The Story Of All Of Us - History Channel

[Gohan]

Let me first preface this by saying that I haven't seen the program yet, just adverts for it.

But let me get this straight Ahab... You're bashing on the History Channel - which isn't a bad thing IMO, I've got a lot of issues with some of their programming, for example the waste of airwaves that is Ancient Aliens - because they're not presenting the history of the world according to your interpretation of how history happened according to your religious beliefs?

Considering that presenting the history of the world from a religious perspective probably wasn't at all what they were going for, doesn't that seem a little illogical?

I'm sure I'll have issues with it when I watch it too, but that'll be because I'm a history major, not because they don't present things the way I learn in Sunday School.

[ERayR]

By "true history" do you mean the "Mormon interpretation of history"?

And if so, would you expect the History Channel to be airing a show detailing world history through the lens of Mormon belief (not much of which is proven by science; actually, science has dis-proven a number of LDS beliefs about the origins of the human race and the world).

Actually it hasn't. All that has happened is they have presented a different interpretation of the data. They have really proved nothing.

[sunstoned]

Yes, pretty much, if by "Mormon" you're referring to what God has revealed to us. He knows because he was there, and he has told us enough about what happened to be able to tell that what the History Channel is showing isn't the way it happened.

Yes, or at least a lot closer than that story they were telling. Bible believing Christians who don't believe the Book of Mormon know more truth than those story tellers were telling.

... which leads me to ask again to what I asked in the OP. Does the world, generally speaking, really believe that story they were telling is what actually happened, or were the producers of that show just sharing trying to pass their own opinions off as the truth?

I know the whole world isn't considered even "Christian", much less "Mormon", but even the stories of Buddists and Muslims is a lot closer to the truth than the History Channel story. I'm still wondering how many people really accept what the History Channel says is the truth as the truth.

So am I reading your right? You are upset that they didn’t talk about the 6000 year old earth, the Garden of Eden (Mid East or Missouri, you choose), the tower of Babel, the global flood, the continents being recently being divided (Peleg), Jews sailing to the new world, and lost tribes hiding in the North land?

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

Evolution

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Evenson, William E.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

[rodheadlee]

So am I reading your right? You are upset that they didn’t talk about the 6000 year old earth, the Garden of Eden (Mid East or Missouri, you choose), the tower of Babel, the global flood, the continents being recently being divided (Peleg), Jews sailing to the new world, and lost tribes hiding in the North land?

I believe the 6000 years would refer to the time since Adam and the chidlren of Adam have been on the earth.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe the 6000 years would refer to the time since Adam and the chidlren of Adam have been on the earth.

The Church actually takes no position on age of the earth. Joseph Smith reportedly believed it was some 2.5 billion years old. Not bad in those days terms when the idea's of Archbishop Ussher were common in the christian world. JS methodology is still just as fanciful, but he is closer to the reality of age.

[pmccombs1]

... which leads me to ask again to what I asked in the OP. Does the world, generally speaking, really believe that story they were telling is what actually happened, or were the producers of that show just sharing trying to pass their own opinions off as the truth?

What part of the world? The secular world of epistemic reliabilists believes the History Channel story.

It's a matter of epistemology. How do you know what you know? Most people are forced to accept stories from authorities, since we can't all do primary research on every question ever asked. Reasonable people also like to be able to subject the stories they find most important to some sort of verification. In other words, we sometimes want to do the primary research to questions that are already answered in order to answer them for ourselves.

A reliabilist wants objective and deductive proofs before making truth claims while evidentialists will accept subjective evidence as proof of truth. So a reliabilist won't accept his own evidence or his own experience as absolute truth until he knows it can be corroborated by a well-understood reliable source outside of himself.

For instance, suppose you have two individuals in a car who approach a stop sign. One of them says the stop sign is red while the other claims it is gray. Both of them have first-hand evidence for their claims. They have directly sensed the object and can make statements about it based on the evidence received. However, one of these persons has unreliable sensing equipment. His eyes are colorblind. Who is right? The epistemic reliabilist would discover the truth by seeking a reliable source: a spectrometer that measures the wavelength of reflected light and can categorize the light according to the color labels that have been assigned to the spectra.

