teachings of the Bible, I spend time pointing this out. In my mind, regardless of the information gathered by science which supports a worldwide flood but is dismissed by others in science, I become concerned that this creates a huge stumbling block in the minds of agnostics and atheists. How can they start to trust to believe in Christ when Christians can't even agree on what the Bible teaches about a major event that is reported there?

Take some time just to review the links which Franktalk has provided in post #242 and post #244 for some additional information. We aren't making this stuff up. Again, do not for one moment believe that we haven't done a great deal of seeking out information from both sides of all issues which cast doubt on scripture. When amidst all of the advancements in science which have brought unforeseen incredible knowledge to mankind, we find something which casts scripture in a negative light, we stop and try to discover WHY. This includes a great deal of study from both camps; and what we discover in every case is a manifestation of the patterns mankind repeats over and over again in history. That is when we take our information to wherever we are given the opportunity to voice our findings; such as these boards.

What we have discovered is also typical for mankind. It is like trying to teach the Gospel; all we can do is plant seeds. Man will have to make their own choices. We find that it is akin to having discussions with anti-LDS in defending the Church. It is also akin to trying to offer the information to Orthdox Christianity that an Apostasy has, indeed, taken place.

Respectfully,

jo

[LeSellers]

The dreaded government did take prayer out of the public schools. As long as there are math tests in schools praying will too. What the USSC said was you can't have the state enforce a mode of worship. You know that pesky old "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religio, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

You're right here, even if only accidentally. The Supreme Court took formal prayer out of schools, but only gctf-welfare schools. Private schools can still have prayer (or not), recite the Pledge of Allegiance (or not), read the Bible (or the Book of Mormon, or the Koran, or not) as they see fit. At least so far: the movement to bring all schools under the thumb of the state is well under weigh and has succeeded on many fronts. And, as John Singer learned, the I guarantee of exercising religion freely does not apply when it comes to what the state decrees as to schooling children, even in private settings.

It's only government schools that must bow to the lowest level of belief, which means no belief at all. That's why all religious parents should withdraw their children from schools controlled by the state.

It's exactly why the Brethren, from Brigham Young onward to our own day, have warned us against settling for gctf-welfare schools. It's why they have always counseled us to have control over our children's education. It's why, in quiet settings, they warn of the still impending dangers from gctf-welfare schools looming over the horizon. Unfortuantely, the Saints have ignored these warnings, and cheerfully submit (and subject) their children to the "tender mercies" of the state, rather than to those of the Lord. It was so bad that in the early XX, David O. M^cKay, as the Superintendant of the Weber Stake Academy, had to sell it to the state of Utah for $1: the parents in his stake refused to flollow the counsel of the Brethren to enroll their children there, rather than in the gctf-welfare schools (which they also had to support via taxation): it's always nice of you can get someone else to cover your expenses.

And, just as an side, if the gctf-welfare schools are "public" why are (privately owned) hotels and restaurants also "public"? In England, a "public school" is privately owned, while the government-controlled, tax-funded schools are more honestly named: "state schools". The ploy of calling them "public" schools was to foist the false idea that they belong to the public, when, in fact, they belong to the government, and do as their owners bid.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

Hi Katherine!

What you fail to understand is that I also believe that God has used revelations from science to assist mankind not only to improve the quality of our lives, but also, in general, to increase our overall knowledge. I think science is exciting and boggles the mind when we realize the magnificence of the Creation and that He allows us this type of access, via the advancements made in science, to this knowledge. Just 100 years ago, who could have guessed or even imagined the accomplishments mankind has achieved through their studies and advancements? In fact, our knowledge is growing in leaps and bounds at a seemingly exponential rate. As such, at any moment our knowledge has increased that much more from the last moment. It is awe inspiring and humbles me to try to comprehend what we still don't know, but what will become knowable to us as we progress from this life.

No, this is not Korea. However, studying the political history of the USA - especially from the beginning of the 1900's through to today - wherein you can be educated on the beginnings of the of the Democratic and Repulican parties, as well as the minor parties, what caused the differences, who was behind them, who was in office, what THEIR views were and whose political philosophies they admired and aspired to, would quite possible shock you. Then see which of the philosophies were used to effect the laws that govern our educational systems (most definitely with socialistic power), which gained momentum, you can then better understand what I am talking about.

If you do a little more learning into the history of some other countries, you will find similarities in how those nations evolved with those same socialistic venues; you will also see how those nations ultimately failed, became corrupted, etc.

Now, interestingly, the scientific community in Great Britain has embraced the findings of Dr. Sanford, and run with, so to speak; whereas the United States has not. The USA definitely has their own agenda-driven pet projects which are in bed with the political forces which fund them.

None of this is odd or beyond the simplest understanding of how mankind IS. We see these patterns being repeated ad nauseum throughout the history of mankind in all walks of life, especially in religion and in politics; both of which have a domino effect on all aspects of human life.

My caution with science is to warn how easily mankind's purposes can become at odds with God's purposes. Brigham Young's comments included the admonition that we would discover that in the pursuit of knowledge that nothing would conflict with our beliefs. Now, inasmuch as he believed in a worldwide flood, I would think that this was included in what the discoveries of man through education would also support. To many who are involved in the sciences, their findings DO support a worldwide flood. Unfortunately, there are also just as many, if not more, whose findings have caused them to conclude the flood was only local or even just a myth. So, when science begins to cause doubt in the teachings of the Bible, I spend time pointing this out. In my mind, regardless of the information gathered by science which supports a worldwide flood but is dismissed by others in science, I become concerned that this creates a huge stumbling block in the minds of agnostics and atheists. How can they start to trust to believe in Christ when Christians can't even agree on what the Bible teaches about a major event that is reported there?

Take some time just to review the links which Franktalk has provided in post #242 and post #244 for some additional information. We aren't making this stuff up. Again, do not for one moment believe that we haven't done a great deal of seeking out information from both sides of all issues which cast doubt on scripture. When amidst all of the advancements in science which have brought unforeseen incredible knowledge to mankind, we find something which casts scripture in a negative light, we stop and try to discover WHY. This includes a great deal of study from both camps; and what we discover in every case is a manifestation of the patterns mankind repeats over and over again in history. That is when we take our information to wherever we are given the opportunity to voice our findings; such as these boards.

Respectfully,

jo

I reviewed all the links Frank posted. I never said you are making this stuff up. Scientists are human beings and they sometimes interpret the same data in different ways. I generally agree with the status quo when I look at information because it usually makes sense to me. You and Frank seem to favor the one in a hundred who either spin information or else look at it with a firm scriptural literalist lens in place from the get go. I don't consider this the proper way view scientific data. Now if you will please kindly point me to all of this scientific data that supports a worldwide flood because I am simply not seeing it, although I have provided you with many examples of data that disproves it. I'm sorry that you feel we are in apostasy. It is kind of you to worry about our souls, but I consider you dead wrong on these issues. I feel that your type of inflexible thinking is a greater danger to people's souls than true science.