"What God has revealed to us" is a claim made by authorities who have had subjective experiences with God. Their followers often corroborate that experience with subjective evidence of their own. For example, we might pray and ask for a testimony of the principle which may be granted through some subjective sense. We are doing our own research. However, there are other believers, whose belief is of the same quality as our own, who somehow receive different or contradictory subjective evidences that confirm them in their own faith. Are they the spiritually color blind, or are we? Or are we both? A reliabilist demands a reliable source that is readily available for quantifying and measuring evidence in order to discern truth. That is not something that religious evidence, which is subjective by nature, can provide. That's why the religious will always require faith and are wise to enforce their own truth claims only within the community of believers.

The History Channel is using evidence that is thought to be from reliable, objective sources. This evidence tells a different story than the evidence received through subjective channels that is called revealed truth. This is where that question arises, "Is science (the epistemic reliabilist) compatible with religion (the epistemic evidentialist)?" You will find various attempts to reconcile these two epistemologies.

[Ahab]

Let me first preface this by saying that I haven't seen the program yet, just adverts for it.

But let me get this straight Ahab... You're bashing on the History Channel - which isn't a bad thing IMO, I've got a lot of issues with some of their programming, for example the waste of airwaves that is Ancient Aliens - because they're not presenting the history of the world according to your interpretation of how history happened according to your religious beliefs?

Pretty much, yep, although instead of just talking about my "interpretation" I'm talking about the way things actually happened.

Do you think it's too much to expect a History Channel to tell us stories about what actually happened?

Considering that presenting the history of the world from a religious perspective probably wasn't at all what they were going for, doesn't that seem a little illogical?

Forget about calling it a "religious" perspective. Let's just call it the history of what actually happened. They should be able to do that, don't cha think? Truth is truth whether it comes from a "religious" perspective or any other kind of perspective. I'd just like to see the telling the truth, or at least come closer to it than what they did.

I'm sure I'll have issues with it when I watch it too, but that'll be because I'm a history major, not because they don't present things the way I learn in Sunday School.

It shouldn't matter "where" you learned the truth. History is the story of what actually happened, and I expect a HIstory Channel, and a history major, to get that right before they call what they talk about "history". Otherwise they should call it something else.

[thesometimesaint]

delete

Edited November 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

So am I reading your right? You are upset that they didn’t talk about the 6000 year old earth, the Garden of Eden (Mid East or Missouri, you choose), the tower of Babel, the global flood, the continents being recently being divided (Peleg), Jews sailing to the new world, and lost tribes hiding in the North land?

No, not quite, but you got pretty close. You messed up by including the 6000 year old earth issue in your list, and I also wouldn't mind if they didn't mention those other things either as long as what they did mention was actually true.

[thesometimesaint]

What part of the world? The secular world of epistemic reliabilists believes the History Channel story.

It's a matter of epistemology. How do you know what you know? Most people are forced to accept stories from authorities, since we can't all do primary research on every question ever asked. Reasonable people also like to be able to subject the stories they find most important to some sort of verification. In other words, we sometimes want to do the primary research to questions that are already answered in order to answer them for ourselves.

A reliabilist wants objective and deductive proofs before making truth claims while evidentialists will accept subjective evidence as proof of truth. So a reliabilist won't accept his own evidence or his own experience as absolute truth until he knows it can be corroborated by a well-understood reliable source outside of himself.

For instance, suppose you have two individuals in a car who approach a stop sign. One of them says the stop sign is red while the other claims it is gray. Both of them have first-hand evidence for their claims. They have directly sensed the object and can make statements about it based on the evidence received. However, one of these persons has unreliable sensing equipment. His eyes are colorblind. Who is right? The epistemic reliabilist would discover the truth by seeking a reliable source: a spectrometer that measures the wavelength of reflected light and can categorize the light according to the color labels that have been assigned to the spectra.

"What God has revealed to us" is a claim made by authorities who have had subjective experiences with God. Their followers often corroborate that experience with subjective evidence of their own. For example, we might pray and ask for a testimony of the principle which may be granted through some subjective sense. We are doing our own research. However, there are other believers, whose belief is of the same quality as our own, who somehow receive different or contradictory subjective evidences that confirm them in their own faith. Are they the spiritually color blind, or are we? Or are we both? A reliabilist demands a reliable source that is readily available for quantifying and measuring evidence in order to discern truth. That is not something that religious evidence, which is subjective by nature, can provide. That's why the religious will always require faith and are wise to enforce their own truth claims only within the community of believers.

The History Channel is using evidence that is thought to be from reliable, objective sources. This evidence tells a different story than the evidence received through subjective channels that is called revealed truth. This is where that question arises, "Is science (the epistemic reliabilist) compatible with religion (the epistemic evidentialist)?" You will find various attempts to reconcile these two epistemologies.

Well said. I personally believe that someday there will be that reconciliation, but today probably isn't going to be that day.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

Evolution

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Evenson, William E.

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity…. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

I'm fine with all that, as long as what people learn through scientific research is actually true and not just somebody's false interpretation of the data. History, for example, can be learned through scientific research, as people strive to learn what is true, but people can also come up with some false ideas using scientific research simply because they misinterpret the data.

I'm mainly just venting because I'd like to see the History Channel do a better job doing scientific research to learn the history of what has actually happened.

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

Meaning all of us born on this Earth came through him and Eve and their posterity, yes, but not the first person who was ever our kind of being. It depends on what you mean by "primal", I think. Adam and Eve came from their own parents, too, and those parents also had parents, etc. in eternity past. We do know that much, just as much as we know anything else.

[thesometimesaint]

The people in the fantasy based world are always surprised when the reality based world bits them on the butt.

There are no talking snakes .Zeus isn't throwing lightening bolts at us. Thor doesn't have a magic hammer. The earth is darn close to 4.5 billion years old. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) have been around a lot longer than a few thousand years.

[cinepro]

I never said I disagree with everything they said, either. I'm just talking about how far off the mark they are in telling what actually happened. They do have some points right, but they are making a lot of false statements to go along with those truths.

Ahab, your signal-to-noise ratio is off the charts.

For the benefit of those of us who didn't see it, can you give three or four specific examples of claims the show made that you disagree with, and what you wish they would have taught?

I suppose you think this would have been more appropriate, starting at 1:10?

[Ahab]

What part of the world? The secular world of epistemic reliabilists believes the History Channel story.

If it's not true history they shouldn't believe it, and if they believe it they should believe it because they know it's what actually happened. Belief doesn't necessarily equate to actual knowledge.

It's a matter of epistemology.

That's a big fancy word, to me. Please break it down in simple terms so I can be sure if we're talking about the same thing.

How do you know what you know?

I call X something I "know" when X is something our Father in heaven has told me is true, and I base my knowledge of who and what he is on all of my experience getting to know him while also experiencing getting to know all other people, including Satan.

Most people are forced to accept stories from authorities, since we can't all do primary research on every question ever asked.

Our Father in heaven is my ultimate authority, you could say. If X doesn't pass muster with him then I don't consider X to be true, either.

Reasonable people also like to be able to subject the stories they find most important to some sort of verification. In other words, we sometimes want to do the primary research to questions that are already answered in order to answer them for ourselves.

My research is to make sure I understand what is involved in X and then to check with our Father to be sure that X is true.

A reliabilist wants objective and deductive proofs before making truth claims while evidentialists will accept subjective evidence as proof of truth. So a reliabilist won't accept his own evidence or his own experience as absolute truth until he knows it can be corroborated by a well-understood reliable source outside of himself.

Our Father in heaven fills the bill for me.

For instance, suppose you have two individuals in a car who approach a stop sign. One of them says the stop sign is red while the other claims it is gray. Both of them have first-hand evidence for their claims. They have directly sensed the object and can make statements about it based on the evidence received. However, one of these persons has unreliable sensing equipment. His eyes are colorblind. Who is right? The epistemic reliabilist would discover the truth by seeking a reliable source: a spectrometer that measures the wavelength of reflected light and can categorize the light according to the color labels that have been assigned to the spectra.

In that case God would probably tell me it's both red and gray, depending on perspective, while also telling me it's a sign put there by somebody who is recommending that I stop. The latter is the main purpose of the stop sign, regardless of what color it is.

"What God has revealed to us" is a claim made by authorities who have had subjective experiences with God.

Did you mean to call me an authority? I was just taking God's word for it when I said it was something God has revealed to us. I know other people sometimes say God says things, but I only say that when I know it is something God has revealed, with God as my witness.

Their followers often corroborate that experience with subjective evidence of their own.

Well, yeah, otherwise they wouldn't be following me or anyone else who said God says things.

For example, we might pray and ask for a testimony of the principle which may be granted through some subjective sense. We are doing our own research. However, there are other believers, whose belief is of the same quality as our own, who somehow receive different or contradictory subjective evidences that confirm them in their own faith.

Same quality as our own? A message is either from God or it isn't, and something contradictory to what God says isn't the same quality as something God has actually said. One message is from God and the other isn't. God doesn't contradict himself.

Are they the spiritually color blind, or are we? Or are we both? A reliabilist demands a reliable source that is readily available for quantifying and measuring evidence in order to discern truth. That is not something that religious evidence, which is subjective by nature, can provide.

Yeah we can. It's basically about knowing the difference between what is true and what isn't true, and what is true is always consistent with reality. What is false is just an imitation of what is real, and by getting to know what is real you can see the imitation. History, for example, is all about what actually happened, rather than what some people say happened but actually didn't happen. That doesn't mean people can't say something happened when it really didn't happen, but when you know what happened you can tell they're wrong and saying something that isn't true.

That's why the religious will always require faith and are wise to enforce their own truth claims only within the community of believers.

I don't think it's about enforcing claims, or at least I'm not trying to enforce my claims to what I know is true. I'm just venting because a show on the History Channel that is supposed to be talking about The Story Of All Of Us is telling a story opposed to what actually happened... not totally, but they're telling more falsehoods than things which are actually true.

The History Channel is using evidence that is thought to be from reliable, objective sources.

I agree that they probably think that, but it isn't true, and I would like to see people involved in doing scientific research to learn about history to tell a story which is actuallly true.

This evidence tells a different story than the evidence received through subjective channels that is called revealed truth. This is where that question arises, "Is science (the epistemic reliabilist) compatible with religion (the epistemic evidentialist)?" You will find various attempts to reconcile these two epistemologies.

Well, it should be. What actually happened is what happened regardless of what it is called or how you find out. I think we just need to be aware of the fact that there are false witnesses as well as true witnesses to tell a story.

[Walden]

With regard to human history, Ahab, would you prefer that the History Channel portray the following events more accurately:

1. The origin of humankind as being Adam and Eve, approximately 6000 years ago, as opposed to the vast mountain of scientific data and expert analysis that points to homo sapiens having existed for approximately 200,000 years?

2. The origin of humankind as a simple product of divine creation, as opposed to the mountain of scientific evidence for species advancement through the modes of natural selection and evolution?

3. The migration of homo sapiens from Asia to the America's as a result of Nephi's journey across the sea in boats, despite the vast scientific evidence, including DNA, that points to a land migration from northern Asia to North America?

4. The bible version of a worldwide flood, despite the vast mountain of geological and scientific data that contends that such a flood never occurred, especially in the time-frame portrayed in the Bible?

5. The Book of Mormon version of Western Hemisphere history, which has narratives of great civilizations existing and enduring epic, widespread battles, despite the complete lack of archeological and/or anthropological evidence of such things?

I could go on and on, but is this essentially the type of world history that would consider the "truth?"

[Ahab]

The people in the fantasy based world are always surprised when the reality based world bits them on the butt.

Is that how you feel when you find out some of your fantasies aren't based on the truth?

And btw "basing" something on the truth doesn't necessarily mean the story you come up with is the truth. You can start with something true as your base and still go in all kinds of wild directions to tell a story iwth a lot of falsehoods, even though you have a part of truth as your base.

There are no talking snakes.

No devotees of Slytherin, ya say? What kind of language? Do you mean they don't speak English, or Spanish?

Zeus isn't throwing lightening bolts at us.

I tend to agree with you there unless I'm in one of my role playing modes.

Thor doesn't have a magic hammer.

What kind of hammer is it then?

The earth is darn close to 4.5 billion years old.

Yes, some parts of it are, and many elements of it are actually much older than that.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) have been around a lot longer than a few thousand years.

Yeah, i know. We've been around forever, even though we haven't always been on this particular planet.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

I'm fine with all that, as long as what people learn through scientific research is actually true and not just somebody's false interpretation of the data. History, for example, can be learned through scientific research, as people strive to learn what is true, but people can also come up with some false ideas using scientific research simply because they misinterpret the data.

I'm mainly just venting because I'd like to see the History Channel do a better job doing scientific research to learn the history of what has actually happened.

Meaning all of us born on this Earth came through him and Eve and their posterity, yes, but not the first person who was ever our kind of being. It depends on what you mean by "primal", I think. Adam and Eve came from their own parents, too, and those parents also had parents, etc. in eternity past. We do know that much, just as much as we know anything else.

Sure. Every human endeavor, including Holy Writ, is subject to interpretation that is how we learn.

None of us is perfect. I'm certainly not. So by definition there is always more to learn. false ideas to be cast aside, and new, better, and hopefully true ones taking their place. However without truly convincing arguments to disinterested review it is near impossible to arrive at what are those true ideas, and what are false.

The History Channel for all its many faults, and silly programs like "Ancient Aliens". Did a good job on presenting what we do know of actual earth history. Not complete, and nor where near perfect, but good. That is why I keep pressing you for references establishing exactly what the History Channels presentation of "The Story of All of Us" is demonstrably wrong in. I'll tell you right now that there are areas where they are demonstrably wrong. Can you pick them out:?

I don't have a problem with Adam and Eve being the parents of all of us either by religiously based Priesthood, familial adoption, genetic bottle necks, some other unknown factor or combination of factors. What I can't do as an honest to goodness real live, albeit retired, scientist is impose my religion or social based customs on where the science leads me. I'm perfectly content to be a good scientist that gets to sometimes be the Adam witness in the Temple ceremony, and sits in the front row of the chapel in Sacrament Meetings.

For better or worse the only world I have any demonstrably real knowledge about is this one. and this one hasn't been around for anywhere near an eternity. 4.5 billions of years is a long time in human terms but as I said it is no where near an eternity.

[Ahab]

I'll tell you right now that there are areas where they are demonstrably wrong. Can you pick them out:?

Yes, I can point them out, and I did (with God's help) as I watched the program, but I don't have a transcript to quote them.

One of the main ideas was the ever wrong and ever recurring idea that our species came from lower life forms that gradually evolved into what we are now, which is all a bunch of hooey to anyone who knows what is true, and yet they were telling that same old false story again. I keep wondering when they'll finally toss that idea out in favor of what actually happened

And then a little later...they skipped over a whole bunch of stuff... they started talking about war as if it was a good thing, and how the first war was for the first pharoah in Egypt... apparently not knowing there were wars in other lands before that... and how the mentality of the pharoah's soliders was all about wanting to impress their god-king by showing they could do the job he wanted them to do by winning the war for him. That's when I almost started barfing. They fought for him because otherwise he would have had them killed by others in his army, and it wasn't a good thing to be one of his slaves. They would much rather have lived in peace without having to work or fight for that dude, but because of his huge ego he wouldn't let them.

Anyway, that's about all I remember vividly now, as I tend to toss out garbage thoughts rather than use up my mind remembering them, but the whole idea of that story being told on the History Channel, by people who must think they know history, continues to bother me, a little. We know so much more than the little bits of truth they were tossing around, and we don't need to hear any of the garbage they told.

I don't have a problem with Adam and Eve being the parents of all of us either by religiously based Priesthood, familial adoption, genetic bottle necks, some other unknown factor or combination of factors. What I can't do as an honest to goodness real live, albeit retired, scientist is impose my religion or social based customs on where the science leads me. I'm perfectly content to be a good scientist that gets to sometimes be the Adam witness in the Temple ceremony, and sits in the front row of the chapel in Sacrament Meetings.

You can be a good "scientist" and still be a good "religionist". The two can mesh together.

All you need to throw out is the garbage.

For better or worse the only world I have any demonstrably real knowledge about is this one. and this one hasn't been around for anywhere near an eternity. 4.5 billions of years is a long time in human terms but as I said it is no where near an eternity.

When you start to branch out to learn about other worlds, just realize all you're learning about is reality. True religion isn't based on a fantasy world, or a fantasy being. True religion is simply about learning more about reality. Our Father in heaven is a real live person, even though he doesn't live on this planet, right now. He's supposed to be coming here someday, though, and so is his son, our Savior, Jesus. They're both real people, and through true science we can learn more than we know about them right now, which will also help us to know more about The Story Of All Of Us.

[thesometimesaint]

Is that how you feel when you find out some of your fantasies aren't based on the truth?

And btw "basing" something on the truth doesn't necessarily mean the story you come up with is the truth. You can start with something true as your base and still go in all kinds of wild directions to tell a story iwth a lot of falsehoods, even though you have a part of truth as your base.

No devotees of Slytherin, ya say? What kind of language? Do you mean they don't speak English, or Spanish?

I tend to agree with you there unless I'm in one of my role playing modes.

What kind of hammer is it then?

Yes, some parts of it are, and many elements of it are actually much older than that.

Yeah, i know. We've been around forever, even though we haven't always been on this particular planet.

I'll gladly change my view, no problem for me, but that does lead to many more questions that I'd like answered. Moreover I don't believe in a God that plays tricks on his children by deliberately planting false clues(evidence) in order for us to believe in him.

That's always a given, but again that has little to do with reality. I'm an old science fiction fan. While it is based on science the distinguishing word is fiction and not science.

More of a Gryffindor type myself. I'm brave not stupid. I would assume the Adamic language whatever what was.

I'm a fan of movies, particularly the old 40's and 50's kind. My favorite of all time is The Ghost and Mrs. Muir starring Jean Tierney and Rex Harrison. Though I don't confuse them with reality. The Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson were great movies, but alas a much better book.

Movies are fine as one form of entertainment. No one that I know of doesn't like the occasional entertainment. All work and no play makes for a very dull boy or girl indeed. But I don't confuse them with reality.

There are no physical parts of the earth that aren't at the basic level elements. The very Iron in our blood that allows us to breath comes from long ago exploded stars. We are quite literally children of the stars. We are star stuff.

Whatever our spirit being is our physical being hasn't been around forever. My physical being hasn't been around longer than right around 62 years and 1 month since conception. Assuming of course that a single undifferentiated cell is fully a human being.

[Ahab]

I'll gladly change my view, no problem for me, but that does lead to many more questions that I'd like answered.

Finding answers to questions is worthwhile scientific endeavor, and you shouldn't leave God out of the process.

Moreover I don't believe in a God that plays tricks on his children by deliberately planting false clues(evidence) in order for us to believe in him.

I don't either, unless you would consider Satan to be a God. He's the same kind of being we are and a master deceiver.

That's always a given, but again that has little to do with reality. I'm an old science fiction fan. While it is based on science the distinguishing word is fiction and not science.

I don't know what you meant by this, and God asked me to ask you to clarity, please.

More of a Gryffindor type myself. I'm brave not stupid. I would assume the Adamic language whatever what was.

So you're saying you think Satan the snake did or did not speak the Adamic language, or whatever it was?

I'm a fan of movies, particularly the old 40's and 50's kind. My favorite of all time is The Ghost and Mrs. Muir starring Jean Tierney and Rex Harrison. Though I don't confuse them with reality. The Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson were great movies, but alas a much better book.

Not confusing reality with falsehoods can be more difficult than some people realize. As I said, Satan is a master deceiver.

... very very sneaky indeed.

Movies are fine as one form of entertainment. No one that I know of doesn't like the occasional entertainment. All work and no play makes for a very dull boy or girl indeed. But I don't confuse them with reality.

I agree that it's best is to learn more about reality than to stuff our minds with a lot of falsehoods.

There are no physical parts of the earth that aren't at the basic level elements. The very Iron in our blood that allows us to breath comes from long ago exploded stars. We are quite literally children of the stars. We are star stuff.

Yes, we all consist of elements, including Satan, and we can eventually learn to communicate with and know all the elements.

Whatever our spirit being is our physical being hasn't been around forever. My physical being hasn't been around longer than right around 62 years and 1 month since conception. Assuming of course that a single undifferentiated cell is fully a human being.

Your physical being came from your parents before you, which came from their parents before them, and theirs before them, etc, etc. back and back to eternity past.

We're not only elements, but we're also a particular kind of being, and the kind of being we are is called God.... and human, too.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, I can point them out, and I did (with God's help) as I watched the program, but I don't have a transcript to quote them.

One of the main ideas was the ever wrong and ever recurring idea that our species came from lower life forms that gradually evolved into what we are now, which is all a bunch of hooey to anyone who knows what is true, and yet they were telling that same old false story again. I keep wondering when they'll finally toss that idea out in favor of what actually happened

And then a little later...they skipped over a whole bunch of stuff... they started talking about war as if it was a good thing, and how the first war was for the first pharoah in Egypt... apparently not knowing there were wars in other lands before that... and how the mentality of the pharoah's soliders was all about wanting to impress their god-king by showing they could do the job he wanted them to do by winning the war for him. That's when I almost started barfing. They fought for him because otherwise he would have had them killed by others in his army, and it wasn't a good thing to be one of his slaves. They would much rather have lived in peace without having to work or fight for that dude, but because of his huge ego he wouldn't let them.

Anyway, that's about all I remember vividly now, as I tend to toss out garbage thoughts rather than use up my mind remembering them, but the whole idea of that story being told on the History Channel, by people who must think they know history, continues to bother me, a little. We know so much more than the little bits of truth they were tossing around, and we don't need to hear any of the garbage they told.

You can be a good "scientist" and still be a good "religionist". The two can mesh together.

All you need to throw out is the garbage.

When you start to branch out to learn about other worlds, just realize all you're learning about is reality. True religion isn't based on a fantasy world, or a fantasy being. True religion is simply about learning more about reality. Our Father in heaven is a real live person, even though he doesn't live on this planet, right now. He's supposed to be coming here someday, though, and so is his son, our Savior, Jesus. They're both real people, and through true science we can learn more than we know about them right now, which will also help us to know more about The Story Of All Of Us.

God is not allowed in science. Let the evidence speak for or against itself. Otherwise yours is just an engagement in circular reasoning, and Red Herrings. .

Evolution is a well established fact. Whatever Gods' involvement in it remains outside the bounds of rational scientific debate.

Your God claims a lot of mistaken ideas. Like talking snakes, the earth is flat, that Pi is exactly equal to three, that axeheads float, that standing on a high mountain just outside of the city of Jerusalem in Israel you can literally see the entire earth.

They didn't say war was a good thing. They said it lead to inventions and innovations. Something that is undeniably true. City walls weren't invented to keep people in, but to keep invaders out. While today we don't go in so much for city walls. We do have massive powerful Armies, Navies, and Air forces to defend us and prosecute our wars in our names. The citizen-soldier is lionized far more than the regular citizen.

God-kings are quite common in ancient literature. Even our own God is to return as king of the entire earth putting an end to all nations making all peoples subject to him. So you either need to stop barfing or realize the implications of your own religion.

Slaves were routinely killed and replaced by more slaves. Slaves were valued for the amount of work they did. Not their intrinsic value as fellow human beings. That is just the sad history of this world. Heck even today few really care about when the sweatshop and sex slaves die, as long as we can still get that cheap shirt from Wal-Mart. There are plenty more where they came from. If they would rather die then that will decrease the surplus population.

I do toss out the garbage. That posturing as religion as well as that posturing as science.

[thesometimesaint]

I'll gladly change my view, no problem for me, but that does lead to many more questions that I'd like answered. Moreover I don't believe in a God that plays tricks on his children by deliberately planting false clues(evidence) in order for us to believe in him.

That's always a given, but again that has little to do with reality. I'm an old science fiction fan. While it is based on science the distinguishing word is fiction and not science.

More of a Gryffindor type myself. I'm brave not stupid. I would assume the Adamic language whatever what was.

I'm a fan of movies, particularly the old 40's and 50's kind. My favorite of all time is The Ghost and Mrs. Muir starring Jean Tierney and Rex Harrison. Though I don't confuse them with reality. The Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson were great movies, but alas a much better book.

Movies are fine as one form of entertainment. No one that I know of doesn't like the occasional entertainment. All work and no play makes for a very dull boy or girl indeed. But I don't confuse them with reality.

There are no physical parts of the earth that aren't at the basic level elements. The very Iron in our blood that allows us to breath comes from long ago exploded stars. We are quite literally children of the stars. We are star stuff.

Whatever our spirit being is our physical being hasn't been around forever. My physical being hasn't been around longer than right around 62 years and 1 month since conception. Assuming of course that a single undifferentiated cell is fully a human being.

Ps. Well I have some work to get done today so I'll try to answer more tomorrow if not later today.

[Nathair/|\]

The people in the fantasy based world are always surprised when the reality based world bits them on the butt.

There are no talking snakes .Zeus isn't throwing lightening bolts at us. Thor doesn't have a magic hammer. The earth is darn close to 4.5 billion years old. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) have been around a lot longer than a few thousand years.

CFR on the underlined part.

Not really, I'm just being a smart donkey.

[Nathair/|\]

Ahab, how would you respond to my demand that the History Channel seriously present the history of Ireland from the Lebor Gabála Érenn? Or the history of Wales from the Mabinogi?